ITD seeks to move District 4 HQ to Twin Falls; lawmakers question $9.6 million request

The Idaho Transportation Department on Thursday asked the Joint Finance‑Appropriations Committee for $9.6 million to relocate its District 4 headquarters from Shoshone to Twin Falls, a proposal lawmakers said the Legislature rejected last year and that they still question.

The relocation request is part of ITD’s FY2026 enhancement package for the Transportation Services Division and was discussed during the committee’s oversight hearing on the department’s budget. The move, the department said, aims to position services closer to population growth and project sites.

ITD Director Scott Stokes, who testified with members of his senior staff, said the department’s recommendation is “for where, for the state of Idaho, the long term service should be delivered from the District 4 area” and that the department would “like to be closer to the growing community of Twin Falls.”

Senator David Cook, who led a line of questioning, noted the Legislature, the governor and the JFAC working group rejected the relocation last year. He cited repeated on-site inspections and staff feedback that the Shoshone building needed maintenance rather than replacement. “Do you feel 12 minutes of commute time is worth asking Idaho taxpayers for $9,600,000 to relocate that building?” Cook asked the director, referencing the committee’s GIS review of staff median commutes.

Representative John Price asked whether a previously directed minimum of $1 million for repairs to the Shoshone facility had been used. Director Stokes said repairs are “in progress” and described roofing and window replacement as the priority work, with contracts expected to be bid and installed this summer.

Stokes and committee members disagreed about the drivers for the request. Stokes emphasized long‑term service delivery and staff access to project sites; Cook and others emphasized that staff said the existing building needed only maintenance and questioned the fiscal prudence of revisiting a widely considered and recently rejected request.

The committee did not take a formal vote during the hearing. ITD provided the department’s rationale and cost estimates; lawmakers pressed for additional justification and questioned whether public meetings or other, lower‑cost options could address the access concerns ITD raised.

If the Legislature considers the request again, committee members indicated they expect fuller documentation on commuting patterns, public‑access benefits and the condition of the existing building.