GMA, Land Use & Boundary Review Boards

1. Washington State Association of Boundary Review Boards GMA, Land Use & Boundary Review Boards Henderson, Young & Company October 7, 2011

2. The Bad Old Days What was the problem? Rapid growth and depletion of resources: • Land: sprawl • Energy: single occupancy vehicles • Time: congestion • Infrastructure: insufficient investment • Environment: case-by-case SEPA

3. A Better Idea What could be done to make things better? Growth forecasts and allocation Urban growth areas, boundaries Urban = municipal (= annex or incorporate) Comprehensive plans Levels of service Capital facilities plans with financing plans Growth-based revenues Concurrency “Planned actions” & “system-level analysis”

4. High Hopes What did we expect? • Targeted growth • Adequate public facilities • Increased density • Focused public investments • Increased multi-modal travel

5. Reality Check What actually happened? Some examples of how things worked out:

6. Reality Check #1 What actually happened? We started with a big backlog of infrastructure and made it bigger by adopting higher levels of service. Does LOS “E” mean almost failing? … Or does it mean 90-99% efficient use?

7. Reality Check #2 What actually happened? We only gave ourselves 6 years to solve the problem: 6-year capital facilities plans 6 years for concurrency 6 years to spend impact fees

8. Reality Check #3 What actually happened? We only gave ourselves 2 new sources of revenue: impact fees and 0.5% real estate excise tax (REET).

9. Reality Check #4 What actually happened? The 2 new sources of revenue helped a bit with growth, but didn’t help with the backlog.

10. Reality Check #5 What actually happened? Impact fees did not make “growth pay for growth” – • Law prohibits 100% fees • Race to the bottom (or middle): everyone wants to be “below average”

11. Reality Check #6 What actually happened? Other revenues were taken away – • Street utility (1995: WA Supreme Court) • Motor vehicle excise tax (1999: I-695) • Cap on property taxes (2001: I-747) • Vehicle license fee cap (2002: I-776) • Require 2/3 majority to raise taxes and fees (2007: I-960, and 2010: I-1053)

12. Reality Check #7 What actually happened? A few revenues were added – • Sales tax credit for some annexations (2006: RCW 82.14.415) • Transportation benefit district (2005+: RCW 36.73)

13. Reality Check #8 What actually happened? Underfunding and the 6-year deadline led to concurrency “exemptions” (despite no legal authority for them) Then the courts said “no exemptions” (Bellevue, 2004)

14. Reality Check #9 What actually happened? Highways of “statewide” significance are not included in concurrency*, yet they carry large portions of “local” traffic in urban areas. *Island County & San Juan County are required to include them.

15. Is the glass half empty? Did we do any good? Things might have been worse if we didn’t have GMA, but GMA did not cure most of the problems. • Land: not much market for high density • Energy: not much use of transit or bikes • Time: congestion just as bad, maybe worse • Infrastructure: falling farther behind • Environment: more laws, still lots of pollution

16. Things for Boundary Review Boards to Think About - #1 Level of service standards • Be cautious with standards higher than current LOS • Be cautious with capacity standards without quality standards • Be cautious with single metric

17. Things for Boundary Review Boards to Think About - #2 Fiscal impact analysis • Be cautious with “balanced budget” assumption • Be cautious with “normal” economy forecasts • Be cautious with proprietary models

18. How can GMA be more effective? Can we make GMA workable? More local control over revenues More realistic level of service standards Real enforcement of concurrency (if #1 & #2 are enacted) Apply concurrency to all public facilities: fire, police, schools, parks

19. GMA, Land Use & Boundary Review Boards • End of Presentation • Questions? Contact: • Randy Young • ryoung@hendersonyoung.com • (425) 869-1786