Sentinel Media records · public agendas and minutes, text only, refreshed nightly from each body's own site · not a newspaper
minutes meeting date 2026-02-09 · fetched 2026-09-17 · 42149 characters · read by OCR, check numbers against the source · official file · plain text
City Council Work Session
Meeting Minutes
1
680 Park Avenue
Idaho Falls, ID 83402
Monday, February 9, 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
Councilor Jim Freeman
Councilor Kirk Larsen
Councilor Brandon Lee (Arrived at 3:03 PM)
Councilor John Radford
Also present:
Bryce Johnson, Police Chief
Wade Sanner, CDS Director
Chris Fredericksen, Public Works Director
Chris Canfield, Assistant Public Works Director
Brian Cunningham, Public Works
Ian Turner, Airport Director
Zack Jones, City Attorney
Emily Geisler, City Clerk
Mayor Burtenshaw called the meeting to order at 3:01 PM with the following items:
City Council, Mayor:
1. Discussion: Citywide updates, concerns, questions, reports
Alcohol Ordinance Review
•
Council members are working with several City departments to consolidate multiple, inconsistent
alcohol ordinances into a single, clearer ordinance.
•
Proposed changes include requiring alcohol server training, with both in-person and online
options available.
•
The effort is aimed at improving consistency, addressing over-pouring, and reducing public safety
issues associated with alcohol service.
•
Initial language may be presented at the March 9 work session, with more comprehensive
revisions to follow.
•
The Council discussed whether outside legal expertise may be needed but agreed to first explore
in-house capacity.
License Plate Readers (Flock Cameras)
•
Council members requested a future work session to clarify how license plate readers are used,
what data is collected, and how privacy concerns are addressed.
•
The discussion would be informational only, intended to improve transparency and shared
understanding.
•
Due to scheduling constraints, this topic may be pushed to April.
Sunset Clauses and Policy Evaluation
•
Strong interest was expressed in adding sunset clauses to ordinances to require periodic review
(e.g., every two to four years).
•
The goal is to evaluate whether policies achieved their intended outcomes using data, similar to
the impact fee review process.
•
This approach would support evidence-based decision-making and better responses to state-level
scrutiny.
City Council Work Session
Meeting Minutes
2
680 Park Avenue
Idaho Falls, ID 83402
•
Sunset clauses would primarily apply to ordinances rather than individual land-use decisions.
Consistency and Accountability in Land Use Decisions
•
Council members proposed holding regular reviews of past land-use decisions to ensure
consistency and clear messaging to developers and the public.
•
Interest was expressed in involving Planning and Zoning in at least one of these reviews each year.
•
Staff noted a combined Council/Planning meeting is already scheduled for February 23 to discuss
impact fees and PUDs.
Overlay Zones and Neighborhood Compatibility
•
Broad support was expressed for a future work-session discussion on overlay zones.
•
The focus is on buffering multi-story, multi-family developments from single-family
neighborhoods to address ongoing resident concerns.
•
Members acknowledged that existing tools (such as development agreements and height limits)
have not fully resolved neighborhood dissatisfaction.
•
An advisory committee was suggested as a way to bring resident-driven solutions directly to staff
and Council.
Planned Unit Developments (PUDs)
•
Council members noted that PUDs can be valuable but are often confusing and unpredictable.
•
There was interest in clearly defining allowable exceptions in code so developers understand
expectations upfront rather than relying on case-by-case negotiations.
•
This topic is anticipated to be discussed in an upcoming work session.
Zoning, Transportation, and Walkability
•
Concerns were raised about single-use zoning contributing to excessive vehicle trips and
congestion.
•
Support was expressed for reintroducing neighborhood-scale mixed-use zoning (e.g., corner
stores or coffee shops) to promote walkability and reduce car dependence.
•
Members referenced historic neighborhood models as examples of livable, walkable
communities.
Speed Limits and Traffic Safety
•
Questions were raised about the use of the 85th-percentile method for setting speed limits and
whether it prioritizes safety appropriately.
•
Council members expressed interest in a future discussion on the policy’s scientific basis and
impacts.
Parking Requirements
•
Concerns were raised about parking minimums, particularly their effect on downtown
development and the loss of historic or cultural spaces.
•
Members noted that rigid parking requirements can hinder redevelopment and urban vitality.
Street Trees and Public Works Coordination
•
The Council discussed the removal of recently planted trees near Community Park due to
improper species selection.
•
Trees will be preserved and relocated where possible, with replacements focused on canopy
coverage and safety.
•
Emphasis was placed on involving the City forester earlier in development decisions.
•
Staff later clarified that the street tree ordinance already specifies acceptable tree species for the
right-of-way.
