City of Idaho Falls | minutes | meeting 2026-03-30 | City Council Work Session
source: https://www.idahofallsidaho.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Minutes/_03302026-2109

City Council Work Session 
Meeting Minutes 
 
1 
 
680 Park Avenue 
Idaho Falls, ID 83402 
Monday, March 30, 2026 
3:00 PM 
City Council Chambers 
 
Call to Order and Roll Call 
There were present: 
Mayor Lisa Burtenshaw  
 
 
 
 
Council President Jim Francis 
Councilor Michelle Ziel-Dingman (Left at 5:53 pm) 
 
Councilor Jim Freeman  
Councilor Brandon Lee  
 
 
 
 
Councilor John Radford (Arrived at 3:20 pm) 
 
Absent: 
Councilor Kirk Larsen 
 
Also present: 
Ian Turner, Airport Director 
 
 
 
 
Stephen Boorman, Interim GM – IF Power 
Pam Alexander, Municipal Services Director 
 
 
Bruce Young, Airport Finance 
Wade Sanner, CDS Director   
 
 
 
 
Mark Hagedorn, Finance Manager/Treasurer  
Brooks Slyter, Assistant Finance Manager 
 
 
Margaret Wimborne, Chief of Staff 
Zack Jones, City Attorney  
 
 
 
 
Emily Geisler, City Clerk 
Greer Saechao, Deputy Clerk 
 
 
 
 
TJ Nottestad, Impact Fee Committee Chair 
 
Mayor Burtenshaw called the meeting to order at 3:03 p.m. with the following items: 
 
City Council, Mayor Discussion: Citywide updates, concerns, questions, reports  
 
Council President Francis 
1. Server Certification Updates:  
• 
Worked with another Council member and the legal department to revise server certification rules.  
• 
Changes address most concerns raised during public comments and by downtown bar/restaurant owners.  
• 
A bullet-point summary of changes will be released soon by the legal department. 
 
2. Sister Cities Committee Changes: 
• 
The City plans to eliminate the Sister Cities committee by the end of the fiscal year. Reason: the 
committee has fulfilled its purpose and is no longer an efficient use of time/resources. 
 
The program itself will continue, but oversight will shift to a City staff member, a tighter budget will be 
implemented, and the affiliated association will be asked to Contribute more financially. 
• 
Youth cultural exchange efforts were highlighted as a strong success. 
• 
More details will be discussed at the April 16 meeting; feedback is welcomed. 
 
3. Alcohol Ordinance Consolidation: 
• 
The City currently has four separate alcohol ordinances. [Three specific to beer, wine, & liquor and one 
section in the Parks code.] The plan is to consolidate them into one main ordinance (with parks handled 
separately). 
• 
This will include the updated server certification rules and is expected to come to a work session in early 
May.

City Council Work Session 
Meeting Minutes 
 
2 
 
680 Park Avenue 
Idaho Falls, ID 83402 
4. Zoning & Liquor License Issue (LC Zone) 
• 
A recent liquor license request in a Limited Commercial (LC) zone was denied as LC zones don’t allow 
drinking establishments, while Central Commercial zones do. 
• 
Proposal under consideration is to allow alcohol service in LC zones via a conditional use permit (variance 
process). 
• 
Staff will be asked to explore and propose options at a later date. 
 
5. Possible Neighborhood/Town Meetings 
• 
Idea: Hold small neighborhood meetings with 1–2 Council members. 
• 
Purpose is to explain specific issues. Gather public input in a more interactive setting. 
• 
Would not require public meeting requirements. 
• 
Still conceptual; concerns include: 
o 
Managing time and participation. 
o 
Ensuring fairness and clarity that attendees aren’t representing the full Council. 
 
6. New Council Workspace 
• 
A dedicated workspace at City Hall is now available for Council members. With a table, chairs, maps, and 
upcoming desks/storage. 
 
Councilor Lee 
1. Idaho Crimes Against Children Unit Update 
• 
The detective assigned to the Idaho Crimes Against Children unit is being changed due to a 2 year rotation. 
• 
Detective Mendenhall has been serving in the role but will be leaving the position as part of that rotation. 
• 
The update was shared as an informational FYI to the Council. 
 
Councilor Freeman 
1. Welcome to New Fire Chief 
• 
Welcomed the new Fire Chief, Johan Olsen, to his first work session. 
• 
Noted he has been on the job for a couple of weeks. 
 
2. Passing of Retired Firefighter 
• 
Acknowledged the celebration of life for John Lund, a retired firefighter who passed away from cancer at 
age 63. 
• 
Councilor Freeman shared that he was a close friend and expressed personal sadness. 
 
