City of Idaho Falls | minutes | meeting 2025-12-11 | City Council Meeting
source: https://www.idahofallsidaho.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Minutes/_12112025-2062

City Council Meeting
Minutes
680 Park Avenue
Idaho Falls, ID
FALLS
Thursday, December 11,2025
7:30 PM
City Council Chambers
1.
Call to Order
Present:
Council President Lisa Burtenshaw (Mayor Pro Tern)
Councilor John Radford
Councilor Jim Freeman
Councilor Kirk Larsen
Councilor Michelle Ziel-Dingman
Councilor Jim Francis
Also present:
Ian Turner, Airport Director
Wade Banner, CDS Director
Chris Fredericksen, Public Works Director
Laith Sheets. Horrocks Engineering
Richard Stewart, IFAC Chair
Emily Geisler, City Clerk
Pam Alexander, Municipal Services Director
Bryce Johnson, Police Chief
Stephen Boorman, Acting Gen Mgr IF Power
Colin McAweeney, Tischler-Bise {via Teams)
Zach Jones, City Attorney
2.
Pledge of Allegiance
Austin Black led those present in the Pledge of Allegiance.
3.
Public Comment
BjiettS_kidrnoie (Contractor, Business owner): Brett Skidmore thanked outgoing Mayor Casperfor
her service and expressed appreciationfortheir respectful working relationship, despite
occasional disagreements. He congratulated Mayor-elect Burtenshaw on the election and said he
expects to maintain a similarly professional relationship. Skidmore then voiced disappointment
over a campaign letter and the tone of social media during the election, saying his long-standing
development company was unfairly targeted and mischaracterized, despite what he described as
low-impact development in the community. He said the experience saddened him and urged City
leaders and residents to pursue more respectful and constructive politics in future elections.
4.
Consent Agenda
A.
Office of the Mayor
1.
25-489 Appointments and reappointments to City Boards, Commissions and
Committees pursuant to Idaho Falls City Code Title 2:
Deanne Harger
Bill Scott
Kim Smith
Lee Radford
Planning Commission
Planning Commission
Historic Preservation Commission
Appointment
Reappointment
Reappointment
Reappointment
Reappointment
2.
25-494 City Attorney Appointment-and-Confirmation {Moved to Regular Agenda)
Idaho Falls Redevelopment Agency
IF Public Library’s Board of Trustees
Rodd Rapp
B.
Municipal Services
1

City Council Meeting
Minutes
680 Park Avenue
Idaho Falls, ID
I DAHO
FALLS
1.
25-476 Bid approval for road salt from Compass Materials America for $136,350.
2.
25-481 Renewal of annual maintenance agreement with Central Square, Naviline
for$131,457.85.
3.
25-485 Renewal of annual maintenance agreement with CityWorks, Azteca
Systems $78,875.
C.
Public Works
1.
25-488 Bid award reconsideration, due to an error in October motion, for sewer line
rehabilitation to National Power Rodding Corp for $965,995.00.
D.
Idaho Falls Power
1.
25-488 Board meeting minutes from November 12, 2025
E.
Office of the City Clerk
1.
25-487 City Council Meeting Minutes (11.19.2025)
Motion 1: Approve, accept, or receive all items on the Consent Agenda according to the
recommendations presented.
Moved by: Councilor Larsen
Second: Councilor Dingman
Vote: Aye: Burtenshaw, Dingman, Francis, Freeman, Larsen, Radford. Nay: none
Motion carries.
o
o
o
o
Motion 2: Remove Item F4 under Municipal Services, for Police Department Vehicles.
Reason: There are not that many cars available, so the item is inaccurate.
Moved by: Councilor Larsen
Second: Councilor Freeman
Vote: Aye: Burtenshaw, Dingman, Francis, Freeman, Larsen. Radford. Nay: none
Motion carries.
o
o
o
o
o
5.
Regular Agenda
A.
Office of the Mayor
1.
25-494
City Attorney Appointment and Confirmation [moved from Consent Agenda)
Motion: Give consent and confirm the Mayoral appointment of Zachary Jones to serve as
the City Attorney pursuant to Idaho Falls City Code 3-10-2 and Idaho Code 50-204.
Moved by: Councilor Francis
Second: Councilor Larsen
Vote: Aye: Burtenshaw, Dingman, Francis, Freeman, Larsen, Radford. Nay: none
Motion carries.
o
o
o
o
B.
Public Works
A.
25-487
Negotiated Contract- Idaho Falls WaterTankDemolition
2

