Before you jump to too many “what if’s” the special provisions, that are part of the ITD access permit need to be published! ITD has addressed most of issues that you mentioned into the permitting of Avimor’s application. The problem is that it has taken them way too long to figure out who in the agency has the “final” word, the district or Hdqts. There is an inordinate amount “who’s in charge” as it relates to the development issues here in Ada County. That needs to change real soon, they need to be a partner with ACHD in addressing the adequate public facilities issues.

First poster mentions, ACHD, I don’t think ACHD has anything to do with Hwy 55. It’s a state highway, therefore DOT is in charge. I’ve been trying to get BG to do an expose on Idaho DOT for over a year now. DOT is full to the brim with ineptitude.

Didn’t Gov. Risch replace the director, so what has changed? The people would like to know.

Back to state highways, since I’ve lived in Idaho I’ve seen one state highway after another rendered almost useless by mismanaged development. Hwy 75 from Bellevue to Ketchum is one fine example of ineptitude. US 95 from Coeur d’Alene to Sandpoint is another. Forget about discussing the Sand Creek bypass.

Hey Idaho, ever hear of limited access highways?

The culture and purpose of ITD took a nosedive back when former Governor Dirky Kempthorne and his construction industry buddy and former staffer Phil Reberger concocted the Garvee Bond scheme, which was meant to line the pockets of the construction industry without resulting in any real road building at all.

ITD does not build roads anymore. It’s hard to say what it does.

Neither Ada County Development Services nor ITD seem to want to take a leadership role and protect public safety. I find that avoidance of responsibility to all citizens who travel SH 55 absolutely appalling.

This issue will come before the Ada County Commissioners at the end of the month when they take up the preliminary plat application for Avimor Phases 2-6. I can only hope that they will have the good judgment to realize that a horrible precedent is being set here. If they don’t, they should no longer be in office and thankfully, at least two of them will be coming up for re-election next year. The public can simply no longer tolerate this kind of disregard for the welfare of the community to satisfy a developer. This is well beyond a property rights issue — this is public health and safety and frankly, it’s being sacrificed. Shameful. We deserve better from all agencies involved, and the Commissioners.

M Murphy makes a good point about the lack of public involvement at the city hearing on Harris Ranch.

He should feel lucky. The city at least holds hearings.

When the county makes highway issues a post approval condition to be resolved between ITD and the developer, the public is completely shut out of the process. Neither the County nor ITD makes any provision for public involvement in those matters.

For the Ada County Commissioners, it is hard to tell the difference between a democracy and a dictatorship.

Thanks to Sleuth for the answers to my questions. I appreciate knowing and learning; but, it really does raise some more either questions or worries. If the agency issuing the permit is in charge of enforcing said permits I suppose that they have code enforcers who make routine checks. I’ll also assume that the enforcement staff if limited in number and doesn’t make a ‘regular’ check on the compliance with the permits and suppose, further, that we citizens should call what we think of as questionalble practices to the attention of the agency. Is that correct? Anyone know?

I can see that in big projects such as road ones there would be an assumption of permits being issued, but how does one learn if such permits are conditional or not?

In a small project how does one learn if a permit has even been issued? I assume that such permits are on file, somewhere. So, if someone wants to relocate their driveway, as an example, do they apply to the ACHD, to the City, does one’s neighborhood Association have any say or sway, guess I’m just in a questionable mood these days.

Grumpy (Sneezy, Doc, and anyone else out there),

In Ada County any construction in an ACHD-owned right-of-way requires a permit – and that construction has to be built to the district’s standards. If the applicant is going to hire someone to do the construction work, the district requires that the contractor be certified by the district to work in the right-of-way.

As to who has jurisdiction over work on your property (setting building permit issues aside) – it depends on where you live. In subdivisions with CC&R’s, it’s the active homeowners association that has to review the plans; In other subdivisions, it’s the land use jurisdiction (either the city or the county); In Boise, some types of construction (usually large projects that require a separate land use application to be filed) the applicable Neighborhood Association and all property owners within 300-feet of the subject parcel have to be notified of the applicant’s “pre-application neighborhood meeting” (which must be held at least two-weeks before the applicant submits his/her application).