3. Windstorm Damage & City Response 
• 
A recent windstorm caused significant damage across the City, especially to trees: 
o 
27 trees lost in parks and golf courses. 
o 
Notable losses: 
 
Pinecrest Golf Course: 6 trees 
 
Freeman Park: several trees 
 
Tautphaus Park: 6 trees 
 
Liberty Park area: 1 major tree (already a sparse area) 
• 
Additional impacts: 
o 
A protective screen near Pinecrest Golf Course is being removed due to damage and safety 
concerns.

City Council Work Session 
Meeting Minutes 
 
3 
 
680 Park Avenue 
Idaho Falls, ID 83402 
• 
Response efforts: 
o 
Idaho Falls Power was praised for a strong, rapid response restoring electricity. 
o 
Crews dealt with repeated damage in some locations. 
 
Councilor Ziel-Dingman 
1. Library Budget Development 
• 
Has been working with the Library Board on the upcoming fiscal year budget. 
• 
A recent special meeting focused on budgeting philosophy. 
• 
The Library Board is taking strong ownership and active involvement in building the budget. 
• 
Progress is positive, with another meeting scheduled to continue refining it. 
 
2. Support for Library Board Member 
• 
Expressed condolences and support for Mary Lund, a Library Board member. 
• 
She was absent from the recent meeting due to the passing of her husband, John Lund. 
 
Councilor Radford – Nothing at this time. 
 
Mayor Burtenshaw 
• 
Swearing-in & Meeting: Chief Olson will be sworn in April 2 at 6:00 PM, followed by the 6:30 PM Council 
meeting in Council chambers. 
• 
Land & Water Conservation Fund (LWCF): The Meppen Park project has cleared the state level and is now 
with the National Park Service. Officials say progress should move quickly. The City is in compliance, with 
findings showing no adverse effects, bringing the long-running effort close to completion. 
• 
National Attention on Energy: The Mayor gave a March 20 interview with the New York Times about 
proposed lifecycle fuel initiatives. She emphasized Idaho Falls’ strong energy knowledge and its long-
standing role in energy production, including ties with INL. 
• 
Upcoming Visit: A reporter from the New York Times will visit Wednesday to tour the City and learn how 
energy development has shaped Idaho Falls. The Mayor may ask a Council member to assist if scheduling 
conflicts arise. 
• 
INL Tour (April 14): Council members are encouraged to attend an upcoming tour of the Idaho National 
Laboratory. Regional leaders are emphasizing its importance due to expanding activities beyond cleanup 
work. 
• 
General Theme: The Mayor highlighted Idaho Falls’ historic and ongoing role in energy innovation, 
including preparing infrastructure for a “nuclear renaissance.” 
 
 
Municipal Services, Mayor’s Office, Legal Update: Impact Fee Ordinance & Study (Director Alexander, Director 
Sanner, TJ Nottestad) 
 
1. Core Issue: How to Calculate Impact Fees 
Two main approaches are being compared: 
• 
Per-door model (old system): 
o 
Flat fee per unit (single-family vs. multi-family). 
o 
Simpler, but seen as less equitable (a small home pays the same as a very large one). 
• 
Square-footage model (proposed): 
o 
Fees based on total home size, grouped into three categories. 
o 
Aims to better reflect actual impact on City services.

City Council Work Session 
Meeting Minutes 
 
4 
 
680 Park Avenue 
Idaho Falls, ID 83402 
There is no perfect method, so the focus is on choosing the most equitable and practical approach. 
 
2. Key Concern: Large Fee Increases 
• 
Some housing types (e.g., duplexes) could see significant increases (e.g., ~$2,900 → ~$4,900). 
• 
Concern that these costs will be passed on to buyers. 
• 
Others argue: 
o 
The total revenue doesn’t change—only who pays more or less. 
o 
Previous fees were only 75% of the allowable amount 
 
3. Square Footage vs. Housing Type 
• 
The square-footage model eliminates distinctions between single-family and multi-family. 
• 
This helps avoid: 
o 
Confusing definitions (e.g., duplex vs. townhouse). 
o 
Legal challenges tied to those definitions. 
• 
However, it raises questions about whether: 
o 
Different housing types with the same size truly have the same impact. 
 
4. Unfinished Basements Debate 
Arguments for INCLUDING them: 
• 
Represent potential living space and future impact. 
• 
Prevents people from avoiding fees upfront and finishing later. 
• 
Ensures everyone pays fairly once. 
Arguments for EXCLUDING them: 
• 
Homes with unfinished basements often use similar services initially. 
• 
Only about 15% of homes have unfinished basements → minimal revenue impact. 
• 
Including them can push homes into higher fee categories, creating large upfront cost jumps. 
 
