‘Unacceptable’: Builders say big boost in ACHD fees could price out homebuyers

Developers are pushing back against the Ada County Highway District’s efforts to sharply increase fees that would pay for growth-related road projects — and raise new home prices — starting next year.

With roads getting more expensive to build and major construction on track in the western Treasure Valley, the Ada County Highway District has identified some 300 roadway and intersection projects — $1.83 billion worth of work — that staff predicts ACHD will need to complete over the next 20 years.

Most of those projects tie into growth, according to staff, which means that $1.3 billion of the $1.8 billion forecast can be covered through impact fees — money paid on new construction to offset the infrastructure cost of additional development.

The updated figure, calculated as part of the district’s ongoing revision to its capital improvement plan, factors in a substantial inflationary leap in building costs, marking the first “major update” in the formula since 2020, according to ACHD Director of Operations Justin Lucas. Today’s rates, set in 2022, aim to cover $630 million in projects.

Higher costs mean higher fees to buyers of new homes or commercial buildings. Depending on the direction the commissioners take, a new single-family home could see a 31% to 98% increase to the current $3,493 per-build assessment when the new rates click in this spring, depending on location. (If the commissioners hew close to the current set up, it’d be close to a 78% increase countywide.)

An initial draft called for an even bigger jump. In the past month, the ACHD managed to trim some $430 million in overall work out of the plan after talking with stakeholders and addressing public concerns, Lucas said. About $340 million of that would have been paid by impact fees.

Still, the abrupt rise seemed to catch ACHD commissioners off guard through the revision process, drawing commitments to monitor the program more closely going forward.

“I’ve sat here for almost 11 years, and we only talked about these fees once or twice,” Commissioner Kent Goldthorpe said. “Maybe I was asleep at the wheel … but I was not aware of the impact of not having these discussions over the past 11 years.”

Commissioner Patricia Nilsson echoed his concern.

“I’m going to be bird-dogging it, so that every year we update the [capital improvement plan],” Nilsson said Wednesday. “This big jump – I’m not going to tolerate it.”

Neither, it seems, are developers. Public comment filed before Wednesday’s meeting overwhelmingly came from builders and contractors, many of whom filed form letters asking the ACHD to soften its stance.

Jonathan D. Wardle is president of Brighton, a long-tenured developer that has built dozens of major projects in the Treasure Valley. In a detailed letter, he suggested “a more constrained approach to roadway capacity,” limiting the number of projects in the plan, adjusting ACHD policy to accept a lower level of service – that is, to put up with more congestion.

“The proposed impact fee increase is unacceptable — and inconsistent with the rate of impact fee collections since 2019,” Wardle wrote. “While adjustments should be made, ACHD needs to explore additional options, such as: modifying levels of service, adjusting or eliminating project scopes, lobbying for additional revenues, and indexing impact fee increases.”

In a slew of comments, business owners also acknowledged the importance of impact fees in building infrastructure, but called the new proposal too expensive, too divisive and, in some cases, arguably illegal in scope of projects it considers.

“Our challenge to the ACHD is to more clearly determine what level of development impact fees are fair and appropriate according to law,” said Clayton Conner, president of the Building Contractor Association of Southwestern Idaho. “We contend that ACHD’s currently proposed impact fee changes do not comply with Idaho law and strongly encourage you to re-evaluate how ACHD defines ‘impact fee eligible’ projects, and to which projects those fees are applied.”

One form letter, sent by multiple business owners, appealed to housing affordability. Citing a study by the National Association of Homebuilders, they argued that higher fees will be passed on to customers, placing an “undue burden” on new homebuyers.

“The proposed increase could price out an estimated thousands of families in Ada County, a devastating impact at a time when affordable housing is already out of reach for many,” the letter states.

Lucas defended his team’s methodology before the commissioners Wednesday.

“When we look at the fee, we’re not trying to hit a target number,” he said. “We’re trying to present to you a program that is defensible. We’re trying to present to you a program that we can implement, and that we feel can move forward without question.”

