Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Idaho Falls redevelopment officials favor expanding Skyline Broadway urban renewal boundary to capture infrastructure needs
Loading...
Summary
After a presentation of the Skyline Broadway eligibility study, the board signaled direction to finalize the study using a broader boundary that could capture additional revenues to fund sidewalks, roads and a potential park; legal counsel outlined how deannexation could restart a 20-year clock for later redevelopments.
The Idaho Falls Redevelopment Agency on Jan. 15 directed staff to finalize the Skyline Broadway eligibility study using a broader study area, after hearing from consultant Brad Kramer and the agency's legal counsel about potential benefits of an expanded boundary.
Kramer explained he met with city staff and reviewed site conditions and recommended the agency consider expanding beyond the originally requested red boundary to include adjacent areas with public parcels and infrastructure needs. "The pros are just kind of capturing a larger area'which can mean excess funds for public improvements," Kramer told the board. He noted the expansion would not materially change study cost and could allow surplus revenues to fund parks, sidewalks and water/sewer work for neighborhoods that currently lack infrastructure.
Megan, the agency's legal advisor, described the statutory process and reimbursement structure, stressing that owner-participation reimbursements remain site-based. She also explained that a parcel later seeking a fresh 20-year allocation could be deannexed and placed in a new district without resetting the base for the remainder of the original district. "The deannexation is an exception to the base reset rule even in a post-2016 plan," Megan said, describing how a later developer could pursue a new district for a specific parcel.
A developer representative told the board engineering was finalizing access off Skyline and Broadway and reported "after 118 holes, we didn't hit the rock," suggesting limited blasting needs. Commissioners asked detailed questions about where lava rock exists in the study area and whether utilities exist to support future development; public works and staff said utilities are present in many sections and that some parcels remain challenging because of basalt and elevation changes.
Board members discussed fairness to the original developer (who paid study costs) and the longer time horizon for a larger district, but concluded the benefits of flexibility and the ability to fund broader public improvements outweighed the downsides. The board asked Kramer to finalize the report using the broader boundary alternatives (the red/green/yellow options presented) and to return a completed study for consideration at the February meeting.
No final district ordinance or boundary was adopted at the meeting; the board's direction was to proceed with the larger study area and present a finalized eligibility report at the next scheduled meeting.
