City of Idaho Falls | minutes | meeting 2026-01-20 | City Council Work Session *Updated 01.16.26 @ 11:33am*
source: https://www.idahofallsidaho.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Minutes/_01202026-2074

City Council Work Session 
Meeting Minutes 
1 
680 Park Avenue 
Idaho Falls, ID 83402 
Tuesday, January 20, 2026 
3:00 PM 
City Council Chambers 
Call to Order and Roll Call 
Present: 
Mayor Lisa Burtenshaw  
Council President Jim Francis 
Councilor Michelle Ziel-Dingman 
Councilor Jim Freeman  
Councilor Kirk Larsen  
 
Councilor John Radford  
Absent: 
Councilor Brandon Lee 
Also present: 
Darin Jones, Human Resources Director  
Jon Knowles, Public Works 
Pam Alexander, Municipal Services Director 
Wade Sanner, CDS Director   
Chris Fredericksen, PW Director  
Chris Canfield, Assistant PW Director 
TJ Nottestad, Committee member  
Zack Jones, City Attorney  
Emily Geisler, City Clerk  
Mayor Burtenshaw called the meeting to order at 3:03 p.m. with the following items: 
Human Resources, City Attorney – Discussion: First Reading – Policy 410 & 440 Changes (Director Darin Jones) 
•
Sick Leave Conversion Policy:
o
Clarifies that employees must still be employed at the time of the November payout to receive a
sick leave conversion, even if they elected to convert leave in April.
o
Addresses prior ambiguity for employees who separate between April and November.
o
Proposes increasing the maximum sick leave conversion payout from $2,500 to $3,000 to better
reflect rising wages.
o
Benefits employees by allowing higher conversion value and benefits the City by gradually
reducing large sick leave balances instead of paying them out at separation.
•
Shared Leave Policy:
o
Adds clear definitions (based on IRS guidance) to establish eligibility for shared leave.
o
Clarifies that the 240-hour limit applies on a calendar-year basis.
o
Confirms shared leave operates through a central bank funded by employee donations (vacation
leave only).
o
Donations can be made at any time and remain in the bank; HR typically solicits donations only
when approved requests exceed available hours.
o
Clarifies how hours are allocated when multiple employees request shared leave at the same time
and the bank does not have enough hours.
o
Confirms shared leave is transferred hour-for-hour, regardless of differences in employee pay
rates.
•
Library Holiday Language:
o
Council raised questions about language referencing Saturdays/Sundays and library holiday
schedules.

City Council Work Session 
Meeting Minutes 
 
2 
 
680 Park Avenue 
Idaho Falls, ID 83402 
o 
HR acknowledged the language may be outdated or unclear and committed to follow up with 
library leadership to confirm current practice and make corrections if needed. 
• 
Safety and Workers’ Compensation Policy: 
o 
Updates clarify application of the waiting period, use of leave for medical appointments, how 
FMLA runs concurrently with workers’ compensation, and transitions after 50 calendar days. 
o 
Changes are intended solely to reduce confusion, not to alter how the policy is applied in practice. 
o 
Minor grammar and formatting issues were noted and will be corrected. 
• 
Next Steps: 
o 
Policies will be distributed to all employees for a 30-day comment period. 
o 
HR will incorporate appropriate feedback and correct grammar or flow issues. 
o 
Policies will return to City Council for approval after the comment period; substantive changes 
would come back to a work session if needed. 
 
Public Works – Discussion: Project Development – Elm Street (Director Fredericksen, Chris Canfield, Jon Knowles) 
• 
Project timeline: 
o 
Federal-aid project with a long lead time (initiated ~10 years ago). 
o 
Design underway; completion expected summer 2026. 
o 
Construction anticipated summer 2027. 
• 
Project scope and goals: 
o 
Reconstruct pavement and correct steep roadway crown. 
o 
Improve ADA accessibility. 
o 
Add pedestrian safety features such as bulb-outs to reduce crossing distances. 
o 
Enhance the overall pedestrian experience. 
• 
Public outreach: 
o 
A “Story Map” website will explain the project, show maps and design concepts, outline the 
schedule, and collect public feedback via a short survey. 
o 
Mailers with QR codes will direct residents to the site. 
o 
Public comment period proposed through mid-February. 
• 
Stakeholder coordination: 
o 
Meetings held with the school district (Alturas School) and the Museum of Idaho. 
o 
School concerns focused on construction timing (preferably summer) and pedestrian safety. 
o 
Museum concerns included sight distance and signage. 
• 
Speed limit and school zone discussion: 
o 
Elm Street currently posted at 25 mph. 
o 
A speed study showed an 85th percentile speed of ~30 mph. 
o 
Staff recommended increasing the posted speed to 30 mph and adding a flashing school zone 
near Alturas School during pickup/drop-off times. 
o 
Council agreed this proposal should be included in the public outreach, as it is likely to generate 
the most feedback. 
South Boulevard & Birch Street Roundabout 
• 
Project description: 
o 
Proposed single-lane roundabout, similar to the existing Elm & South Boulevard roundabout. 
o 
Intended to improve traffic flow, reduce conflicts, and align with the broader Boulevard corridor. 
• 
Funding and timing: 
o 
Locally funded through the CIP. 
o 
Targeted for construction summer 2026, likely after July 4. 
o 
Scheduled ahead of Elm Street construction to avoid overlapping disruptions.