5. Affordability vs. Impact Fees 
• 
Strong agreement that: 
o 
Impact fees ≠ affordability policy. 
o 
They are meant for “growth paying for growth” (infrastructure costs). 
• 
However, decisions still influence affordability: 
o 
The real affordability issue is construction cost differences (e.g., ~$50K to finish a basement), not 
small fee differences (~$1K). 
o 
Unfinished basements help buyers enter the market sooner. 
 
6. Equity Considerations 
• 
Square footage is viewed as more equitable because: 
o 
Larger homes typically create greater impact. 
o 
It avoids unfair scenarios (e.g., 900 sq ft vs. 8,000 sq ft paying the same fee under per-door). 
• 
Census data supports the idea that: 
o 
Larger homes often house more people, increasing impact. 
o 
Though some question whether recent economic changes have altered living patterns. 
 
7. Revenue and Methodology Insights 
• 
The total revenue collected is fixed (based on infrastructure needs). 
• 
The decision is about:

City Council Work Session 
Meeting Minutes 
 
5 
 
680 Park Avenue 
Idaho Falls, ID 83402 
o 
Distribution of costs, not total amount. 
• 
The group is interested in: 
o 
Comparing old vs. new models using past data. 
o 
Ensuring the method is defensible, consistent, and understandable. 
 
8. Policy Direction Emerging 
• 
Movement toward: 
o 
A simplified square-footage system (3 categories instead of 10). 
o 
Treating all housing types consistently under that system. 
• 
Continued concerns: 
o 
Impact on entry-level housing. 
o 
Effects of unfinished basements on fee jumps. 
o 
Need for clearer data comparisons and modeling. 
 
9. Ordinance & Process Updates 
• 
Some ordinance language needs correction: 
o 
Remove claim that the advisory committee “approved” the proposal. 
o 
Clarify definitions (e.g., “climate-controlled square footage”). 
• 
Timeline: 
o 
Planning & Zoning review upcoming. 
o 
Public hearing and possible adoption scheduled. 
o 
Implementation targeted for later in the year. 
 
 
Municipal Services, Mayor’s Office Discussion: Procurement Policy (Director Alexander) 
City staff presented a proposed procurement policy aimed at creating a clear, consistent, and audit-compliant 
framework for purchasing across all departments. This effort follows audit findings that the City lacks a formal, 
Council-adopted policy and currently relies on inconsistent and outdated practices. 
The primary goal is to balance: 
• 
Efficiency for staff and operations 
• 
Accountability, transparency, and compliance with state law 
• 
Competitive purchasing to protect taxpayer dollars 
Key Issues & Discussions: 
1. Thresholds and State Alignment 
• 
The City has been operating more conservatively on authority thresholds than Idaho law (using a $75,000 
threshold vs. the state’s $100,000). 
• 
There is discussion about whether to align with the state threshold or maintain more strict internal 
controls. 
• 
A proposal would increase spending authority to $100,000 for the Mayor and certain large departments 
(Airport, Public Works, Idaho Falls Power). 
2. Competitive Bidding Requirements 
• 
A major debate centers on how strictly to require quotes: 
o 
Rigid requirements (e.g., always 3 written quotes) are often impractical, especially for specialized 
equipment or limited vendors. 
o 
Departments emphasized real-world constraints, where sometimes only 1–2 vendors exist. 
• 
Consensus emerges around a flexible standard: 
o 
Require departments to seek competitive pricing whenever possible

City Council Work Session 
Meeting Minutes 
 
6 
 
680 Park Avenue 
Idaho Falls, ID 83402 
o 
Use language like “three quotes if feasible” 
o 
Allow methods such as verbal quotes, emails, or general price checks 
3. Internal Controls vs. Efficiency 
• 
Some Council members favor trusting department directors and minimizing bureaucracy. 
• 
Others stress the need for internal controls to prevent complacency, favoritism, or lack of competition 
over time. 
• 
Finance acts as a gatekeeper, reviewing purchases, ensuring thresholds are followed, and requiring 
documentation. 
• 
Auditors will test whether the City follows its own policy, making clear documentation critical. 
4. Threshold for Requiring Competitive Solicitation 
• 
Debate between $25,000 vs. $50,000: 
o 
$50K reduces administrative burden. 
o 
$25K strengthens oversight and competitive practices. 
• 
The group leans toward: 
o 
$25,000 threshold 
o 
Require documented solicitation of quotes (not necessarily obtaining all) 
o 
Include flexibility (“if feasible”) and require director approval 
5. Documentation & Accountability 
• 
Departments must document: 
o 
Who they solicited 
o 
Why fewer quotes were obtained (if applicable) 
• 
This ensures compliance with: 
o 
Audits 
o 
Public records (FOIA) requests 
o 
Internal accountability 
6. Department Flexibility 
• 
The City policy sets minimum standards, while departments can adopt stricter internal rules tailored to 
their operations. 
7. Additional Policy & System Updates 
• 
For new Workday implementation: 
o 
Up to $5,000: credit card/direct payment 
o 
Above $5,000: purchase order required 
o 
Elimination of “confirming” purchase orders 
• 
Capitalization threshold set at $10,000 (agreed upon). 
The policy will be revised based on feedback and brought back for formal adoption. 
 
