John P’s organization seems to be on the right track in working with all involved. The opposite of this is Savetheplateau.org. It has snide remarks and commentary aimed at both Skyline and the county all over it. Some of his tactics have worked while others have not.

Thanks to George for talking about the funding for Development Services, I agree with his points. But to further expand, Guardian’s library idea would work very well with a Ada Council of Goverments. Let’s just create an all encompassing agency to govern all – libraries, police, land use, etc…. Forget about the apes and gorilla, here comes King Kong.

Those of us who appear at hearings–sometimes into the wee hours of the morning–are given scant minutes. Meanwhile developers make long glitzy presentations and the vast majority of the time obtain concessions not allowed by the code, through a “variance.” It is a helpless feeling to testify knowing the council will do as they please.

ACHD tries to do a good job, but thanks to Brent Coles and Boise City lobbist we citizens are 80% disenfranchised–legislature passed a “run and elect by district” for ACHD. Should be county wide vote, but must live in the district.

Jump on the G countywide library idea if you want regionalism. Those extra layers need to be elected–including CCDC.

Of course solutions are abundant. “Remove all decisions from the political process”; this is done in Vancouver, BC where the Mayor & Council have no say in land use decisions – though in a litigeous US this may not work (and may run against our representative democratic sentiments). “Combine all land use decisions into a single regional process”; this is done in the Portland area via the Metro (a regional land use & transportation planning and decision-maker). This latter option was tried in Ada County almost thirty years ago via ACOG (Ada Council of Governments) and resoundly rejected by the electorate, AHCD is the only hold over from that period (and it’s not uniformly loved by growthaphobes).

It’s still possible that an ACOG-type organization could still work (fully underwritten by tax payer money) – and still stay compliant with the Local Land Use Planning Act state statute. Per the statute the cities could disolve their respective planning & development departments (and commissions) and allow the county to take over the entire process. This would remove the local jingoistic bickering, any funds collected for fees would be redistributed to the respective local community (and spent however they wish), and no staff person could feel threatened by a mayor or councilmember. Each city would still have its own comprehensive plan, yet that plan would never be at odds with the best interests of any other community. Growth decisions would be made on the basis of what is best for the region, not what may be best for a single jurisdiction. Of course to work most smoothly, all transportation planning and development would have to be combined with this county-based development services department. This would inlude ACHD as well as COMPASS (as the federally designated Metropolitian Planning Organization).

Now all you have to get is the cities and the county to agree to agree. Good luck 😉

The best firewall I can think of to ensure such objectivity, at the very highest level of office (in case someone isn’t exactly as ethical as they should be), is to put into place a budgetary wall that keeps development money out of an organization’s general fund.

Though this possible temptation “may” still exist at a staff level within the county’s organization – the way the cities have structured their departments’ budgets extends the temptation all the way to the upper tiers of office. And, if county staff may be tempted by developer money, keeping a municipal development services department on the general fund does not create a reverse firewall for city staff.

I think a much more precarious situation exists when an elected official who counts on the funds generated by development to pay for his/her salary (or less nefariously, counts on the money for a portion of the city police department’s budget), can apply pressure on staff to render a favorable decision.

It’s one thing to lose a job because the funds dried up, it’s quite another to get sacked (and blackballed) by a municipal official because you took an ethical stand by refusing to rubber-stamp a bad development just to get the application and building permit money.

Look very closely at the various city budgets to see exactly how large this temptation is. I believe a recent mayor in a nearby city even publicly declared that approving development (contrary to the city’s own comprehensive plan, and the county’s comprehensive plan and ordinances) was absolutely necessary to pay for city services.

Uhmmm.

Clancy, I take my citizen involvement with governmental agencies very seriously and respectfully, but I also realize I’m being forced to play with a stacked deck.

I think the entire budget of the county’s development services department comes from development applications and building permit fees. Another way of saying that it doesn’t use taxpayer money to operate.

Many cities, by comparison, use such collected fees to underwrite basic public services – making these cities completely dependent on development approvals (and not the tax that will be eventually collected from the improved properties) to provide such basic services as police, fire, and even mayoral and city council salaries.

What’s more objective? A single department (which has no development approval authority) which can be reduced in size as development declines (with no impact on basic services) – or a system that is completely dependent on rubber-stamping development to get the fees to pay the decision-makers’ salaries?

This unfortunate latter scenario wouldn’t necessarily spell condemnation for a larger more established city (like Boise) that already has a substantial tax base, but for eager-to-grow smaller cities (Star, Eagle, Kuna) and larger cities trying to grow basic services (Meridian) it means one thing – their development departments are the cities’ cash cows.

Please note that regardless of where a development gets approved (within city limits, or area of city impact, or out within the “county”), the county’s “cut” of the collected taxes remains exactly the same. This cannot be said of the cities.

I believe the county’s decision to separate the operational costs for running its development services department from the general fund was a very tax-wise move.