Idaho Code
Idaho Code § 40-801 (2026)
Authority and procedure for levies.
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
IClegislature.idaho.gov
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Authority and procedure for levies.
(1) The commissioners of a county highway system, the commissioners of a county-wide highway district, and the commissioners of highway districts are empowered, for the purpose of construction and maintenance of highways and bridges under their respective jurisdictions, to make the following highway ad valorem tax levies as applied to the market value for assessment purposes within their districts:
(a) Two-tenths per cent (0.2%) of market value for assessment purposes for construction and maintenance of highways and bridges; provided that if the levy is made upon property within the limits of any incorporated city, fifty per cent (50%) of the funds shall be apportioned to that incorporated city.
(b) A special levy of eighty-four thousandth per cent (0.084%) of market value for assessment purposes to be used for any one (1) or all of the following purposes:
1. bridge maintenance and construction;
2. matching state and federal highway funds;
3. secondary highway construction;
4. secondary highway maintenance and improvements;
5. maintenance during an emergency.
No part of this levy shall be apportioned to any incorporated city.
(2) The tax levies authorized by this section shall be certified to the county auditor of the county in which the levies are made, at the same time that other tax levies are certified for other county purposes, shall be collected by the same officers and in the same manner as any other county taxes are collected, and paid into the county treasury and apportioned to the districts or taxing units in the amount that their respective levies produced, exclusive of ordinary collection fees to the county and the proper apportionment to the incorporated cities.
(3) The total levies for construction and maintenance of highways and bridges, secondary highway matching funds and construction and maintenance of bridges only, shall not exceed two hundred eighty-four thousandth per cent (0.284%) of the market value for assessment purposes.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1988–2025 · leading case: City of Sandpoint v. Indep. High. Dist., 384 P.3d 368 (Idaho 2016).
City of Sandpoint v. Indep. High. Dist., 384 P.3d 368 (Idaho 2016). “half of the property taxes collected within the city limits constituted a long-term indebtedness or liability exceeding yearly revenues that had to be, but was not, approved by the vote of two-thirds of the qualified electors; (2) the JPA did not include provisions mandatory for…”
City of Rexburg v. Madison Cnty., 764 P.2d 838 (Idaho 1988). “Madison County’s liability would not exist but for I.C. § 40-801; without the statute the county has no duty to pay over road and bridge taxes to the cities.”
East Side Hwy Dist v. Kootenai Cnty. (Idaho 2025). “3 highway districts, I.C. § 40-801; cities, I.C. § 50-235; and irrigation districts, I.”
— Idaho Code § 40-801(l)(a) — 2 cases
City of Sandpoint v. Indep. High. Dist., 384 P.3d 368 (Idaho 2016). “half of the property taxes collected within the city limits constituted a long-term indebtedness or liability exceeding yearly revenues that had to be, but was not, approved by the vote of two-thirds of the qualified electors; (2) the JPA did not include provisions mandatory for…”
City of Rexburg v. Madison Cnty., 764 P.2d 838 (Idaho 1988). “Madison County’s liability would not exist but for I.C. § 40-801; without the statute the county has no duty to pay over road and bridge taxes to the cities.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.