City Council Meeting
Minutes
680 Park Avenue
Idaho Falls, iD
I DAHO
FALLS
Presentation/Discusslon (Director Fredericksen): City staff presented a negotiated
contract with Ascendant LLC for the demolition of the Idaho Falls water tower. After no
qualified contractors responded to the initial pre-qualification process, the City received
approval on September 11,2025, to seekthe work on the open market. The proposed
contract totals $629,085, with work scheduled to begin January 5 and be completed within
45 calendar days. Staff also noted efforts to salvage and preserve portions of the tower for
memorial purposes, including incorporation into a future water administration building. The
presentation concluded with an offer to answer questions, including a Council inquiry
about whether an engineer’s cost estimate had been prepared.
Motion: Approve the plans, specifications, and negotiated contract with Ascendent LLC, in
the amount of $629,085.00; and give authorization forthe Mayor and City Clerk to execute
the necessarydocuments.
Moved by: Councilor Larsen
Second: Councilor Freeman
Vote: Aye: Burtenshaw, Dingman, Francis, Freeman, Larsen, Radford. Nay: none
Motion carries.
o
o
o
o
C.
Idaho Falls Power
1.
25-478
IFP 26-01 City Plant Runner Hub Rebuild
Presentation/Discussion (Acting General Manager Boorman): City Staff presented a
contract recommendation for work on the City Plant runner hub, a key component of the
bulb turbine system where water flows through and drives power generation. This will be
the third such rebuild, following similar work at the lower plant, and is coordinated with
previously approved electrical upgrades. The project was awarded to Riverside, the low
bidder. Boorman explained that the runner hub contains hydraulic components and
adjustable blades that experience significant wear overtime and now require rebuilding.
While the turbine must be shut down during the work, the cost of lost generation over the
approximately nine-month outage would exceed the capital cost of the project, and the
City’s peaking plant will cover power needs during that period.
Motion: Approve this agreement with Riverside Inc. for the City Plant’s runner hub rebuild
at a not-to-exceed amount of $902,000.00 and give authorization to the Mayor and City
Clerk to execute the necessary documents
Moved by: Councilor Freeman
Second: Councilor Radford
Vote: Aye: Burtenshaw, Dingman, Francis, Freeman, Larsen, Radford. Nay: none
Motion carries.
o
o
o
o
D.
Airport
3

City Council Meeting
Minutes
680 Park Avenue
Idaho Falls, ID
I DAHO
FALLS
Work Order 25-03 for Design of Terminal Apron and Cargo Apron
1.
25-490
Rehabilitation
Presentation/Discussion (Director Turner): A request was made to approve Work Order
20-503 for the design of terminal apron and cargo area rehabilitation at the airport,
including evaluation of relocating the aircraft deicing pad and improving stormwater
infrastructure. The design will be funded locally upfront, with reimbursement anticipated in
fiscal year 2026 through a Federal Aviation Administration Airport Improvement Program
grant. Completing the design early positions the City to compete for FAA discretionary
construction funding. The design fee is $501,989, which was validated as reasonable
through an independent fee estimate. The project timeline aims to have bids ready by May
to align with construction and grant requirements, and the design process will proceed
through FAA-reviewed milestones at 50%, 75%, and 95% completion.
Motion: Approve Ardurra Inc.'s work order 25-03 to design the rehabilitation of Terminal
Apron and Cargo Apron for $501,989.
Moved by: Councilor Larsen
Second: Councilor Radford
Vote: Aye: Burtenshaw, Dingman, Francis, Freeman, Larsen, Radford. Nay: none
Motion carries.
o
o
o
o
Amended and Restated Fixed Base Operator Agreement with Rainbow
2.
25-491
Investments, LLC
Presentation/Discussion (Director Turner, Mr. Hoff-Tenant): The airport presented a
second agenda item involving an amended and restated lease with Rainbow Investments,
which operates the fixed base operation (FBO), Aero Mark. Two existing leases from 2006
and 2007 will be combined into a single agreement and extended for 15 years. In exchange
Rainbow Investments will contribute $426,387 toward rehabilitating the older apron area,
sealcoatthe newer portion, and complete additional parking lot improvements. The lease
was reviewed by the FAA for compliance with federal grant assurances, with FAA
determining the assurances do not apply. Owner Bob Hoff addressed the Council,
highlighting Aero Mark’s 41 -year, accident-free history at the Idaho Falls Airport, its status
as a locally owned family business, and the lease’s importance in supporting continued
reinvestment, high-quality service, and long-term commitment to the community.
Motion: Approve the Amended and Restated Fixed Base Operator Agreement with Rainbow
Investments, LLC.
Moved by: Councilor Larsen
Second: Councilor Radford
o
o
4

City Council Meeting
Minutes
680 Park Avenue
Idaho Falls, ID
I DAHO
FALLS
Vote: Aye: Burtenshaw, Dingman, Francis, Freeman, Larsen, Radford. Nay: none
Motion carries.
o
o
E.
Office of the City Clerk
1.
24-450
Public Hearing - Revievy of Alcohol License Application for 3Z Holdings Inc
dba Xhale Resort & Spa
Presentation/Discussion (Clerk Geisler): The City Clerk presented an alcohol license
application from Breezy Holdings, Inc., doing business as Exhale Resort and Spa, to the City
Council because under Idaho Falls City Code only the Council has authority to deny such
licenses. During the interdepartmental review, the Community Development Services
(CDS) department determined the business is located in a limited commercial (LC) zone
that does not permit drinking establishments, requiring the application to be brought
forward fora public hearing. No representatives spoke on behalf of the applicant. The City
Clerk noted that if denied, the application fee would be refunded. After discussion
confirming the zoning conflict and noting that the applicant had explored options with CDS,
the Council unanimously voted to deny the alcohol license. Councilor Francis then outlined
potential alternatives for the applicant, including applying for a rezoning or modifying the
business model to operate a restaurant where alcohol service would be secondary.
Motion: Deny the alcohol license application #7829078 presented by 3Z Holdings Inc dba
Xhale Resort & Spa as per City Code 4-3-4 (A-E)
Moved by: Councilor Francis
Second: Councilor Radford
Vote: Aye: Burtenshaw, Dingman, Francis, Freeman, Larsen, Radford. Nay: none
Motion carries.
o
o
o
o
F.
Community Development Services
Legislative Public Hearing for the Annexation and Initial Zoning of LC,
Limited Commercial with the Controlled Development Airport Overlay Zone -
Annexation and Initial Zoning Ordinances and Reasoned Statements of Relevant
Criteria and Standards for approximately 18.554 acres in the N
of Section 25,
Township 2 North, Range 37 East.
1.
25-479
Presentation/Discussion (Director Sanner, Mr. Sheets): The City Council held a
legislative public hearing on an owner-initiated annexation and initial zoning request for a
vacant property along the Snake River near Snake River Parkway and Event Center Drive.
The request includes annexation of the property and the Milligan Road right-of-way, with
proposed Limited Commercial (LC) zoning and a Controlled Development Airport Overlay.
The site lies within a newly approved urban renewal district and is surrounded by LC zoning,
5