 
Municipal Services Presentation: Quarterly Financial Report (Director Alexander, Brooks Slyter, Mark Hagedorn) 
Cash & Fund Balances 
• 
General Fund cash is down about $3 million from last year due to spending down ARPA funds on major 
projects (North Fire Station, Frontier Center). 
• 
Golf Fund is performing strongly and is now positive, driven by increased usage and improvements (e.g., 
ball machines). 
• 
EMS Fund declined due to higher personnel costs and delayed equipment purchases arriving. 
• 
Some negative balances (Fire Impact Fee, Frontier Center) are timing/accounting issues, not true deficits, 
and will be corrected. 
• 
Water Fund cash decreased due to water tower construction.

City Council Work Session 
Meeting Minutes 
 
7 
 
680 Park Avenue 
Idaho Falls, ID 83402 
• 
Overall, City cash is stable, though the General Fund is lower due to planned spending. 
 
Investments 
• 
Investment priorities: safety → liquidity → yield. 
• 
Portfolio consists mainly of U.S.-backed securities, CDs, and some corporate bonds. 
• 
Annual return ~3.4%, with current investments yielding 3.5–4%. 
• 
Slight policy deviation (27% vs. 25% limit) on longer-term investments due to: 
o 
Callable investments being redeemed early 
o 
Shifts in cash/liquidity 
• 
Expected to return to policy soon. 
 
Citywide Revenues 
• 
Property taxes appear high (54%) due to January lump-sum collection. 
• 
Permits and impact fees are lower than last year, not due to less activity but different types of 
development (less high-revenue commercial/multifamily). 
• 
Many revenues are seasonal, with more activity expected in spring/summer. 
 
Citywide Expenditures 
• 
Spending is generally in line with expectations (~1/3 of annual budget). 
• 
No major overages; some front-loaded costs explain minor variances. 
• 
Personnel costs are slightly lower due to vacancies. 
• 
HR appears higher due to annual insurance payments. 
 
General Fund Details 
• 
Permit revenue significantly down vs. last year ($410K vs. $731K), being monitored. 
• 
Intergovernmental revenue decreased due to: 
o 
End of SAFER grant 
o 
Near completion of ARPA funding 
• 
Capital (MERF) expenses are higher early due to timing of purchases. 
• 
Public safety (police/fire) overtime is under control, improving from last year. 
 
ARPA Grant Update 
• 
Of $10.5M awarded, about $10M+ already spent (nearly complete). 
• 
Remaining funds (~$400K) tied to a delayed BearCat vehicle: 
o 
Plan: temporarily reallocate to personnel costs to meet federal deadline, then reimburse later. 
• 
Other projects (generator, irrigation, park upgrades) are nearing completion. 
• 
Any leftover funds will go toward the North Fire Station. 
• 
Goal: fully expend ARPA funds by deadline and close out the grant. 
 
 
Airport (Director Turner, Bruce Young) 
1. Report: YTD Budget 
Financial Position 
• 
Cash balance: ~$3.2 million, continuing to grow. 
o 
Boosted by $1.4 million in state grant funding received in January. 
• 
Overall, the airport is in a strong and improving financial position.

City Council Work Session 
Meeting Minutes 
 
8 
 
680 Park Avenue 
Idaho Falls, ID 83402 
Revenues 
• 
Meeting or exceeding budget expectations so far. 
• 
Parking revenue is strong, but capacity is an ongoing issue (lots frequently full). 
• 
General aviation revenue spike largely due to a one-time ~$400K payment from the Fixed Base 
Operation (FBO). 
• 
Revenue growth is solid and trending upward. 
 
Expenses 
• 
Operating income: ~$1.1 million (positive performance). 
• 
Personnel costs slightly over budget due to unplanned aviation screener positions. 
• 
Operating costs higher than expected, mainly due to: 
o 
Front-loaded purchases (e.g., buying paint early to avoid tariffs, saving ~$12K) 
o 
Rising costs in fuel, maintenance, and contracted services 
o 
Some unexpected equipment and repair expenses 
 
Seasonal Improvement 
• 
Historically, the airport loses money in winter, but it is now operating positively during winter months, 
showing improved cash flow management. 
 
