Ada County Highway District director: ‘I’ve had it’ with citizens advisory group
City and county planners are questioning the status quo at the Ada County Highway District — and Executive Director Bruce Wong isn’t having it.
Ahead of an meeting on Wednesday, Wong told ACHD Commission President Rebecca Arnold that he had become frustrated with pushback from the Capital Investment Citizens Advisory Committee, a group of residents and municipal planners from cities across Ada County. By law, ACHD is required to create the group, which serves as a recommending body for the commission on decisions like its budget and plans for future roadways.
“I’ve had it with that group,” Wong said in an audio recording by Southwest Ada County Alliance President Marisa Keith, who regularly records the pre-session meetings and posts them on her public Youtube account.
“They’re not happy with some of the positions I’ve made,” Wong said. “I spoke to them on Monday and said, here are the rules of engagement. The group wants more information. And from a staff perspective, I’m done — have a nice day.”
Wong declined to comment for this story. Wong refuses to comment to the media and, as such, has not provided the Statesman with a comment in at least the last year.
Wong, who joined ACHD as executive director in 2011, and his staff split with the committee on how the district should assess impact fees. These fees, which developers are charged to pay for new infrastructure needed as a result of growth, are meant to make growth pay for itself.
In fiscal year 2018, ACHD brought in $20.5 million in impact fees out of $96 million in revenues, and it is budgeted to collect $19.3 million in fiscal year 2019, out of $98 million.
Ada County, which is represented on the committee by its Strategic Planning Director Mitra Mehta-Cooper, had previously asked the district to consider changing its current impact fee structure.
ACHD’s impact fees are assessed the same throughout the county based on the number of vehicle miles that a trip generates. Ada County asked that fees vary depending on how close to current roads a new development would be located — a “service area”-based system that ACHD previously had in place until about 2011.
Some committee members say the current county-wide standards for impact fees aren’t fair to developers whose projects create fewer new demands on the district than other developments would.
ACHD policy allows impact fees to be used to buy new rights-of-way and to build new road lanes and intersections. ACHD cannot use them to improve existing roads.
That means projects built along existing infrastructure that cannot be widened — such as a project in downtown Boise or along Eagle Road in Meridian — pay impact fees only to see those funds put toward infrastructure in other parts of the county.
Highway district planners argue that all Ada County residents use roads across ACHD’s entire network, not just in their areas.
In a statement, ACHD spokeswoman Nicole DuBois wrote: “We have several advisory committees, and we always welcome their feedback. However, policy is directed by the ACHD Commission, and the Commission majority is not interested in changing the impact fee policy at this time.”
Wong debated the issue with the committee at its meeting Monday. He said ACHD’s staff wouldn’t make changes to the impact fee structure, regardless of what the committee recommended.
“For the best benefit for all folks, the rules of engagement we have right now work incredibly right now in ensuring a region-wide opportunity to work and improve a region-wide infrastructure,” he told committee members.
“If you want to have a discussion about it, it’s not wasting your time — don’t get me wrong — but it’s done,” he said. “We are going to continue to use miles traveled as the metric for impact fee operations.”
Some committee members pushed back, requesting more data to determine whether a service area-based fee would work.
“If Meridian or Eagle... is putting in a pedestrian-oriented plan, do we have data that shows that those different densities have the same impact, and should therefore pay the same fee?” asked Anne Wescott, who represents Boise.
Wong invited the members to testify at Wednesday’s ACHD meeting. When Wednesday came, Wong alerted Arnold of their possible testimony ahead of time.
“I did not want you surprised,” he told her. “If they want to stop this issue, stop growth. Easy as that.”
On Wednesday, both Mehta-Cooper and committee chair Karen Gallagher, a transportation planner in Boise City Hall, testified. They asked to further the discussion on changing the impact fee system.
Mehta-Cooper asked ACHD to provide data and records from when it made the decision to switch from the “service area” system to a countywide fee.
“We are interested in understanding the fiscal impacts of growth,” she said. “We want to see the technical analysis and the qualitative discussion from the past so we can see the rationale for going with a countywide fee.”
ACHD Commissioner Sara Baker said the district-based system didn’t work, since some districts that were “completely developed” provided “such minuscule amounts of money.”
Adopting a county fee has served ACHD well, she said. “It allows us to do our duty in building out the roads in a way we feel is the most appropriate. I don’t see any reason for us to change.“
This story was originally published December 14, 2019 at 5:00 AM.