Parks Master Plan
•
Council members requested a review of the Parks Master Plan, which has not been revisited in
several years.
City Council Work Session
Meeting Minutes
3
680 Park Avenue
Idaho Falls, ID 83402
•
Interest was expressed in assessing completed projects, remaining goals, and whether priorities
remain relevant.
•
This tied back to the broader theme of accountability and regularly revisiting adopted plans.
Library Board Update and Downtown Parking Concept
•
The Library Board discussed a developer proposal to explore underground parking near the
former Farrell’s building site.
•
The concept includes mixed-use development, shared public and residential parking, and possibly
a playground on top.
•
The Library Board agreed to provide a letter supporting further exploration, not an endorsement.
•
Any next steps would involve CDS and discussions with the City, which owns the property.
State Legislation on “Working Animals” (SB 1241)
•
Council was briefed on concerns raised by animal welfare organizations regarding proposed state
legislation.
•
The bill’s broad definitions could unintentionally limit local authority over animal licensing,
breeding, microchipping, and public animal sales.
•
Local bans on public animal sales have significantly reduced disease spread (e.g., parvo), and the
bill could undermine those protections.
•
Staff will conduct further research and consider whether the City should communicate concerns
to state legislators.
2. Acceptance or Receipt of Minutes
Motion: Receive recommendation(s) from the February 3, 2026, meeting of the Planning and Zoning
Commission pursuant to the Local Land Use Planning Act (LLUPA)
o
Moved by: Councilor Francis
o
Second: Councilor Freeman
o
Vote: Aye: Francis, Dingman, Freeman, Larsen, Lee, Radford. Nay: none.
o
Motion carries.
Police - Discussion: Homeland Security & Immigration (Chief Johnson)
Chief Johnson provided a comprehensive overview of the Idaho Falls Police Department’s role in
immigration-related matters, emphasizing that the department does not engage in routine immigration
enforcement and remains focused on its primary responsibility: local public safety.
He explained that the department’s authority is limited to enforcing state law and City
ordinances. Officers do not notify federal immigration authorities when someone is booked into jail—that
responsibility lies with the jail—and individuals cannot be held longer solely for immigration reasons
unless there is a criminal violation. Federal agencies do not ask local officers to conduct immigration
enforcement, and the department does not have the jurisdiction, time, or mandate to do so. When
federal authorities do make requests, it is typically for limited public safety support, such as traffic control
or perimeter security—not for detaining individuals on civil immigration matters. Any such requests go
through a supervisor, and the department does not assist with civil administrative warrants.
Chief Johnson stressed that collaboration with federal authorities occurs only in serious public
safety situations and after proper investigation. He shared examples including a sexual assault case
involving threats to a child’s family member, a human trafficking and kidnapping case involving interstate
transport of a minor, and a situation where federal authorities were searching for a specific violent
suspect. In each case, local officers acted within their authority and focused on protecting victims and the
City Council Work Session
Meeting Minutes
4
680 Park Avenue
Idaho Falls, ID 83402
community. He also noted an instance where a person stopped by federal agents was ultimately found to
have valid work authorization, illustrating the limited and clearly defined role local officers play.
The Chief discussed legal requirements that prohibit local agencies from blocking communication
with federal immigration authorities and confirmed that information sharing may occur in criminal
investigations. He also explained the department’s role in supporting U visas for undocumented crime
victims who cooperate in prosecutions. When the department certifies a U visa application, Homeland
Security conducts a review and may defer enforcement action while the case is pending. This process
helps encourage victims to report crimes and participate in the justice system.
Regarding federal presence and identification, Chief Johnson stated that Homeland Security
agents operating locally wear clearly marked uniforms, as do local officers and deputies. Federal partners
have assured the department they notify local law enforcement when operating in the area. While there
has been a modest increase in federal personnel in eastern Idaho, the department’s policies have
remained consistent across multiple presidential administrations.
He also addressed concerns about officers wearing masks, explaining that Idaho Falls officers
generally do not wear face coverings during regular patrol because communication and transparency are
important. However, in limited circumstances—such as undercover or tactical operations—masks may be
used for safety reasons, including protection against doxing or threats to officers’ families.
Chief Johnson highlighted ongoing officer training, including de-escalation and crisis intervention
training (CIT), and noted that federal agents receive training through the Federal Law Enforcement
Training Center. He acknowledged broader concerns about declining public trust in authority and
emphasized that building trust requires consistent, long-term effort. The department engages in
community outreach through Spanish-language radio, neighborhood meetings, National Night Out,
protest liaison programs, and participation in cultural events such as Día de los Muertos and Cinco de
Mayo. He noted that the department’s staffing roughly reflects the City’s demographics and includes
Spanish-speaking officers.
