[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6537315,"mediaKeyId","3626163-91919e51cb3925738a2329acb4f82691","parentId",3626163,"title","Council reviews draft impact‑fee study; schedules work sessions to shape capital improvement plan and ordinance","audioSeconds",1628,"startMs",1972000,"endMs",3600000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3626163-91919e51cb3925738a2329acb4f82691&start=1972&end=3600","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3626163-91919e51cb3925738a2329acb4f82691/thumbnail_1972000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6537315/Idaho-Falls/Bonneville-County/Idaho/Council-reviews-draft-impactfee-study-schedules-work-sessions-to-shape-capital-improvement-plan-and-ordinance","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6537315-7844f7b3796c661865448ab311ce4133/orig.mp4?Expires=1770448520&Signature=Jq6sFcLW5MZwtYz31BKA1aLRAKyZ8BCec8SCH0cIFu2Un1s20N827PVYbnOszf3iB1ZSvoNzXOFQLPIV5vuXFDaErn~PrsNK0Z0SgLyiGIeQcQXOjNiFDZl683hlHCPOH5CkmZhNyNM7Ko2lumZYL56HzPAcZO3dntiAUdQCEFA1h6PiJYxw~86X7nqLJzLyIF2H-AKtzdMKOlmRTVWfGVGChPdvLPEFhrT7TaSp0N47WEqfhTmBpiJnZzpzgrmJx8hcgXUH9JHGahqjobj2DotAO~6SH9guV9AqlTeevrpyoOce9uZ0LPaQqFLSQfl~0iRCPsUZ0WvA~owSJAzrRw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Idaho Falls City","date","2025-06-02T00:00:00Z","article","The Idaho Falls City Council met with consultant Colin Almon to review a draft development impact‑fee study and the related capital improvement plan (CIP). Council members asked clarifying questions about how the study defines park amenities, values land versus improvements, treats mixed‑use buildings and residential square footage, and accounts for construction‑cost inflation.

The consultant and staff explained methodology
Almon said the study treats park “amenities” as capital items that expand capacity (playfields, playgrounds, ballfield lights, shelters), and that land purchase and development costs are modeled separately. The consultant reported a weighted‑average valuation for an amenity of about $113,000 and said the study projects a five‑year growth‑related need of roughly 53 acres of developed park space and about 21 park amenities.

Almon said lighting for ballfields is an eligible amenity because lights expand usable hours and therefore capacity. Trails inside civic parks were treated as park amenities; an independent citywide trail network was not included in the park amenity counts.

Residential square footage and mixed uses
The draft study applies a square‑footage approach to residential fees to make fees proportionate across house sizes and to reduce per‑door distortions between single‑family and multifamily units. Almon said the demographic inputs (persons per household) were drawn from the American Community Survey for Idaho Falls. He also explained that for mixed‑use nonresidential buildings the city’s permitting process will attribute square footage to the appropriate nonresidential category (retail, office, industrial, institutional) so each use is charged the relevant nonresidential fee.

Fee sufficiency, timing and CIP flexibility
Almon and staff noted the draft study projects that the city will collect about $6 million in impact fees over a near term while the CIP lists needs that exceed that amount; staff said the CIP can exceed fee collections but the city cannot use impact fees for projects that do not meet the growth‑related level of service established in the study. The consultant recommended including an inflationary index (for example, the ENR construction cost index) so cost estimates keep pace with market changes.

Process and timeline
Council and staff set a sequence of work sessions: a June 23 deep dive into the CIP and impact questions; a July 7 session focused on definitions (including what counts in square footage, e.g., finished vs. unfinished basements and garages); a July 28 session to discuss the ordinance; and an August 11 review of the updated ordinance and study. Staff said a public rollout and training for Development Services is planned, and that any formal ordinance adoption would come back to council at a later date (staff indicated planning for fall adoption but did not set a final adoption date).

Council questions and next steps
Councilors asked about: how the study counts very expensive single amenities versus many small amenities; whether fee revenues should be earmarked for arterial reimbursements; how the city handles a developer that tries to classify space to reduce fees; and whether removing a separate “neighborhood park” category would affect local projects. Staff said the ordinance already allows adjustments for multi‑use permits and that additional definition language could be added to reduce interpretation risk. Almon said trip generation inputs for transportation fees were taken from Institute of Transportation Engineers data and that vehicle‑trip projections are an estimate based on current housing and nonresidential square‑footage stock.

