City Council
Regular MeetingIdaho Falls, ID · September 11, 2017
Minutes
September 11, 2017
The City Council of the City of Idaho Falls met in Special Meeting (Council Work Session), Monday, September 11,
2017, in the Council Chambers in the City Annex Building located at 680 Park Avenue in Idaho Falls, Idaho at 3:00
p.m.
Call to Order and Roll Call:
There were present:
Mayor Rebecca L. Noah Casper
Councilmember David M. Smith (by telephone)
Councilmember Michelle Ziel-Dingman
Councilmember Barbara Ehardt
Councilmember Ed Marohn
Councilmember Thomas Hally (arrived at 3:14)
Councilmember John B. Radford (arrived at 3:22)
Also present:
Brad Cramer, Community Development Services Director
Bryon Reed, Bonneville County Commissioner
Paul Wilde, Bonneville County Sheriff
Bryce Johnson, Police Chief
Royce Clements, Police Captain
Pamela Alexander, Municipal Services Director
Kenny McOmber, Treasurer
Stacy Scott, Accountant II
Jackie Flowers, Idaho Falls Power Director
Greg Weitzel, Parks and Recreation Director
Chris Fredericksen, Public Works Director
Kent Fugal, City Engineer
Kerry Hammon, Public Information Officer
Randy Fife, City Attorney
Kathy Hampton, City Clerk
Mayor Casper called the meeting to order at 3:04 p.m. with the following agenda items:
Acceptance and/or Receipt of Minutes:
It was moved by Councilmember Marohn, seconded by Councilmember Dingman, to receive the minutes from the
Planning and Zoning Commission. Roll call as follows: Aye – Councilmembers Marohn, Dingman, Smith, Ehardt.
Nay – none. Motion carried.
Calendar, Announcements and Reports:
Mayor Casper stated several Idaho Falls firefighters are on deployment with various fires. Reimbursement for
deployment is received at the federal rate.
September 16, Coffee with a Cop, and Idaho Falls Senior Citizen Center fundraiser luncheon
September 18, proclamation reading in conjunction with Constitution Week
September 19, Walk a Mile in Her Shoes fundraiser for the Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Center
September 28, Idaho Falls Power Board Meeting, and City Council Meeting
September 9, the Bonneville County Heritage Association sponsored a tour of Rose Hill Cemetery, this tour may be
repeated in October weather permitting
October 14, Family History/Genealogy Conference
Councilmember Smith had no items to report
Councilmember Marohn had no items to report
1
September 11, 2017
Councilmember Ehardt stated the westside River Walk pathway projects have begun
Councilmember Dingman had no items to report
Area of Impact Re-introduction:
Mayor Casper stated the Area of Impact (AOI) calendar began in 2014 between the City and the Bonneville County
Planning and Zoning (P&Z) Commissions. Director Cramer stated the two (2) P&Z Commissions have made a
recommendation, following a public hearing, in which the recommendation requires review by the City and County
for acceptance. He presented the following with general discussion throughout:
What is an Area of City Impact -
Director Cramer stated the AOI involves a map and an agreement passed by ordinance between the City and
the County. It indicates the area where the City can grow and intends to grow in the future. Criteria
determining the agreement includes: trade area, geographic factors, and, areas that can reasonably be
expected to be annexed to the City in the future. He stated the agreement should be beneficial to both the
City and the County. Director Cramer stated the AOI is not a growth boundary. He indicated Category A
annexations can occur outside the AOI boundary, unlike Category B or C annexations which cannot occur
outside the AOI boundary.
Why it is important to plan for the AOI -
Director Cramer stated a City cannot legally annex property without an established AOI. The Local Land
Use Planning Act (LLUPA) list 12 steps for planning by Cities and Counties. Several of those steps include:
protect property rights; ensure that adequate public facilities and services are provided at reasonable cost;
encourage urban development with Cities; provide a way for Cities to grow that is cost effective for residents.
Statutory requirements checklist includes: ordinance; map; negotiation and renegotiation; review.
Responsibilities -
Cities/Counties – negotiate an AOI plan and ordinance; adopt map of AOI; adopt ordinance for
Comprehensive Plan & regulations within AOI; review AOI every 10 years.
Cities – AOI before annexation
Counties – implement plan within AOI; enforce regulations within AOI
Director Cramer the criteria to determine the AOI is not well defined by the State. He stated best practices
“in the future” include: at least ten years; difficult to plan accurately more than twenty years; ideal to match
with Comprehensive Plan(s); match infrastructure plans.
