As a voter in the district I am a little disturbed by the fact that there has been little to no publicity on this election. The first I heard of it was in the Statesman earlier this week. Since the election is on May 15 (of course the Community college election is one week later) this is fairly short notice. I’m sure the district has had this in the works for quite a while. Perhaps they have informed people through the schools and if that is the case this continues a very troubling and nontransparent trend. That is these taxing districts market the bond elections to those they feel will support them while ignoring and seemingly keeping information from the general electorate.

The City of Boise did this with the Library bonds, the school districts always do this, GBAD did it with the proposed new convention center. I suppose doing it this way might increase their chances for success (though not really if you look at history) however, it does seem undemocratic and I think shows the paucity of their arguments.

Mike: You’ve captured the situation precisely. You’re right–time to send the message. And one additional point: the second levy (to actually build new schools as opposed to supplement existing curriculum) is $20 million for ten years…as in $20 million for each year of the next decade.

Sleuth: M3 proposal is 9 schools (down from 13 when their proposal was at 12,000 units).

I feel complete empathy with your dilemma. One of OUR local school administrators even testified in favor of a new development that will probably DOUBLE the number of the district’s students. He did so at a little publicized hearing to allow “conditional use” (NOT REZONE)of the ag land that his fraternity brother’s LLC is “developing.”

It is past time that developers and new residents, via realistic impact fees ala California’s examples, pick up at least MOST of the costs they impose on us.

Just wait and see how much deeper our pockets will be if the Community College scam passes. We, the people, should tell “Them” NO!! EVERY time they ask until they place the financial burdens where they belong.

Mike, Sara, let it pass and see if you get a mass mailing saying thank you- – – we in Melba’s district did.

I suspect one reason the Meridian School District has been successful in passing its bonds in the recent past is because the tax levi rate does not change while still being able to provide the ability to add additional schools.

Because the over all value of property in the district continues to rise (caused primarily by the growing number of houses and commercial buildings being added to the tax rolls), there are more resources contributing to the payment of the district’s bond payments, so to some extent growth actually IS helping to pay for the bonds).

In addition, the fact that past bonds are also being paid off and disappearing from tax payments allows passage of a new bond to take place without increasing the existing level of the tax levy. I’d also question the claim that failing to build new schools somehow saves money — particularly when double shifting of existing schools (as has taken place in Meridian in the past to deal with growth, by the way) still requires double staffing and double bussing and double utilities, particularly operating lights and heat/air in the mornings and evenings when they’d otherwise be shut down.

Finally, in response to the lack of info mentioned by Sara, I did get a direct mail district newsletter with information in it about two weeks ago that I assume was mailed to all residents of the school district (judging from the address label). Perhaps Sara doesn’t live in the district or wasn’t interested in reading the newsletter when it arrived from the district.

Any one on this board want to take odds on the outcome of this election?

Teachers vote, teacher’s aides vote, the Meridian School district adm. votes, scared parents vote, future teachers vote, devolopers vote… and the rest of the taxpayers don’t even know about the election..

Hope you enjoy your next year’s tax bill, all of you Meridian folks.

I have never received a flyer or brochure, and called to ask about one last Friday and was told they would get back to me on it (they never did). There is no mention of the election that I can find on the School District website. If it wasn’t for the work of the reporter for the Statesman — Bill Roberts — there would be no real notice of this election.

Many many residents of Eagle and Star are not aware that the “Meridian” school district is their district. Most notice only goes to parents of children attending school in the district. I asked the district about mailing out notices, and was told that this would be “too expensive.” I asked how much that would cost and was told they would “get back to me.”

My father so believed in the public school system that he was proud never to have voted against a school bond.

I used to share his opinion and even though I haven’t had a family member in school in the Treasure Valley for more than 25 years I have always voted for bonds. I have changed my mind on this. Let the developers build the schools and we taxpayers can take care of maintenance with our tax money. At the very least perhaps fewer homes will be built.

Why don’t our leaders focus on quality of life for this valley and quit acting like growth is a gift from heaven? They may call this growth but it looks more like cancer to me.

Mr. Guardian..your statement…

“EDITOR NOTE–Snoop, no one is asking for a particular subdivision to build a school. They are asking for IMPACT fees–one time fees to pay for specific services or infrastructure.

While the prices for lots will indeed go up, costs will be passed along to the BUYER, not you and me as you assert. You and I pay under the current system to take care of the growth. Those California and Arizona developers come here because it costs so much to build in their home states due to impact fees.”

Are you being a little naive here… Your city, and county goverments are professionals at wasting money…. and they would have a bond election any way, because they don’t have enough money

JMHO

Luddite- One thing you have neglected to research on your own is that when that sewer line is run to a new sub nine miles down the road and, yes some older homes may get to hook up to that line, the developer pays every dime for that line. If, and I strongly use that word, if they do get some sort of compensation they get it in the way of sewer hook up fees which isn’t even a tenth of a tenth of what that sewer line cost. Do you really think the city is paying for that line? You may want to keep reading those books on urban sprawl and get some better information.

