In 1989, the owner of an average priced home in Lawrence — which sold for $77,549 — paid $282.24 in city property taxes.

This year, the owner of an average priced Lawrence home — which sells for $180,526 — will pay $578.36 in city property taxes.

The increase in taxes certainly outpaces the rate of inflation, but does that mean that new growth in the city isn’t paying for itself? That’s the question the five candidates for the Lawrence City Commission have spent the most time trying to answer.

Some candidates point to the fact the city’s 2004 property tax rate of 27.8 mills is nearly three mills lower than it was in 1989, the first year following the state’s massive reorganization of the property tax system through reappraisal. Taxes are higher because people are living in homes that have greatly appreciated in value, they say.

But other candidates have said the mill levy means little. They say the fact the mill levy hasn’t decreased more given all the new growth is a sign that growth isn’t paying its fair share. And they point to crumbling city infrastructure as a another sign the city still isn’t collecting enough revenue.

The issue has created two camps of candidates. In one are Mike Amyx, Tom Bracciano and incumbent Sue Hack. They have said they want to make sure that people don’t solely focus on the costs of growth without remembering its benefits, too.

“This next commission will be faced with some very critical decisions about growth,” Hack said. “Whatever the outcome is, it is important that we have a philosophy that growth is healthy for the community. We don’t want to have a philosophy of ‘I’m here, let’s shut the door.'”

In the other camp are Jim Carpenter and incumbent David Schauner. Both have said they understand the importance of growth but question whether the way the city has been growing is healthy. They have argued that the community at large is being asked to pay too much of the costs of growth.

“Those who benefit the most from growth should pay their fair share of the costs of growth,” Schauner said. “I don’t know that if I live on Louisiana Street that I’m receiving any benefit from the increased traffic that growth creates. But I’m certainly being asked to pay my share of the costs of that growth.”

Candidates mixed on homeless Housing issues key in city race (03-13-05)

Voters during the April 5 general election will choose three candidates to fill the three at-large seats on the commission. Here’s a look at what each candidate has said about the growth issue:

Sue Hack

Hack, the second-place finisher in the March 1 primary, said she doesn’t know yet whether residential growth in the city is paying for itself. She said she’s withholding judgment until she sees the results of a study that the city has commissioned. It is expected to be completed this summer.

But Hack said she is sure that a growing community is better than a declining community.

“I think we should be very aware by traveling through the state of Kansas the fiscal impacts of not growing,” Hack said.

Hack said there is some evidence that growth has contributed to the city’s finances. She said the city was able to reduce its mill levy in the mid-1990s after citizens approved a countywide 1 cent sales tax. The sales tax growth is fueled by retail sales growth, which is often related to growth in population.

Following passage of the sales tax, the city’s mill levy dropped from 28 mills to 22 mills and held nearly steady until 1999. It since has grown to 27 mills. But Hack said it can’t be assumed that all the mill levy increase is related to growth. She said certain costs, such as health care benefits for city employees and utility costs, have increased at a rate greater than inflation. The city also created a public transportation system, which added approximately 2 mills to the city tax rate.

“But that was something the community clearly wanted,” Hack said of the bus system.

Hack also said she was uncertain recent increases in sewer and water bills were evidence growth wasn’t paying for itself. She said growth was a factor in the new rates but said that keeping up with new federal regulations and the cost of maintaining aging infrastructure also were factors.

“We don’t have to look very far to see the benefits of growth,” Hack said. “Look at the Arts Center, the Ballard Center, the Salvation Army, all of our cultural attractions. All those things that we sometimes take for granted are the things that get us written up in magazines as a great place to live. But it all costs money and the citizens have to foot the bill. I think we’re very fortunate to be in a community that is growing.”

David Schauner

Schauner, the third-place finisher in the primary, said he believed that the city’s current growth study will find that residential growth isn’t paying its own way.

He said he’s seen evidence the amount of new taxes growth generates is not enough to pay for the new needs that growth creates, such as increasing police and fire protection, retrofitting streets to handle additional traffic, and buying new park land to serve a larger population.

Schauner said signs the city is falling behind are beginning to show.

“We have a whole lot of unaddressed infrastructure needs,” Schauner said. “If we were really doing what we needed to do, we would be spending a whole lot more money than we’re currently spending.”

Schauner said the city is accumulating a “pretty darn long” list of crumbling curbs, gutters, streets and other infrastructure east of Iowa Street that hasn’t been addressed because the city is spending much of its tax dollars to keep up with growth.

He said the same is true with the new water and sewer rates that took effect Jan. 1, which increased the typical water bill by about 7 percent and sewer bills by 15 percent to 20 percent.

Schauner said the city needed to look further at implementing new fees or system development charges for developers that better cover the cost of infrastructure needed to serve their developments. He said the city should consider creating impact fees to be used to pay for additional park and school land to serve new growth.

