February, 2016
Sustainable Land Use Principles
A SOLVE Research Project
What is SOLVE
SOLVE (Save Open Lands, Vistas and the Environment) works to preserve Clear Creek
County’s essential ecosystems, it’s waterways, wildlife habitat and corridors, open spaces and
scenic vistas, as well as the County’s cultural and historic heritage. SOLVE advocates and
advises for appropriate, sustainable land use, fiscal responsibility, and balanced recreation with
quiet spaces. It has been around for over 18 years as a non-profit corporation with tax-exempt
status.
SOLVE has been instrumental in a number of accomplishments in the county, including:
- preserving the Beaver Brook Watershed
- preserving the James Peak Wilderness Area
- finding an environmentally responsible solution for the refurbishing of Guanella Pass
- creating a ballot measure that resulted in forming the Open Space Commission
SOLVE activities include: - researching all aspects of land use issues
- obtaining a balance of natural areas and sustainable development
- advocating realistic alternatives for land use preservation in remote areas
- advising the County policy makers
- promoting the health and safety of residents
- educating the public
Research & Education
One of SOLVE’s current prime research and education programs has been into the fiscal impact
of various land use decisions on the county, and into what principles can be gleaned for
sustainable land use actions. Studies from sources as varied as MIT, the Institute for Southern
Studies, and the American Chemical Society all indicated that Economic Health and
Environmental Health of a community go hand-in-hand. So SOLVE looked at three primary
interlinked constituencies in Clear Creek County: the residents, private sector businesses, and the
county government.
February, 2016 2
Residents
Clear Creek residents live in the county for the rural mountain outdoor lifestyle. This has been
demonstrated clearly in many surveys.
Figure 1 Why Do People Live in the County?1
People have made a conscious choice to avoid the problems of urban sprawl, and to trade the
convenience of urban amenities for the openness and lack of congestion of the mountains.
Residents follow up their interest in the quality of their life in various ways, including support
for Open Space in the county. In the 2002 Clear Creek County Citizen Survey, Open Space
acquisition consistently received strong support. It ranked 3rd on a long list of items that citizens
were willing to pay higher taxes for– ahead of even Roads & Bridges improvements. In the same
survey citizens put Open Space acquisition in the top half of all priorities, ahead even of Law
Enforcement. In 2009 election, there was a strong turnout in spite of the fact that an Open Space
budget item was the only thing on the list– and it passed by a wide margin. The Citizens Survey
of 2010 echoed these sentiments: “Natural Environment” was by far the top reason for living
here, while “Protecting air and water Quality,” “Keeping the scenic beauty,” and “Preserving
natural areas” were by far the top priorities for planning.
Private Sector Businesses
Tourism is the economic engine that drives the private sector. Tourism provides more jobs in the
county than do Mining, Government, Services, Construction, Agriculture, Communications,
Transportation, and Manufacturing—all combined.
1 Clear Creek 2010 Citizens Survey, Question 2
February, 2016 3
Figure 2 Where Do Clear Creek Jobs Come From?2
- Core is Construction, Agriculture, Communications, Transportation, and Manufacturing
** Households means people who live and shop in Clear Creek County
Tourism will be even more important to the county as Henderson Mine closes down.
County Government
The primary source of revenue for the county government is property taxes, which make up well
over half of all revenues. However, in Clear Creek County expenses are distributed in a far
different pattern than the revenues.
Figure 3 County Expenses per Dollar of Revenue3
2 State Demographer data from 2010 – 2014
3 Comparison of County Assessor’s data with county budget data from 2011 to 2015
February, 2016 4
This chart shows our county’s costs for each type of revenue source. It depicts dollars of county
budget expenses for each dollar of revenue.