City Council Work Session 
Meeting Minutes 
 
3 
 
680 Park Avenue 
Idaho Falls, ID 83402 
• 
Key considerations and concerns: 
o 
Changes in traffic patterns, including restricted left turns and some right-turn-only movements. 
o 
Potential loss or relocation of on-street parking on Birch Street and nearby areas. 
o 
Access impacts to adjacent businesses and residences. 
o 
Design includes a mountable center apron to accommodate trucks, emergency vehicles, and 
parade traffic. 
• 
Public engagement: 
o 
Staff recommended a neighborhood public meeting near the project area. 
o 
Council emphasized the importance of addressing parking impacts and clearly explaining access 
changes and detours. 
o 
Staff noted the design is advanced but still flexible enough to incorporate feedback. 
 
Council Direction and Next Steps 
• 
Proceed with public outreach on both projects, including the Elm Street speed/school zone proposal. 
• 
Launch the Elm Street Story Map and mailers promptly. 
• 
Schedule a public meeting for the South Boulevard & Birch roundabout. 
• 
Continue coordination with schools, nearby businesses, and property owners to address access, parking, 
and safety concerns before finalizing designs. 
 
Municipal Services, City Attorney, Mayor’s Office, Community Development Services – Discussion: Impact Fee 
Study Update (Director Alexander, TJ Nottestad, Director Sanner) 
• 
For reviewing proposed impact fee updates, discussing policy direction, and identifying remaining 
information needed before the Impact Fee Advisory Committee (IFAC) makes a recommendation. The 
discussion emphasized clarity, defensibility, and ensuring growth pays for growth. 
• 
Timeline and process: 
o 
Public hearings held November 5 (Planning Commission) and December 11 (City Council). 
o 
IFAC meeting delayed from January 5 to January 13 due to lack of quorum. 
o 
Next IFAC meeting scheduled for February 10, with the expectation that a recommendation will 
come back from that meeting. 
o 
Potential Planning Commission hearing in early March if capital plan changes are significant, 
followed by a City Council public hearing in April and possible adoption by late May. 
• 
Development activity and trends: 
o 
Staff reported approximately 800+ single-family permits issued in the most recent annual data 
set, prompting discussion about whether multifamily growth may be slowing or plateauing. 
o 
The data referenced is a permit count, not valuation or square footage, and aligns with a longer-
term trend suggesting growth may level off over a five-year horizon. 
o 
If multifamily growth has in fact slowed, members noted this would be a significant policy 
consideration and warrants close review. 
• 
Quarterly reporting and transparency: 
o 
Impact fees are reported quarterly, with improved data quality since implementation of the new 
permitting system in April 2024. 
o 
Reports now include permit activity, unpaid or “in-process” development, cash balances, and a list 
of projects funded by impact fees. 
o 
Council expressed concern that the term “unpaid permits” could be misleading and supported 
renaming it to better reflect development in progress. 
• 
Square footage vs. per-door methodology:

