[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6269894,"mediaKeyId","3039873-390c5367c55133596e672267d60e263d","parentId",3039873,"title","Workshop presenters warn House Bill 389 and follow‑up laws will reduce future property‑tax capacity for Nampa","audioSeconds",2874,"startMs",4521000,"endMs",7395000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3039873-390c5367c55133596e672267d60e263d&start=4521&end=7395","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3039873-390c5367c55133596e672267d60e263d/thumbnail_4521000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6269894/Nampa/Canyon-County/Idaho/Workshop-presenters-warn-House-Bill-389-and-followup-laws-will-reduce-future-propertytax-capacity-for-Nampa","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6269894-257c2e5c49ab0a3f6ee84cd5dba40a52/orig.mp4?Expires=1771202880&Signature=RWYIn9ZCK-TzLyO8uwdg8Q2zCmogx7lnk78J7ePPYcC33dSw4DHT8i7T2j60Crj~YkwUG3Vn9O6RrQtlRbhEAnfo-XliG5SmiyPVcPJ9M7Qr2PT3ULGj~mSfUnBE3q1vD-SqtYRpiaZBdd4-o6yWG4qVrlUZspBx0hE1jjy-VcE5gpp9g8cahkyX0z4YKC3j1-OivUQjJBjPmVedqtC9AtFiwuy-byjscEISOWLwvnhKvn5U~V8YZ1B0zRXD5L7FBevzbOndkkf0l-rdOPlCz0dJqh8ZlxX3pNZR5EQnWTxn-gEer38t5~F~VG5I31hzZ22Bvrw~4BajEu452oznPg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City Council of Nampa ID","date","2025-04-17T16:44:59.113Z","article","City of Nampa officials and Canyon County representatives used Thursday’s workshop to explain how recent state legislative changes — primarily House Bill 389 (2021) and related follow‑up measures — alter how new construction and land‑use changes are counted for municipal property‑tax budgeting, and to outline the fiscal implications for the city.

Presenters described two linked changes. First, HB 389 modified the “new construction” increment used to compute the additional property‑tax capacity that a growing city can budget: local governments now receive 90% of the new‑construction increment (and lower percentages in some special cases) instead of the prior 100%. Second, later legislation removed the land‑use‑change component (the increase in land value when land is rezoned from, for example, agricultural to residential or industrial) from the new‑construction increment that cities could add to their budgets.

Steve Onofrey, chief deputy in the Canyon County treasurer’s office, and Doug Racine (finance staff) explained that the two changes together reduce the tax capacity that would otherwise accompany growth. Onofrey and county staff ran retrospective scenarios showing that in Nampa’s historical average the land‑use portion represented a meaningful share of the prior new‑construction increment. Rick (mayor’s office chief of staff) summarized the combined effect as a roughly double reduction: the land‑use increment was removed and the remaining value is reduced by 10% at budget time.

Fiscal illustration: presenters showed model runs and examples intended to quantify the gap. Using the city’s recent patterns, staff estimated that the combined changes reduce the city’s annual property‑tax capacity by multiple millions of dollars compared with the pre‑HB‑389 approach. One presenter showed a cumulative difference on the order of several million dollars across recent years (a cited per‑year shortfall figure of roughly $3.3 million appeared in workshop slides), and staff warned that the gap compounds over time as budgets and service demands grow. Presenters also noted smaller but related changes — for example, later adjustments that altered foregone and homeowner‑exemption timing — that add complexity and can create one‑year tax cancellations or offsets when exemptions are filed late.

“House Bill 389 changed the new‑construction formula so you don't get as much of that increment,” said Rick (mayor’s office chief of staff), describing the legislation’s intent to limit year‑to‑year property‑tax increases. Presenters argued the policy shifted more of the cost of municipal services onto existing taxpayers or into foregone balances, rather than letting new construction pay fully for the incremental service demands it creates.