City Council Meeting
Minutes
680 Park Avenue
Idaho Falls, ID
I DAHO
FALLS
consistent with the City’s comprehensive plan designating the area as a mixed-use center
and corridor. Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval, and no public
comments were submitted.
Staff and the applicant explained that the annexation consolidates what are
normally separate annexation and zoning actions, excludes a small separately owned
residential “island” property, and anticipates future development supported by tax
increment financing (TIF). Council discussion focused on the role of urban renewal and TIF
in funding public infrastructure, such as Milligan Road, the benefits of reinvestment along
the river, and how LC zoning supports mixed commercial and residential development. The
hearing was closed and the matter advanced to Council discussion and action.
Motion 1: Approve the Ordinance annexing approximately 18.554 acres in the N Vaof
Section 25, Township 2 North, Range 37 East; assign a Comprehensive Plan Designation of
“Mixed-Use Centers and Corridors;” and under a suspension of the rules requiring three
complete and separate readings, request that it be read by title and published by summary
Moved by: Councilor Radford
Second: Councilor Larsen
Vote: Aye: Burtenshaw, Dingman, Francis, Freeman, Larsen, Radford. Nay: none
Motion carries.
o
o
o
o
Ordinance Title Read: AN ORDINANCE OFTHE CITY OF IDAHO FALLS, IDAHO, A
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF IDAHO; PROVIDING FORTHE
ANNEXATION OF APPROXIMATELY 18.554 ACRES DESCRIBED IN EXHIBITAOFTHIS
ORDINANCE. AMENDING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE CITY WITH THE
APPROPRIATE COUNTY AND STATE AUTHORITIES; AND PROVIDING SEVERABILITY,
PUBLICATION BY SUMMARY, AND ESTABLISHING EFFECTIVE DATE
Motion 2: Approve the Reasoned Statement of Relevant Criteria and Standards for the
annexation of approximately 18.554 acres in the N V2 of Section 25, Township 2 North,
Range 37 East and give authorization for the Mayor to execute the necessary documents.
Moved by: Councilor Radford
Second: Councilor Larsen
Vote: Aye: Burtenshaw, Dingman, Francis, Freeman, Larsen, Radford. Nay: none
Motion carries.
o
o
o
o
Motion 3: Approve the Ordinance establishing the initial zoning for LC, Limited Commercial
with the Controlled Development Airport Overlay Zone as shown in the Ordinance exhibits
under a suspension of the rules requiring three complete and separate readings; and
request that it be read by title and published by summary; that the City limits documents be
amended to include the area annexed herewith; and that the City Planner be instructed to
6

City Council Meeting
Minutes
680 Park Avenue
Idaho Falls, ID
I DAHO
FALLS
reflect said annexation, amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, and initial zoning on the
Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Maps located in the Planning office.
Moved by: Councilor Radford
Second: Councilor Larsen
Vote: Aye: Burtenshaw, Dingman, Francis, Freeman, Larsen, Radford. Nay: none
Motion carries.
o
o
o
o
Ordinance Title Read: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF IDAHO FALLS, IDAHO, A
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF IDAHO; PROVIDING FOR THE INITIAL
ZONING OF APPROXIMATELY 18.554 ACRES DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT A OFTHIS
ORDINANCE AS LC, LIMITED COMMERCIAL WITH THE CONTROLLED DEVELOPMENT
AIRPORT OVERLAY ZONE; AND PROVIDING SEVERABILITY, PUBLICATION BY
SUMMARY, AND ESTABLISHING EFFECTIVE DATE.
Motion 4: Approve the Reasoned Statement of Relevant Criteria and Standards for the
initial zoning of LC, Limited Commercial with the Controlled Development Airport Overlay
Zone and give authorization for the Mayor to execute the necessary documents
Moved by: Councilor Radford
Second: Councilor Larsen
Vote: Aye: Burtenshaw, Dingman, Francis, Freeman, Larsen, Radford. Nay: none
Motion carries.
o
o
o
o
Legislative Public Hearing for the Annexation and initial Zoning of R2, Mixed
Residential with the Approach Surface Airport Overlay Zone - Annexation and Initial
Zoning Ordinances and Reasoned Statements of Relevant Criteria and Standards for
approximately 1.5 acres in the SE Vi of Section 30, Township 3 North, Range 38 East.
2.
25-482
Presentation/Discussion (Director Sanner): The City Council opened a public hearing on
an owner-initiated annexation and initial R-2 zoning request for a single property located on
West 65th North, between 5th West and 5th East, just north of Sage Lakes Golf Course. The
property is within the City’s area of impact, surrounded by R-2 zoning, and the adjacent
65th North right-of-way has already been annexed. The requested R-2 zoning aligns with the
City’s comprehensive plan and General Urban transect, and the site is subject to a Limited
Development Airport Overlay. Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval,
and no public comments were provided.
The applicant, Chris Canfield, spoke and stated the goal of annexation was to
obtain City services and thanked City staff for assistance. With no Council questions or
public testimony, the hearing was closed. Council discussion noted the property’s unique
location near the golf course and increasing activity along 65th North due to planned
7