Costs to support existing Residential developments are more than $2.50 for each dollar of
revenue; it is commonly the case all across the country that residential property incurs
significantly more cost than revenue. Costs to support existing Commercial and Industrial
enterprises are about a break even; the county spends about as much as it takes in. Agriculture is
an insignificant amount of the fiscal picture. Natural Resources – Metallic (almost entirely the
Henderson Mine) and Natural Resources – Non-Metallic (almost entirely the Frei quarry)
represent revenue with very little cost; this has been very beneficial to the county.
Unfortunately, the county is faced with losing much of the revenue from the Henderson Mine.
This source of almost entirely cost-free revenue that has fluctuated over time, but in the past 10
years has been 70% of property tax revenues, and almost half of all revenues.
Figure 4 Henderson Mine Revenue over Time4
Henderson Portion of Property Tax Revenue
0%#
10%#
20%#
30%#
40%#
50%#
60%#
70%#
80%#
90%#
1960# 1965# 1970# 1975# 1980# 1985# 1990# 1995# 2000# 2005# 2010#
Actual#
Base#
Various ideas have been discussed as possible replacement for the beneficial fiscal impact that
the about-to-be-lost has had on the county. The most commonly heard ideas are other mining,
tourism, and more residential and commercial development. However, mining is dependent on
ore that happens to be in the ground, and there is little in the way of known deposits. Tourism is
enormously important to the private sector; it has been increasing over recent years, and has the
potential to be further stimulated in the future. This is a pattern that is seen all over the state
where tourism replaces dwindling production in former mining communities. Unfortunately,
tourism will not generate very much in the way of new property taxes, so it will only have a
minor benefit to the county government. New development would raise new property taxes, but
it incurs so many new services that it actually would generally have a negative impact on the
4 County Assessor
February, 2016 5
county budget. This fact is so contrary to conventional wisdom that SOLVE researched the
quantitative impact of growth and development.
Quantitative Impact of Growth & Development
Urban planning focuses on Tax Base as its primary fiscal goal, to increase revenue. But in small
communities and more rural environments, it is even more important to consider the costs
associated with new development. SOLVE’s research has uncovered a lot of quantitative data
that indicates a surprising result: Growth and new development generally do not provide enough
new tax revenue to pay for the county costs that they incur.
Revenue – often touted by development proponents
Revenues are generally touted by developers in their proposals, as economic benefits to the
county. Frequently, the proposals talk about total revenue to the whole community, as sort of an
economic influx to the county. But the county also needs to know what new tax revenues are
going to be generated by all of the economic activity proposed.
Costs & Offsets – rarely discussed
Far less frequently does a proposal contain anything about the additional costs to the county that
the proposed development will incur. Hardly ever is a complete analysis of long-term, full costs
and other offsets to revenue presented. The county needs to know these costs, because they can
make the difference between a development that will add to the county’s coffers, and one that
will be a net burden to the county.
Cost Factors
SOLVE research has discovered five categories of costs. The data for all of these is available in
research studies conducted by many cities and counties. Unfortunately, the literature does not
usually bring these factors together in any one place. Consequently, they are not usually all
available to decision makers. Accordingly, SOLVE has created a framework for considering
these factors, which are:
- County Services
This item represents the cost of additional on-going services required by a development project,
such as police and fire coverage, snow removal, storm water management, etc. All too often,
these costs are not presented at all– or when they are presented, only some of the costs are
considered. - County Infrastructure
Infrastructure includes one-time capital improvements such as road widening or paving, storm
water management facilities, etc. Normally a developer is required to build any infrastructure
required for his project. But a DRCOG report (Tischler & Associates, for Boulder) shows that
even when best efforts are put forward to identify infrastructure requirements, the local
government still winds up having to pay for about 40% of them. These costs are frequently hard
to identify until well after the development is complete—but they still arise. In many projects,
the total is significant, and additive to the cost of services.
