Alleged violation of Idaho law in County Commissioners decision to raise building fees (Updated)

Update as of September 24, 2026: County Clerk Janeen LeWan had addressed a post on Facebook regarding the advanced public notice issue for the September 9, 2026 special County Commissioners meeting. Ms. LeWan stated, in part: "The public notice for the September 9, 2026 public hearing was published on August 26, 2026 and September 2, 2026, prior to the hearing.

The Clerk’s Office receives an Affidavit of Publication from the newspaper, and we also confirmed publication by reviewing copies of both newspapers containing the published public notice. These records verify both publication dates. Anyone who would like to review or request documentation of the publications is welcome to contact the Benewah County Clerk’s Office. These records are available to the public."

An anonymous source sent us a tip on recent actions taken by the Benewah County Commissioners regarding an increase in building fees.

According to our source, the County Commissioners voted unanimously to raise building fees and that this violates Idaho Code § 31-870, which states in part, ""Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a board of county commissioners may impose and collect fees for those services provided by the county which would otherwise be funded by ad valorem tax revenues. The fees collected pursuant to this section shall be reasonably related to, but shall not exceed, the actual cost of the service being rendered."

There's also a procedural companion, § 63-1311A, which requires a taxing district (counties included) to hold a public hearing with advance published notice before approving any fee increase greater than 5% of the amount last collected, or before imposing a brand-new fee. Skipping that hearing when required doesn't make the fee amount illegal, but it makes the fee increase voidable — the statute says so explicitly.

The legal theory is sound — Idaho law does forbid a county fee from generating revenue in excess of what it actually costs to provide the underlying service. Counties are supposed to have some study, cost allocation analysis, or staff memo justifying the fee amount when they adopt or raise it. If commissioners didn't have one, or ignored one showing lower costs, that would be strong evidence of a violation of Idaho law.

Further, a single surplus year isn't proof of a violation (departments can lawfully build in some reserve or account for lumpy capital costs), but a sustained, substantial surplus specifically tied to that fee is the kind of pattern courts and auditors look at. Finally, did the required § 63-1311A hearing actually happen, if the increase was more than 5% or was a new fee?

Our source also informed us that long-time Building Inspector, Tina Thomson, was terminated, and our source believes it was because she disagreed with the increase of fees in the Building Department. We contacted the Building Department and they confirmed that Tina Thomson is no longer working for the county.

If these allegations are true, the venue that would address these grievances is a civil court suit, as these kinds of provisions get enforced through litigation brought by someone harmed by the fee — typically a person or business that paid it, or a county taxpayer generally, suing in district court for a declaratory judgment that the fee violates the statute, an injunction against continued collection, and/or a refund. If the commissioners skipped the § 63-1311A hearing for an increase over 5%, that's an independently actionable defect — the statute itself says the fee is "voidable."