City Council Meeting
Minutes
680 Park Avenue
Idaho Falls, ID
I DAHO
FALLS
infrastructure improvements, including replacement of a bridge to support a five-lane
roadway.
Motion 1: Approve the Ordinance annexing approximately 1.5 acres in the SE14 of Section
30, Township 3 North, Range 38 East; assign a Comprehensive Plan Designation of
“General Urban;” and under a suspension of the rules requiring three complete and
separate readings, request that it be read by title and published by summary.
Moved by: Councilor Radford
Second: Councilor Larsen
Vote: Aye: Burtenshaw, Dingman, Francis, Freeman, Larsen, Radford. Nay: none
Motion carries.
o
o
o
o
Ordinance Title Read: AN ORDINANCE OFTHE CITY OF IDAHO FALLS, IDAHO. A
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OFTHE STATE OF IDAHO; PROVIDING FOR THE
ANNEXATION OF APPROXIMATELY 1.5 ACRES DESCRIBED IN EXHIBITAOFTHIS
ORDINANCE, AMENDING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION OFTHE CITY WITH THE
APPROPRIATE COUNTY AND STATE AUTHORITIES; AND PROVIDING SEVERABILITY,
PUBLICATION BY SUMMARY, AND ESTABLISHING EFFECTIVE DATE.
Motion 2: Approve the Reasoned Statement of Relevant Criteria and Standards for the
annexation of approximately 1.5 acres in the SE V4 of Section 30, Township 3 North, Range
38 East and give authorization for the Mayor to execute the necessary documents.
Moved by: Councilor Radford
Second: Councilor Larsen
Vote: Aye: Burtenshaw, Dingman, Francis, Freeman, Larsen, Radford. Nay: none
Motion carries.
o
o
o
o
Motion 3: Approve the Ordinance establishing the initial zoning for R2, Mixed Residential
with the Approach Surface Airport Overlay Zone as shown in the Ordinance exhibits under a
suspension of the rules requiring three complete and separate readings; and request that it
be read by title and published by summary; that the City limits documents be amended to
include the area annexed herewith; and that the City Planner be instructed to reflect said
annexation, amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, and initial zoning on the
Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Maps located in the Planning office.
Moved by: Councilor Radford
Second: Councilor Larsen
Vote: Aye: Burtenshaw, Dingman, Francis, Freeman, Larsen, Radford. Nay: none
Motion carries.
o
o
o
o
8

City Council Meeting
Minutes
680 Park Avenue
Idaho Falls. ID
I DAHO
FALLS
Ordinance Title Read: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF IDAHO FALLS, IDAHO, A
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF IDAHO; PROVIDING FOR THE INITIAL
ZONING OF APPROXIMATELY 1.5 ACRES DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT A OF THIS
ORDINANCE AS R2 MIXED RESIDENTIAL AND APPROACH SURFACE AIRPORT OVERLAY
ZONE AND PROVIDING SEVERABILITY, PUBLICATION BY SUMMARY, AND
ESTABLISHING EFFECTIVE DATE.
Motion 4: Approve the Reasoned Statement of Relevant Criteria and Standards for the
initial zoning of R2, Mixed Residential with the Approach Surface Airport Overlay Zone and
give authorization for the Mayor to execute the necessary documents.
Moved by: Councilor Radford
Second: Councilor Larsen
Vote: Aye: Burtenshaw, Dingman, Francis, Freeman, Larsen, Radford. Nay: none
Motion carries.
o
o
o
o
G.
Municipal Services
1.
25-469
Full Rebuild of Idaho Falls Animal Shelter Crematorium
Presentation/Discussion (Director Alexander, Chief Johnson): The City Council
considered an agenda item from Municipal Services regarding a full rebuild of the animal
shelter crematorium. Staff explained that the crematorium experiences significant wear
due to Idaho Falls’ extreme temperature conditions, requiring more than routine
maintenance. The proposal requests approvalof a sole-source contract with Burnz-Wellfor
a complete interior rebuild to keep the equipment operational, at a quoted cost of
$155,900.
The scope of work includes demolition and replacement of all interior brick and
insulation, rebuilding internal components, replacing hydraulic systems, upgrading the PLC
control system, and providing on-site material storage. The crematorium will be out of
service for approximately 14 days. During that time, the animal shelter will continue
accepting animals for cremation by using freezer storage and completing services once the
equipment is operational again. Council members asked about lifespan, maintenance, and
operational impacts, after which the item was presented for a Council motion.
Motion: Declare Burnz-Well, Inc. for a sole source declaration pursuant to Idaho Code §67-
2808(2)(a)(ii) and accept and approve the quote received from Burnz-Well for the full
rebuilding of the animal shelter crematorium for an estimated total of $155,900.00 and
authorize the Mayor and City Clerkto sign the necessary documents,
o
Moved by: Councilor Larsen
o
Second: Councilor Francis
Vote: Aye: Burtenshaw, Dingman, Francis, Freeman, Larsen, Radford. Nay: none
o
9