February, 2016 6 - Displaced Revenue
Commercial developments may present an opportunity for new tax revenue. To the extent that
revenue from a new project is merely a shifting of revenue from an enterprise already operating
in the county, the county will not see any increase in its total tax revenues—even though it will
see an increase in the services required under item 2. For example, a new gas station outside of
town will compete to some degree with existing gas stations; drivers are not going to stop twice
in the county. The total value to the county needs to be adjusted for these revenues that are only
shifts, and not totally new. This item does not usually apply to residential developments. - Gain/Loss from Property Re-Evaluation
Any development has the potential to affect the value of surrounding properties, both residential
and commercial. A development that cleans up an eyesore may increase values. A development
that adds problems to a community may decrease values. The county tax rolls will be affected
by the change in values, and where significant, these changes in taxes should be considered
along with the land development proposal. - Cost of other projects
Some development proposals lead to other developments that are not included in the proposal
itself. For example, when a commercial development creates new jobs, the new job-holders have
to live somewhere. To the extent that additional housing is required, that implies another series
of developments, sometime in the near future, for residential housing; and from item 2, we can
see that those developments will increase costs more than they increase revenues. So there can
be future ramifications of a proposed development, ramifications that ought to be considered
along with the proposal. In fact, job creation is positive for the state and federal governments
who get income taxes, but job creation is generally a fiscal net negative to the county.
Typical Values
Here are some typical figures for county costs incurred per dollar of tax revenue generated, when
all the development cost categories are considered. They could be considered “National
Average” with more local figures used where available.
For Residential development, the county typically incurs from $3.00 to $4.00 of costs for each
dollar of revenue generated.
Residential - Services Required 2.50 – 2.80
- Infrastructure 0.70 – 1.00
- Displaced Revenue 0
- Re-Evaluation Effect (0.20) – 0.20
- Other Projects 0
Total Cost per Dollar of Revenue 3.00 – 4.00
Residential development is particularly costly in Colorado, where the Gallagher amendment
limits the amount that residences can be taxed. Single family houses tend to cost less per dollar
of revenue than apartment houses. Very expensive houses generate more taxes, but they incur
little more costs than do low-cost houses.
February, 2016 7
For Commercial development, the county typically incurs from $1.43 to over $4.00 in costs for
every dollar of revenue generated. A rule of thumb may be that the county incurs $2.00 of costs
for every dollar of new revenue from the average commercial project.
Commercial - Services Required 0.93 – 1.03
- Infrastructure 0.50 – 1.50
- Displaced Revenue 0.00 – 0.50
- Re-Evaluation Effect 0.00 – 0.20
- Other Projects 0.00 – 0.80
Total Cost per Dollar of Revenue 1.43 – 4.03
The wide range reflects parameters that are unique to each project. When development is
actually re-development of municipal areas where services or infrastructure already exists, a
project may actually generate more revenue than costs.
Mixed Use development has been popular with urban planners in recent years. It combines
residential and commercial in a single development. It turns out to have cost implications
somewhere between residential and commercial, and it is very hard to make it pay off in terms of
positive fiscal impact for the county.
Some developments are exceptional, and the values may be higher or lower than these ranges.
The fact that the expenses typically exceed the revenues generated has been confirmed by many
studies. A study in a 6-county area in Illinois showed a high correlation between density of
development and higher tax rates; this helps explain why the more densely-developed counties to
the east of us have higher taxes.
Given the wide variance in costs for various projects, each development proposal should be
measured individually for its fiscal impact on the county. Getting to these costs may avoid a bad
decision for the county, or may help explain and confirm a good decision. Even further,
performing an after-the-fact review of how the actual costs compared to the projected costs
would allow the county to improve its fiscal assessment process.
There are also other impacts on citizens, such as quality of life. Such costs are intangible,
including such things as road congestion, noise, view blockage, light pollution, interference with
wildlife, etc. There are also safety issues, such as emergency egress in case of a wildfire. Such
impacts are very hard to quantify with any precision. They do not affect the county budget. But
they do affect the citizens, and the value that citizens attach to these intangibles can be very high.