Throughout the discussion, Chief Johnson repeatedly underscored that the department’s guiding
principle is public safety. Immigration involvement is limited, legally defined, and situational, and the
department only works with federal authorities when it believes doing so is clearly in the best interest of
protecting the community. Council members expressed appreciation for the Chief’s explanation and for
the department’s continued outreach and engagement efforts.
Public Works - Discussion: Woodruff Ave & N 15th E Roadway Development (Director Fredericksen, Assistant
Director Canfield, Superintendent Cardon)
Public Works presented an overview of three coordinated roadway projects along Woodruff
Avenue near North 15th E, aimed at improving capacity, safety, and connectivity as the northeast side of
the City continues to grow.
The three phases include:
1. A federally funded overlay rehabilitation project from the canal to Lincoln Road (Phase 1).
2. A federally funded widening project from Lincoln Road to Yellowstone Highway, expanding the
roadway to a five-lane section (Phase 2).
3. A locally funded widening project from Yellowstone north toward Iona Road, funded primarily
through impact fees (Phase 3).
These projects are being coordinated with the Bonneville Metropolitan Planning Organization
(BMPO), Bonneville County, and the Idaho Transportation Department (ITD), particularly in anticipation of
the future US-20/US-26 connector. The City hopes to align project timelines to complete Phases 1 and 2
together to reduce disruption and potentially bid them as a single construction package, though federal
City Council Work Session
Meeting Minutes
5
680 Park Avenue
Idaho Falls, ID 83402
scheduling constraints currently place construction around 2028–2029. Phase 3 is tentatively scheduled
for 2027 but may shift depending on right-of-way needs, annexations, and coordination with the County.
Because two phases use federal funding, the City must complete environmental review and public
outreach. A public meeting is scheduled for February 25 at Fire Station 6, and outreach to affected
businesses will continue, especially those along the widening segment.
Design plans include expanding Woodruff to a five-lane section with dedicated right-turn lanes at
Yellowstone, updated signal configurations, and pedestrian improvements including sidewalks and
shared-use paths. Some right-of-way acquisition may be required, particularly on the north side of
Yellowstone. Council members raised concerns about pedestrian safety at the existing trail crossing,
vehicle speeds, and the width of the roadway, and asked staff to evaluate options such as pedestrian
refuge islands or other safety enhancements.
Construction impacts were discussed, including traffic management, potential night or Sunday
work, underground utility extensions (water, sewer, storm drainage), and the challenges of keeping traffic
flowing on a corridor that carries approximately 20,000 vehicles per day. Staff emphasized efforts to
minimize disruption but noted that full reconstruction work limits flexibility.
Council also discussed coordination with Bonneville County on nearby intersections, including
Iona Road and 15th, and expressed appreciation for improved regional collaboration on traffic planning.
The presentation concluded with confirmation that Public Works will continue design, finalize
agreements, coordinate with stakeholders, and return with updates as the projects advance.
Airport (Director Turner)
1. Discussion: Car Rental Agreements
•
The City received bids for rental car concessions and previously approved agreements in December
and January.
•
There is one remaining unallocated space, offered to Enterprise Rent-A-Car, which will be addressed
on Thursday’s Council agenda along with two amendments to the previously approved agreements.
The amendments clarify how the 10% privilege fee (essentially a commission to the airport) is applied
and adjusted for added space without changing brands.
•
The agreements, including the amendments, will all appear on the consent agenda.
•
Rental rates are increasing: previously the airport earned ~$195,000 annually, and under the new
contracts, this will rise to ~$302,511, bringing rates closer to market. Ready Return parking stalls, used
for customer pickup, are now priced just over $100 per stall, up from $60–$80 historically.
Enterprise’s bid for unallocated space was nearly $200 per stall.
•
The agreements include a minimum annual guarantee of $200,000 per contract year to ensure
baseline revenue.
•
Council members asked clarifying questions about the privilege fee and minimum guarantees; no
major issues were raised.
2. Discussion: Idaho Falls Regional Airport Board of Directors
•
Initially, meetings were quarterly, then monthly, and more recently every other month. Attendance
has sometimes conflicted with holidays, the budget process, or other Council activities.
•
Council and staff discussed consolidating airport business into regular work sessions and Thursday
night Council meetings instead of holding separate Board meetings, with quarterly financial updates
preserved. This would reduce preparation time and staff workload. Director Turner noted that
preparing for a Board meeting can take 12–15 hours, plus additional staff support.
City Council Work Session
Meeting Minutes
6
680 Park Avenue
Idaho Falls, ID 83402
•
The current “Board” is legally just the City Council; all meetings are public and must follow the same
notice requirements. Special Board meetings generally only brief the Council; formal decisions are
made in Council meetings.