But Schauner said no one should take his positions to mean that he’s against growth.

“Despite what I have heard others say my position is, I believe growth is a good thing,” Schauner said. “I think you either do grow or die. I’m the last one that says Lawrence shouldn’t grow. I live in a fairly new area of town. It would be hypocritical for me to say we shouldn’t grow. I just want us to do it in a way that we can live with for the next 25 to 50 years.”

Tom Bracciano

Bracciano, the fourth-place finisher in the primary election, said growth has served Lawrence well.

“I remember the discussions when people were talking about building Clinton Lake,” Bracciano said of the debates that took place in the 1970s. “Some people didn’t want Clinton Lake because they thought it would create too much tourism and bring too many people. This growth issue has been around for a long time and really hasn’t hurt us yet. But managed growth is key. Not sprawl or a slash-and-burn style.”

Bracciano said he wasn’t convinced unmet repairs to aging infrastructure in older sections of town were a sign growth was burdening the city’s finances. He said that indicated a need for better management of the city’s capital improvements program.

“Even if you have no growth, if you neglect the capital improvements plan, you are still going to have problems with infrastructure,” Bracciano said.

He said he would approach with caution any plans to add new impact fees to pay for growth because he is not sure the city has done a good job using fees for their intended purpose. The city currently is involved in a lawsuit with builders who question whether city inspection fees are being properly used.

Plus, Bracciano said he thought impact fees gave people a false impression. He said developers didn’t end up ultimately paying the fees because they simply pass the costs along to homebuyers.

Bracciano also said he wasn’t sure new housing growth in the community was creating problems as much as a lack of new job growth.

“I think a lot of people are concerned that they bought a house for $90,000, 15 years ago and it is worth $180,000 now,” Bracciano said. “That’s great from a real estate standpoint, but it also means their taxes have doubled and that is not great. They feel like they are stuck because they can’t afford to move to another house. But that’s not growth’s fault. That’s the fault of our wages.”

Jim Carpenter

Carpenter, the fifth-place finisher in the primary, said he’s eager for the city to complete its study of the fiscal impacts of growth. He said there are signs the formula for paying for growth may not be in balance.

“We’re having to do a lot of retrofitting of intersections and such that can be traced to the increased number of automobiles,” Carpenter said. “We’re all having to pay for that.”

Carpenter said he’s also concerned the city has raised sewer rates in part to pay for a new wastewater treatment plant to be built along the Wakarusa River. That comes just a few years after city officials undertook a massive project to expand the existing wastewater plant.

“That would seem to indicate that we’re increasing our population faster than anyone anticipated, and we’re having to all dig deeper into our pockets to pay for that,” Carpenter said. “We need to find a better way to distribute that burden.”

Carpenter said he would be open to looking at new impact fees to help spread the costs of growth more fairly.

“We want to make sure we’re not in a position to raise taxes on everyone across the city to subsidize new development,” Carpenter said.

Carpenter also has been vocal on the campaign trail about the need to factor in environmental issues when considering Lawrence’s future growth. He said the silting in of Clinton Lake should make leaders think about how large Lawrence can feasibly become. Historically, the city’s population has grown at an annual rate of about 2 percent. He said city leaders need to study whether that growth rate is sustainable.

“Whether we can indefinitely grow at 2 percent per year, I don’t think that is a feasible thing given those (environmental) factors down the road,” Carpenter said. “There might be some finite number, but we have no way of knowing that without doing additional studies.”

Mike Amyx

Amyx, the top finisher in the primary, said he wanted to wait and see what the city’s growth report had to say, but he said there is one conclusion that he is unwilling to accept.

“There is a sense out there that some may even think growth, especially residential growth, is a financial liability,” Amyx said. “I would never say that.”

Amyx said when evaluating growth people should consider whether the community’s downtown would be as strong as it is today if the community hadn’t continued to grow.

“We have a strong downtown and we have a lot of amenities that we may not have if we didn’t have some growth that we’ve experienced over the last 20 to 25 years,” Amyx said.

Amyx said he thought the city’s fairly stable mill levy showed the community had done a reasonable job controlling growth costs.

“I don’t think we have growth that runs rampant,” Amyx said. “I think we have had growth that has helped keep the mill levy down.”

But Amyx said he understood there were costs associated with growth and that the city at-large often paid for them. He said he had mixed feelings about the idea of impact fees for developers.

“The fees that are in place right now, I accept those as part of the deal,” Amyx said. “As far as expanding that out, when you stop and look at the spending levels the city has and the debt levels we have, we’ll look at a lot of things.

“Whether I support them as far as additional fees to be added, boy, I tell you it is expensive to develop right now, but at the same time I hate to see local people picking up more and more of the tab.”