Also it doesn’t matter if a home is a spec home or a custom built home; people still live in them just the same. I think you are speculating too much on a spec home. That may have been true a couple of years ago, but not currently. And how would a developer even have a clue how the market will absorb its lots when most projects take at least two years from design time to build time?

I truly believe that if the private sector did get involved with the necessary infrastructure, that the cost would be about half of what the government pays and get done in half the time, but ACHD is the only jurisdiction I have heard of in this area that actually takes that notion serious. Why does a school need to be redesigned every time one is built? Why can’t they use one plan and build it fifty times? Why do we have older schools that enrollment goes down every year, Cole Elementary, and combine them with another school? Why not sell the Cole building and then come to the taxpayers on the remaining balance. I think you have to look at how the money is being handled first before you look at how much is needed. Porcupine got it right when he said that city and county are great at wasting money. That is the first real problem. Then you can blame growth after that.

There are only a handful of development companies from out of state and you are classifying the whole industry by the few projects they presented and I don’t think that is very objective. There are a lot of in state and out of state individuals and companies doing a great job with growth, but I see no mention of them. Again you are quick to complain, but have no REAL solution to the problem.

Early dredge miners to Idaho destroyed the creek beds, took their profits, and moved on to a new project, leaving their damaging impact for ‘the locals’ to adjust to. When will citizens realize that contractors are no different??? ‘Pay as you go’ !! PAY !!-then go !!!

It’s time to start talking again about how to get more bang for our education bucks. For example, “year-round” school schedules stagger the dates that each class attends school, thereby allowing 25 percent more students to use the same facility.

The charter schools in the Meridian School District have cost far less, on a per student basis, for facilities as well.

On June 30, 2005, at the end of the 2005 fiscal year, the State of Idaho had $214 million left unspent. At the end of the 2006 fiscal year, the State had $309 million. These big surpluses were largely due to growth. We all want growth to pay for itself but the money is going to the wrong level of government. It is not necessary to extract more new taxes and fees from anyone, but rather to get the Idaho Legislature to redirect the money growth is already generating back to the local government entities that provide the infrastructure to serve that growth.

Large projects that are far removed from available infrastructure, such as distant planned communities, are an exception. In these cases, requiring the developers to pay the added costs of service to provide the necessary infrastructure (roads, schools, fire, emergency medical services, etc.) should be required.

Snoop- It sounds like you work for the City and know what the developers pay? I bet you wouldn’t know that someone that I’m close to works for the City and knows that the City administors and pays for the trunk lines. The sewer connection fees that older homes pay go directly to the City (and means annexation). So I guess the answer to your challenge is; Yes, I do believe (and know) the City pays for the sewer trunk lines. Developers pay to run it through their subdivisions. In normal growth extensions would be through LIDs and paid for.

My solulotion is in line with Mike’s article, to vote down the bond and make the problems of the rampant growth come to the surface. Do you really think the major LLC developers, Ada county and the City of Boise give a rip about our children’s education? Or are they stacking and packing the impact area as much as they can until the quality of life is in the bucket and nobody wants to live here?

I got lost on who said what, but the problem needs to be fixed higher up AKA the part-time legislature. Impact fees are a great way to pay for new school facilities and maybe a local improvement district would work in conjunction with development requirements for the larger planned communities. Both of these options will get developer support as it won’t cost them a nickel.

Clippity, Many times the developers payday doesn’t come until the project is completed, and impact fees don’t get collected until after the final sale.

LID’s can work successfully and its merits are debatable both good and bad. The “greater good” should be looked at and which way will pay for growth ahead of time. The developer could go belly up before the final sales, but what if they didn’t. Those homes would be paying for the growth related improvements(schools, roads, etc..) already in place and not costing the taxpayers a dime. Sounds better than the current plan where taxpayers are sacked with the burden no matter what.

EDITOR NOTE–The down side of the LID as proposed by the developer is that it simply ENABLES and promotes growth. A developer who doesn’t have the money gets it in the form bonds on future construction/lots. The impact fees have nothing to do with the developer’s obligation within a sudivision. I think you guys are talking two different things here.

IMPACT fees are just that–fees to offset the impact of a dvelopment. LIDS as proposed by developers relieve the developer of building full sized roads, sewers, and water PRIOR to selling houses. They want to put FUTURE liens on houses they may sell. Risky for the rest of us.

Thanks for the clarification, Guardian. I am nipping the promotion of LIDs, not impact fees, because I think they are highly risky for the reasons listed above. If a developer doesn’t have the horsepower to provide infrastructure upfront, then it’s not our responsibilty to ensure his payday or back his gamble.