Most citizens have chosen to live in the mountain area at least in part for the quality of life
available, and they have paid a lot more for their homes (built with rock excavation, retaining
walls, long driveways, wells and leach fields). Residents have chosen these costs as partial
payment for getting the quality of life they enjoy, and we can thus measure that many a typical
family has valued the rural quality of life in the county at something over $50,000 to $100,000.
Thus, these intangible impacts are still a very important part of any land development decision,
and in fact may be the major impetus for some of the citizen input. These factors may help
explain why people feel the way they do about any particular development proposal.
February, 2016 8
Key Learnings
SOLVE’s research has revealed some important principles, some of which run counter to
commonly-held assumptions.
Residents Live in the County for its Outdoor Lifestyle
People have made a conscious choice to trade the convenience of urban amenities for the
openness and lack of congestion.
Tourism is the Economic Engine for the Private Sector in the County
Tourism provides more jobs in the county that do Mining, Government, Services, Construction,
Agriculture, Communications, Transportation, and Manufacturing—all combined. Tourism can
be further expanded; if done carefully, this can still be consistent with Residents’ desires for their
lifestyle.
Growth & Development Add More to County Expenses than to Revenue
Yes, growth and development do provide some additional tax revenue. But growth and
development also bring new demands for services and infrastructure. This is not just a Clear
Creek County phenomenon, but it happens all over the country.
A study by Harvard economists Altshuler and Gomez-Ibanez found: “The available evidence
shows that development does not cover new public costs; that is, it brings in less revenue for
local governments than the price of servicing it.”
There is an astonishing lack of awareness, in spite of available evidence. Development proposals
are still approved in the hope that the new development will bring in revenues that will pay for a
new public facility, such as a library, that the county would otherwise not be able to afford– or to
prepare for harder economic future. But the evidence demonstrates that citizens hoping for a tax
windfall from new development are liable to be disappointed.
The results are similar when added up over many projects in a wider area. A broad study by the
Metropolitan Planning Council of the greater Chicago area (an organization somewhat like
DRCOG) looked at the six-county region surrounding Chicago. The study confirmed an earlier
report that found that per capita taxes went up as a county grew, rather than down as they were
supposed to. The study also reached several more general conclusions: population growth tends
to increase the residential tax burden (measured as a percent of personal income); and fastgrowing areas that do not increase taxes tend to see a reduction in public services– a result more
likely in Colorado, under the effects of TABOR. The study measured tax burden in three ways:
Tax Rate set by local governing authorities, total Tax Payments per residence, and Taxes as
percent of personal income. They found that all three measures, including Tax Rate, were higher
in more densely-developed areas.
Perpetual Growth Is Not Sustainable
The 2002 Citizen Survey also revealed that only 19% of the citizens thought we should have a
Pro-Growth strategy. In the same survey 73% felt that growth in the county was either “About
Right” or “Too fast.” This data mirrors a state- wide survey done a few years earlier.
February, 2016 9
Growth can be managed. Environmental, social, and economic standards can direct growth in a
community without blocking it entirely. Some communities across the country are already
setting such standards to preserve their unique non-urban character.
Our 2002 Citizen Survey revealed that 80% of our citizens prefer a “Directed Growth” or “NoGrowth” policy in the county. The 2010 Citizens Survey also revealed that that “residents of
Clear Creek County are clear that new development must not disrupt the qualities of life that
have attracted them here. Not only should new development avoid harming the natural
environment, it must be fiscally sustainable….”
Urban Sprawl Hurts Almost Everyone
Developers find is easier and less expensive to develop in “green fields.” However, developers
and land speculators are the only ones who profit. It is much more expensive long-term for the
county to provide services in such areas. Furthermore, commercial business benefit when
developments are clustered; this is why automobile dealerships tend to cluster in “automotive
malls.” Not only does the cluster attract more customers, but the people who come are more
likely to buy. New businesses outside the clusters tend to compete with existing businesses, and
much of their revenue is simply “displaced revenue” from the existing businesses; so the sprawl
helps neither the county nor the private sector. And, of course, sprawl in green fields destroys the
views and openness that people came to the county to enjoy.