Director Cramer reviewed the AOI timeline. He stated he prefers to have this AOI completed before the end of 2017
due to the upcoming election and to avoid re-education of newly elected officials. He reviewed maps outlining the
current City AOI boundaries, overlapping boundaries, and potential growth areas. He indicated there is approximately
215 acres of average growth per year. He stated Community Development Services staff does not believe the
boundary line is the most important factor as he shared staff’s concern with growth standards. He believes the
boundary would be acceptable if a better relationship could occur with the County along with an increase of standards.
Director Cramer reviewed the City Comprehensive Plan map. He believes it would be appropriate to reduce the
Comprehensive Plan to be closer to the AOI. He reviewed an updated recommended map as approved by the City
and County P&Z Commissions. He stated this map would allow approximately 26 years of growth. Director Cramer
also reviewed the County Comprehensive Plan map. He stated the County views the Comprehensive Plan as a pre-
zoning map and the County believes reduction of the area of their Comprehensive Plan would reduce their rights to
development. He indicated future discussion will need to occur regarding this issue.
Director Cramer reiterated the proposed agreement would require enforcement by the County. Minor changes
should/may include:
City to adjust Comprehensive Plan to be closer to AOI boundaries and make minor adjustments to better
reflect existing land uses
Bonneville County to adjust zoning ordinance changes to better match City’s ordinance
P&Z Commissions to meet annually and as needed to review growth and development
City and County Public Works Departments to review infrastructure standards to see if any additional
changes need to be made to County standards
2
September 11, 2017
Major changes should/may include:
Development agreements for County developments to require City standards for infrastructure and
requirement for annexation for properties that receive a City utility
City to write an annexation policy
When contiguous land proposed for rezoning in County, County will not consider until an annexation
application has been submitted and denied
City to consider extension of water and sewer service to properties in AOI with specific conditions
Director Cramer indicated discussion has occurred with Public Works regarding service extensions and
believes Public Works is not in favor of offering utilities. He believes the only advantage to consider
extension of utilities is for the ease of future annexations.
Director Cramer stated future discussion regarding the area surrounding the I-15 Interchange at Sunnyside may need
addressed. He also indicated utility extensions may need to be discussed as well.
Next steps include:
Determine as a Council satisfaction with the P&Z recommendation
Meet with County Commissioners at least once to discuss the recommendation and any possible changes.
The number of meetings depends on the Council and Commission level of acceptance of the map and
agreement.
Once satisfied, prepare and pass two (2) ordinances: one (1) for the map and one (1) for the standards and
processes.
After general comments and discussion, there was consensus of the Council to finalize the AOI prior to January.
Director Cramer will propose a schedule for additional discussion. Commissioner Reed indicated he would prefer
coordination of meetings as soon as possible.
Real Estate Land Transfer with Bonneville County Discussion:
Mayor Casper indicated Councilmembers were assigned to assist with County topics per previous
discussion/meetings. She stated this particular item was assigned to Councilmember Smith who has provided
background information and insight to the proposed real estate land transfer of the 4H Building and the 911 Dispatch
Center. Councilmember Smith stated a concerted effort has been made for numerous years to provide the best joint
law enforcement services for the City and the County and the Dispatch Center is a very important piece of the law
enforcement organization. He believes an overall law enforcement evaluation should occur, not just one piece of the
service, to determine how to proceed. He does not believe the Dispatch Center should be considered to accomplish a
trade. He indicated if the City wants the 4H property, the City should purchase the 4H property. To respond to
Councilmember Marohn, Councilmember Smith indicated, upon review of other counties/cities, there is no best
practice for law enforcement. Sheriff Wilde stated 90% of dispatch centers in the State of Idaho are governed by the
County. He indicated in 1977 there was a joint agreement between Bonneville County and the City for dispatch. He
stated per the agreement, the City elected to discontinue the jail service within the City Building, therefore an
agreement was made to construct the Law Enforcement Building (LEB) and to include the jail and dispatch services.
