Jane Costlow

You may not live in Auburn’s Agriculture and Resource Protection zone, or even know quite what it is, but the outcome of current discussions before the Planning Board and City Council will affect you.

It’s not just the rural character of Auburn’s outskirts that may change, along with the recreational and hunting opportunities that make this city a wonderful place to live. If the City Council turns the AGRP Zone into a large-lot residential zone, the taxes of every Auburn citizen will go up.

And as land values rise — as surely they will, once residential development is allowed in the zone — farmers and woodlot owners who have called Auburn’s rural neighborhoods home may well find themselves priced off of their land.

This issue isn’t just about the city’s character, or wildlife habitat, or how forests protect against climate change — as important as those are. It’s also about pocketbooks — everyone’s pocketbooks. And it’s time for every Auburn resident to pay attention.

There are just under 20,000 acres in the AGRP zone, most of it forest and farmland. It was set aside 60 years ago by community leaders who wanted to save some of the city from sprawl — which at that point was beginning to radically transform the southern part of Maine.

To build a house in the AGRP zone you needed to derive at least a set percentage of your income from farming. It was a simple way to protect the land; if you owned land in the AGRP zone it was taxed at a lower rate than land in residential districts, but there were also significant restrictions on what you could do with it.

Over the years, as the economics of farming shifted, with fewer families supporting themselves through agriculture, it became clear that the income standard needed to be changed. Numerous task forces and consultants have recommended it be replaced, but only once other provisions ensured the zone remains true to its explicit purpose: to encourage agriculture, forestry and recreational uses, and to conserve natural resources and open land.

Last September the City Council passed a resolve asking Auburn’s Sustainability and Natural Resources Board and Planning Board to weigh in on eliminating the income requirement pure and simple — without putting anything in its place. The SNRB responded in early December with a clear call to keep the income standard until adequate protections for agriculture and open space could be agreed to.

The Planning Board is now in the final stage of its deliberations on the matter, focusing on a proposal that eliminates the income requirement but provides only weak protections for prime soil, wildlife habitat and forests.

What remains unstated in all this is the financial cost that opening up the AGRP zone to residential development would bring. People who own property in the zone would see significant increases in their property taxes; the taxes of property owners throughout the rest of Auburn would also increase. Why? Because the municipal services required for residential development cost more than tax income derived from residential development.

The American Farmland Trust has analyzed more than 151 municipalities across the U.S., comparing the cost of community services to tax revenue received from residential development. Its analysis found that municipal service costs ranged from $1.05 to $2.27 for every dollar received in taxes. Its analysis was consistent, and overwhelming: in every case residential development cost more — often a lot more — than the tax revenue generated.

The same analysis found that agriculture and open land paid far more in property taxes than the cost of municipal services they received. One Maine community in the study showed a cost of $1.29 in municipal services for every tax dollar received from residential development. In the same community, municipal services for agricultural and open land cost only 6 cents for every tax dollar received.

There is absolutely no reason to think that Auburn will be any different. If we use the AFT study to do some local arithmetic, here’s what we get: a residential dwelling that currently pays $4,000 in taxes costs the municipality $5,160 in municipal services ($1.29 x $4,000). That’s an extra $1,160 per dwelling unit compared with the revenue generated.

If you build hundreds of new dwelling units, the additional cost will be paid by property owners all over Auburn. Everyone’s property taxes will go up.

Earlier this year, over 300 Auburn residents responded to a survey about the future of the AGRP zone. When asked where new development should be located, the response was crystal clear: new development should be located close to existing services.

Seventy-seven percent of respondents said “Auburn’s open spaces should remain open.” Auburn’s own planning documents advise the same thing: build out from the city core and existing neighborhoods, protect open lands and keep the cost of services down. Are Auburn’s elected officials listening to its residents or paying attention to their own Comprehensive Plan?

It’s our city — and Auburn residents should have a strong voice in whatever decision is made.

Jane Costlow, a member of Auburn’s Conservation Working Group, recently completed a year as chair of the city’s Sustainability and Natural Resources Board. She lives in New Auburn.