Idaho Falls council narrows impact‑fee options, directs staff to test three square‑footage tiers and to remove police vehicles from CIP

The Idaho Falls City Council spent much of its meeting debating how to update the city's impact fee methodology and reviewing planned‑unit development (PUD) standards. Council members examined competing proposals — a detailed, multi‑tier square‑footage system recommended by the consultant and a simpler per‑door (per‑unit) approach — and directed staff to test a compromise.

Mayor summarized council's near‑term direction: staff should update the impact fee study to a simplified three‑category square‑footage model, remain silent in the ordinance about other taxing districts (which will exclude them from paying impact fees by default), not include an affordable‑housing waiver provision in the revised ordinance now, and update the Capital Improvement Plan to remove police vehicles and prioritize funding for a second sheet of ice.

The debate focused on two technical tradeoffs. The consultant's original methodology used multiple tiers of conditioned square footage and census data to estimate people per dwelling, a method that can produce ten fee levels depending on finished square footage. Several council members and the advisory committee said that treating unfinished basements as full conditioned area substantially increases assessed fees and can be inequitable given local construction patterns. Other council members argued a strict per‑door approach (flat fee per single‑family unit or per multifamily unit) is simpler but could shift costs toward smaller starter homes.

TJ Nelson, chair of the Impact Fee Advisory Committee, told council the committee reviewed three recent waiver requests and the building‑permit data supporting fee calculations. He and committee members highlighted that most local single‑family homes are being built with basements (staff reported roughly 86% of recent single‑family permits include finished basements), making the unfinished/finished distinction pivotal to any square‑footage approach.

Councilors referenced peer cities. Boise and other Ada County communities were cited as using fewer tiers tied to conditioned space; Boise's approach compresses census data into five ranges, which council members used as a workable example during discussion.

On affordable‑housing waivers, staff reminded council the ordinance's prior waiver language required council budget authority to fund any waived fee; the practical effect had been a confusing application process and, historically, the city lacked a dedicated funding source to back the waiver. After discussion, council chose to preserve the option of a waiver as a policy tool in future but to omit an explicit affordable‑housing waiver provision in the immediate ordinance rewrite so the city avoids promising a payment stream it has not budgeted.

Planning staff and the planning commission also reviewed PUD implementation, showing recent PUD site plans, streetscapes, amenity placements and data that PUDs since 2016 have averaged about 7 acres and provided roughly 28% common/open space (above the 25% code minimum). Staff explained code constraints (ex parte contacts after applications are filed, criteria for conditions tied to ordinance standards) and noted that site elevations and approved plans are enforced at building‑permit review unless an applicant seeks an amendment.

Next steps: staff will produce impact‑fee model runs on the three square‑footage tiers discussed and return with updated numbers and proposed ordinance language. The planning commission will receive the revised CIP and methodology for review; council asked staff to ensure the final package shows how changes would affect fee levels for different house sizes and for multifamily units.