Public raises concerns about TischlerBise student‑generation assumptions; board plans follow‑up and possible ISBA resolution on impact fees
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
A public commenter criticized the district’s consultant report on student generation and developer contributions, urging payment hold and suggesting the board pursue a state‑level impact‑fee resolution; the board agreed to pursue further review and to invite the consultant back for Q&A.
A public commenter urged the Teton School District board to withhold payment to the consultant authoring the student‑generation and developer contribution report (transcript: multiple transcriber variants of the firm name). The commenter said the report’s assumptions — measuring student impact by construction worker presence rather than by residents of newly built housing, using income assumptions that could inappropriately shift service expectations, and amortizing modular classroom costs over an unrealistic timeframe — materially understate local facility needs.
The commenter cited U.S. Census figures for Teton County and the consultant’s own projection of nearly 2,600 new housing units over 10 years to argue that, using the county’s child‑household rate (about 26%), the district could expect roughly 676 additional students in the next decade. Using that annualized estimate, the public commenter argued the district would need far more modular capacity sooner than the consultant’s amortized cost model implies and that developer contributions proposed in the report (packet cited $3,000,000) would not meet projected facility costs. The public commenter asked the board to rescind payment until further conversations with the consultant and proposed the district, TEA and Idaho Education Association sponsor an ISBA (Idaho School Boards Association) resolution to request legislative authority to levy developer impact fees (currently not allowed under state law, per the meeting exchange).
Board members acknowledged the concerns and discussed bringing the consultant back for detailed questions. One board member recommended a working‑session review and flagged issues in the report that staff had already been asked to check. The board scheduled follow‑up: staff will attempt to reconvene with the consultant to clarify methodology and data sources, bring any required corrections back to the board, and consider drafting a policy resolution for the ISBA regarding impact‑fee authority.
No formal policy change or payment rescission occurred at the meeting; the board set the item for additional review and to place an ISBA impact‑fee resolution discussion on a future agenda month (April was discussed for a policy conversation).