Lewiston Independent School District 1 v. City of Lewiston, 264 P.3d 907

City of Lewiston enacted Ordinance 4512 creating a Stormwater Utility and a stormwater fee to fund maintenance and operations.
Five government entities sued, alleging the fee was an unconstitutional tax requiring legislative authorization.
Ordinance bases fees on impervious surface area with ERUs; exemptions include small parcels, undeveloped land, or circuit-breaker status.
Revenue is organized in an enterprise fund but funds are ultimately used for non-regulatory street and stormwater maintenance activities.
Council resolutions 2008-55 and 2009-68 phased in the fee and limited expenditure to stormwater-related purposes; billing began Oct 1, 2008.
District court granted summary judgment for entities; City appealed seeking to justify the fee under police power, Revenue Bond Act, and other statutes.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is the stormwater fee an unauthorized tax?	Entities contend it is a tax levied on property owners without statutory authorization.	Lewiston asserts the fee is a regulatory charge authorized by police powers and other statutes.	Yes; the fee is an unauthorized tax, not a regulatory fee.
If it is a tax, is there any regulatory relation to the stormwater system?	Tax is not reasonably related to regulatory purposes.	Fee is reasonably tied to maintaining the stormwater system and compliance costs.	Not necessary to determine; the fee is a tax with no regulatory purpose.
Does the City have statutory or constitutional authority to enact the stormwater fee under cited provisions?	Authority exists under various statutes and constitutional provisions cited by the City.	City relies on Revenue Bond Act, Local Improvement District Code, Title 50 provisions; these fail to authorize the fee.	Waived to extent unresolved on appeal; arguments were not properly supported or argued below.

Brewster v. City of Pocatello, 115 Idaho 502 (1988) (fee versus tax; regulatory relationship; need for authorization)
Loomis v. City of Hailey, 119 Idaho 434 (1991) (two-part Loomis test for disguised taxes vs. regulatory fees)
Idaho Building Contractors Ass'n v. City of Coeur d'Alene, 126 Idaho 740 (1995) (fee must be reasonably related to regulated activity; tax implications)
Waters Garbage v. Shoshone County, 138 Idaho 648 (2003) (statutory interpretation of waste disposal fees tied to actual service)
Kootenai County Property Ass'n v. Kootenai County, 115 Idaho 676 (1989) (distinguished from Brewster; legislative authorization for certain fees)
Caesar v. State, 101 Idaho 158 (1980) (constitutional constraints on municipal powers and taxation)