Obligation for the jail would be administered by the County, and dispatch, which would be combined for the entire
County, would be administered by the City. Sheriff Wilde believes the land and the building are assets for the City
and the County and any agreements are for the service of the community. Councilmember Hally noted the City has
expressed interest in the 4H Building for several years. Director Weitzel concurred. Director Weitzel commended
Commissioner Reed for his assistance with this item. He stated discussion originally occurred regarding a land swap
of property at Sandy Downs for the 4H Building, however, the County located alternate property in close proximity
to Sandy Downs. Director Weitzel stated one of the major issues in the Tautphaus Park Master Plan is to expand the
zoo. He believes the 4H Building is the logical choice and preferred location for the Zoo Education Center. He also
believes this location would make economic sense. He indicated the location for the Zoo Education Center needs to
be determined as soon as possible per the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Maeck Foundation
donation. Mayor Casper noted the MOU was signed prior to any land swap discussion, therefore, it was anticipated
the Zoo Education Center would be constructed on the existing park property. She believes the 4H property may be
3
September 11, 2017
a more suitable location. Mr. Fife clarified, per the MOU, the default location for construction of the Zoo Education
Center has been determined, unless the donor agrees to construct elsewhere. Mayor Casper stated conversation has
occurred with the Maeck Foundation regarding an alternate location. Councilmember Radford indicated the Maeck
Foundation is in favor of the 4H property. Chief Johnson believes public safety should not be sacrificed. He stated
dispatch is one of two vital public safety operations and the dispatch facility is a vital operation center. He believes
adjustments need to be made with the agreement although public safety should be the decision-making factor. He
reviewed the number of services/calls by Police, Fire, and County noting the Idaho Falls Police Department (IFPD)
is the largest user of dispatch. He stated he is not in favor of a County owned/City contracted dispatch. Chief Johnson
is favorable of the zoo but he requested an additional option for the zoo to ensure this land swap does not negatively
affect the Dispatch Center. He believes there are current restrictions with the building and giving up ownership of the
building gives up the ability to have an influence on the decisions. He reiterated dispatch services are mission critical
to the public safety departments which he believes should be the driving factor of this discussion. Sheriff Wilde
concurred. Commissioner Reed stated once the alternate location of 4H property became available for the County he
suggested the Dispatch Center as an equitable solution. He stated there was no discussion of leverage or control of
the Dispatch Center however, he does not believe the ownership would make any difference. He also believes
additional issues and improvements need to be resolved. Councilmember Ehardt stated she was not in favor of the
Sandy Downs 4H property exchange. She concurred with Commissioner Reed wanting to have a win-win situation.
Councilmember Dingman expressed her concern for future binding of agreements. Brief discussion followed
regarding ownership of the building. Councilmember Radford believes, per the agreement, no changes can occur.
Chief Johnson believes there is a fundamental difference between owning and renting. He believes the IFPD is losing
in this potential situation. Sheriff Wilde stated he will work with Chief Johnson as law enforcement agencies as he is
dedicated to dispatch as they are extremely important to law enforcement. At the request of Mayor Casper, Sheriff
Wilde briefly reviewed the function of the Multi Agency Board (MAB). He stated the MAB is an advisory board to
ensure dispatch operates efficiently and effectively. Brief discussion followed regarding 911 funds. Mr. Fife indicated
no documents have been produced on the City level regarding collection of 911 funds, the MAB, agreements of
dispatch functions, or tracking of contributions for expenditures. He indicated he has submitted a request to the
County for said agreements. Mr. Fife believes the relationship of a landlord or tenant changes due to the ultimate
control, however, he indicated an agreement could address any concerns. Brief discussion followed regarding
agreements/contracts. Director Flowers stated Idaho Falls Power (IFP) has a fiber hub site (points of connection)
located at the Dispatch Center. She stated this infrastructure allows IFP’s dispatch center to monitor the conditions
of the system and respond to outages. She believes IFP’s use of the building is incidental to the primary function. She
believes public safety should be the primary driver and any use of the building should be based on primary needs of
emergency services with a written agreement. Mayor Casper requested Council’s preference to proceed forward.
Councilmember Radford prefers an agreement regarding ownership. Councilmember Hally is in favor of the swap.
Councilmember Marohn prefers a document to address all issues including rent, maintenance, and the City and
County’s role in the event of a land swap. Councilmember Dingman believes issues have been occurring over the
course of time, at this time she is hesitant to request any documentation. Mayor Casper indicated all costs will need
to be considered with a land swap or an outright purchase of the 4H property. Commissioner Reed stated the County
will surplus the 4H property after August 2018. He believes the option for the City to purchase the property could
occur over the course of time. Councilmember Smith believes the 4H property would be the best location for the Zoo
Education Center and any purchase or swap would still cost money. He prefers a joint law enforcement agreement
separate from the 4H property. Councilmember Marohn prefers to see all City and County costs relative to the
Dispatch Center. Mayor Casper proposed a MOU be presented for Council in the near future.
