The impact fee statute is very tightly written to only allow the fees to pay for new infrastructure, it cannot pay to improve current infrastructure (ie. the bond doesn’t pass, schools continue to be overcrowded, and there is no way to solve the current problem thru impact fees). So, the new impact fee authority you desire would cover the future growth, but not what Meridian is experiencing at this minute.

I wholeheartedly agree with Stephen that changes need to be made to the impact fee statute, but trust me, it will not happen, unless there is a change in the make up of the state legislature. Have you talked with your legislators yet?

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.

In California they don’t have school bonds. Instead some cities require that the developer build schools in some of the developmemts. They also place a room fee on new building permits for homes to help support the schools.

About a year or two ago didn’t the Idaho supreme court say that the school bond elections were unconstitutional?

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?

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.

An example: I recall that about 20 years ago the City of Eagle proposed an ordinance that would collect a fee for each additional bedroom (beyond one) in a home with the intent of using it to build new or add onto the existing schools. The thought was that homes seeking additional bedrooms were likely to have additional children to educate.

When they found that effort would be counter to a law banning one taxing entity to collect money and give it to another (like from Eagle to the Meridian School District), the city proposed building a school needed for the future and lease it back to the school district. In that case too (collecting a fee to build a facility to lease to the school district) the Attorney General ruled that proposal was also against the law (and perhaps unconstitutional). Interesting that The Statesman made a big deal out of the proposed effort by Eagle at the time to commit an “illegal act” because it would have “hurt” development by raising the price of houses. Too bad the paper, and others, didn’t instead scream about the need to allow such collections to take place. If they had, perhaps the infrastructure needs wouldn’t be going further and further into the crapper.

After that try, Eagle looked at a couple of other possibilities as ways to collect funds from developers, but in each case the city was told by the state they could not do so because of state law. Impact fees won’t handle everything (such as with ACHD), but things could actually be a whole lot worse if they weren’t allowed on the limited basis they are today. Maybe pressure ought to be put on the State to fix things, not necessarily on the locals.

EDITOR NOTE–Good points. We need to find some recent examples of the Association of Idaho Cities and perhaps the Boise lobbyist pushing for reforms you mention, apart from local option taxes on the masses.