City Council Meeting
Minutes
680 Park Avenue
Idaho Falls, ID
I DAHO
FALLS
Motion carries.
o
Purchase of Replacement Tractor Mower for Parks and Recreation
2.
25-471
Presentation/Discussion for 2, 3 and 5 (Director Alexander): The City Council considered
three Parks and Recreation equipment replacement items together for discussion, with
motions to be taken individually. Director Alexander explained that the City is preparing for
the spring and summer season and is replacing aging equipment that has reached the end
of its useful life. The requests include two replacement tractors totaling $221,551.67, a
replacement mower for $182,535.32 (for Sand Creek Golf Course), and a replacement
dump truck for $208,233.
All purchases will be made using Sourcewell cooperative purchasing contracts and
are funded through the City’s Municipal Equipment Replacement Program (MERF), in which
departments set aside funds annually to cover future vehicle and equipment replacements.
The items are strictly replacements, not additions, and are intended to ensure Parks and
Recreation operations are ready for the upcoming season.
Motion: Accept and approve the purchase of one TS6,130 New Holland Cab, 4WD, and
mid-mount side shift mower from the Sourcewell cooperative purchasing contract
#032525-AGI from Metroquip for a total of $221,551.67 and authorize the Mayor and City
Clerkto sign the necessary documents.
Moved by: Councilor Larsen
Second: Councilor Francis
Vote: Aye: Burtenshaw, Dingman, Francis, Freeman, Larsen, Radford. Nay: none
Motion carries.
o
o
o
o
Replacement mowers for Parks and Recreation, Sand Creek Golf Course
3.
25-472
Motion: Accept and approve the purchase of two Toro Reelmaster 5410-D mowers from the
Sourcewell cooperative purchasing contract #24221 from Turf Equipment and Irrigation,
Inc. for a total of $182,535.32 and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to sign the necessary
documents,
o
Moved by: Councilor Larsen
o
Second: Councilor Francis
o
Vote: Aye: Burtenshaw, Dingman, Francis, Freeman, Larsen, Radford. Nay: none
o
Motion carries.
4.
25-473
Police Department Vehicle Lease and Upfit Program for FY 2025/20 {Voted
to remove from agenda.)
10

City Council Meeting
Minutes
680 Park Avenue
Idaho Falls, ID
I DAHO
FALLS
Purchase Replacement Dump Truck for Parks and Recreation
5.
25-475
Motion: Accept and approve the purchase of one BeauRoc 14 cubic-yard dump body
package and Freightliner Chassis from the Sourcewell cooperative purchasing contract
#062222-VCM from Viking-Cives Midwest, Inc. for a total of $208,233.00 and authorize the
Mayor and City Clerk to sign the necessary documents.
Moved by: Councilor Larsen
Second: Councilor Francis
Vote: Aye: Burtenshaw, Dingman, Francis, Freeman, Larsen, Radford. Nay: none
Motion carries.
o
o
o
o
Public Hearing and Consideration of Proposed Capital Improvement Plan,
Development Impact Fee Study Update, and Amendments to City Code, Title 10,
Chapter 8, Development Impact Fees
6.
25-470
Presentation/Discussion (Director Alexander, Director Banner, Mr. McAweeney-via
Teams, Mr. Stewart): The Council discussion focused on the impact fee study update,
implementation strategies, and related policy considerations, reflecting input from staff,
consultants, the Impact Fee Advisory Committee, and Council members.
1.
Purpose and Legal Framework:
The discussion opened with clarification that Idaho Falls City code requires
careful interpretation of impact fees and the statutory framework for City
development fees.
Staff and the City attorney defined “habitable space” as areas with electrical
and HVAC systems. This definition was used to determine which spaces
(including basements and hallways) would factor into fee calculations.
Council emphasized that reductions in fee schedules must be applied uniformly
across all development types—residential, commercial, industrial, etc.—to
avoid legal or competitive inequities. This uniformity led to the 75% reduction
applied across the board.
2.
Calculation Methodology and Data:
The methodology for calculating maximum supportable fees relies on local
census and construction data for Idaho Falls.
Fees per square foot vary logarithmically: as home size increases, cost per
square foot tapers ratherthan increases linearly.
Past methods using bedroom count were abandoned due to loopholes (e.g.,
rooms without doors not counting as bedrooms). Square footage provides a
more consistent and enforceable measure.
One-time fees are based on averages intended to compare "apples to apples"
across different housing types.
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
11