•
Moving meetings to Council chambers would make them more accessible to the public and allow
recording, which the airport’s conference room currently lacks.
•
The consensus was to keep quarterly updates, handle urgent items in work sessions as needed, and
rely on Council liaisons for reporting. No separate Board is required for operational decisions.
•
There was discussion about whether to formally rescind the original Board policy, as leaving it could
create public expectation of a regular Board that no longer meets. The City Attorney will review the
policy to advise on next steps.
City Attorney, CDS - Review: Reasoned Statement for Denial of Application for Willows Place Townhomes PUD
(Attorney Jones, Director Sanner)
Primary Basis for Denial: Site Size
•
The site is under two acres, below the minimum size required for a PUD.
•
While exceptions exist for redevelopment or public benefit, Council exercised its discretion not to
grant an exception.
•
The definition of “redeveloping” was clarified: previously subdivided or developed property, even
if vacant, may qualify. The subject property had never been attempted for development, so it did
not meet the “redeveloping” standard.
•
This minimum-size basis is legally strong, clear, and central to the denial, especially in the context
of potential appeals or takings claims.
Additional Bases and Considerations
1. Public Amenity Standard
o
The applicant’s proposed amenity—a basketball court on a private street—was
considered insufficiently public because it was hidden and inaccessible to the
neighborhood.
o
For a PUD exception (less than two acres) to be justified, the amenity must provide a
tangible public benefit, not merely serve residents within the development.
2. Neighborhood Compatibility (Initially Considered)
o
The draft included a basis regarding compatibility: the surrounding neighborhood consists
of single-family detached homes with separation, whereas the proposed PUD includes
attached townhomes without separation.
o
The Council discussed that this basis could be legally weak, as attached units could be
built by right under R-1 zoning, making it a marginal argument.
o
Ultimately, this basis was removed to reduce legal risk, along with related factual findings.
3. Streetscape and Parking Considerations
o
Council discussed maintaining attractive streetscapes not dominated by parked vehicles
or garage entrances.
o
Concerns about fire truck access were raised, but since the fire department had approved
the design, there were insufficient facts to make a binding finding.
o
This streetscape factor was retained as a discretionary consideration, not an independent
basis for denial.
Legal Framing and Strategic Considerations
•
The draft lists multiple independent bases for denial to strengthen the City’s position in case of
appeal; even if one reason is challenged, others can uphold the decision.
City Council Work Session
Meeting Minutes
7
680 Park Avenue
Idaho Falls, ID 83402
•
Council emphasized the need to clearly articulate reasons for denying exceptions to PUD
requirements, including avoiding potential takings claims under the Fifth Amendment.
•
Wording was refined for clarity: instead of “not grant the exception to this rule,” it specifies “not
grant the exception to the requirement that it be two acres.”
Process and Next Steps
•
The Reasoned Statement will be presented by legal counsel at the upcoming Council meeting, not
on consent, to ensure proper discussion and formal adoption.
•
The discussion reinforced that discretionary factors (streetscape) can provide context but are not
core bases for denial.
•
Overall, the Council focused on strengthening legally defensible reasons, removing weaker
arguments, and clarifying the central rationale for denying the PUD.
Summary:
The Council finalized the Reasoned Statement by centering the denial on the two-acre minimum
requirement, removing weaker or marginal bases (like neighborhood compatibility), retaining
discretionary factors (streetscape), and preparing for formal presentation with legally defensible language
to withstand potential appeals.
Mayor - Report: Announcements, Events, Calendaring, Proclamations, Notes and/or Minutes from Boards and
Commissions
Mayor Burtenshaw discussed scheduling a Council Priorities meeting to review current priorities,
report on departmental progress, and identify new priorities ahead of budget season. The Mayor suggested
morning or afternoon sessions in early March, ultimately proposing Friday, March 6th, from 12–4 PM, with
a brown-bag lunch, to allow focused discussion without delaying the budget timeline. The original proposed
date of March 13th did not work for two Council members.
She emphasized that last year’s priorities review was interrupted by budget pressures and stressed
the importance of providing directors with clear guidance upfront, including staffing, insurance, and wage
considerations, to ensure informed decisions. The goal is to finalize priorities before budget preparation,
enabling directors to incorporate them while maintaining accountability.
Mayor Burtenshaw also noted that Citywide issues, not just departmental matters, should be
considered, and that this meeting would help streamline budget discussions and avoid delays, while
allowing Council to see full information on proposed cuts or allocations.
Executive Session:
Motion: 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. The Council will not reconvene after the executive session.
o
Moved by: Councilor Francis
o
Second: Councilor Dingman
o
Vote: Aye: Francis, Dingman, Freeman, Larsen, Lee, Radford. Nay: none.
o
Motion carries.