Non-Operating Revenue & Capital 
• 
Grant funding (FAA/state) drives capital activity. 
• 
Timing differences explain why some grant revenue appears lower in this report. 
• 
Interest income is much higher than expected ($62K vs. ~$2.5K budgeted). 
• 
Major purchases (e.g., equipment) are largely grant-funded. 
 
Net Position 
• 
Net gain: ~$1.4 million year-to-date. 
 
Key Concerns & Watch Areas 
• 
Expenses are rising, including contracts (e.g., elevator/escalator maintenance), fuel and equipment 
repairs. 
• 
Budget will need close monitoring, especially as most spending occurs in the busy summer season. 
• 
Parking capacity is maxed out, signaling strong demand and a potential need for rate adjustments or 
expansion. 
 
Policy & Planning Discussion 
• 
Council discussed parking fees: 
o 
Recently increased, but likely due for another review. 
o 
Considering adjustments, especially for economy parking, to balance usage. 
• 
Broader rate and revenue strategies will be addressed in the next budget cycle (FY 2026–27). 
 
2. Discussion: Fixed Base Operation (FBO) Request for Proposal  
What an FBO Does 
An FBO provides essential airport services, including: 
• 
Fueling aircraft, pilot and passenger services (flight planning, transportation, amenities), Emergency 
support for airport operations 
They may also offer additional services like:

City Council Work Session 
Meeting Minutes 
 
9 
 
680 Park Avenue 
Idaho Falls, ID 83402 
• 
Flight training, Aircraft rental/sales, Hangar space and other aviation-related services 
 
Why Issue an RFP 
• 
The airport has seen significant growth in both commercial and general aviation. 
• 
Increasing demand includes: 
o 
Multiple inquiries (6+) about opening a second FBO 
o 
A hangar waitlist exceeding 20 people 
• 
Current infrastructure cannot fully meet demand. 
• 
The RFP is intended to expand services and capacity, align with the airport master plan and bring in 
private investment and expertise. 
 
Regulatory Requirements 
• 
Federal rules prohibit granting an exclusive right to a single private operator. 
• 
The airport must allow fair competition, treat all operators equitably and maintain consistent lease 
and fee structures. 
 
Proposed Development 
• 
A potential second FBO would likely be located in the south apron (south quad). 
• 
Concept plans include new pavement, infrastructure, hangars and operational facilities. 
• 
Proposals may include FBO services only, hangar development, or a combination of both. 
 
Selection Process 
Phase 1: Proposal Evaluation 
• 
Completeness and qualifications 
• 
Financial and business plan viability 
• 
Experience and regulatory compliance 
• 
Revenue potential for the airport 
• 
Understanding of the local/regional aviation market 
Phase 2: Interviews 
• 
Top candidates (at least 2 expected) will be interviewed. 
• 
Focus on consistency with proposals, collaboration with existing users, strategy for growing (not 
splitting) airport business and future vision (e.g., electric aircraft, sustainable fuels). 
 
Key Considerations 
• 
The airport wants growth, not competition that simply divides existing business. 
• 
Long-term commitment is expected due to large capital investments (estimated tens of millions) and 
typical lease terms of 30–50 years. 
• 
Strong emphasis on finding a reliable, experienced partner. 
 
Financial & Strategic Approach 
• 
The City prefers private investment rather than building facilities itself due to limited available capital 
(focused on terminal expansion) and high development costs. 
• 
Public-private partnerships help reduce risk to the City and leverage industry expertise 
 
Market Context 
• 
While many airports are consolidating FBOs, IDA is considering expansion due to local growth and 
demand.

City Council Work Session 
Meeting Minutes 
 
10 
 
680 Park Avenue 
Idaho Falls, ID 83402 
• 
The private FBO model (leasing airport land) is standard industry practice. 
 
Timeline & Expectations 
• 
RFP to be finalized and released soon. 
• 
Anticipated: 
o 
3–4 proposals minimum 
o 
Selection by mid-to-late summer 
o 
Followed by negotiations before Council approval 
 
Additional Notes 
• 
Current FBO (Aeromark) has a long-term lease potentially extending to 2052. 
• 
Adding a second FBO would be a major shift in airport operations and requires careful 
implementation. 
 
Mayor: Announcements, Events, Calendaring, Proclamations, Notes and/or Minutes from Boards and 
Commissions (No more provided at this time in the meeting) 
 
 
Executive Session (called at 6:37pm): The Council will not reconvene after the executive session.  
 