City Council Meeting
Minutes
680 Park Avenue
Idaho Falls, ID
I DAHO
FALLS
3.
Basement and ClimaterControUed Space Considerations:
o
Councilors debated whether unfinished basements should be counted in
impact fees. They acknowledged assumptions are necessary since actual use
varies per household,
o
The Council stressed balancing accuracy with simplicity, avoiding overly
complex calculations that would be burdensome to staff or confusing to
residents.
4.
Commercial Development Considerations:
o
While the study largely focuses on residential development, Councilors
highlighted the importance of reviewing commercial impacts, citing examples
such as RC Willey,
o
Comparisons with surroundingjurisdictions (e.g., Bonneville County) were
suggested to ensure competitiveness and fairness.
5.
AdvisO-ty_C_Qmmittee Role and Expert Input:
o
The Impact Fee Advisory Committee serves as a partner, providing
recommendations but not making final decisions,
o
Councilors emphasized the value of input from development engineers and
other experts to ensure the study accurately reflects construction realities and
infrastructure needs.
6.
Affo_rdabie_Housingand Fee Waivers:
o
Discussion included the potential inclusion of affordable housing provisions
within the impact fee framework,
o
Enforcement challenges were noted: without mechanisms to ensure long-term
affordability, including such waivers could be ineffective. Federal programs
provide some enforcement, but City policy requires careful design.
7.
Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and Parks:
o
Any changes to the CIP could trigger additional Planning and Zoning review, but
minor updates (e.g., impact fee adjustments) do not automatically reset the
process,
o
The Council affirmed that community/regional parks serve Citywide
populations, not just nearby residents, and that impact fees should reflectthis
broader usage,
o
Clarification is needed on what constitutes a neighborhood parkversus a
retention pond to ensure maintainability by the City without requiring HOAs.
8.
Pejinitting and Enforcement:
o
Some Councilors noted that properties could be restricted from sale due to
uncompleted permits, highlighting the connection between enforcement and
fee collection,
o
The Council emphasized the need to assume compliance, otherwise the nexus
between development impacts and fees would be undermined.
12

City Council Meeting
Minutes
680 Park Avenue
Idaho FaLLsJD
I DAHO
FALLS
9.
Proc.ess_and Timing Considerations:
o
Councilors agreed the study is a living document, subject to iterative
improvements. Mistakes or market changes can be addressed in future
updates,
o
Timing relative to construction seasons is a concern, but there is enough time
before the study expires in 2027 to address outstanding issues thoughtfully,
o
The Council suggested tabling final decisions to allow the advisory committee
to refine recommendations, especially regarding basements, commercialfees,
affordable housing, and CIP adjustments (e.g., police vehicles).
Public Testimony provided by:
●
T.J. Nottestad - IFAC
o
The speaker believes the ordinance related to the Capital Improvement Plan is
not ready for a vote,
o
The Advisory Committee had previously voted to exclude unfinished basement
square footage from impact fee calculations to maintain affordability and avoid
charging fees based on speculative growth,
o
The committee received an updated draft including finished and unfinished
square footage too late {October 7) to review or vote before the scheduled
Council action (October 14). They felt the process did not allow meaningful
input,
o
Highlighted a need for clarity in the fee schedule, noting confusion over what
counts as usable space in apartments versus single-family homes (e.g.,
hallways, stairwells, mechanical rooms, common areas),
o
Emphasized that fees must be clear, concise, and understandable for all
stakeholders, including developers and residents,
o
Stressed that the study still requires work, and they are willing to consult with
Council members individually to provide additional context or clarification,
o
Discussion (Questions from Council and Responses from Mr. Nottestad):
Timing and Feedback Process:
●
Council asked what would have worked for Mr. Nottestad to feel heard.
●
Mr. Nottestad explained that the committee did not have enough time
between receiving the October 7th draft and the October14th meeting
to review and provide meaningful input.
●
He emphasized that adequate time for discussion before Council
decisions is essentialforthe process to be effective.
Square Footage vs. Unfinished Basements:
●
Council asked
if Mr. Nottestad’s concern was more about unfinished
basements than square footage generally.
●
Mr. Nottestad confirmed that including unfinished basements in the
square footage calculations doubled the size used for fee purposes,
raising fees unexpectedly.
13

City Council Meeting
Minutes
680 Park Avenue
Idaho Falls, ID
I DAHO
FALLS
●
He clarified that the original goal of switching to square footage was to
try to lower fees, but the inclusion of unfinished basements
counteracted that goal.
Complexity of Impact Fees:
●
Mr. Nottestad acknowledged that impact fees are complicated with
many variables and trade-offs.
●
He highlighted the need for balance between the City’s financial needs
and fairness to residents.
●
Emphasized that residents should understand howfees are calculated
and used, and thatfees shouldn’t always be set atthe maximum
possible level.
Other Considerations:
●
He noted that unfinished garages had been agreed upon by the Advisory
Committee and asked
if that feedback had been relayed.
●
Council confirmed awareness of the issue, implying that
communication of committee decisions is important.
●
Brett Skidmore (Business Owner, builder, non-resident)
Brett Skidmore, a long-time local builder and developer, discussed challenges
in tracking unpermitted basement work and noted that unfinished basements or main
floors are uncommon but do occur, often reflecting changing household needs such as
empty nesters with large homes used primarily by two people. He emphasized that
Idaho Falls differs from larger markets like Boise and argued that the current fee
schedule is skewed, disproportionately impacting larger homes while favoring smaller
multi-unit projects. Drawing on nearly 70 years of family development experience, he
strongly refuted claims that development does not pay for itself, citing substantial up
front costs developers bear for infrastructure such as water, sewer extensions, pump
stations, roads, sidewalks, and stormwater facilities—often later benefiting the broader
community. While acknowledging that growth can strain traffic and infrastructure, he
maintained that developers do their fair share and more. Skidmore expressed a desire
for improved communication and collaboration with the City, specifically requesting
that heavily invested developers who do not reside within City limits be allowed to
participate on impact fee committees to foster more direct, transparent dialogue.
Q.uestionsand Answers:
Councilors questioned Mr. Skidmore to clarify his views on impact fees,
particularly whether they should be based on square footage or householdimpact.
Skidmore explained that larger homes often house fewer people and therefore may
have less real impact on services than smaller production homes occupied by larger
families. He suggested retaining a square-footage approach but capping fees above a
certain size (for example, around 3,500 square feet) to avoid disproportionately high
charges on large homes. Councilors acknowledged the clarification, noting initial
confusion about whether he was advocating a shift toward multifamily development.
14