City Council Work Session
Meeting Minutes
8
680 Park Avenue
Idaho Falls, ID 83402
There were present: Mayor Burtenshaw, Council President Francis, Councilor Dingman, Councilor Freeman,
Councilor Larsen, Councilor Lee, Councilor Radford, Director Alexander, Zack Jones, and COS Wimborne.
Start: 6:15 PM
End: 6:27 PM
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 6:08 PM.
/s/ Emily Geisler___________________
/s/ Lisa Burtenshaw
_____________
Emily Geisler, City Clerk
Lisa Burtenshaw, Mayor
CITY OF IDAHO
FALLS
Woodruff Avenue
Project(s) Update
02/09/26
Chris Fredericksen, P.E., Public Works Director
Chris Canfield, P.E., Assistant Public Works Director
Brian Cunningham, Civil Engineer
IDAHO FALLS
Cel lea
Riven p—— || i 4
— ee ae ie
i eg e eee |
Ret Se sb alba
Lal
fear
kel i
Woodruff
Projects
Woodruff
Projects
Phases:
1 – Meppen to Lincoln
(Pavement Overlay)
FA - #23702
2-Lincoln to Yellowstone
Widening
FA - #23302
3-Yellowstone to Iona Road
Widening
(City project via Impact fees)
Project
Schedule
• Meppen to Lincoln; FA
(Overlay) = FY 2029
SLA PD Completed & in Design
• Lincoln to Yellowstone; FA
(Widening) = FY 2028
SLA PD Completed & in Design
• Yellowstone to Iona; Impact Fees
(Widening) = FY 2027; In Design
Woodruff Ave
Project
Update
• Design Elements
• Public Involvement Outreach Effort
• Public Involvement Plan for this Project
• POP Level 3
• Held Stakeholder Meetings Businesses prior to the
lane addition that we completed in 2023
• Public Outreach Meeting is Scheduled for
February 25, 2026 4-6:30 at Fire Station #6
The public is invited to learn about the proposed project
on Wednesday, February 25th, between 4:00-6:30 pm at
the Idaho Falls Fire Station 6.
PUBLIC MEETING
Woodruff Ave, Meppen Canal to US26
Road Improvement Project
Lisa Popoff
LHTAC, Local Highway Technical
Assistance Council
lpopoff@lhtac.org
(208) 344-0565
Chris Canfield
Assistant Public Works Director
City of Idaho Falls
ccanfield@idahofalls.gov
(208) 612-8259
Get in touch TO LEARN MORE
Idaho Falls Fire Station 6
2767 Spitfire St.
Idaho Falls ID 83401
Clifton Koon
Design Manager
Keller Associates, Inc.
ckoon@kellerassociates.com
(208) 542-6120
ADA / Title VI accommodations
can be provided with a 48-hour
notice. For accommodations call
Clifton Koon at Keller Associates.
TTY/TDD Users: Dial 711 or (800)
377‐3529 to use Idaho Relay
System.
Woodruff
Project Update
• Upcoming Actions
• Provide project Public Outreach
• Continue with the Design Process
• Coordinate with business owners, ITD, and County
• Execute State Local Construction Agreement
• Coordinate with Adjacent Property Owners during
Construction
Concept
•
New single lane
roundabout
•
Similar design as
roundabout at
Elm / S Blvd
•
Reduces street
parking on Birch
•
Outreach to include
a public meeting
Concept
Sidewalk (§ Buffer § C&G Thru Lane Thru Lane
6 ft 6ft B25 ft Tift Tift
ROW Buffer
6.5 ft
Woodruff Ave.
improvements from
E. Lincoln Rd. to US- —
26 will consist of full |
reconstruction and
widening of the
roadway.
Woodruff Ave., Meppen Canal to US26, City of Idaho Falls
Project No. A023 (302), Key No. 23302 & Project No. A023 (702), Key No. 23702
Public Meeting: February 25, 2026
Median/Turn Lane
ft
Total ROW 100 ft
Street Width 62 ft
Thru Lane
Tift
Thru Lane C&G fj Buffer i) Sidewalk
kis 25ft i 6ft 6 ft
ROW Buffer
6.5 ft
Woodruff Ave; US-26 to Lincoln, Idaho Falls and
Woodruff Avenue and Yellowstone Highway / US-26 Moo os ee pean
| 5-lane widening and { J / 5-lane widening
southbound right-turn lane Hi\\ - AAS Rul
Ultimate Intersection Layout f= pale ee ig a
- ROW needed at all corners :
¢ a wt} ,
- Full signal reconstruction ag 5 ‘Required ROW =e
- Pedestrian crossings on all 4 legs ‘ kata ) 345 sf + ae
bah +
3 a - vg R=46" ek ie
§| New ped signal pole = ub Ip : : ao —
-~ Existing signal pole and P* ENS & i q os
5 ) mast arm (remove) ) Soe 3 \\
stl Gee a ie ( ey ) , , XZ OER ( \ / Curb & gutter for future
“= New signal pole Sa sS apse Ae 6 ; . westbound right-turn lane
3 and mast arm Be ‘ g eg
. > te fa ay se ae SOAS / J ~ A = SE aN x aa fies
Bt = i
WB-67 Right-Turn |
Path (Typ.)