Ending
Council set a multi‑meeting schedule to refine definitions, CIP priorities and ordinance language and asked staff and the consultant to provide follow‑up information ahead of the next work session.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Idaho Falls City - City Council Work Session - Jun 02, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Council members questioned how the draft impact‑fee study values park amenities, handles residential square footage, and treats mixed‑use/nonresidential uses; consultant Colin Almon answered questions and the council set a series of work sessions to refine the capital improvement plan, definitions and ordinance language before potential adoption.","taxTitle","Idaho Falls, Bonneville County, Idaho","taxId",4472,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6537320,"Idaho Falls to solicit highest-and-best offers for parcel adjacent to Pine Crest; CC&Rs must be cleared by seller",1851,85000,1936000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3626163-91919e51cb3925738a2329acb4f82691&start=85&end=1936","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3626163-91919e51cb3925738a2329acb4f82691/thumbnail_85000.jpg","/articles/6537320/Idaho-Falls/Bonneville-County/Idaho/Idaho-Falls-to-solicit-highest-and-best-offers-for-parcel-adjacent-to-Pine-Crest-CCRs-must-be-cleared-by-seller","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6537320-fafaea0480828ce1c6d6642d2b91980d/orig.mp4?Expires=1770448520&Signature=nQ9CQbnou3sUnkITG9ic7IRN5JI~b7xXvcxjavfJzgeTvFFaAz6BsWx1Cxq4dWXDyj9Qi6UjSugNbkfFizXK2v8wXiYfuyTwZBNoukfCxf6fqap3MXUJAsLNaO0jsXwhjlSGvqgJSQW8Ti4FLIAjuH9SL-LHJL1gafXsrMvfQOnN5C~JGwRNqUnkURdCDuWSYaX7kWEXuWeFrrI9~oITmn8Bb6Nl1jPpd2rVJ38iyf8Io1hqrTlRyVdIE-yj2rVbNtWH2lcZgHEMegWR96f6Xz96i6QM0lsD-QfhcpbMJEqEPjPjOcbTb0haiqA~JKt0R5jrD49DldGVbEfC2jS22A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Idaho Falls City Council on an administrative motion directed staff to solicit highest-and-best offers and return them to the council for review for a city-owned parcel adjacent to Pine Crest Golf Course, provided the selling party records amendments or otherwise clears the property’s CC&Rs before the city delivers title.

The parcel was donated to the city and staff said a March 2022 appraisal put a prior valuation near $1.9 million. A new appraisal completed in November 2024, after staff reviewed title restrictions, estimated the land “as is” at about $1.6 million assuming the CC&Rs are corrected, staff said. Kirkham Appraisals (Pocatello) conducted the updated appraisal, staff reported.

Why it matters: the parcel sits next to areas slated for redevelopment and council members debated trade-offs between selling the land to a private developer, holding it for future city uses, or using sale proceeds to support Parks & Recreation programs. Staff said proceeds from any sale would return to Parks & Recreation because the land was donated to that department.

Background and staff recommendation
Staff reported that the property had been listed previously and that a cash purchase contract for about $2,000,000 fell out of escrow when title restrictions surfaced. Because the CC&Rs appear to date from roughly the early 1950s, they block delivery of clean title to a buyer until an amendment is recorded, staff said. Broker Nick Terry told the council he has obtained verbal commitments from enough adjacent owners to proceed with amending the CC&Rs (he said a roughly two‑thirds ownership agreement would be required) and that he expects to collect final signatures soon.

Staff asked council for parameters to allow the city and the selected broker to solicit “highest and best” offers — meaning bidders submit nonnegotiable top offers that staff would present to council. Staff said it expects to receive roughly three offers to present. Council asked staff to return offers to the council for review rather than authorizing staff to accept the highest offer on the city’s behalf.

Council debate and concerns
Council members asked about potential uses, environmental or infrastructure constraints and the property’s relationship to nearby development. Some members urged caution about selling at a depressed market price and raised opportunity‑cost concerns, noting the parcel’s proximity to redeveloped commercial and residential corridors and the potential for higher‑value uses. Others said the property has proven difficult for the city to develop because of title restrictions and physical constraints, that staff had already studied park alternatives, and that proceeds could seed future parks or facility work.

Technical constraints
Staff said the property has an irrigation easement near Wade Street and that a previously considered retention‑pond concept included major earthwork: staff described the pond concept as a multi‑million dollar undertaking (staff referenced a total project figure of roughly $3,000,000 and said blasting for some earthwork could cost in the hundreds of thousands to about $1,000,000 depending on scope). Those technical and access issues were part of staff’s rationale for recommending the city seek offers rather than attempting a city development project.

Formal action and vote
Council member Freeman moved to solicit highest‑and‑best offers and to return offers to council for review; Council member Francis seconded. Councilor Larson, Council member Francis, Council member Freeman, Councilor Damon, Councilor Radford and Councilor Brunner voted yes on a roll call. The motion carried. The motion’s text as read at the meeting specified: solicit highest-and-best offers, require the selling party to clear the CC&Rs prior to conveyance, and present offers to council for review (no city commitment to accept any offer).

What happens next
Staff and the broker will solicit highest‑and‑best offers under the council parameters and return the offers to council for review. If an offer is acceptable, the council would later take a separate formal vote to approve a purchase and sale agreement or other disposition. Staff said proceeds from any sale would be restricted to Parks & Recreation uses because of the original donation.

Key quotes
“Instead of relying on that corporation that kept giving us false promises … I ended up going to some of the neighbors and … I’m ready to go get those signatures,” broker Nick Terry said, describing efforts to secure the CC&R amendments.

“We were donated [the property] for that with a value of 670,000 at the time,” Parks staff said of the 2016 donation, describing earlier appraisal history and the original intended use as park/retention and irrigation.

Councilor Freeman introduced the motion to solicit highest-and-best offers; Council member Francis seconded and the motion carried on a unanimous roll call of those present.

Ending
Council direction stops short of approving any sale; the council required that CC&Rs be resolved by the selling party and asked staff to return completed highest‑and‑best offers to the council for formal review. Any future contract will require a separate council vote.","The Idaho Falls City Council voted to solicit highest-and-best offers for a city-owned parcel adjacent to Pine Crest Golf Course and to return offers to council for review, with the condition that any covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&Rs) be resolved by the selling party before the city conveys title.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Council reviews draft impact‑fee study; schedules work sessions to shape capital improvement plan and ordinance

Idaho Falls to solicit highest-and-best offers for parcel adjacent to Pine Crest; CC&Rs must be cleared by seller