17th Street Median Program and Public Involvement Update:
Director Fredericksen stated 17th Street is one of the most-utilized streets. He then turned the presentation to Mr.
Fugal with general discussion throughout:
Access Management Principles –
Managing and planning the spacing and design of driveways; median openings; traffic signals; interchanges
Primary benefits improve safety and capacity, and extend function life of the roadways
Improves safety by limiting conflict points and reducing speed differential
4
September 11, 2017
Functional area of an intersection includes the areas leading to and from the intersection, and vehicle
interaction. Medians would limit the traffic movements that occur within the traffic area to improve safety.
17th Road Safety Audit (RSA) Recommendations –
Close/consolidate driveways at numerous locations along 17th Street
Install median curbs to prevent left turns to/from driveways that are too close to intersections
Mr. Fugal reviewed RSA recommendation of a median at 17th Street and Rollandet. Future projects include
implementation of the RSA recommendations at this intersection as well as improvements to the 19th Street railroad
crossing and the 19th Street/Leslie Avenue intersection.
2018 Federal-Aid projects include a mill and overlay as well as 17th Street median curbs at intersections of
Boulevard; Holmes Avenue; June Avenue; Jennie Lee Drive; St. Clair Road; Woodruff Avenue; and
Channing Way. Mr. Fugal briefly reviewed each intersection per the RSA recommendations.
Public/property owner involvement –
Meet one-on-one with property owners and businesses directly affected by the curb installations
Work with the Public Information Officer to release information to the public
Post plans on website
Mr. Fugal stated potential future median curb treatments to occur at Sunnyside Road and Woodruff Avenue, and, Hitt
Road and Brianne Avenue. He indicated all projects are projected for summer of 2018. Final design packet will
require submittal to Local Highway Technical Assistance Council (LHTAC) in the near future. Mayor Casper
requested concerns from the Council prior to Public Works staff submitting said paperwork with regard to potential
public comments. Councilmember Ehardt believes these projects, due to the poor planning of 17th Street, will be
beneficial to the public. There were no other Council comments.
Purchasing State Statute Changes Discussion:
Director Alexander stated changes to State Statute regarding purchasing were effective July 1, 2017. The proposed
resolution would conform to State Statute 67-2803, and would allow the Mayor to approve contracts or purchases
less than $50,000 and procurement of goods and services that have been previously budgeted. Director Alexander
reviewed State Statute changes to Public Works construction stating solicitations for bids/quotes (sent to a minimum
of three licensed contractors) have increased from $25,000-$100,00 to $50,000-$200,000. Councilmember Ehardt
expressed her concern for the increase, including change orders. Mayor Casper stated when Council sets the budget
several projects are already identified and approval of the expenditure is given at that time. She believes this process
shows trusts and professionalism of directors. Director Fredericksen stated this resolution helps business move faster
on smaller contracts. He stated change orders thresholds are set by a separate resolution with the amount of the change
orders set by contract amount. Councilmember Ehardt suggested the proposed resolution threshold be raised but at a
lower amount. After additional brief comments there was consensus to include this item on the September 14 Council
Meeting agenda.
Proposed Utility Service Write-off Discussion:
Director Alexander stated this is an annual item which follows the process to determine if an account is deemed
uncollectable. She stated the proposed write-off = $295,188.42 for calendar year of 2012, which is less than half a
percent of total revenue for 2012. She indicated the 2011 write-off = $338,346.04. She stated staff follows a
moderately aggressive process for collections and she commended the team effort of staff. She stated delinquent
accounts are continually tracked for possible future collection. Mr. McOmber stated conservation loan write-off
amounts to approximately $13,000, which is included in the total proposed write-off. This item will be included on
the September 14 Council Meeting agenda.
Christmas Day Alcohol Ordinance Revision Discussion:
Mayor Casper indicated this item was requested by community members. Director Alexander stated restaurants are
not currently allowed to sell beer or wine on Christmas Day. This amendment would conform with State Code 23-
10-12 to allow such sales. She stated the amendment also includes a time extension from 1a.m. to 2a.m. Mr. Fife
clarified the State allows Cities to make a local adjustment to State Code. Mayor Casper believes this is a commerce
issue. This item will be included on the September 14 Council Meeting agenda.