Motion: Called pursuant to Idaho Code 74-206(1)(f) to communicate with legal counsel for the public 
agency to discuss the legal ramifications of and legal options for pending litigation, or controversies not 
yet being litigated but imminently likely to be litigated. The mere presence of legal counsel at an 
executive session does not satisfy this requirement. 
o 
Moved by: Councilor Francis 
o 
Second: Councilor Freeman 
o 
Vote: Aye: Francis, Freeman, Lee, Radford. Nay: none.  
o 
Motion carries. 
 
Start: 6:41 PM 
End: 6:52 PM 
 
There were present: Mayor Burtenshaw, Council President Francis, Councilor Freeman, Councilor Lee, 
Councilor Radford, Zachary Jones, Margaret Wimborne, and Pam Alexander 
 
 
 
/s/ Emily Geisler 
___________________  
 
/s/ Lisa Burtenshaw 
_____________ 
Emily Geisler, City Clerk  
 
 
 
 
Lisa Burtenshaw, Mayor

Category
Single-Family
Multi-Family

MFR

SFR Below 1500
SFR 1500 to 2999
SFR 3000 plus

SFR
SFR
Multi-family
Multi-family
Multi-family
Multi-family

Retail
Office
Industrial
Institutional

Impact Fee: 75% Fire,
Police, Parks; 100%
Transportation
(Current)

2,943.25
$ 2,943.25
5,273.50
5,273.50
5,273.50

Notes:

Maximum Supportable
(100% all fees }
6,027.00
3,479.00

3,479.00
6,027.00
6,027.00
6,027.00

Difference between
Impact Fee (Current

Ae PA

and 100% all fees)
(753.50)
(535.75)

(535.75)
(753.50)
(753.50)
(753.50)

Impact Fee Comparison Table By Land Use

Residential
Difference between
Maximum Impact Fee 100%
Supportable (2025 allfees (2025 &
Study) 2021)
5,822.00
3,219.00
3,109.00 165.75 |
3,109.00 (2,918.00) D
4,902.00 (1,125.00) D
6,460.00 433.00 |

Square Footage

Multi-family-assuming Under 1500 sq ft
SFR Under 1500
SFR 1500 to 2999
SFR 3000 or more

The Average Single Family Detached with a basement is 4373 sq ft: Per City of IF building Department: The average single family residence would see an Increase in impact fees by a min. of

The Average Single Family Detached with NO basement is 3009 sq ft: Per City of IF Building Department: The average single family residence no basement would see an increase by a min. of
The Average Single Family Attached (Duplex, twin homes, town homes) with basement is 2452 sq ft: The average SF attached with basement would see an increase by a min of

The Average Single Family Attached (Duplex, twin homes, town homes) with NO basement is 1884 sq ft: The average SF attached with basement would see an Increase by a min of

The Average Multi-Family Aparment Units (using only livable sq ft calculations) is 968 sq ft; The average apartment unit using these calculations would see a Increase/decrease in impact fees by
The Average Multi-Family Aparment Units (using entire building sq footage divided by units) Is 1165 sq ft; The average apartment unit using these calculations would see an Increase/decrease in impact fees by

The fee schedule was catculated using current impact fee costs vs the square footage update in the 2025 study

Impact Fee (Current)
75% Fire, Police;

100% Transportation

$ 5,548.00
1,961.25

997.00

3,347.50

Maximum Supportable
(Current)
6,119.00
2,135.00
1,085.00
3,935.00

Non-Residential

Source Documentation: Page 13, Capital improvement Plans and Development Impact Fee Study 10-7-25 and Current Impact Fee Schedule.

Category
Single-Family
Multi-Family

Retail
Office
Industrial
Institutional

Impact Fee: 75% Fire,
Police, Parks; 100%
Transportation
(Current)
$ 5,273.50

2,943.25

$ 2,943.25
5,273.50
5,273.50
5,273.50
5,273.50
§,273.50
5,273.50
5,273.50
5,273.50
5,273.50

Impact Fee (Current)
75% Fire, Police;

100% Transportation

$

Maximum Supportable
(100% all fees }
6,027.00
3,479.00

3,479.00
6,027.00
6,027.00
6,027.00
6,027.00
6,027.00
6,027.00
6,027.00
6,027.00
6,027.00

Maximum Supportable
(Current)
6,119.00
2,135.00
1,085.00
3,935.00

Difference between
impact Fee (Current

CAAA A AA GH HH

and 100% all fees)
(753.50)
(535.75)

(535.75)
(753.50)
(753.50)
(753.50)
(753.50)
(753.50)
(753.50)
(753.50)
(753.50)
(753.50)

