City staff on Dec. 15 recommended removing the planned EP True Parkway extension from the city's ultimate streets map after a workshop that included engineers, planners, developers and stakeholders.

City engineer Brian Hemeseth presented preliminary design work that estimated the cost of a full EP True connection from Grand Prairie Parkway to Ute Avenue at roughly $21 million, largely because a bridge would be required to cross Sugar Creek. "The cost of that road in two years-ago dollars is about $21,000,000," Hemeseth said. Staff cited environmental constraints, difficult topography and limited developable acreage in the corridor as factors that reduce the project's feasibility and the likelihood that tax increment or other traditional development funding models could cover the expense.

Ryan Moffitt, community and economic development director, told the council the area yields limited developable acreage once topographic constraints and existing uses are removed from the calculation. He said the city would need roughly $120 million in assessed commercial valuation to underwrite a $21 million project under typical TIF financing assumptions. Several developers and landowners urged a cautious approach. Nick Williams, representing property owners and voluntary annexation applicants, said landowners have met repeatedly with staff and are willing to continue working on annexation and water service but worried that removing the corridor now would strand prior private investments. "EP True Parkway has dictated development for West Des Moines over the last 20 years," Williams told the council.

Jared Bernstein, executive director of the Jewish Federation of Greater Des Moines, told the council his organization strongly supports not continuing EP True past Sugar Creek because a major thoroughfare would run adjacent to Federation facilities including a preschool and camp. "We don't want a major thoroughfare right along our property," Bernstein said.

After more than an hour of technical explanation and public comment, councilmembers expressed differing views but generally favored exploring the staff recommendation further. Several members said they lacked enough data to make a final policy change immediately and requested staff return with a comparative analysis of (a) the current comprehensive plan alignment's likely taxable valuation and infrastructure costs and (b) the proposed alternative map and its fiscal implications. The council directed staff to bring the matter to the development and planning subcommittee and to continue stakeholder outreach and analysis before a formal comprehensive plan amendment is proposed.