City Council Meeting
Minutes
680 Park Avenue
Idaho Falls, ID
I DAHO
FALLS
When asked about how overall capital costs and Level-of-service calculations
are allocated across development, Skidmore said he was not directly involved in how
the City or its consultants determine those formulas and deferred to staff fortechnical
details. Council discussion then turned to commercial, retail, office, and industrial
development. Skidmore stated that impact fees on commercial projects can be
extremely high—citing tens of thousands of dollars fora mid-sized building—and
argued those costs are ultimately passed on to tenants and consumers through higher
prices. He expressed concern that high impact fees contribute to housing and cost-of-
living pressures in Idaho Falls, noting the widening gap between local incomes and the
cost to buy a home. Councilors thanked him for his testimony and long-standing
contributions to the City and indicated these issues would factor into their
deliberations.
●
Chris White (Resident)
Mr. White spoke as an interested citizen in support of impact fees, noting that
he has paid them in other states and believes they are a fair way to ensure growth pays
for itself rather than shifting costs onto existing taxpayers. Drawing on his 37-year
professional background in parks and recreation, he emphasized the importance of
including parks and recreation in impact fee funding, stating that while public safety
services are essential, parks and recreational amenities are a key factor in community
quality of life and in residents’ decisions about where to live.
●
Michelle Mallard (Resident, Bonneville County Commissioner)
Ms. Mallard, speaking as a Bonneville County Commissioner and Idaho Falls
resident, thanked City staff and volunteers for the extensive work involved in developing
the impact fees. She expressed general support for both the impact fees and the
proposed amendments, stating they are necessary to manage growth. However, she
cautioned that if commercial impact fees within the City rise too sharply compared to
county fees, development may shift outside City limits, potentially creating unintended
consequences and additional burdens on county roads and infrastructure.
●
Barry Bame (Crossroads Engineering)
Mr. Bame provided technical observations on the impact fee structure, noting
that while total fees increase with larger buildings, the cost per square foot actually
decreases as square footage rises. He emphasized that his comments were
informational rather than advocatingfor or against the fee levels. His primary concern
was predictability and clarity: he urged the City to make impact fee definitions and
calculationsas clear, consistent,and “cut and dry’’ as possible to prevent ambiguity
and system-gaming. This included clearly defining square footage (e.g., whether
hallways and common areas are included), distinguishing between single-family and
15

City Council Meeting
Minutes
680 Park Avenue
Idaho Falls, ID
I DAHO
FALLS
multifamily classifications, and consistently applying building codes (IRC vs. IBC)
across departments,
in response to Council questions, Mr. Bame said developers value certainty
more than speed. With impact fees now generally accounted for in project budgets, he
believed it is better to take additional time to get the policy right rather than rush
implementation. He stressed the importance of clearly stating when new fees or
amendments take effect—such as whether they apply to new applications, issued
permits, or projects already in the pipeline—given the long planning timelines for
developments. Finally, he acknowledged that no impact fee system will ever be perfect,
but emphasized that this first iteration can be improved overtime, much like refining
future projects based on lessons learned.
●
Brent Dixon (Resident, Former P&Z Commission Board member)
Mr. Dixon raised concerns about the structure and assumptions behind the
impact fee study. He argued that impact fees are one-time charges and should only
fund one-time capital improvements, such as road widening, not ongoing expenses like
vehicle replacement or maintenance, which he said should be covered by recurring
revenue such as property taxes. He also criticized the fee scale that charges
significantly more for larger homes, noting it makes little sense to assume a 5,000-
square-foot home creates several times more demand for police, fire, or parks services
than a 1,000-square-foot home, since both typically house one family and actual usage
can vary widely.
Mr. Dixon advocated for a simpler, more straightforward approach—such as a
flat fee per dwelling unit—arguing that simplicity would avoid disputes over square
footage definitions, unfinished spaces, and multifamily common areas. He concluded
that a clear, uniform fee would be fairer, easier to administer, and less prone to
confusion or manipulation.
A Councilor asked Mr. Dixon to clarify whether his suggested flat impact fee
should be assessed per residence or per bedroom. Mr. Dixon responded that it should
be per dwelling unit, explaining that bedroom count does not reliably indicate service
demand—smallerhomes can have as many bedrooms as much larger ones, and
residents in both single-family and multifamily units use the same basic City services
and roads.
He reiterated that charging dramatically higher impact fees for larger homes
does not make sense, since a 5,000-square-foot home does not generate several times
more demand for public services than a 1,000-square-foot home. Mr. Dixon also
cautioned the Council against relying too heavily on consultant data or standards from
large cities, noting that conditions in Idaho Falls are different. He used parking
standards as an example, arguing that requirements from major cities often fail to
reflect local realities, such as vehicle sizes and usage patterns, and should be adapted
rather than adopted wholesale.
●
Austin Black (Bonneville County Chief Operating Officer, Former P&Z Director)
Mr. Black discussed how high commercial Impact fees within the City of Idaho
Falls can push major commercial development into Bonneville County instead of the
16