bere ee
es &
> ey
x
New ped signal pole -
ExlstIng signal pole and
mast arm (remove)
Vi
——__§_—— +] ko SENN eg 4 [<= New signal pole and mast arm
@ Relocate power pole v aN Wa YZ a Pas Z “4
up’) ETE Ba PN gee — yp F cad
J SY \ ' , Fi | a . i Ho : .
—q rT | L Re a
New signal pole | | H cad —
and mast arm| |) \ ; 7= New ped signal pole
Idaho Falls Regional Airport:
Car Rental Agreements
February 9, 2026
Where we left off…
•
The RFP process ended in November.
•
Council received a briefing on that RFP process on December 15th, 2025.
•
Three agreements were approved at the December 18th, 2025, and
January 8th, 2026, City Council meetings.
•
The remaining unallocated space was offered to Enterprise Rent A Car
Company of UT, LLC
Action on February 12th
• The airport and Enterprise Rent A Car Company of UT, LLC, have three items
coming to council on Thursday.
• A third Non-Exclusive Rental Car Concession Agreement
• An amendment to its agreement for operating as Enterprise Rent a Car
• An Amendment to its agreement for operating as National Car Rental and Alamo Rent a Car
• The third agreement and each amendment have adjustments to address:
• Privilege fee calculation across three agreements and brands
• Applying the minimum annual guarantee at the end of each contract year
Fixed Rent Comparison
Contract Year 2025-2026
$194,932.68
Contract Year 2026-2027
$302,511.58
55.19% from 2025-2026 to 2026-2027
Questions
Discussion: Idaho Falls Regional
Airport Board of Directors
Historic Meeting Schedule
2023
• Scheduled Quarterly
• Held three of four (3/4)
2024
• Scheduled Monthly, except three months
• Held eight of nine (8/9)
Historic Meeting Schedule
2025
• Scheduled Every Other Month
• Held three of six (3/6)
• A fourth was moved to work session on December
15, 2025.
2026
• Currently scheduled roughly every other
month.
• However, when that rhythm did not work out
with other scheduled items the meeting is
intended to be rolled into the nearest work
session.
1
Future Options
2
3
4
Quarterly IDA Updates at Work Session
Updates at Discretion/Direction of Mayor, Liaison, or Director
Irregular Work Session Updates – criteria-based updates
Other
Direction to Staff
REASONED STATEMENT OF RELEVANT CRITERIA AND STANDARDS
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR WILLOWS PLACE TOWNHOMES,
GENERALLY NORTH OF HIGHLAND CANAL, EAST OF BLUE BIRD LANE,
SOUTH OF PLOMMON STREET, WEST OF SOUTH BELLIN ROAD.
WHEREAS, Bear Hunter Holdings, LLC, (“Applicant”) filed an application for a planned unit
development (“PUD”) on August 25, 2025; and
WHEREAS, this matter came before the Idaho Falls Planning and Zoning Commission during a
duly noticed public hearing on October 7, 2025; and
WHEREAS, this matter came before the Idaho Falls City Council during a duly noticed public
hearing on January 22, 2026; and
WHEREAS, having reviewed the application, including all exhibits entered and having
considered the issues presented:
I.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Idaho Falls City Council (“Council”) makes the following factual findings:
1. On August 25, 2025, a neighborhood meeting took place as required by City Code 11-6-8.
2. The proposed PUD consists of fourteen units that the Applicant intends to have platted on
individual lots. All of these units are proposed to be single-family attached dwellings, more
commonly known as townhomes, with five separate groupings of two or three units
attached to each other.
3. The property is approximately 1.815 acres located generally north of the Highland Canal,
east of Blue Bird Lane, south of Plommon Street, west of S Bellin Road.
4. The property is within the neighborhood bounded by Pancheri Drive to the north, Bellin
Road to the East, 17th South to the south, and an agricultural field just to the west of Lowell
Drive (the “Neighborhood”). The Neighborhood does not contain any single-family
attached residences or townhomes but, instead, consists of single-family detached
residences. Although there are single-family attached residences and townhomes to the
north and east of the Neighborhood, there are none within the Neighborhood. Within the
Neighborhood, each residence is separated from neighboring residences by various
distances.