Impact Fee Comparison Table By Land Use

Residential
Difference between
Maximum Impact Fee 100%
Supportable (2025 allfees (2025 &
Study) 2021)
5,822.00
3,219.00
3,219.00 (260.00)
5,822.00 (205.00)
5,822.00 (205.00)
5,822.00 (205.00)
5,822.00 (205.00)
5,822.00 (205.00)
5,822.00 (205.00)
5,822.00 (205.00)
5,822.00 (205.00)
5,822.00 (205.00)
Non-Residential

Square Footage

Under 1,000
1,000 to 1,499
1,500 to 1,999
2,000 to 2,499
2,500 to 2,999
3,000 to 3,499
3,500 to 3,999
4,000 to 4,499
4,500 to 4,999
5,000 or more

Per Housing Unit By Square Footage
Maximum Supportable (100% all
Fees)

$ 3,109.00
3,109.00
4,902.00
6,460.00

Per 1,000 Square Footage (100% All
Fees)

$ 4,536.00

2,294.00
1,037.00
4,165.00

Per Housing Unit By Square Footage
Maximum Supportable (100% alt
Fees)

$ 2,177.00
3,209.00
4,278.00
5,064.00
5,699.00
6,230.00
6,676.00
7,073.00
7,425.00
7,731.00

Per 1,000 Square Footage (100% All
Fees)

$ 4,930.00

2,445.00

1,106.00

4,316.00

Difference between Impact
Fee (current 75% and
square footage

165.75

(2,164.50)

(371.50)
1,186.50

RRP LH

$1186.50 at 75% or +22%
$1186.50 at 75% or +22%
$1958.75 at 75% or +67%
$1958.75 at 75% or +67%
$165.75 at 75% or + 5.6%
$165.75 at 75% or + 5.6%

$ (1,012.00)
332.75

40.00

817.50

Difference between Impact
Fee (current 75% and
square footage

(766.25)
(2,064.50)
(995.50)
(209.50)
425.50
956.50
1,402.50
1,799.50
2,151.50
2,457.50

Oc

Difference between
Impact Fee (2021 100%
and square footage)

$ 6,027.00
3,479.00
$ (370.00)
$ (2,918.00)
$ (1,125.00)
$ 433.00
$433.00 at 100% or +7%
$433.00 at 100% or +7%
$1423.00 at 100% or 41%
$1423.00 at 100% or 41%

$-370 at 100% or -9%
$-370 at 100% or -9%

% of Increase/Decrease
-18%
17%
4%
24%

Difference between

Impact Fee (2021 100%
and square footage)
$ 6,027.00
3,479.00
$ (1,302.00)
$ (2,818.00)
$ (1,749.00)
$ (963.00)
$ (328.00)
$ 203.00
$ 649.00
$ 1,046.00
$ 1,398.00
$ 1,704.00

Difference between

Impact Fee (2025 100%

Ff

Fr tf

and square footage)

5,822.00
3,219.00

(110.00)
(2,713.00)
(920.00)
638.00

Difference between

Impact Fee (2025 100%

$
$

FRPP FH PHF OH

and square footage)

5,822.00
3,219.00

(1,042.00)
(2,613.00)
(1,544.00)
(758.00)
(123.00)
408.00
854.00
1,251.00
1,603.00
1,909.00

(DAHO FALLS
Updated: 3/18/2026

Type of actlon: read down Requirements eoune WORKER'S GENERAL LIABILITY AUTOMOBILE 7 PERFORMANCE BONDS WRITTEN
for actlon: read PURCHASING PROCESS res nel ADVERTISEMENT COMPENSATION INSURANCE (1) LIABILITY _ - PAYMENT BONDS CONTRACT MISC. REQUIREMENTS
across INSURANCE (1) INSURANCE (2) URITY |LICENSE

Goods s $1000 Fleld Purchase Order - If Necessary Do not use for services. Should only be used when Vendor will
not accept P-Card.

City of Idaho Falls Purchasing Requirements (Current)

P-Card s $1000 No requisition required Must malntaln recelpt and provide cost code when reconciling
monthly statement.

P-Card 2 $1000 P-Card Requisition must be entered and approved through
Finance Level. Requisttlon will be canceled atter Finance
approval. Must Include requisition number In Wells Fargo
description box.

Yes, can be waived |Per Statute solicitation of quotes is required, Must be supplied
to no fewer than three (3) vendors by written means, either
electronic or physical delivery, with a deadline to respond not

Dept. Discretion Dept. Discretion less than three (3) business days. Purchases > $75,000 need
Council Approval. PO is required.