City Council Meeting
Minutes
680 Park Avenue
Idaho Falls, ID
I DAHO
FALLS
City. He cited examples such as the proposed RC Willey store and the Amazon facility,
noting that a large retail project could face hundreds of thousands of dollars in City
impact fees before construction begins, making county locations significantly more
attractive. Based on his experience as a zoning director, he said developers frequently
sought ways to build in the county to avoid annexation and City impact fees.
In response to Council questions, Mr. Black explained that while county
developments are still required to build necessary infrastructure, those costs are often
far lowerthan City impactfees. He and Council members expressed concern that once
developers invest in county-only infrastructure, such as fire wells and utility
connections, they are effectively locked out of future annexation, limiting the City’s
ability to capture growth while still bearing regional impacts. Mr. Black emphasized that
growth is better accommodated within City limits and warned that without coordinated
planning between the City and county, impactfees could unintentionally create barriers
to annexation and long-term City growth.
Follow-up:
In the final portion of the hearing, Council members asked follow-up questions of
Director Banner and Mr. McAweeney, the City’s consultant, to clarify technical and legal
issues raised during public testimony. Staff explained that for homes, impact fee
calculations are based only on habitable square footage, not all climate-controlled space,
though they acknowledged that the current definition of “habitable space” is ambiguous
and needs clearer, more explicit language. Staff agreed with public commenters that
clearer definitions would reduce disputes and make administration easier.
Councilors also revisited prior policy constraints, confirming that under state law
and past Council direction, any reduction from the maximum allowable impact fee must be
applied uniformly across all land uses and development types. The City cannot selectively
lower commercial fees without making the same percentage reduction for residential and
other categories, which is why the original system adopted aflat 75% of the maximum
across the board.
In response to concerns that impact fees fund ongoing costs rather than one-time
improvements, Mr. McAweeney explained that the fee methodology is designed to compare
growth-related capital needs using consistent assumptions. The differing fee levels by
housing size are based on local Idaho Falls census and construction data showing average
household size by square footage. This relationship is not linear; it tapers off as homes get
larger, which is why the cost per square foot decreases for larger homes.
Finally, the consultant addressed why fees are based on square footage rather than
bedrooms, noting that bedroom-based systems proved easy to manipulate through design
choices and inconsistent definitions. Square footage was adopted as a more objective and
enforceable metric. With no further questions, the Council formally closed the public
hearing.
Council Discussion:
17

City Council Meeting
Minutes
680 Park Avenue
Idaho Falls, ID
I DAHO
FALLS
After closing the public hearing, Council members reflected on testimony and
broadly agreed the discussion was valuable but that they were not ready to adopt the
impact fee study or ordinance. Multiple Councilors emphasized the need to slowdown,
table the proposal, and provide clearer direction to the Impact Fee Advisory Committee for
further analysis. Key unresolved issues included how unfinished and climate-controlled
basements should be treated, affordable housing provisions and enforcement, the
treatment of police vehicles and other items in the Capital improvement Plan (CIP), and
comparisons between City and county commercial impact fees. Councilors stressed the
importance of getting the policy right rather than moving quickly, while also recognizing
timing pressures tied to the validity of the CIP and the aging of the study as fees continue to
be collected. Several members underscored that impact fees are meant to fairly assign
grovyth-related costs to development, not taxpayers, and that assumptions and risks are
unavoidablebut must remain clear, defensible,and administratively workable. There was
also discussion about park siting and equity, with strong agreement that community and
regional parks serve the entire City regardless of location. The Council agreed the matter
did not need to restart the full Planning and Zoning process.
Motion: Table the proposed capital improvement plan and development impact fee study
approval and the amendments to the City Code Title 10, Chapters Impact Fees,
o
Moved by: Councilor Radford
o
Second: Councilor Larsen
o
Vote: Aye: Burtenshaw, Dingman, Francis, Freeman, Larsen, Radford. Nay: none
o
Motion carries.
6.
Announcements
●
UTV Parade next Friday and fully registered.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:49 PM
18

City Council Meeting
Minutes
680 Park Avenue
Idaho Falls, ID
I DAHO
FALLS
Please sign-in if you would like to give testimony in the Public Hearing of the
Proposed Capital Improvement Plan, Development Impact Fee Study
Update, and Amendments to City Code, Title 10, Chapters, Development
Impact fees
Name
/I
Address
5,-pH-
./
'T
1 U ty 'f
€
I --HT
cl
loW4;
X5'
r
£.
V7
/
■’X
f
\
\
fvy
L/'
19