As to the subject of the article, ITD is the controlling jurisdiction for Highway 55. All the county (or any city processing a land use application) can do is rely upon ITD to enforce its own rules, accurately interpret those rules, and communicate any concerns to the county (or city) about any proposed development.

Neither a county nor city can prevent (or grant) access to a state highway – or “condition” any access that may be granted by ITD.

Accordingly, there is no law (rule, policy, or regulation) in any jurisdiction in Idaho that requires a land use applicant to secure access approval from ITD (or local highway district) BEFORE a land use application is submitted for consideration by the deliberating body. If the county (or any city) where to declare a land use application “incomplete” because it didn’t contain an access agreement with ITD or a local highway district (for a development that the public hasn’t yet had an opportunity to review) – it will have forced the landowner into a Catch-22, and denied the landowner due process.

I understand that SunCor, Avimor’s developer, asked ITD to allow it to construct a middle turn lane, to place flaggers on the road way, to erect warning signage (or flashers, or lights) – and each request was denied by ITD.

I’m not sure how a land use jurisdiction can “force” an independent state agency to do its job differently. And it looks like the county “conditioned” its rezone & plat of the Avimor project requiring the developer to successfully resolve any access issues – “issues” (if they exist) for which the county is legally prohibited from enforcing, interpreting, or modifying.

As such, the condition is equivalent to adding a requirement that the developer “must obey all applicable laws and regulations” – yet the county has no police powers to enforce any laws or regulations that rest under the authority of ITD. If the county were to receive an official response from ITD that the developer has failed to adhere to its rules (as it interprets them) – then the county could suspend development activity on the site until ITD transmits a document that states that the developer has come into compliance.

For local roads in Ada County, the ACHD has final plat-signing authority – giving it a very big hammer to force development to meet its access, design, and connectivity standards. ITD doesn’t have this authority – nor would I think the state legislature grant it this power. But, although it cannot deny a property owner his/her right to at least one access point onto a state highway (if no other local street access is available), it does have the power to control how that access is taken.

If any county official were to deny an application because s/he didn’t “trust” the state to do its job to protect the public’s health, welfare, and safety on the state’s facility – all I see is a big lawsuit that the county (that is you, me and our wallet) will loose.

ITD has to step up to the plate and do a more thorough job in its reviews of projects, and in the development and implementation of access control standards on its facilities – no one else can do its job for it.

Now I’m grumpy…

I would urge everyone to start a letter writing campaign and protest the abysmal turnout lanes that ITD has allowed. I would also forward a copy
to the County Commisioners—ask them how they sleep at night knowlingly jepordizing the safety of one of our state’s busiest highways………hopefully Avimor won’t turn into Forevermor….

Clippityclop,

Why would you think a land use jurisdiction would be liable for damages stemming from a collision on a state highway?

Don’t get me wrong, I think the death of two people on a state highway is an unacceptable tragedy- but a land use jurisdiction has no control over the activities of anyone on a roadway. If I were in the family of the victims I would be exploring every legal option, but the county’s actionable exposure is non-existent. ITD, the contractor, the truck driver, and the developer, all have some level of exposure – and probably in that order. Even their percentage of risk is fairly minimal, given that it was the driver of the car who caused the accident.

As I understand it, the truck driver released her brakes to begin rolling forward when she saw the car approaching to give the driver more room to stop – but there weren’t even skid marks on the road. I imagine the incident investigator will conclude that it was the car driver’s inattentiveness that caused the accident.

I understand the desire to find a culprit, and it doesn’t help a growthaphobe’s cause to pin guilt on a dead guy. But if you’re looking for someone to roast, scratch under the surface of the near-impenetrable bureaucracy at ITD. Why did they refuse to allow construction flaggers and other measures to be used on the roadway? And, if ITD shouldn’t be allowing the use of the existing access points onto the highway for construction activity (by its own rules) – who’s the idgit at ITD who said it was okay. And if it isn’t okay, why isn’t ITD exercising its police powers to enforce its rules.