5. The property consists of a vacant field with no residential structures.
6. The property is currently zoned R1.
7. The Applicant is proposing approximately seven units per acre.
8. At least twenty-five percent of the proposed PUD is designated by Applicant to be
maintained as common space for the recreational and/or common use of the occupants of
the development.
9. The Applicant has proposed two amenities, a playground and basketball court, for this
proposed PUD. These amenities are located at the southeast part of the proposed PUD. For
the public to access these amenities from Plommon Street, which is the only street from
which access would be had, the public would have to travel over two hundred feet to reach
either amenity. This distance would, as a practical matter, discourage the public from using
the amenities, even if the Applicant made them available to the public.
10. The Applicant has proposed constructing a private street, named Zoey Lane, to access the
units from the public street, Plommon St.
11. Each unit in the proposed PUD has two parking stalls, provided by a garage and one
parking pad. On the west side of the proposed private street, Zoey Lane, these parking stalls
constitute on average more than half of the linear distance of the total street length for Lots
1 through 14 as shown on the proposed PUD. In addition, the southern length of the
proposed Zoey Lane on the east side is almost entirely composed of parking spaces, with
a gap between the block parking spaces for a basketball court. If built, these parking spaces
would likely be filled with parked vehicles.
12. The proposed PUD provides guest parking in addition to the required parking.
13. The Applicant has requested the front setback to be varied from twenty-five feet to twenty
feet.
14. On October 7, 2025, the Planning Commission recommended to The Mayor and Council
approval of the application for a PUD as presented by a vote of 5 to 1.
15. On January 3, 2026, notice was published in Post Register regarding the public hearing on
January 22, 2026, to consider the application for a PUD.
16. On January 22, 2026, Council held a public hearing on the application for a PUD. At the
public hearing, the Applicant represented that it was willing to make the two amenities
available to the public.
17. After the public hearing, Council voted to deny the application for a PUD by a vote of 5 to
0 and directed City Staff to prepare this Reasoned Statement.
II.
RELEVANT CRITERIA AND STANDARDS
1. The Council considered the Applicant’s request pursuant to City of Idaho Falls Comprehensive
Plan, City of Idaho Falls Zoning Ordinance, City of Idaho Falls Subdivision Ordinance, the
Local Land Use Planning Act, and other applicable development regulations.
2. The notices referenced in Finding of Fact 15 that were published on January 3, 2026, satisfied
the notice requirements of Title 67, Chapter 65 of Idaho Code.
3. Council denies the proposed PUD for the reasons discussed below.
A. The Proposed PUD is under Two Acres
4. Council denies the proposed PUD because the site size is under two acres and Council, in its
discretion, has decided not to grant the exception to this rule. This is the first, independent
basis for the Council’s decision to deny the proposed PUD.
5. The City Code provides that “the minimum site size for a PUD shall be two (2) acres.” City
Code 11-2-6(W)(4)(a). This requirement, considered by itself, sets a requirement that a PUD
shall not be less than two acres. But, as with many requirements, there is an exception—
“[s]maller acreage may be considered for a PUD on land that the Council finds is redeveloping,
or provides a public benefit or amenity.” City Code 11-2-6(W)(4)(a) (emphasis added). The
rules of interpretation that apply to statutes also apply to interpreting municipal ordinances.
See Neighbors for a Healthy Gold Fork v. Valley Cnty., 145 Idaho 121, 131, 176 P.3d 126, 136
(2007) (citing Friends of Farm to Mkt. v. Valley Cnty., 137 Idaho 192, 197, 46 P.3d 9, 14
(2002)). As held by the Idaho Supreme Court, “the word ‘may’ is permissive rather than the
imperative or mandatory meaning of ‘must’ or ‘shall.’” S. Valley Ground Water Dist. v. Idaho
Dep’t of Water Res., 173 Idaho 762, 784, 548 P.3d 734, 756 (2024) (quoting Rife v. Long, 127
Idaho 841, 848, 908 P.2d 143, 150 (1995)). When a decision is permissive, the decision comes
within the discretion of the deciding body. See Edwards v. Lane, ___ Idaho ___, ___, 578 P.3d
525, 529 (2025) (citing State v. Mosqueda, 150 Idaho 830, 835, 252 P.3d 563, 568 (Ct. App.
2010)). Therefore, the use of the word “may” in this subsection gives Council discretion to
deny an application for a PUD—even if the land is redeveloping or provides a public benefit
or amenity—for the sole reason that the area of the proposed PUD is smaller than two acres.
6. Here, the acreage for the proposed PUD is approximately 1.815 acres. Finding of Fact 3. In the
exercise of its discretion, Council denies the proposed PUD because the area of the proposed
PUD is under two acres.