City Council Work Session 
Meeting Minutes 
 
4 
 
680 Park Avenue 
Idaho Falls, ID 83402 
o 
Extensive discussion focused on whether residential impact fees should be assessed by square 
footage or per dwelling unit (“per door”). 
o 
Square-footage-based fees were criticized for introducing complexity, assumptions about 
household size, definitional disputes (finished vs. unfinished space), and increased administrative 
burden for staff and builders. 
o 
Data showing roughly 86% of basements are eventually finished undermined the assumption that 
excluding unfinished space meaningfully improves affordability. 
o 
Several participants stated their thinking had shifted back toward a per-door approach due to its 
simplicity, clarity, and defensibility. 
• 
Equity, assumptions, and unintended consequences: 
o 
Participants acknowledged that both methods involve assumptions, but per-door fees avoid 
speculative projections about future household size or use of space. 
o 
Concerns were raised that overly complex fee structures can discourage smaller footprints, 
walkable neighborhoods, and mixed-use development, reinforcing sprawl and single-use zoning 
patterns. 
o 
The group emphasized that impact fee policy decisions can have long-term land-use and 
affordability consequences beyond their immediate fiscal effects. 
• 
Developer vs. homeowner understanding: 
o 
Consensus emerged that builders and developers—not homebuyers—are the primary audience 
for understanding impact fee calculations. 
o 
While builders can learn either system, repeated application of square-footage rules and evolving 
definitions increases friction compared to a straightforward per-door model. 
• 
One-time fee principle: 
o 
Broad agreement that impact fees should be one-time charges per dwelling, not triggered again 
by later events such as finishing basements. 
o 
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) were generally viewed as separate structures that could 
appropriately trigger additional fees, subject to Council policy decisions. 
• 
Percent-of-cost policy (75% vs. 100%): 
o 
Council questioned why some categories collect only 75% of maximum supportable fees while 
others collect 100%, noting the original intent was phased implementation. 
o 
Interest was expressed in evaluating: 
 
Incremental increases over time (e.g., 5% per update cycle) 
 
A uniform percentage across all categories 
 
Modeling based on total dollar needs rather than fixed percentages 
o 
Concerns were raised that current policy results in growth being partially subsidized by the 
general fund. 
• 
Public safety and transportation funding: 
o 
Some members questioned why transportation is funded at 100% while police and fire remain at 
75%, given public safety priorities. 
o 
Staff explained that impact fee limitations, capital vs. labor costs, and asset lifespan requirements 
constrain how police and fire can use impact fee revenues, whereas roads have large, eligible 
capital needs. 
• 
Data requests and next steps: 
IFAC and Council requested additional information before final recommendations, including: 
o 
Historical comparisons of projected vs. actual impact fee collections 
o 
Modeling showing what prior-year permit activity would have generated under different fee 
structures

City Council Work Session 
Meeting Minutes 
 
5 
 
680 Park Avenue 
Idaho Falls, ID 83402 
o 
Clear identification of target funding levels tied to level-of-service impacts 
o 
Confirmation of development trends, particularly single-family vs. multifamily activity 
• 
Council emphasized the importance of receiving a clear recommendation from IFAC at its next meeting, 
supported by the requested data. There was visible momentum toward a per-door impact fee approach, 
reaffirmation of the one-time fee principle, and continued interest in refining percentage policies to 
better align with the City’s long-term infrastructure and service needs. 
 
 
Municipal Services, Public Works – Discussion: Auction of City Property (Director Alexander, Director 
Fredericksen)  
Background: The City owns a gravel lot at 610 Water Avenue, purchased in 1974 for $7,000 along with the former 
Serenity Hall property. The lot was intended to serve as an overflow parking area for Serenity Hall, which 
previously hosted community and support programs. 
• 
Current conditions and use: 
o 
The parcel remains a gravel parking lot and is informally used for parking, with signage still 
indicating Serenity Hall parking. 
o 
The City performs minimal maintenance, costing less than $2,000 annually. 
o 
There is water service available, but no direct sewer connection; sewer exists in nearby streets 
and would require connection at the buyer’s expense. 
o 
The lot does not have alley access. 
• 
Planning context: 
o 
The City previously considered acquiring nearby parcels to realign Birch Street with Fifth Street, 
but that concept was abandoned after the roundabout project moved forward. 
o 
With no future City use identified and increasing infill development in the area, staff determined 
the parcel is no longer needed for municipal purposes. 
• 
Zoning and buildability: 
o 
Community Development review confirmed the lot is a legal, separate parcel and likely buildable. 
o 
It exceeds the minimum 3,000 sq. ft. lot size in the Traditional Neighborhood zone. 
o 
Staff concluded the highest and best use is private development rather than continued use as a 
parking lot. 
• 
Appraisal and value: 
o 
A November appraisal by Brett Burton valued the property’s highest and best use between 
$53,500 and $70,000, based on comparable sales. 
o 
Due to site limitations (notably sewer access and lack of alley), staff believe a value near the lower 
end of the range is more realistic. 
• 
Proposed action: 
o 
Staff are requesting Council authorization to proceed with a public hearing to declare the 
property surplus and make it available for sale. 
o 
Following the hearing, the City would conduct a public auction, as required by law. 
o 
A recommended minimum bid of approximately $53,000 is proposed. 
• 
Additional considerations: 
o 
Historical aerial photos show a residence existed on the lot prior to City acquisition, supporting its 
buildable status. 
o 
Sale and redevelopment would return the property to the tax rolls, creating a long-term tax 
benefit for the City. 
• 
Council response: 
o 
Council expressed general support for moving forward with a public hearing and auction process.