As tragic as all this is, the over-arching question is what will ITD require the developer to put into place to solve access onto the site before they start selling homes? I’m pretty sure that the county hasn’t been told, or the developer. All the Great State of Ada can do, and has done, is require that the developer do what the State of Idaho requires.

CURIOUS GEORGE–We agree with you pretty much across the board, but a couple points:

1–Antilock brakes pretty much eliminate skid marks.

2–Had Ada County reserved approval until highway access and construction issues were met–rather than as a “condition”– no truck would have ev en been there.

3–See the story linked at the end of the post…ITD didn’t like the situation then. Something obviously changed.

We talked casually with ITD source today and got the impression the previously mandated overpass is now an “option.” There is even talk of widening the highway in that area.

George,

I find your blanket of legal excuses for ACDS hollow and I couldn’t agree more with the Guardian’s notes below your post. For the love of God, ACDS and the Commissioners should quit spending energy on avoiding “liability” (you used that term, I didn’t) and show some leadership by addressing the situation. If the concern is that ITD won’t step up to the plate, then they shouldn’t hesitate to do the right thing whether or not some developer threatens to sue them. Standing up for public safety is a pretty good justification for taking action. Not standing up for public safety is a pretty good reason for leaving office.

My take? Somebody, probably a combination of ACDS and the developer, put huge pressure on ITD to change their stance of last January. ITD will likely claim that nothing has changed, but it clearly has. My guess is that somebody pressured the Board and the rest of the staff had to play ball. Well, this is what you get. Who’s to blame isn’t the point here, my friend. Something needs to be done. Would you still be do defensive if that were your son or daughter killed on the highway? No one expects to find a construction vehicle stopped in the middle of 60 mph highway with no turn lane… it’s a simply a very bad situation which cannot persist or be allowed to recur. Proper infrastructure needs to be in place, period.

Curious George.

I find it laughable that you believe ACHD found Ustick to be a danger to the public’s health, welfare and safety. No such finding was ever made. In fact, no finding of the necessity for widening Ustick was ever made. This was a lousy unilateral decision by a corrupt government organization which has never met a bad decision they’ve ever reconsidered.

Ustick was originally supposed to be a $6 million project. The actual cost, which ACHD will never publish, will be over $20 million.

One of the major reasons why our transportation systems here in Ada County are so awful is that ACHD can’t get along with ITD (there’s a total surprise ACHD not getting along with others). The two should be working together instead of saying, this is their road and we don’t care.

George,
Your legal reasoning is lacking, but establishing liability is not the important point here. Public safety is, and something must be done to safeguard it. Either ITD or the County Commissioners need to step up to the plate — I don’t give a rip which and neither does the public.

ITD may or may not do the right thing, I can’t predict. They certainly seem to have lost the resolve they had in January. Failing to be a leader, however, will be disasterous for the Commission. Lookit, you all can fight about and assign blame later, that’s not my concern, but right now, a fatally dangerous situation exists and should not be perpetuated. End of story and nobody is interested in your justifications for inaction by any involved agency or the Commission.

Ahh, it’s always nice being the bearer of bad news. I’ll be the first one to declare that reality sucks!

Clippity, you SHOULD care where you place blame, since establishing liability (i.e., “risk” – either perceived, or actual) is the only real way of getting the leaders of a recalcitrant public agency to move in the right direction. It may not be as pleasant as hoping that they will simply wake up and “do the right thing” – but it is more realistic.

And since highway 55 is completely under the authority of ITD – managing the risk on that roadway rests with ITD. Going after a land use agency for the risky behavior being conducted on a state highway – even if the behavior is being caused by the contractor building a development that the agency approved – isn’t going to change anything at ITD. Nor will it change anything at the county. County leaders know better than anyone else who is responsible for the public’s welfare on the state highway system. They will listen patiently, and respectfully, to the public’s concern about unsafe roads during land use hearings – probably whole-heartedly agree with all the criticism, and if the public’s lucky they will direct their staff to forward those comments to ITD or ACHD, knowing that the county has no control over roadway safety.

I’m not interested in perpetuating a system that may be broken. Nor should anyone.

