Hmmmm….at least you acknowledge that schools have no choice. Whitter in Boise is much the same problem with the 30th Street URD. Impact fees for schools should be a no brainer even for a rural Republican legislature. School funding reform maybe needs to start with a referendum…school district large and small are having problems. Look at Salmon School district and their failure to pass a bond to repair to repair the middle school roofs.

The problem is nobody cares. They numbly sit in front of their boob tubes and allow themselves to be indoctrinated, programmed and brainwashed into thinking all is well because of “progress”.

You would think this is Nigeria where developers and others have learned to tap into the never ending flow of tax $$$$ which both elected and appointed guardians of the public purse dole out to them either by not collecting or giving them tax breaks. No impact fees for schools is the most glaring example but did you hear the dairymen squeal when their cheap foreign labor might be shut off. And who pays for their 7 kids education and trips to the emergency center?

I found the actions of the Ada County Commissioners disgraceful. It shows they are unwilling to uphold even the basic principles of the supposed “plans” the County has for development. EVERY part of this “fantasy land” horse arena “farm to table” suburban sprawl subdivision nonsense does not comply with what the County’s own documents require. It’s not just houses on the flat former farmland and 6 feet of topsoil. It’s also houses on hills with steep cuts. They learned nothing from Terra Nativa. The “wildlife” are supposed to get by with narrow little walkways between some of the sprawl, and with Open Space out by the main Highway – putting the lives of deer and motorists into direct conflict with one another.

The “mitigation” for wildlife is a joke. A conservation easement in Elmore County – yeah that’s great news for wildlife in western Ada County. Serious questions on water, and water use are ignored all together. YET the fancy drawings of horse arena heaven in the Developer’s scheme show lush green expanses. There is ZERO real analysis of how this will affect wells and other water use in the area, or the genetically pure redband trout in Dry Creek.

The whole Dry Creek development is Sprawl on Steroids.
The Commissioners spent 10 minutes hiding behind the excuse of “private property” feigning that they could do nothing to change things.

sorry my property taxes have increased 70% in 5 years, and my income has in no way increased near that amount, I am taxed out. I am paying for the tax exempt growth of CCDC, St. Lukes, City land acquisitions, Churches and every other business pretending to be a non-profit, not to mention the property tax breaks the City gives their developer friends who also donate to politicians campaign coffers.

In Nampa when the farm and residential ground in the area of Costco was declared part of the new Urban Renewal District the Valley View School District realized that they would potentially have to build additional schools because of the new development. The School District negotiated an agreement with the Urban Renewal District in which each year the UR District gives back at least a portion of the taxes which Valley View would have received if the area was not designated UR. Last year the payment was in the $425,000 range.
Nampa School District on the other end of town I do not believe get anything. School Districts and other taxing entity’s need to rise up and demand payment in lieu of taxes they are not receiving for services rendered.

A comprehensive study by Al Fothergill and the Idaho Citizens Coalition in the 1970’s showed conclusively that residential developments had a negative impact on public services and were a drain on local taxes for up to 20 years after build out.

During the early 1990’s earnest efforts to provide impact fees on residential development for school districts were defeated in the legislature primarily by the boomers in the community including the Association of Building Contractors and IACI.

These same folks are now major supporters of shifting more of the educational burden onto homeowners through increased bond indebtedness.

Well, at least in Ada County they ALLOW single family homes. The Mayor and City Council of Boise are trying to force us all into high density condos or apartments.

Thank you for covering this important story.

Regarding the Dry Creek Ranch planned community: the issues you point out (along with multiple others) were among the concerns raised by many individuals, organizations and businesses who opposed this “amendment.” Unfortunately, despite the high volume of opposition from the community, the Board of County Commissioners offered next to no discussion when they announced their approval on 2/21/17. In fact, the entire meeting lasted less than 10 minutes. It is hard to believe that the Board of County Commissioners took their community’s concerns seriously.

Even if Boise Hunter Homes were to pursue the original plan approved in 2010 and proposed by a different developer (Land Baron Investments), there are some who feel the original plan was better than the “amendment.” Under the original plan, the developer would have been responsible for 3-4 schools, as well as massive infrastructure development this large-scale planned community would have required. As you correctly point out, under the new plan the citizens of Ada County will be responsible for shouldering these expenses, rather than the developers. I don’t think this should sit right with any of us.

I am still confused as to why Boise Hunter Homes can use another developer’s 7-year-old approval for an entirely different plan. Could it be because if Boise Hunter Homes were to apply as a new plan today, it would be denied? The Planning and Zoning Commission confirmed this at the public hearing on 12/15/16.

In their comment, Ada County gives the impression that Board of County Commissioners’ hands were tied and they were unable to do anything other than approve this amendment, since the original plan was already approved in 2010. If this was actually the case, a public hearing would have been superfluous. The Board of County Commissioners could have denied the “amendment,” plain and simple. They chose not to do so. It would have required leadership, foresight, and courage to deny this “amendment” and to serve the interests of their community, rather than the interests of the developers.