City Council Work Session 
Meeting Minutes 
 
6 
 
680 Park Avenue 
Idaho Falls, ID 83402 
o 
No major objections were raised, and staff were encouraged to proceed with required 
notifications and scheduling. 
 
Mayor and Council: Calendars, Announcements, Events, Reports, Updates, Concerns, Questions, Discussion, 
Proclamations, Notes/Minutes from Boards and Commissions: 
 
1. Liaison System, Work Sessions, and Decision-Making Processes: 
• 
Council discussed the limitations and risks of the liaison system, particularly the potential for “groupthink” 
if decisions are effectively advanced by too few people without full Council input. 
• 
Members emphasized the importance of public transparency and ensuring that legal requirements are 
met, while still allowing effective interdepartmental coordination and communication. 
• 
Past practices, such as the committee system, required multiple votes to get items on the agenda, 
providing some checks on control. The liaison system centralizes agenda control with fewer members, 
prompting discussion on how to maintain balance. 
• 
Work sessions are seen as essential for meaningful discussion before Thursday night votes, especially for 
complex items like zoning, budget items, impact fees, or PUDs (Planned Unit Developments). Council 
agreed to identify topics that require pre-meeting discussion to avoid last-minute surprises. 
• 
Members explored ways to receive input from the public legally, including attending public events, 
farmer’s markets, or setting agenda items for work sessions, while avoiding serial meetings or violating 
open meetings laws. 
2. Department Updates and Operational Issues: 
• 
Police Department: 
o 
Increased enforcement observed, including traffic stops, DUI patrols, and visibility downtown. 
Anecdotal reports indicate residents are responding to the increased enforcement. 
o 
Crime statistics show modest changes: violent crime down slightly, property crimes down, and 
clearance rates improving, partly due to increased online reporting. 
• 
Parks and Recreation: 
o 
The sled hill is closed due to contractor exit, not snow conditions; equipment has been removed. 
o 
Draft time-allocation policy for facilities is under review, with input sought from the hockey 
community. Council will later decide whether to formalize it. 
o 
Discussion included Heritage Park planning and neighborhood responses. 
• 
Alcohol Policy and Multi-Department Coordination: 
o 
Staff are reviewing alcohol regulations to address inconsistencies (e.g., public vs. private events). 
o 
Coordination involves Legal, Police, Fire, Community Development, and the City Clerk. Council 
members are asked to direct input to Legal. 
o 
The Chief of Staff will act as the central coordinator for interdepartmental issues to streamline 
operations and reduce reliance on individual Council members. 
*An aside from Mayor Burtenshaw: Role of the Chief of Staff (COS Wimborne)  
o 
Positioned as the central interdepartmental coordinator in the Mayor’s Office whose 
responsibilities include:  
 
Ensuring coordination among departments. 
 
Organizing meetings, tracking topics, and maintaining a central calendar for 
interdepartmental discussions. 
 
Acting as a liaison so council members do not need to meet individually with multiple 
departments to gather information. 
 
Overseeing multi-departmental issues such as procurement, alcohol policy, and 
operational coordination.

City Council Work Session 
Meeting Minutes 
 
7 
 
680 Park Avenue 
Idaho Falls, ID 83402 
 
• 
Public Works Updates: 
o 
An unusual development agreement related to sewer and water extensions will appear on the 
agenda from Public Works, rather than CDS. 
o 
Retirement of Carl Utter scheduled for January 22 at the wastewater plant. 
o 
Multiple pathway and trail projects in progress (Tautphaus Park, Idaho Canal Trail, Sand Creek 
Pathway), some tied to long-term planning. 
o 
Traffic considerations include potential signalization for roundabouts, with single-lane 
roundabouts preferred for public comprehension. 
• 
ERP System Rollout: 
o 
The June ERP launch is a top City priority. 
o 
Smooth implementation is critical for payroll, asset management, auditing, and overall City 
operations. Council and staff are cautioned not to add conflicting priorities that could disrupt 
rollout. 
• 
Utility Board Schedule Change: 
o 
The meeting time has changed to 8:00–11:00 a.m., once monthly, on the Wednesday of the first 
Council week. 
 
