Growth, services and the taxpayer

It's not your father's Flathead anymore.

The news that Flathead County is now the second ranked county in the state in combined real-estate property valuations may be stunning to those who have memories of a sleepy valley, easily overshadowed by Missoula County, but the fact of the matter is the alarm clock went off a long time ago.

Consider: Flathead County's total valuation increased 11.9 percent just last year, from $5.6 billion to a whopping $6.2 billion - second only to Yellowstone County's $7.63 billion market value. Obviously, the housing starts you see everywhere from Bigfork to Somers to Kalispell and Whitefish and far-flung reaches of the county are adding up fast.

So what does this booming economic growth mean to the average taxpayer? Shouldn't it mean lower taxes? After all, now that cities have more properties to tax, won't the existing taxpayers have to pay less in order to meet current needs?

Not so fast.

First of all, let's remember that the increase can be attributed both to new construction and to appreciation in the value of existing properties. That means additional revenue from new taxpayers, but it also means that existing taxpayers could be paying taxes on a more valuable piece of property.

Yes, some taxes can be lowered because costs such as bond obligations are being shared among a bigger group, but there are also additional costs associated with growth that must be borne by the entire community.

Indeed, the notion of "net tax benefits" from economic growth is a constant source of debate for local planning boards and government officials. There's been plenty of growth over the last 10 years, but budgets for the county sheriff and road departments - just to name a couple - arguably haven't kept up with the impacts that come with growth.

One major issue associated with growth is where it occurs.

Just look at the proposal for 1,000 new homes in Hungry Horse over the next 10 years. It's one of the largest development proposals ever to come up in the entire state, and would roughly quadruple the size of Hungry Horse. Sure enough, it would add about $6.6 million in taxable property value, but what else will it mean in county services? What does the sheriff think about it all, considering that on average there are just six deputies on patrol across the county at any given time? How many more calls will there be to the Canyon if there are an additional 2,000 or more residents? And what about roads? schools? and fire service?

Yes, the valuations add up, but so do the costs that they bring, and many of those costs are hidden. In addition to the obvious ones, there are also impacts on water quality and wildlife and county parks.

The growth that has occurred in the Flathead is here to stay, and there's likely more to come. How it's managed in terms of meeting demands, it seems, is a huge test for our local planning jurisdictions and the people who manage them.