City of Idaho Falls | minutes | meeting 2026-02-09 | City Council Work Session
source: https://www.idahofallsidaho.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Minutes/_02092026-2083

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.