Mayor and Council: Acceptance or Receipt of Minutes 
 
Motion: Receive recommendation(s) from the January 6, 2026, meeting of the Planning and Zoning 
Commission pursuant to the Local Land Use Planning Act.  
o 
Moved by: Councilor Francis 
o 
Second: Councilor Radford 
o 
Vote: Aye: Francis, Dingman, Freeman, Larsen, Radford. Nay: none.  
o 
Motion carries. 
 
 
Executive Session: 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 Dingman 
o 
Vote: Aye: Francis, Dingman, Freeman, Larsen, Radford. Nay: none.  
o 
Motion carries. 
 
Litigation Topic 1  
There were present: Mayor Burtenshaw, Council President Francis, Councilor Dingman, Councilor Freeman, 
Councilor Larsen, Councilor Radford, Zachary Jones, Chris Fredericksen and Margaret Wimborne. 
Start: 5:54 PM 
End: 6:09 PM

City Council Work Session 
Meeting Minutes 
 
8 
 
680 Park Avenue 
Idaho Falls, ID 83402 
 
Litigation Topic 2  
There were present: Mayor Burtenshaw, Council President Francis, Councilor Dingman, Councilor Freeman, 
Councilor Larsen, Councilor Radford, Zachary Jones and Margaret Wimborne. 
Start: 6:09 PM 
End: 6:17 PM 
 
 
There being no further business, the regular meeting adjourned at 5:48 PM 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Emily Geisler___________________  
 
/s/ Lisa Burtenshaw 
_____________ 
Emily Geisler, City Clerk  
 
 
 
Lisa Burtenshaw, Mayor

CITY OF IDAHO 
FALLS
Elm Street 
Reconstruction 
Project Update 
01/20/26 
Chris Fredericksen, P.E., Public Works Director
Jon Knowles, P.E., City Engineer
Chris Canfield, P.E., Assistant Public Works Director

Project 
Schedule
• State Local Agreement with ITD 
completed in April 2024
• Design Agreement completed in 
June 2025
• Projected Design Completion 
Summer 2026
• Construction – Summer 2027

Elm Street
Project 
Update
• Design Elements
• Public Involvement Outreach Effort
• Public Involvement Plan for this Project
• POP Level 2
• Projected mailer/website outreach
• https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/20bb5b5
deb504a0b9798feba021b3878
• Held Stakeholder Meetings with the School 
(Construction Coordination) and the Museum of 
Idaho (Sign Sight distance)
• Speed Limit Evaluation (Request for a School Zone)

Elm Street 
Speed Study
• Study conducted
• Tuesday, December 9 - Tuesday, December 16, 
2025
• 85th percentile speed was 30 mph
• Recommendations
• Increase posted speed from 25 to 30 mph
• Implement a reduced speed school zone (20 mph)

Elm Street 
Project Update
• Upcoming Actions
• Provide recommended Public Outreach
• Continue with the Design Process
• Coordinate with the Museum of Idaho to Address 
Sight Distance Concerns expressed/evaluated
• Execute State Local Construction Agreement
• Coordinate with Adjacent Property Owners during 
Construction

Birch / S Blvd 
Roundabout
•
New single lane 
roundabout
•
Similar design as 
roundabout at          
Elm / S Blvd
•
Reduces street 
parking on Birch
•
Outreach to include 
a public meeting

Development Impact Fee Capital Improvement 
Plan, Impact Fee Study Update, and 
Amendments to City Code 
Update
Tuesday, January 21, 2026

• December 11, 2025 - Public Hearing
• January 5, 2026 - Impact Fee Advisory Committee Meeting (no quorum)
• January 13, 2026 - Impact Fee Advisory Committee Meeting 
• February 10, 2026 - Impact Fee Advisory Committee Meeting (scheduled)
• February 23, 2026 - Council Work Session (committee recommendations)
• March 3, 2026 - Planning Commission (if significant changes to capital plans)
• April 2, 2026 - Public Hearing
• By the end of May (adoption)
Impact Fee Study Update Timeline

Impact Fee Study Update Comparison Table By Land Use
Category
Impact Fee:  75% Fire, 
Police, Parks; 100% 
Transportation  
(Current)
Maximum Supportable 
(100% all fees ) 
Difference between 
Impact Fee (Current 
and 100% all fees)
Maximum 
Supportable (2025 
Study) 
Difference between 
Impact Fee   100% 
all fees  (2025 & 
2021)
Square Footage
Per Housing Unit By 
Square Footage 
Maximum Supportable  
(100%  all Fees)
Difference between 
Impact Fee (current   
75% and  square footage
Difference between 
Impact Fee (2021 100%  
and  square footage) 
Difference between 
Impact Fee (2025 100%  
and  square footage) 
Single-Family
5,273.50
$                       
6,027.00
$                                
(753.50)
$                          
5,822.00
$                      
-
                                           
