Ada County seeks Meridian cooperation on countywide impact fees for jail, EMS and coroner services

Ada County representatives briefed the Meridian City Council on Dec. 17 on a proposal to implement countywide development impact fees to pay for growth‑related capital needs in the jail, emergency medical services and the coroner’s office. The presentation by Tischler Bise, the county’s consultant, laid out the incremental‑expansion methodology used to calculate “maximum supportable” fees and sample per‑unit charges.

Consultant Colin McQueen said the study “supports this maximum” and clarified that Ada County “can’t go above that maximum,” adding that cities may adopt lower fees if they choose. The study included sample figures for the three service categories: the consultant cited examples such as roughly $516 per single‑family home for jail‑related facilities, about $117 per single‑family home for EMS, and about $59 per single‑family home for coroner services. The consultants and county staff said the overall combined countywide maximum for the three categories would be in the range the study produced but emphasized cities could adopt lower amounts.

City staff attorney and city management warned councilmembers that Idaho law limits the reach of county ordinances inside incorporated cities, so a countywide program will require participating cities to take local steps: the county needs intergovernmental agreements, adoption of the county capital improvement plans (CIPs) into each city’s comprehensive plan, and ultimately a local development impact fee ordinance. City staff proposed a four‑step, incremental approach: enter an intergovernmental agreement that preserves the council’s final decision, review and consider the county CIPs, pause until other jurisdictions align to avoid an “unlevel playing field,” and only then adopt the ordinance that would authorize collection within city limits. Staff said the intergovernmental agreement could include protections — for example indemnification — to make the county legally responsible for defense of the program.

Councilmembers asked how the county commissioners would use the CIPs and whether the county would adopt the CIPs at maximum levels; county representatives said commissioners intend to include maximum supportable levels but not yet start widespread collection on unincorporated developments without city participation. Several councilmembers also urged legislative clarification of the county’s authority; county staff said the difference between ACHD’s statutory authority and a county authority is partly constitutional and may not be solved by a statute change alone.

No formal council action was requested or taken; the item was presented for information and to seek direction. Staff said they will return with draft intergovernmental agreement language and additional analysis if the council wishes to proceed with more in‑depth review and negotiation with Ada County.