Nampa City Council Meeting on Growth, Impact Fees, and Development Tools - August 20, 2026
Nampa City Council Meeting on Growth, Impact Fees, and Development Tools - August 20, 2026
This meeting focused on a new financial analysis tool to evaluate the net fiscal impact of subdivision developments, legal options for growth moratoriums, and the distinction between lawful impact fees and prohibited operational fees. Key discussions included the effects of House Bills 389 and 673, the legality of mitigation fees used by neighboring cities, and the city's legal authority to deny or condition development applications.
Discussion Items
- Fiscal Impact Analysis Tool: Chris and Doug presented a new model to calculate the 10-year net fiscal impact of proposed subdivisions, using Trestle Creek #1 as an example. The tool allows adjustment of variables such as density, property values, growth rates, and impact fee schedules. For Trestle Creek, the midpoint 10-year net impact was $235,000, with a range of -$14,000 to $486,000 depending on lot valuations. The tool is intended to be used upfront before developer applications proceed to Planning & Zoning and Council. It will be piloted with trusted developers before being made publicly available.
- Growth Moratorium Discussion: Rodney reviewed state code options for moratoriums (emergency and interim), both requiring a finding of "imminent peril to public health, safety, or welfare." He noted that Idaho law presumes growth must be planned for, and a moratorium cannot be used to permanently stop growth. Doug added that stopping growth in Nampa alone would not prevent Canyon County or other cities from approving development in the city's area of impact.
- Legal Analysis of Mitigation Fees: City Attorney Preston Rutter provided a detailed legal framework, explaining that Idaho is a Dillon's Rule state and that cities can only impose fees explicitly authorized by statute. Impact fees under the Idaho Development Impact Fee Act (IDIFA) can only fund capital facilities, not operational costs such as police salaries or ongoing maintenance. He warned that using fees for operations — even if labeled "voluntary" — is high risk and could lead to mandatory disgorgement plus 8% prejudgment interest if successfully challenged. He contrasted the approach taken by the City of Star, noting that their collected police and fire fees of $6.1 million with only $3.4 million spent raises questions about whether the fees are truly cost-based.
- Concerns About HB 389 and HB 673: Councilman Rodriguez and Mayor expressed frustration with the ongoing impact of HB 389 (affecting property tax revenue) and HB 673 (land designation changes), noting that HB 673 may have a larger fiscal impact than HB 389. The tool currently does not factor in HB 673, but the team will work with staff to add a mechanism where applicable.
- Private Property Rights and Developer Relations: Several council members emphasized the importance of maintaining good relationships with developers while ensuring that growth pays for growth. The city plans to meet with state legislators the following week to discuss legislative changes that could give cities more tools to manage growth.
Key Outcomes
- The fiscal impact analysis tool will be finalized, piloted with selected developers, and made publicly available after piloting.
- The city will explore adding HB 673 impacts into the tool.
- No moratorium was proposed; council acknowledged the legal hurdles and practical limitations.
- Council was advised that mandatory cash fees for operational expenses (e.g., police salaries) are not legally defensible. Instead, the city should rely on traditional tax revenue, including potential levy overrides, to fund ongoing operational needs.
- The city attorney confirmed that no significant legislative changes to mitigation fee law have occurred since the last discussion, though minor touch-ups to IDIFA may have occurred.
- Council members expressed appreciation for the legal clarity and the financial tool, noting it will help them make data-driven decisions.
Meeting Transcript
Uh in the first few fiscal years, we can um change those spend rates, but ultimately we decided that if we're gonna include the revenue of the impact fees, we have to include the costs as well. Um, but there are times where impact fees are paid for the developer, they may not be spent for that specific subdivision. The way impact fees are utilized, it's on a whole city basis. So, but we do have to spend those impact fees within eight years, it can be stretched out to 10 years. So essentially the impact fees coming in and the impact fees uh going out are a wash at the end of the 10 years. Uh lastly, population uh the increases is in population are what drives our staffing needs per 1,000 ratio, so that police FTE and the Gen Gov FTEs are driven by the population increases. With that being said, do we have any Chris Chris? If I if I may, yeah. Uh I have a question on communication. Uh, who and who and when I think you've heard me say that many times that uh I would appreciate this analysis to be done very on the front end before the developer starts spending money, etc. That uh he or she or whoever the applicant is is totally aware of what's going on. Is that the plan? That is the plan. Yeah, we are the plan is to have this tool. So it'll be totally on the front end and and before uh the developer before P and Z commission gets it, and then uh possibly the council. Correct. Okay, all the way through that. Okay. All right, any other questions, council? Yes. I'm just going back to the budget mode. I need clarification to help clarify for constituents of why 2.2 million per dollar. One of the lines in the budget was though, it's the pre-forecast general government revenues increase and about expenses increase about the 1.9 million that gap being cost. That is a great question. Unfortunately, I I don't have that information off the top of my head. Doug, I don't know if you're able to speak to that a better than I am currently. Uh that's I I couldn't hear a word, Mark, so I could hear it was Mark, but I couldn't hear what he was saying. That was actually Councillor Griffin. Counselor Griffin, this is your griffin, okay. City or fast in the still can't hear. How about now? Yep, got it. The city forecast general government revenues increasing about 8.6% while expenses increase about 9.7%, creating an estimated 1.9 million annual gap by 2030. How do we uh what do we associate that shortfall? We can say 389, but what is causing our expenses to outweigh our revenues? So there are two realities we're working with here. One is we budget for one level of service. We budget to hire so many positions, we budget to spend so much on projects. That's one reality. The actual comes in never matching the budget. We always hire a little lower than we plan on. We always spend less on the projects that we plan on. So we have to keep in focus those two different realities. Hopefully, over time we get those realities closer and closer together so we become more accurate. What the the model you're referring to was referring to where our actuals were trending. This is what the actuals are doing. The costs over time are increasing faster than the revenues. Those are the actual costs, not the budgeted costs. The actual costs will change from year to year based on city circumstances. Do we buy new property?
openpublica.com