Time for a new approach

Western Montana has experienced unprecedented growth over the past 10 years, particularly the Missoula, Bitterroot, Mission and Flathead valleys, putting unprecedented pressures on natural resources, wildlife, water and air quality, and on our pristine Montana quality of life.

Sustaining a healthy economy and economic development is critically important to our communities. But economic development should contribute to — not diminish — our quality of life. Economic prosperity and environmental protection are inextricably linked and interdependent … For better or worse, this challenge falls primarily on local government and community leaders.

According to the recent Sonoran Institute Report entitled "You've Come a Long Way, Cowboy: 10 Truths and Trends in the New American West," as reported in the Missoulian:

"Westwide, every tax dollar collected from agricultural land requires about 29 cents to service. But every dollar collected from residential land requires $1.15 to service, resulting in a loss to tax coffers.

In Gallatin County the disparity is even more alarming: commercial land requires 18 cents in county services for every tax dollar, 25 cents on agricultural lands, and 7 cents on industrial lands. But for every dollar collected in residential taxes, the county loses 45 cents."

Clearly, local governments are subsidizing residential developers.

To assure that development contributes to the Montana quality of life, local governments must find new methods for paying for the public infrastructure and services (sewage and water treatment plants, roads, schools, solid waste disposal facilities, police, fire and emergency services, etc.) that new development requires without raising taxes or fees on the general public.

Secondly, local governments need quality information to fully evaluate the economic, environmental and quality of life consequences of new development before decisions are made.

Typically, a developer submits an application to local government for a subdivision and prepares a cursory environmental assessment that minimally meets the requirement of the state subdivision law.

These assessments frequently amount to no more than a check-off list requiring little or no serious technical analysis. Rarely, if ever, does a local government require the developer to conduct a comprehensive assessment of environmental impacts of a proposed subdivision. Local governments typically do not have adequate professional staff or financial resources with which to properly evaluate environmental assessments. Thus, objective information about the public costs and benefits of a subdivision are not documented and local government decision makers must make their decisions largely intuitively and in the context of local politics.

There is a better way.

State subdivision law requires local governments consider the environmental and community services impacts of a subdivision before approval. Local governing bodies have the authority to require that developers pay for comprehensive environmental assessments and local government review and evaluation of the assessments.

Local governments can also require mitigation of on-site and off-site environmental impacts disclosed by assessments. Finally, local governments can impose impact fees to pay for the initial infrastructure and community services required to support a subdivision. It should be noted that state law does require environmental assessments for commercial and industrial projects, but local governments have the authority to apply the same review and approval standards to commercial and industrial developments as well as residential.

There are several public interest advantages to requiring rigorous, comprehensive environment assessments of all subdivisions, and assessing impact fees to mitigate potential impacts to the environment and additional infrastructure and services.

First, the environmental assessment process is a fully open, public process requiring public access to documentation of all aspects of the subdivision. Public hearings and submission of written comments and concerns required and local government has a duty to publicly respond and address comments and concerns.

Second, the burden of proof that a proposed subdivision will not adversely affect the environment and quality of life will be borne by developers not the public.

Third, local government officials and the public will gain an in-depth understanding of the value of a subdivision to the community, including its economic value, and the environmental and quality of life price the community will have to pay for that value if the subdivision is approved.

Fourth, no taxpayer dollars are invested in the public assessment of the subdivisions. Developers assume all the financial risk of convincing local government decision-makers and the public that the subdivision has value … and a reasonable return on community investments in infrastructure and services.

Fifth, developers are likely to carefully evaluate their financial risk of proposing marginal value subdivisions that might not pass environmental muster. Consequently, higher quality subdivisions that have the least negative impacts and the most benefits to the community are likely to be proposed.

Armed with thorough, comprehensive environmental assessments, and the tools with which to mitigate negative impacts of a subdivision, local governments have a clear and informed choice:

1. Place the costs of quality environmental assessments, review of the assessments, mitigation and the additional infrastructure and services needed to support the subdivisions on developers, or;

2. Place the entire cost of the subdivision, its environmental consequences and additional infrastructure and services on the taxpayers

Choice #1 seems a fair approach: the developer pays the initial costs of a subdivision in exchange for the public footing the bill for the maintenance of the additional infrastructure and services in perpetuity.

Will this increase the price of the new home being built or the prices of products of services rendered by a commercial enterprise? Potentially yes.

Will this process decrease chances of approving subdivisions that have long-term, detrimental environmental, economic and quality of life consequences? Absolutely.

Comprehensive environmental assessments and imposition of impact fees coupled with quality public interest planning, zoning and building code ordinances are tools with which local governments can effectively manage growth to a sustainable economic, environmental and quality of life conclusion.

It is time for local government elected officials to meet their responsibility for the well-being of their communities' future. They have the tools; they must muster the political will to use them.

Clinton L. Whitney is a member of the Flathead Lakers Board of Directors and is an environmental consultant in Polson.