If you want real, significant, and immediate change – bring this flaming bag of dog poop directly to ITD’s front door and ring the bell. Bringing your roadway complaints to Ada County is like complaining to the postman that your medical bills are too high. He may deliver the bills, but he can’t do a thing about your healthcare situation – if he’s in a friendly mood he may sympathize with your situation, and then delicately tell you that you should take the issue up with your doctor.

Sara, I didn’t say I agreed with ACHD’s assessment about Ustick – but the court did agree that ACHD has sole authority over the roadway, and confirmed its primal role in determining what should be done to protect the traveling public. The court forced Boise to back off. This is not an opinion; it is what happened (BTW, I do not agree with the court).

Treva’s right about Oregon’s roads – this is a direct result of Oregon’s Urban Growth Boundaries land use law and its transportation & land use planning concurrency. If we could secure the same level of growth management in the Treasure Valley we’d be way better off than we are today. The only effort that could bring this about is the Blueprint for Good Growth, check it out.

http://www.blueprintforgoodgrowth.com/

Also note that the two major contributors to the effort are Ada County and ACHD. ITD even agreed to play ball and signed the intergovernmental agreement. We all just have to make sure that they stick to their word.

The Suncor group is teaming up with the Tamarack group for a reason….somebody has bought Idaho politicians and needs some favors called in on a failing project. Then the Suncor group can give Tamarack some cash so they can pay their bills….

Heaven’s George, if only the County put as much effort into ensuring completeness and safety (I point out here that public welfare is a central concern in the Land Use Planning Act)when approving development applications as you do into defending the County and pinning this mess on ITD, we would not be in this dangerous situation. The “disappointment” of which you speak is disappointment that the neither the County nor ITD upheld the welfare of the public. I can only pray that the Commissioners have the concern now to do the right thing, if ITD does not. I have no idea what ITD plans to do. As for the AG’s office, you are mistaken in your zeal, but all of that,and the blame game, are beside the point. Something needs to be done now. None of your posturing changes any of that. It would be absolutely wonderful if the County and ITD chose to work together to resolve this issue, that would be very Blueprint-hearted, but I’m afraid you have just destroyed any kind or working relationship the County has with ITD by hanging them out to dry. Once again, put the shovel down. Wouldn’t it be a welcome relief if you worked on a solution rather than establishing culpability? That’s what I care about.

Clippity,

You prove the old adage, “You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink.”

If, and only if, you want the situation on highway 55 to improve – follow my recommendation to focus your efforts on getting ITD to clean up its act. If you don’t really care about the public’s health, welfare, and safety – continue your shotgun approach to blaming the county and ITD. In my experience, local elected leaders just love to hear that they’re to blame for another agency’s malfeasence & ineptitude – or better yet, spend their resources to fix the state’s problems. While you’re at it, maybe you could get the commissioners to do something about the war in Iraq.

All while the debate about the county’s decision to approve the construction of 685 homes at Avimor, the cities have approved far more homes on far more treacherous stretches of State Highway 55 (otherwise known as Eagle Road). Yet neither Boise, Meridian, or Eagle required the developers of those low-density subdivisions & commercial developments to contribute to any mitigation efforts.

In 2006, there were four fatal collisions on highway 55 (more than four deaths) within the limits of Ada County – none of which occured in the unincorporated portions of the county, or were related to county-approved developments. There’s also been a statistically significant increase in fatal collisions on SH55 over the past two years (a 250-500% increase from previous years). Maybe this is not as much a surprise to those who travel on Eagle Road, as it may be that ITD is the agency that controls access on the roadway.

Oh well, keep up the good work chewing on the local land use agencies – I’m sure at some point the state may take notice. But then again, with all the deaths it’s seen on the highway over the past two years maybe its bureaucrats are on sensory overload.

Well…

If you were betting a hundred bananas I might be more interested in taking up the bet. Because I’m just a little, homeless, furry monkey – still trying to work on that opposable-thumb thing.

And I believe that you’re a loveable, well-intentioned, though somewhat misdirected, bobtail nag. I’m sure that if left to your own devices you’ll eventually find your way back to the stable.

If I had a choice in what I might become in my next life, it would have to be a gadfly. Until then, I’ll have to settle with taking a little nip now & then, and poking a few ribs (neither of which require a thumb).