7. In addition, Council, in its discretion, does not find that the PUD site is redeveloping for
purposes of City Code 11-2-6(W)(4)(a).
8. Council, in its discretion, also does not find that the proposed PUD provides a sufficient benefit
or amenity to the public to be considered a public benefit or amenity under 11-2-6(W)(4)(a).
As noted in Finding of Fact 9, the public would have to travel over 200 feet to reach either
amenity. This distance, as a practical matter, would discourage the public from using the
amenities. Id. Thus, even though the Applicant offered to make the amenities available to the
public, Finding of Fact 16, Council finds that the amenities are not sufficiently accessible to
the public to be considered public benefits or amenities.
9. Given that the area of the proposed PUD is under two acres, and that Council does not find
that the proposed PUD site is redeveloping or offers a public benefit or amenity, the application
for a PUD is denied. Notably, Council finds that this reason, alone, is sufficient to deny the
application for a PUD, given the mandatory rule that “the minimum site size for a PUD shall
be two (2) acres,” City Code 11-2-6(W)(4)(a) (emphasis added), and Council has exercised its
discretion to not allow the exception to this rule.
B. The Proposed PUD is Not Compatible with the Surrounding Neighborhood
10. A second, independent reason that Council denies the proposed PUD is because the proposed
PUD is not compatible with the surrounding Neighborhood.
11. One mandatory requirement is that “[a] PUD shall be compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood bulk, scale, structural mass, and character demonstrated by similar building
types, construction, separations, and heights.” City Code 11-2-6(W)(5)(a).
12. Here, the relevant neighborhood is the Neighborhood with the boundaries as set forth in
Finding of Fact 4 because the Neighborhood surrounds the proposed PUD site. The
Neighborhood has separations between each of the residences, which are single-family
detached residences. Finding of Fact 4. The proposed PUD, however, has groupings of two or
three units that are attached to each other, meaning there is no separation between these
grouped units. Finding of Fact 2. As such, the proposed PUD’s separations (or, rather, non-
separations) is not consistent with the separations found throughout the Neighborhood.
13. In addition, the structure of the units in the proposed PUD are what are commonly referred to
as townhomes, Finding of Fact 2, but there are no townhomes within the Neighborhood,
Finding of Fact 4. Consequently, the units contained in the proposed PUD does not match the
character of the Neighborhood.
14. Because of the material differences in separations and character, the proposed PUD is not
compatible with the surrounding Neighborhood. Again, because City Code 11-2-6(W)(5)(a)
requires that a PUD “shall be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood,” a failure on this
score is fatal to the application. This is the second, independent reason that Council denies the
proposed PUD.
C. The Planned Streetscape Would be Dominated by Parked Vehicles and Garage
Entrances
15. An additional reason for denying the proposed PUD is because the planned streetscape would
be dominated by parked vehicles and garage entrances.
16. One of the purposes of the PUD regulations is to “[p]rovide for attractive streetscapes that are
not dominated by parked vehicles or garage entrances.” City Code 11-2-6(W)(1)(k).
17. As found in Finding of Fact 11, more than half of the length of the proposed Zoey Lane on the
west side would be dedicated to parking stalls and garages. In addition, the east side of the
proposed Zoey Lane’s southern end is almost entirely composed of parking spaces. Finding of
Fact 11. These parking spaces would most likely be filled with parked vehicles once the
residential units are occupied. Id. Based on these findings, Council concludes that the
streetscape of the proposed Zoey Lane would be dominated by parked vehicles and garage
entrances if the proposed PUD were to be accepted. This is an additional reason for Council’s
decision to deny the proposed PUD.
D. Denial Based on a Combination of All the Above Reasons
18. Even if any of the independent bases for denial, standing alone, are not sufficient for denial,
Council exercises its discretion to deny the proposed PUD based on a combination of all the
foregoing reasons.
III.
DECISION
Based on the above Reasoned Statement of Relevant Criteria, the City Council of the City of
Idaho Falls denies the application for the PUD as presented.
PASSED BY CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IDAHO FALLS
THIS ______ DAY OF ____________, 2026
_____________________________________
Lisa Burtenshaw – Mayor
NOTICE TO APPLICANT
The Applicant or any affected person seeking judicial review of the compliance of this
Reasoned Statement with the provisions of Idaho Code § 67-6535 must first seek reconsideration
of this Reasoned Statement within fourteen (14) days by filing a request to reconsider pursuant in
compliance with Idaho Code 67-6535.
In addition, the above Applicant has the right to request a regulatory taking analysis
pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-8003.
Text is extracted by machine from the official file linked on each page; the official file is the record. Sentinel Media, LLC.