" How long has Tom Macy been sitting on the Idaho Supreme Court? "

" too bad you didn't research Idaho Statutes before you commented.

The reason you hold your interpretation is simple: It is the one being taught!
Tom Macy exposes the reason for the misinterpretation:

"The sections cited in both 67-6511 and 67-6513 explicitly express the will of the legislature regarding new development: " Each such ordinance may provide for mitigation of the effects of subdivision development on the ability of political subdivisions of the state, including school districts , to deliver services without compromising quality of service delivery to current residents or imposing substantial additional costs upon current residents to accommodate the proposed subdivision."

According to information contained in both the Idaho Code and in American Jurisprudance, these statutes are Mandatory and they are involved with establishing Public Policy. Therefore, the word "may" should be interpreted as being imperative.

The statutes should be read: "Each ordinance MUST provide for mitigation of the effects of subdivision ---".

Unfortunately, Idaho's laws have been deliberately misinterpreted to provide a maximum amount of room for profit among developers and others interested in destroying this area's unique quality of life for profit.

The only solution to this problem is for the people to understand what Idaho's laws require of their elected officials and to begin demanding that those laws be obeyed.

The 'current residents' of this area have been subsidizing the developers since 1975 by paying costs that belong to the developers. This is being done through unreasonable tax increases and through a substantial diminishing of our qualityn of life. (Do the words "traffic jam" sound familiar?)" "

" Ol' radrev shore does like to hear himself spout off, don't he? "

" "A Day In Paradise Lost"
Insights & Comments from RadRev
Impact Fees For New Schools Are Authorized And Mandated
May 07, 2008 - 02:48 PM xxxxxx

Authorization to levy impact fees against new development is provided for in the statutes below. On two occasions, SD271 top leadership have abjectly dismissed my request to ease the perpetual burden school facility levies place upon retired seniors and those living on fixed or sub-livable wages. The most recent was at a long range planning session. xxxxxx

Massive subdivisions have been approved without appeal for impact fees by SD271; including, The landings, Hawk's Nest, and the various Prairie PUDs. Why is it offensive or uncomfortable to ask development, and eventually new home owners, to pay for the infrastructure growth mandates. Now we need a new elementary and middle school for the 3,000 plus families expected to occupy vacant and newly built shacks on the Prairie. Talk is already surfacing on the need for a third high school. xxxxxx

Last year sales tax was increased 20% to cover school district maintenance & operations, yet a SFPL is being forwarded for a 66% approval. To be fair, the plans have already been completed. If the levy passes, the city will review the plans and charge a substantial Plan Check Fee. If approved, the project will go out for bid with the lowest bidder securing the contract...or so I was informed. If we approve the levy and the bids exceed the approved levy amount, does Lakes once again drop to the bottom of the priority list as it did in 2002? A diminished value project could not be ethically approved by SD271 under their current commitment with the 2002 updated plans. xxxxxx

Is there a valid reason why SD271 refuses to consider an alternate avenue to cover a significant portion of the costs for new schools? Shawn Keough proferred a bill in 2005 to ensure funds would be set aside based on math calculation. Does the $4.5 Million left over from the 2002 levy include interest? How much has been added to the facility replacement pool since Senator Shawn Keough achieved passage of her bill mandating a district set aside equal to $1.63 per square foot per year of existing school facilities? Such questions as these are yet to be answered! xxxxxx



TITLE 67 : STATE GOVERNMENT AND STATE AFFAIRS : CHAPTER 65 - LOCAL LAND USE PLANNING

67-6513. SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE. Each governing board shall provide, by ordinance adopted, amended, or repealed in accordance with the notice and hearing procedures provided under section 67-6509, Idaho Code, for standards and for the processing of applications for subdivision permits under sections 50-1301 through 50-1329, Idaho Code. [ Each such ordinance may provide for mitigation of the effects of subdivision development on the ability of political subdivisions of the state, including school districts , to deliver services without compromising quality of service delivery to current residents or imposing substantial additional costs upon current residents to accommodate the proposed subdivision. Fees established for purposes of mitigating the financial impacts of development must comply with the provisions of chapter 82, title 67, Idaho Code. Denial of a subdivision permit or approval of a subdivision permit with conditions unacceptable to the landowner may be subject to the regulatory taking analysis provided for by section 67-8003, Idaho Code, consistent with the requirements established thereby. xxxxxx