Economic Prosperity and Environmental Health Go Together
A study by the Institute for Southern Studies ranked 50 states in two categories: Environmental
Health and Economic Health. Twenty indicators were used in each category to create the
rankings. Nine of the states ranked in the top 12 on the environmental scale also ranked in the
top 12 on the economic scale. Conversely 12 states ranked among the 14 worst on both lists. The
report concludes: “The states that do the most to protect their natural resources also wind up with
the strongest economies and the best jobs for their citizens.”
In a different study, MIT professor Stephen Meyer also ranked the states by economic prosperity
and by breadth and depth of environmental programs. He found:
- States with stronger environmental policies consistently out-performed the weaker
environmental states on all economic measures, - The pursuit of environmental quality does not hinder economic growth and development,
- There appears to be a moderate, yet consistent, positive association between
environmentalism and economic growth, and - There is no evidence that relaxing environmental standards will produce economic growth.
A study by the American Chemical Society found that states with lower pollution levels have
stronger economies. They also have better environmental quality and lower energy use.
There is Broad Popular Support for Open Space
Nationally, the Trust for Public Land noted that there have been 1,500 open space bond issues
since 2000 and 77% passed, which is a higher pass rate than any other public service. Every
opinion poll says America wants to spend more money on parks and conservation. From 1995 to
February, 2016 10
2004 American experienced a 64% increase of real dollar expenditures by local governments on
parks and recreation– again, higher than any other public service.
The County Derives Value from Open Land
Undeveloped land requires little public support. Undeveloped land increases surrounding
property values. Undeveloped land does not increase public service costs. Open space and farm
land help capture water and help clean air; they also help provide separation of communities, and
help provide the peace and quiet that that attracts both residents and tourists to the county.
Vistas Are Important to Economic Values
A survey by the National Association of Home Builders found that the surrounding environment
is the single most important factor affecting the market value of a house. The right “view” can
make a $100,000 house sell for twice as much. These values reflect an innate appreciation for
other human values, including clean air and wildlife habitat.
It is more expensive to build a home in rural Clear Creek County than on the plains. Wells and
septic systems cost more than water and sewer hookups. Driveways are longer and take more
grading. Retaining walls may be required. Some blasting may even be required. People have
voted with their dollars to accept these expenses, in order to live in the rural mountain
environment they enjoy.
The surrounding land and views are our character. They are like an investment, or at least a
savings account. They are there for us and for those who follow us. But once they are destroyed,
they can not be recovered. The loss is permanent.
So it is quite appropriate for county policy makers to take into account its citizens’ visual
preferences in land use decisions. The citizens have chosen to live here because of the setting
more than any other reason. They have paid for the privilege, and destroying the visual
environment takes that from them.
February, 2016 11
Strategies for Clear Creek County
The research indicates several strategies going forward, including: - Leverage the open spaces and vistas that we have. That is what most residents want.
Furthermore, it is what drives tourism in the private business sector. - Commercial Development should be focused inside existing municipalities, where there is
already existing infrastructure and services - Development in rural areas should be low-impact, and promote the county as a destination
with recreation, keeping a natural rural separation between municipalities. - Institute a complete formal fiscal impact assessment as part of its development review, and
measure significant developments to confirm the total costs after completion. This
assessment should be conducted by the county, and paid for by the applicant. The
assessment should be commensurate with the size of the proposed development, so that
small developments would get a less complex assessment than large developments. - Institute an environmental impact assessment as part of the development review.
- Have the impact on other businesses be considered in deciding whether or not to approve
an application for commercial development. The amount of displaced revenue should be a
factor in a decision. Input to be considered can come from the applicant or from the public.
www.solveccc.org