6,027.00
$                             
5,822.00
$                             
Multi-Family
2,943.25
                          
3,479.00
                                   
(535.75)
$                          
3,219.00
$                      
-
                                           
3,479.00
                                
3,219.00
$                             
2,943.25
$                       
3,479.00
$                                
(535.75)
$                          
3,219.00
$                      
(260.00)
                        
Under 1,000
2,177.00
$                             
(766.25)
$                               
(1,302.00)
$                           
(1,042.00)
$                           
5,273.50
                          
6,027.00
                                   
(753.50)
$                          
5,822.00
                         
(205.00)
                        
1,000 to 1,499
3,209.00
                                
(2,064.50)
$                           
(2,818.00)
$                           
(2,613.00)
$                           
5,273.50
                          
6,027.00
                                   
(753.50)
$                          
5,822.00
                         
(205.00)
                        
1,500 to 1,999
4,278.00
                                
(995.50)
$                               
(1,749.00)
$                           
(1,544.00)
$                           
5,273.50
                          
6,027.00
                                   
(753.50)
$                          
5,822.00
                         
(205.00)
                        
2,000 to 2,499
5,064.00
                                
(209.50)
$                               
(963.00)
$                               
(758.00)
$                               
5,273.50
                          
6,027.00
                                   
(753.50)
$                          
5,822.00
                         
(205.00)
                        
2,500 to 2,999
5,699.00
                                
425.50
$                                 
(328.00)
$                               
(123.00)
$                               
5,273.50
                          
6,027.00
                                   
(753.50)
$                          
5,822.00
                         
(205.00)
                        
3,000 to 3,499
6,230.00
                                
956.50
$                                 
203.00
$                                 
408.00
$                                 
5,273.50
                          
6,027.00
                                   
(753.50)
$                          
5,822.00
                         
(205.00)
                        
3,500 to 3,999
6,676.00
                                
1,402.50
$                             
649.00
$                                 
854.00
$                                 
5,273.50
                          
6,027.00
                                   
(753.50)
$                          
5,822.00
                         
(205.00)
                        
4,000 to 4,499
7,073.00
                                
1,799.50
$                             
1,046.00
$                             
1,251.00
$                             
5,273.50
                          
6,027.00
                                   
(753.50)
$                          
5,822.00
                         
(205.00)
                        
4,500 to 4,999
7,425.00
                                
2,151.50
$                             
1,398.00
$                             
1,603.00
$                             
5,273.50
                          
6,027.00
                                   
(753.50)
$                          
5,822.00
                         
(205.00)
                        
5,000 or more
7,731.00
                                
2,457.50
$                             
1,704.00
$                             
1,909.00
$                             
Impact Fee (Current) 
75% Fire, Police; 
100% Transportation
Maximum Supportable 
(Current)
Per 1,000 Square 
Footage  (100% All Fees)
Retail
5,548.00
$                            
6,119.00
$                                      
4,930.00
$                                   
Office
1,961.25
                               
2,135.00
                                         
2,445.00
                                     
Industrial
997.00
                                   
1,085.00
                                         
1,106.00
                                     
Institutional
3,347.50
                               
3,935.00
                                         
4,316.00
                                     
Impact Fee  Comparison Table By Land Use
Residential
Non-Residential
Source Documentation: Page 13, Capital Improvement Plans and Development Impact Fee Study 10-7-25 and Current Impact Fee Schedule.

• Impact Fee Reporting Dates
• March 20, 2025
• July 31, 2025
• October 23, 2025
• January 22, 2026
•
Quarterly Summary Report
•
2025 Calendar Summary Report
•
Approved Impact Fee projects
•
Cash Balances
Impact Fee Reporting

Impact Fee Reporting
Multi-Family 
Single-Family
Industrial
Institutional
Office
Retail
Percent 
Received
Police
37,212.00
$             
32,691.00
$          
1,181.25
               
5,107.50
                
-
                           
2,733.00
                   
11%
Fire
35,112.00
                
26,469.00
             
138.75
                   
12,517.50
             
-
                           
693.00
                       
10%
Parks and Recreation
107,688.00
             
94,554.00
             
-
                           
-
                            
-
                           
-
                              
27%
Transportation
149,632.00
             
204,884.01
          
3,665.00
               
15,850.00
             
-
                           
7,670.00
                   
52%
329,644.00
$          
358,598.01
$        
4,985.00
               
33,475.00
             
-
                           
11,096.00
                
100%
Percentage by Category
45%
49%
0.7%
5%
0%
2%
100%
Total Impact Fees Received
737,798.01
$           
22%
Multi-Family 
Single-Family
Industrial
Institutional
Office
Retail
Percent Unpaid
Police
179,415.00
$          
60,093.75
$          
25,987.50
             