$150,000 Cooperative Purchasing may be utilized

May Be Requested Required

s$10K can be Purchases < $500 should be made by P-Card, > $500 require PO
waived unless paid by P-Card.
Goods > $75,000 to Semi-Formal Level Purchasing Processes
Required Required

N
No
Yes, can be waived
jo Dept. Discretion Dept. Discretion Bid/RFP required. Council Approval is required. PO is required.

N

Formal Level! Purchasing
Goods $150,000 & Over Processes Cooperative Purchasing Yes Yes Required Required Required
may be utilized

No
No
No

°

Construction Semi-Formal Level Purchasing Required w/ possible Option 100% of contract 100% of contract Per Statute solicitation of quotes is required, Must be supplied
> $50,000 to Processes additional Builder's Risk al, value -§ 54-1926 value -§ 54-1927 to no fewer than three (3) vendors by written means, either
$199,999 preferre electronic or physical delivery, with a deadline to respond not
May Be Requested Required Required d Required less than three (3) business days. Purchases > $75,000 need
Council
Approval. PO is required.

Construction No Purchasing Requirements Per Statute Required w/ possible All construction projects should include a contract and PO
< $50,000 No No Required additional Builder's Risk Required N pecomme No >$10K regardless of value. Council Approval required > $75,000.
nde

Construction Formal Level Purchasing Processes Required w/ possible 5% Bid 100% of contract 100% of contract
$200,000 & Over Required additional Builder's Risk Required Security value -§ 54-1927 value -§ 54-1928 Required Bid/RFP required. Council Approval is required. PO is required
Personal Services (manual labor) No Purchasing Requirements Per Statute Requires PO unless paid with P-Card. Professional service
< $75,000 Required if > contracts > $10,000 must be advertised as stated in Idaho
No Required Required Required 2$10K statute
$10,000 59-514,

Personal Services (manual labor) Semi-Formal Level Purchasing Processes Per Statute solicitation of quotes is required. Must be supplied
Required Required Required

|
> $75,000 to Cooperative Purchasing may be utilized to no fewer than three (3) vendors by written means, either
$150,000 electronic or physical delivery, with a deadline to respond not
No
Services Formal Level Purchasing
$150,000 & Over Processes Cooperative Purchasing Required Required Required
may be utilized
Professional Service Contracts Exempt from Semi-Formal or Formal
. Required plus .
Required Professional Liability Required No
|

Zz
fo)

z Zz
° fo)
Zz z Zz
° ro) fe)
Zz Zz Zz
° fe)

< $100,000 Level purchasing processes per Idaho
statute 67-2320

Required- 1 year |Dept. approves and signs contract. Contracts may be longer
See Idaho Statute 67-2803 for Complete
List of Exclusions P Exclusions to bidding include: travel and training; used personal property; goods for direct resale; purchases from Idaho Correctional Industries; repair of heavy equipment: Public Utilities; used equipment from auction; software maintenance, support and licenses of existing system/platform.

Term, No Renewals [than one year if option to cancel contract after one year exists
Legal should review all contracts before entering into contract

1) As a general rule, Worker's Compensation and General Liability Insurance are requlred unless a walver Is requested and approved by the Department Director, City Attorney, and Risk Management.

2) Where no motor vehicles will be used on behalf of the City or in the course of Contract, auto Ilabllity Insurance may be walved.

Dept. Discretion Dept. Discretion Required less than three (3) business days. Purchdses > $75,000 need
Design Professionals (Statute 67-2320) [Formal Level Purchasing Processes Required w/ additional Includes Professional Engineering, Architectural, Landscape
> $50,000 Professional Liability Architecture, Const. Management, Professional Land Surveying
No May Be Requested Required Required Required Services. Request for Qualifications required with potential bid.
3) Idaho Code requires that the Clty shall endeavor to purchase goods and services from vendors with a significant Idaho economic presence.

Council Approval. PO is required.
Sole Source Purchases Must discuss with legal prior to Required for on-site . : Must be publicly published for 14 days prior to award, Council
$50,000 & Over proceeding Yes Yes service Required Required No ° 2$10K Approval is required.
4) Seml-Formal Level Purchasing refers to Idaho Statute 67-2806. May also be called "Informal Bld” or "Competitive Quotes”.

Dept. Discretion Dept. Discretion Bid/RFP required. Council Approval is required. PO is required.
Emergency Purchases Open Marke, Bids Encouraged Required if Required if Yes, if Only waives the Bid process; Dept. declares emergency; submits
> $50,000 Construction or Construction/ Personal for written report; requires Mayor approval to proceed.
No No Service Service Required construc Yes, if for construction Yes, if for construction Required
tion
5) Formal Level Purchasing refers to Idaho statute 67-2806 (2). May also be called "Formal bid" or "Competitive Sealed Bid”.