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

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.