Oh, We Love the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance by David Wright

Twenty years ago when I served on a town board, if a developer came to town and wanted to slap in a subdivision, and he had a purse filled with good folding money, he could have his way with us. Sure, we knew that the hundred new homes would bring in 200 more cars, and the schools would have an additional 100 new students and the police department would have to double it’s operation. We assumed the extra tax would come in and it would all be covered. It never was, because growth never paid its way. At some point in time, we as a council learned that by enacting a condition of health, safety and welfare we could, on some occasions, hold up some development because of hazardous conditions created by that subdivision.

This health, safety & welfare action was our only hope to slow some development the majority of the community seriously disliked. Generally speaking, it was not successful and we would be overwhelmed by the powerful growth machine. 

Today the rules have changed. This community has been blessed with the ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES ordinance. In general what this says, is that in order for growth to move  ahead, the facilities must be there to accommodate the new growth. In the past some communities have used tax money to build (subsidize) the facilities, there by making room for more growth. Recently, citizens have begun questioning this concept. With possibly as much as 75% of the public having very serious questions about the value of all this run-a-way growth, there has been a reluctance to provide more tax money to enable it. They vote no.

As a result of not having tax money to subsidize it, the Timberline-Prospect intersection has been deemed an inadequate facility. Thus,  two 600+ home subdivisions are on hold.

As a result of the public generally disliking the rapid growth, they are now unwilling to subsidize it. Recent taxing efforts for roads and jails thus failed. Many people are now saying, if the developers are bent on doing a project,  they must pay for all the infrastructure impacted? Most individuals would agree, if they can not stop it all together, then those that use it, should pay for it. This is now being proposed and the developers are in the process of setting up a special taxing district to do just that.

I , and many others of the 75%, still find ourselves asking more questions. The new district will provide only $2.3 million, and another $3-4 million would come from street over size and other fees. But still another $4.6 (today’s cost) is needed.  Will this come from taxes? Another question: Once the money is spent ($10 million ) and we have another 3600 people and their 2400 cars will the intersection be any better than it is today? NO. It actually will be slower, as is always the case. Most importantly, will the other facilities we now enjoy be more inadequate than prior to this development? Will the recreation center be more crowed? Will the impact fees and such pay for the needed improvements? Will I get compensated for the extra fuel I now have to spend to find a duck hunting spot? Is this monstrous development just another step in the direction of a Southern California style annihilation of the land--a place none of us cares to live.

What I find myself asking,  does the Adequate Public Facility ordinance actually go far enough in making growth pay it’s way? Are we still losing more to growth than we are gaining? Of course, there are many things lost that can not be returned with all the money in the world.