Public‑safety example: finance staff presented a simplified scenario to show how growth‑funding compares with the cost of providing services. In the example — a hypothetical 350‑home subdivision with an improvement value of roughly $300,000 per home — the modelled property‑tax increment (before additional adjustments) yielded an estimated annual tax revenue in the low hundreds of thousands of dollars; projected recurring police and support costs to serve the new population were larger. Staff said the gap in the example widens if the new‑construction capture is reduced (as it has been by recent legislation) and if inflation and personnel costs are included.

Council reaction and next steps: elected officials in the workshop raised two consistent themes: (1) a need for broader outreach to state legislators and regional partners because the fiscal effects are statewide and (2) a need to examine local policy responses (for example, using foregone, adjusting impact fees, or reconsidering approval pace on some projects). Council members suggested inviting the city’s state legislators to a follow‑up briefing and urged county and city staff to refine the modelling and share the underlying data.

Staff cautioned that some of the relief lawmakers have provided in the 2024 session (one‑time or temporary state credits) may not be durable and that budgets should be prepared for longer‑term effects. “This is not felt in year one or two,” said Doug Racine; presenters said the compounding effect becomes more visible in years three to five and substantial over a decade.

Ending: No policy decision was made at the workshop; staff said they would finish refinements to the financial model, provide the underlying data to council, and consider next steps that could include local budget decisions, outreach to legislators, and joint regional advocacy.
","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","April 17, 2025 - City Council and P&Z Comm. Joint Special Meeting Workshop","oneSentenceSummary","City and county presenters told a Nampa workshop that House Bill 389 and related legislation have reduced how much of new construction the city may add to its property‑tax budget, creating a multi‑million‑dollar gap that will compound over time unless addressed.","taxTitle","Nampa, Canyon County, Idaho","taxId",2629,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6269899,"Nampa council workshop reviews proposed changes to sign code near I‑84 and temporary-sign rules",4288,212000,4500000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3039873-390c5367c55133596e672267d60e263d&start=212&end=4500","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3039873-390c5367c55133596e672267d60e263d/thumbnail_212000.jpg","/articles/6269899/Nampa/Canyon-County/Idaho/Nampa-council-workshop-reviews-proposed-changes-to-sign-code-near-I84-and-temporary-sign-rules","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6269899-170d4568fd18af14c6e9d661eb49baff/orig.mp4?Expires=1771202880&Signature=AN30tb2t9fbh8d51bbjcF~6mbzR4zHCw2V4WUZP8m6TamIF5atnn2S0CYg0EKpJG~Or8F~UkAFJAnnujI6zytpRUDcUUFh98prLyKXHjgYM3FmdAsogBont5Wc-rvI7R6OvILr7mtBib~-JLMYOIKx2smrKq4tXbmZMV1lri2IZUqvEi94qTPUufguOrhrpevFVmQ9iDS9n4DBeaVWegGAtb4z-rbTj~sKRCgABQINxr9y2zWJOMx8CHEetZQnMqAuzB2hUM7vinnwWLMpkzbhLbpExxpGcF-QdEVBamfxtTih2wAJe-7vt7pjAZFPUxwlAvGScp2WFCJrIOzm32tg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","City of Nampa planning staff on Thursday outlined proposed amendments to Title 10, Chapter 23 of the municipal code that would change how freestanding (pole or monument) signs near Interstate 84 and several categories of temporary signs are regulated.

The proposed freestanding‑sign standard would allow property owners to locate a non‑billboard, pole or monument sign up to 60 feet above the freeway grade when the sign is within 600 feet of the I‑84 center line, with a maximum cap of 80 feet measured from the grade of the subject property. Staff emphasized that the sign face‑area limits would not change: the current rule of 1.5 square feet per linear foot of street frontage or 200 square feet maximum would remain in force.