Boise, Meridian diverge on ‘service area’ split

Drag your cursor left or right along the above map to see the proposal for two service areas compared with the existing single-service area. Source: Ada County Highway District.

While impact fees can cover some costs, under Idaho code the money can’t be used for everything. It can’t build neighborhood streets or sidewalks, for example, and it can’t go towards remedying existing issues, Lucas told the Statesman.

But it can add lanes or extend roads to handle the additional trips the district models expect them to see. Big projects upcoming include the extension of Lake Hazel Road in Southeast Boise toward Micron’s new campus, and the widening of Linder Road, which traverses the county on a north-south route from Kuna to Eagle.

“We can only charge for the impacts of growth,” Lucas said, “not projects of the past.”

Within that, there’s latitude. This cycle, the ACHD board is weighing whether projects countywide should pay the same rate, or whether the region should be split into two districts to further localize where the money is collected and spent. The west side of the county–including Meridian, Eagle and Star–would have the most projects on the ACHD list, meaning greater expenditure and higher fees than the east side, which as drawn includes Boise. Money collected in an area would stay there; it couldn’t be used to fund projects in the other zone, Lucas said.

Ada County’s two largest cities disagree on whether to split the ACHD’s service area, and each supports the proposal that will see new buildings in their jurisdiction cost less.

ACHD staff estimates just over $1 billion in projects on the west side of the county, compared with $293 million in the east. That translates to significantly higher impact fees in places like Meridian, Star and Eagle than, say, Boise: $6,918 versus $4,610 for a single-family home. If the county stays as one unit, as it has since 2012, every new single-family home would pay $6,217.

“Meridian believes that one of the advantages of a countywide highway district is the ability to address transportation issues on a regional basis,” Mayor Robert E. Simison and the Meridian City Council wrote in a letter to the ACHD board. “Having the ability to utilize impact fees anywhere in the county where the need exists or an opportunity is identified, is the best way to ensure our countywide system delivers the best results.”

Boise Mayor Lauren McLean backed the split approach, arguing that areas with the capacity to support more traffic should pay less than those that need an overhaul.

“The proposed two-service area model is the most equitable method for ensuring that new growth pays its proportionate share of the necessary transportation system improvements,” McLean wrote. “The significant infrastructure needs in the West service [area] demand the revenue structure proposed, which aligns with the City’s commitment to responsible growth management.”

Kuna Mayor Joe Stear also supported a single district, but had a simpler request first: that the proposed line not split his city in two. As drawn, impact fees from one part of town would be different from the other, and money raised on one side of the line couldn’t fund projects on the other.

“The City of Kuna believes that impact fees produced from developments which occur within a city should ultimately serve the residents where the impact fees were collected and originated,” Stear wrote.

Public voices input on fee preferences

A public ACHD survey on the capital improvement plan garnered 347 responses. The poll, which Lucas described as “unscientific,” found that 53% supported a split between east and west services areas, while 35% favored a single area and 12% didn’t know or had no opinion.

Two-hundred and thirty-seven people added additional comments. Of those, 65 emphasized that “growth should pay for growth”--that is, developers, not taxpayers, should foot the bill for infrastructure costs, according to ACHD staff.

Fifty commenters explicitly supported raising impact fees, and 45 mentioned that money raised through impact fees should stay close to the development that generated them. Forty reiterated their opposition to partitioning the district into two service areas.

Fifty responses aired grievances with ACHD operations and management unrelated to impact fees or the capital improvement plan.

What’s next?

None of this is set until the ACHD commissioners approve it. Lucas said he plans to publish two draft plans for consideration: One with the impact fees split into two zones, and another consolidated into one. He expects public comment to open on both Nov. 12. The ACHD board has scheduled a public hearing on the drafts for Dec. 3. Once adopted, Lucas anticipates the new fee schedule would kick in March 1.

For Commissioner Alexis Pickering, much of the challenge remains.

“How can we balance the needs of everyone in the county as best as possible,” she asked, “while also making sure that we have the ability to actually pay to keep the roads as good as they are?”

For more information, go to the ACHD website.

This story was originally published November 10, 2025 at 4:00 AM.