1,623.16
                
1,390.50
               
36,432.10
                
12%
Fire
169,290.00
             
48,656.25
             
3,052.50
               
3,978.06
                
173.25
                   
62,265.31
                
11%
Parks and Recreation
519,210.00
             
173,812.50
          
-
                           
-
                            
-
                           
-
                              
27%
Transportation
721,440.00
             
376,625.00
          
80,630.00
             
5,037.13
                
4,320.00
               
109,408.31
             
50%
1,589,355.00
         
659,187.50
$        
109,670.00
          
10,638.35
             
5,883.75
               
208,105.72
             
100%
Percentage by Category
61.5%
26%
4.2%
0%
0%
8%
100%
Total Impact Fees Outstanding
2,582,840.32
$      
78%
Total Impact Fee Activity (October 1, 2025 - December 31, 2025) 
3,320,638.33
$      
Cash Balances as of September 30, 2025
11,159,786.31
$    
Police
Fire
Parks
Transportation
1,058,633.66
$    
399,100.33
$       
3,124,525.21
$    
6,577,527.11
$   
Impact Fee Activity (October 1, 2025 - December 31, 2025)
Impact Fees Paid by Category (Permits Issued)
Impact Fees Unpaid By Category (Permits Not Issued)

Impact Fee Reporting
Police
1,434,788.35
$       
Fire
1,006,974.36
          
Parks
259,081.57
              
Transportation
959,226.05
              
3,660,070.33
$       
Approved Impact Fee Funded Projects To Date June 1, 2022 - September 30, 2025
Total as of September 30, 2025
Police Facility (portion repayment of COP); Impact Fee Study Update (portion); Legal professional services
New Fire Station 6 (portion); Impact Fee Study Update (portion); Legal professional services
Pedestrian Safety Connection Pathway; Heritage Park; Impact Fee Study Update (portion); Caribou Dog Park 
(portion); Legal professional services
49th Street Intersection Expansion; Pancheri Drive& Utah Right Turn Lane; 49th South, Providence Point to 
Stanfield Lane Expansion; 49th South Expansion; Eagle Ridge Development Reimbursement/Agreement; 
Taylorview Homes Development Reimbursement/Agreement

Questions

Council Direction to Staff

IDAHO FALES

City of Idaho Falls

City Property Discussion
Tuesday, January 20, 2026

IDAHO FALLS

Property Description
• 610 Water Avenue.
• Purchased in 1974 for $7,000.
• Gravel Lot.
• Parking lot for Serenity Hall (600 S. 
Boulevard) patron use.
• Survey conducted March 2024.
• Received an inquiry call from 
resident October 9, 2025 (sale or 
lease options)
• Consulted with Public Works and 
Community Development Services.
• Residential appraisal in November 
2025.

et re
| | MOSTH A CORNER SECTION | FOUND G INCH STEEL 1B BoMNEWILLE COUNTY, IDAHO
FIFE CAPPED AMD MAHREO WITH AM "x" CPB

NORTHWEST & Sectiow 19, T.2 ML. R38 E., BLM.

2024

SHEET | OF |

INSTRUMENT NUMBER (766256, DATED: Wigviags RE pS

“ ul va

SURVEY NARRATIVE

Tike PURPOSE OF THIS SUBVET iS To ETRE T= BOUNDAE LINES OF Two City ar inano Pacis Manos. THe
EASTEALY BASDEL QLOTS 7,4, 9, BLoce SL Ohdi Towne oF EAGLE Rock) wad CoNveveD or Maeaty
Deen STRUREMT HOR@R OFIEO, ae Puen mM Boos WT oof Dees PG G6 Tee Wesreey FerreL. (Miesr li?
OF LOT &, BLOCK JH ORGINAL TOWASITE OF Eline RC, BAS DCRR TED Bir AUPE DES IMETRUMEMT MUNSER
(OS AM MATCHES TH Tie AMES TELE peton tos, [Eat 5 of Lot ap

rir] ESTAR USHED BY HOLEIHG THE RIDMUMEMTED E850 LIME GF SEIN 19, ALSO BEING THE EMETESLY EDGE OF Buock Jl
QerHal Toversite oF Laece Roce.
ESTMEUGHED By RETRACING Tt ORIG SUBDNEION LINES GF BLOCK J, AMO a THE PAARL OF