The proposed temporary‑sign updates would reorganize the code, remove obsolete definitions, clarify types (lawn signs, construction signs, feather banners, two‑post banners, fence banners, wall banners, pole banners, flags, A‑frames and inflatables), and introduce a permit labeling program so enforcement can identify permit status and expiration at a glance. Staff suggested limiting many banner types to an upper size of 40 square feet, retaining existing spacing requirements (generally a 5‑foot spacing; fence banners 10 feet) and allowing certain temporary elements — for example inflatables — for a maximum of 90 days per calendar year when a permit is obtained. Staff also proposed keeping lawn and construction signs as currently allowed (no permit required), while some banner types and engineered flagpoles would require permits.

Why this matters: staff and council said the changes respond to repeated variance requests for taller freeway signage and to persistent complaints about long‑standing, weathered temporary displays. Planning staff said granting a defined height allowance within a fixed distance of the freeway would reduce the number of variance applications coming before planning and zoning and city council, and a labeling program would make enforcement of time limits and removal easier.

“Do you think that this is appropriate language?” said Christie (Planning & Zoning staff) when she sought council direction on the subcommittee proposal. Councilman Sebastian Griffin said he would oppose allowing higher skyline signage: “I don't want the skyline being littered and covered with billboards,” he said, arguing for a more conservative approach. Other council members and planning commissioners urged staff to show photographic examples and explained specific local concerns — for example, where freeway grade and overpasses make sight lines uneven and why measuring from centerline grade matters for consistency.

Council members and commissioners raised several recurring issues during the discussion: whether taller signs could create a “blanketing” or clustering effect, whether billboards and off‑premise advertising should be treated separately (staff said they are), how the Highway 16 specific area plan and other area plans interact with the proposed corridor rules, and the operational capacity of planning and code enforcement to track permits. Planning staff said Idaho Transportation Department reviews remain relevant for vision‑clearance issues, but the state leaves sign size and height to local regulation.

Views diverged on temporary signs. Some commissioners and council members defended feather banners and similar devices as useful marketing tools, particularly for new subdivisions and grand openings, and recommended exemptions or separate treatment for residential subdivision sales offices. Others described repeated cases of faded, torn banners becoming eyesores and urged stronger limits or more active enforcement. Several members suggested allowing feather banners for very short, event‑level periods (for example, a one‑ or two‑day open‑house), while still requiring permits and an expiration label for recurring uses.

Direction and next steps: the council did not take a formal vote at the workshop. By consensus, staff was directed to refine the draft ordinance language, work with the Nampa Chamber of Commerce and a subcommittee that includes developers and small‑business representatives, and return with a public‑hearing draft and an accompanying sign guidebook. Staff projected returning with code changes and the guidebook in summer (July–August) and emphasized that enforcement of existing language for torn, faded or damaged signs remains possible under current code.

The discussion also recorded technical clarifications: the 600‑foot measurement is from the centerline grade of I‑84, spacing rules for freestanding signs remain in the code, and the Highway 16 specific area plan will continue to govern signage on that corridor.

Council members asked staff to include clear public notice materials for the public hearing (including what is not on the table, such as adding new billboards — the city has a cap on new billboards) and to present the design‑review code references that govern materials and pole coverings. Mayor Christie summarized the direction to staff: refine the freeway height language, limit the number of temporary sign types that require permits, develop the permit label program for enforcement, involve the Chamber, and bring a public‑hearing package this summer.

Ending: Staff will return with a public‑hearing packet and a sign guidebook this summer; no ordinance was adopted at the workshop.
","City staff presented proposed amendments to Title 10, Chapter 23 to allow higher freestanding signs within 600 feet of I‑84 and to clarify/permit some temporary signs. Council and planning commissioners asked staff to refine language, work with the Nampa Chamber of Commerce and return with a public‑hearing draft this summer.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Workshop presenters warn House Bill 389 and follow‑up laws will reduce future property‑tax capacity for Nampa

Nampa council workshop reviews proposed changes to sign code near I‑84 and temporary-sign rules