NIBCA Lawsuit Settlement
The lawsuit brought by North Idaho Building Contractors Association (NIBCA) and Termac Construction against the City has, after more than 7 years, been settled. Going forward, both parties are committed to working closer together on issues that affect both parties. In addition, the City agreed to put an NIBCA member on its Impact Fee Committee.
July 2019 - The City has incurred costs in the matter of NIBCA v. City of Hayden since 2012. The City was sued and forced to defend a lawsuit brought by the North Idaho Builders and Contractors Association asking for all of their money back for hooking on to the City sewer because they thought it was an illegal tax. The City defended that the fee was reasonable, authorized by State Law and that they received what they paid for. The settlement of the case is pending judge approval. The cost to defend the suit and settlement is included in the new O&M fee with an end date of 5 years.
January 2019 - The Supreme Court heard oral arguments back in August of 2018, and handed down its decision last month on December 28th 2018 concerning the NIBCA lawsuit against the City for what they argued were illegal sewer fees. The court found that the District Judge errored in not allowing in the FCS study which supports the City’s position that the CAP/Connection fee was reasonable. For that reason and others the Supreme Court invalidated the award of $729,403.58 plus interest and attorney fees of $219,707.77 and sent the matter back to the District Court with directions to consider the FCS study and other information brought forward by either party to determine the reasonableness of the fee. At this time there is no amount of money due to either party. If Hayden can show that the CAP Fees were collected, allocated and spent in support of its sewer system it will establish that the fees were appropriately charged. Allowing the City to present evidence that now supports the 2007 CAP Fee does not offend notions of fair play and justice. The Supreme Court said that, “Allowing the District Court’s determination to stand could lead to a windfall to developers at taxpayer expense.”