TITLE 67 : STATE GOVERNMENT AND STATE AFFAIRS : CHAPTER 82 - DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES xxxxxx

67-8207. PROPORTIONATE SHARE DETERMINATION. (1) All development impact fees shall be based on a reasonable and fair formula or method under which the development impact fee imposed does not exceed a proportionate share of the costs incurred or to be incurred by the governmental entity in the provision of system improvements to serve the new development. The proportionate share is the cost attributable to the new development after the governmental entity considers the following: (i) any appropriate credit, offset or contribution of money, dedication of land, or construction of system improvements; (ii) payments reasonably anticipated to be made by or as a result of a new development in the form of user fees and debt service payments; (iii) that portion of general tax and other revenues allocated by the jurisdiction to system improvements; and (iv) all other available sources of funding such system improvements. (text continues at link) see < http://www.cdapress.com/blogs/?req=read&blogger_id=101&entry_id=659 > for community comments or to add yours! "

" Be aware that our state laws in Idaho are very restictive as to how impact fees can be assesed and utilized. It would be nice if growth could help pay for itself with charges to developers for new schools & more teachers, more deputies and patrol cars, etc. but Idaho law disallows this. Unfair - you bet! Make you mad - yes! So contact your state legislative reps and get them busy doing something to offer more to the citizens they represent, not the outside special interests they pander to each session. "

" What we need is a 'Cali-impact' fee to make up for the reduction in the standard of living when a Californian moves up here. I swear, they are the filthiest people! "

" It is about time these fees are set-up! As a homeowner and tax payer I am tired of rising taxes. I think the fees should also include the school districts. As a tax payer, 50% of our yearly property tax is to school districts that DO NOT account for the monies spent. I believe if you are building with-in a district you need to pay at least 4 times your yearly tax. With new housing and building at an all time high this would reduce the burden on the average tax payer. School districts waste a lot of money in daily operating costs and are not held to a high standard on how they spend their money. They think the property tax payer has an open check book. "

" Talk about 'a day late & a dollar short'!!!!!!! I've been a resident of N. Idaho for 25+ years and I remember YEARS ago this issue came up...just the area started to boom. The nay-sayers shot it down, repeatedly...claimed it would be 'bad for business'.
This one instance where N. Idaho being it's usual 10-15 years 'behind the times' has had negative, long-lasting effects. "

" Here we go, just like stinking CALI.....sock it to the little guy trying build their own home while the stinking developers get all the breaks. Next thing you know, to build a 1700 sq ft house, you will be out $40,000 in "fees" before you can even turn a shovelful of dirt! How about a break for the individual building their own home? It will never happen of course....my dream is fading fast. "

" SWIFT - a day late and a dollar short. and now you want $130,000 for a study to advise you how to levy the impact fees? Try this: We have 5,000 new homes being built. THEY need new schools, streets, parks, fire, police substations, etc. Get one of your superior estimators to arrive at the projected financial impact. Divide that number by the number of homes projected to be served. Voila! You have your impact fee! When I bought my house, the fees and taxes previously paid were transferred to me in the purchase price. New homes need to reflect those costs. Why do you think a house on the prairie si more financially desirable that one in the ghetto? Minimal impact fees and brand new infrastructure that were paid by the population at large while the ghetto further deteriorates. "

" Hurray for impact fees. This would be a step in the right direction.

New schools should be included in the impact fees or the big developer should be required to donate land for schools. New growth should not place a burden on established neighborhoods. "

" "Affordable housing in the $130,000 to $160,000 range are proposed to be excluded from the fees to encourage such building."

Developers make enough to buy expensive houses, cars and planes. They should even pay on the lower priced houses. Either everyone is exempt or NO ONE is exempt. The rich just keep getting richer! H3ll, even the CHEAPEST garbage developer in this area that builds (cough cough) "affordable" housing, has his own plane. GHEEEZ!
If the independant has to pay then everyone should. "