Welcome to our New Educational Series! We kick this off with a look at Property Rights and Zoning
2024 IDAHO LEGISLATIVE SESSION
You can contact your legislators here: https://legislature.idaho.gov/legislators/whosmylegislator/
All of the land bills we were following have passed.
Bill S1403 (Senator Lakey) This bill is not well crafted or vetted, and will accelerate already out of control growth. One of the most striking sections of this bill is giving your rights on a Material Change to the government. (See video below) We believe this right should stay with the people of Idaho and not be given to the government. We will continue to pursue keeping this right with the people of Idaho.
New Life was breathed into S1293 (VanOrden and Young). This is a bill on annexations into a city. Agriculture was interested in a new definition of contiguous "...sharing a common border, however land is not contiguous if the common border is a shoestring connection." You can see how this is important in the below video on “Areas of Impact” at 00:28. We would like to note that Senator VanOrden and Representative Young were diligent and transparent in the crafting of this legislation and we thank them for that. Without addressing annexations which shoestring out into farmland, areas of impact grow rapidly,(see the Areas of Impact video below) and the “business as usual” growth at any costs would have continued.
There is time for celebration and thanks to the House of Representatives and the Senate for passing H608 a bill on Agricultural Areas of Protection. Write to your representatives and senators tell them thank you!
SUMMARY & QUESTIONS FOR YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS
Over the past decades it has been difficult for citizens to plan for their future with clear and concise guidelines for growth. This is especially important for Agriculture as we need open working lands.
S1403 remains problematic, which will be disastrous for such a far reaching change in land law. This is where the details count; especially regarding funding, taxation and how this work is going to get done. The concerns about this new law will move into the next legislative session and we will be there.
• S1403 (Lakey) still strips the citizens of Idaho of the right to a second hearing on a material change. Let’s be clear: the State is not handing this to local governments. This is a right the State is taking away from citizens and handing to local governments. Don’t lose this long-standing transparency. (See video above and why it’s important) NO on S1403
• The State of Idaho will need to provide funding for training on the new law to ensure a transition occurs in a business-like and efficient manner, as cities and counties are understaffed and overworked. Where will this funding will come from and who will provide the training as planners and municipal attorneys were not formally advised on how this bill will work in the real world of servicing the public day to day. How will the State deal with conflicting aspects of this law with existing statues, particular regarding Planning and Zoning?
• The State of Idaho must recognize that funding may be needed for litigation as this bill first negates decades long agreements between cities and counties, creating the perfect storm for disputes; and then moves from a negotiation process to litigation to resolve disputes. Will elected officials be informing their constituents that they will be paying for this? Also, why should city residents, who are county residents as well, shoulder the tax burden resulting from these disputes? Will elected officials be informing their constituents in cities of this?
• H608, the agricultural protection areas, has passed. How will county governments simultaneously accept applications to protect farmland at the same time they are drawing new areas of city impact boundaries?
• Will the State of Idaho recognize that it is of the utmost necessity to communicate clearly and concisely with the public of what is happening to their individual property and how they should plan for their future? This information is especially vital for farmers and ranchers as they try to protect their right to farm. Will the State lead the need to educate the citizens about these new laws?
• Will this bill pave the way for planned communities and estate “farms” in counties and further tax our water supply and the resources of the county and its working lands?
• What happens when a city’s water treatment system is on county land through a long standing agreement, but this land is not in the county of the city? What happens if this county determines it doesn’t want the treatment plant in its county? How many litigants would there be and who would pay for litigation? If the county wants the removal of the plant, who pays for this?
• How will the State address instances where a county district is fully within a city’s area of impact or city limits, with few to no voters in the county, and yet it is electing officials to make decisions for the county? What happens when litigation occurs between the city and county in this instance?
• The bill has had a major change, increasing the area of impact of a city from 1 mile to 2 miles, and yet the bill was released on March 4 and is pushing for a quick vote. Since this bill was not formally vetted. It was created in an echo chamber and the author has rejected input from professional associations, and no record has been presented as to how it was reviewed with commissioners and mayors or their position on this matter, the real push should be for due diligence and transparency.
Lastly, S1403 cites the 1998 case of Blaha as the need to make this change now. The existing practice of a county adopting city standards via the area of city impact ordinance is consistent with Blaha. The civil prosecutors in our 44 counties would have recognized an issue with their codes sometime over the past 23 years. Also, the University of Idaho College of Law issued Report 12-01 that extensively reviewed the law surrounding area of city impact agreements and did find that the statute had been invalidated by Blaha. (See https://webpages.uidaho.edu/webteam/law/aoi/Area-of-City-Impact-Agreements-in-Idaho-Text.pdf) Has the House or the Senate asked for a review of this interpretation?
PROTECT LAWS THAT PROTECT YOU
In 1975, laws were established to promote the health, safety and general welfare of the people of the state of Idaho. These laws allows Idaho citizens to determine how they want to live in their cities and counties by outlining how they should plan their cities and counties.
When the law is written to protect you, make sure you protect it.
Material Change Hearing
Title 67-6509 (b)
Material Change Hearing: Following consideration by the governing board, if the governing board makes a material change in the recommendation or alternative options contained in the recommendation by the commission concerning adoption, amendment or repeal of a plan, further notice and hearing shall be provided before the governing board adopts, amends or repeals the plan.
Planning to Protect You and Your Community
Title 67, Chapter 6502
CHAPTER 65
LOCAL LAND USE PLANNING
67-6502. Purpose. The purpose of this act shall be to promote the health, safety and general welfare of the people of the state of Idaho as follows:
(a) To protect property rights while making accommodations for other necessary types of development such as low-cost housing and mobile home parks.
(b) To ensure that adequate public facilities and services are provided to the people at reasonable cost.
(c) To ensure that the economy of the state and localities is protected.
(d) To ensure that the important environmental features of the state and localities are protected.
(e) To encourage the protection of prime agricultural, forestry and mining lands and land uses for production of food, fiber and minerals, as well as the economic benefits they provide to the community.
(f) To encourage urban and urban-type development within incorporated cities.
When an annexation law is being exploited, it’s time to revisit it. Remove Category A annexations.
TITLE 50
MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS
CHAPTER 2
GENERAL PROVISIONS — GOVERNMENT — TERRITORY
50-222. Annexation by cities. (1) Legislative intent. The legislature hereby declares and determines that it is the policy of the state of Idaho that cities of the state should be able to annex lands which are reasonably necessary to assure the orderly development of Idaho’s cities in order to allow efficient and economically viable provision of tax-supported and fee-supported municipal services, to enable the orderly development of private lands which benefit from the cost-effective availability of municipal services in urbanizing areas and to equitably allocate the costs of public services in management of development on the urban fringe.
(3) Annexation classifications. Annexations shall be classified and processed according to the standards for each respective category set forth herein. The three (3) categories of annexation are:
(a) Category A: Annexations wherein:
(i) All private landowners have consented to annexation. Annexation where all landowners have consented may extend beyond the city area of impact provided that the land is contiguous to the city and that the comprehensive plan includes the area of annexation;
(ii) Any residential enclaved lands of less than one hundred (100) privately owned parcels, irrespective of surface area, which are surrounded on all sides by land within a city or which are bounded on all sides by lands within a city and by the boundary of the city’s area of impact; or
(iii) The lands are those for which owner approval must be given pursuant to subsection (5)(b)(v) of this section.