At a special meeting, Nampa Mayor Clegg and the City Council discussed whether the city can legally use so-called mitigation fees to cover service costs developers’ projects impose. City legal counsel Preston told the council Idaho law places strict limits on when a city may exact fees and that fees used as general revenue risk being treated as taxes.

Preston opened with the constitutional and statutory framework, distinguishing the city’s police power (regulation of health, safety and welfare) from taxation authority, which he said the state legislature grants. He emphasized the difference between user fees — charged for discrete services such as pool admissions or utility hookups — and taxes, which raise general revenue. "You can't have a user fee that's disguised as a tax," Preston said, noting courts look closely at whether a fee is voluntary and proportionate.

The memo and discussion referenced nearby jurisdictions' practices after House Bill 389 reduced some local taxing capacity. Preston said some cities have relied on fee statutes to backfill revenue shortfalls; he argued that approach runs legal risk and cited recent case law, including Hillview Mobile Park v. Pocatello and a Buckskin case example, as authorities that limit using fees to substitute for taxes. He also described how conditional use permit (CUP) exactions have a narrow, case-by-case role where a truly voluntary, proportionate contribution tied to a specific development impact may be upheld in court: "It has to be truly, truly voluntary," he said.

Council members pressed practical and policy questions. Councilman Griffin asked whether a fix would require legislative or constitutional change; Preston said a legislative solution is the more realistic path and that amending the constitution would be a heavier lift. Councilman Reynolds argued the city should avoid approaches that make housing less affordable and recommended focusing on public education and lobbying the legislature to address the consequences of HB 389.

Daniel of development services confirmed Nampa currently collects fees for service and legally authorized impact fees but does not levy an operational mitigation fee that could be used for ongoing personnel or operations. Several council members and Preston warned against using one-time developer payments to support ongoing costs such as police salaries, noting the mismatch between one-time funds and continuing expenditures.

By the end of the discussion, council members expressed reluctance to pursue a citywide mitigation fee given the legal constraints. The mayor asked whether the council wished to readdress the topic; the prevailing view was not to pursue it further absent legislative change. The council then voted to adjourn into executive session under Idaho Code 74-206(1)(c).