(2) eeuctaneons CoavETARDE, EACH LOT SENG THE PROPDETIAWL FERAIKOER OF THE BLOCE LESS THE PULL HEASURY
OF THE STREETS SHO ALLEY

rer} ESDASLGHED OY HOLDING THE FIGMINT GCTarn THe MORTH AHO Gaurd Lines or Lor 6. BLOCe Sl Tf CREATE AH
Eset aut WEET HALF. 45 BSAMED IN WARSRHT? D558. IMSTRUREMT HUMEER Sood 51

é ; me
SCALE oof me / as

&
* 1iWCH =G0 eT. / oe ll ae ra f a

é

~
a ae he

BLVD

RECORD DATA SOURCES

IM} ® FELD MEASURED ITA, THAT & DERIVED FROM RECORD 1674 021) BELO
TRI} = ORIGIMAL TOWNSITE OF EAGLE ROCs OLD PLAT GOs PAGE bi -32

LEGEND

@ SET 94 INCH IRON AOD WITH ALUMINUM CAP 85 4 REFERENCE POINT (RP) TO THE ACTIN. BOUNDARY CORNER MARKED RP PLS 9755"
6 SET 0 INCH COPPERHEAD MOMUMERT WITH M&OMET MARED PLS 9955

qe SET 12 INCH IRON PAD WITH PLASTIC CAP AARRED PLS 9795

(© POUND 5/6 INCH IROM ROO WITH ALUMINUM CAP CAP MARKED PLS 9755 FIR STREET DENTERURE HONMUMENT
—_——— FE-ES 8 LSHED BOUNDARY LIME ¢ LOT LINE (THE SUBJECT OF Tee SURVEY)
ae PUSS SECTION Li

SUREET RIGHT -OF Way LINE

—— ~——_ STREET CENTES-LUKE

SUBOIVGHHOMAL (LOT LIME OF THE ORIGIMAL TOWRGITE OF EAGLE ROG

trctesrreaeaees TIE LINE OR DIMEMSIOMAL LEADER

CPoF 0AMER: PERE TUATION AND PILING RECORD

ROW FAGHT-OF BLY

/
/
0
o
i
f
ve
&é
a
>
/
i
a f —a xf

he. Dig Lf —

SQUTH

ao
f
/
;
“~ 7
By
to
>
/
f
/
fi
1 ts —

} ae

Sav Bag

1]
Cee FOUND PSS Wk CORNER COMMON Tl SECTHING SHOWN

a
+ RESET PLES CENTER WL CORKER OF SECTION

BASIS OF BEARING

fil MEASURED BEANS SHOWN HEREOR RELATE ORCI po THe “Cary or Ingo
FauLs COOSDMATE SPS7EH OF 200". WHICH S DERIVED FROM THE ibang Srare Plas
COORDEMATE SveTER (Eagar Zone |) US Suever FEED AMD LMG A COMMIMED SCALE
Pactos oF LOQO77 7205 FOR 4 GRD TO GRDUND ClwERGON, [REFERENCE FRE
AAD EGER, EPOCH FOIL OOOO], THE See TER ORIENTATION 15 BASED OM GRR) WORTH
ALONG THE East ZONE COW TRU RCRMAN, Ho DOHVESRENCE ANGLE Gd BEEN aPPLIEd.

SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE

1. BENNETH BALOWIN PIERS, A REGESTERED PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR, LICENSED OY
THE STATE OF IDAHO, G0 HOREEY CERTIFY THAT THES SURVEY BS FACE UNDER Mr
GERECTION, ANC THAT SAID SURVEY 2 TRULY AND DORRECTLY SURVEYED AND STARE AS
PROVIDED BY LAW AND IA ACCORDANCE WITH THE ADCOMPANVING PLAT AS DESCRIBED HEREO
BENMETH BALDWIN FXIBERTS, PAS. S35

f CENTER. CORNER SECTION PF ——— : RECORD OF SURVEY

SET (INCH COPPER PLUG WITH & MAGHET “oe = FOR THE CITY OF I04HO0 FALLS
IN COMCRETE WALK STAMPED: PLS 9755, £ :

CPBF IMETRUMENT NUMBER [PE4285, DATED: armuezeh oo) os 7S NWIé SECTION IG, T. ZN... 56 E., BLM.

Cr a
ruteare = 05-20-2024 loo |

Staff Recommendation
• Comparable properties 
• $53,500-$70,000
• Highest and best use for existing 
conditions
• Next Steps

Questions

Council Direction to Staff