5
September 11, 2017
There being no further business, it was moved by Councilmember Marohn, seconded by Councilmember Dingman,
to adjourn the meeting at 6:39 p.m. and move into Executive Session. The Executive Session has been called pursuant
to the provisions of Idaho Code Section 74-206(1)(c) To conduct deliberations concerning labor negotiations or to
acquire an interest in real property which is not owned by a public agency. At the conclusion of the Executive Session,
the Council will not reconvene into regular Work Session. Roll call as follows: Aye – Councilmembers Radford,
Ehardt, Hally, Smith, Marohn, Dingman. Nay – none. Motion carried.
The City Council of the City of Idaho Falls met in Special Meeting (Executive Session), Monday, September 11,
2017, in the City Annex Conference Room, in the City Annex Building located at 680 Park Avenue in Idaho Falls,
Idaho at 6:43 p.m.
There were present:
Mayor Rebecca L. Noah Casper
Councilmember Ed Marohn
Councilmember Michelle Ziel-Dingman
Councilmember Thomas Hally
Councilmember John B. Radford
Councilmember David M. Smith (by telephone)
Councilmember Barbara Ehardt
Also present:
Randy Fife, City Attorney
Michael Kirkham, Assistant City Attorney
Greg Weitzel, Parks and Recreation Director
The Executive Session has been called pursuant to the provisions of Idaho Code Section 74-206(1)(c) To conduct
deliberations concerning labor negotiations or to acquire an interest in real property which is not owned by a public
agency.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:01 p.m.
s/ Kathy Hampton s/ Rebecca L. Noah Casper
CITY CLERK MAYOR
6
Agenda
Honorable Mayor and Council
Brad Cramer, Director
September 8, 2017
September 5, 2017, Planning Commission Action
Planning Commission took the following action during the September 5, 2017 meeting.
1. ANNX17-005: ANNEXATION/INITIAL ZONING OF C-1 (LIMITED RETAIL BUSINESS).
M&B 14.647 Acres Secs 22 & 23 T 2N, R 37E (Shively). Generally south of W Broadway, west of
S Troy Ave., north of Pancheri Dr., and east of S Bellin Rd. Recommended approval as presented.
2. RZON17-008: REZONE. Removal of PT-1 Zone, East Half Blocks 24 & 37 Highland Park.
Generally south of Science Center Dr., west and north of US Hwy 20 & east of Fremont Ave.
Recommended approval as presented.
3. RZON17-009: REZONE. Amend Table 6, Billboards, Chapter 9, Sign Code of Title 7.
Recommended denial as presented.
4. PLAT16-003: FINAL PLAT. Grandview Storage Units. Generally south of Sawtelle St., west of
Foote Dr., north of Grandview Dr., and east of N Skyline Dr. Recommended approval as presented.
5. PLAT17-016: FINAL PLAT. Televison Park Addition, 1st Amended. Generally south of E 12th
St., west of St. Clair Rd., north of E 17th St., and east of S Holmes Ave. Recommended approval as
presented.
6. PLAT17-018: FINAL PLAT. Action Sports Addition, Division No. 2. Generally south and east of
N Yellowstone Hwy., east of Hollipark Dr., and north of Lincoln Rd. Recommended approval as
presented.
7. PLAT17-021: FINAL PLAT. Eagle Rock Town Center, Division 4. Generally south of
Broadway, west of S Utah Ave., north of Pioneer Rd., and east of I-15. Recommended approval as
presented.
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION: To receive recommendation(s) from the Planning and
Zoning Commission pursuant to the Local Land Use Planning Act (LLUPA).
BGC/dp
cc: File
Idaho Falls Sister Cities Youth Meeting
July 17, 2017
Attendees:
Cameron Archer Rachel Cebull Ian Finnigan Jacobi Retallic
Jenna Bauer Jackie Corbridge Alexia Lords Don Rueff
Karen Bauer Tate Corbridge Maureen Miaullis Janet Rueff
Max Benjamin Garrett Corbridge Caitlin Miaullis Zoe Sehlke
Misty Benjamin Brennan Corbridge Jorge Padron Rebecca Smith
Maggie Boring Dave Eaton Brenda Padron Whitney St. Michel
Elliot Boring Kylie Eaton Gabe Padron Ian St. Michel
Wendy Boring Katie Eaton Kendra Peck Anna St.Michel
Melinda Cebull Victoria Estrada Nathan Peck Stephanie Van Ausdeln
Peter Cebull Mario Estrada Dallin Peck
Nicholas Cebull Karen Finnigan Laurie Retallic
Business Section of the Meeting
Minutes:
The July 5th meeting minutes were provided to the group by email. Victoria motioned to approve the
minutes and Maureen seconded her motion.
Language Lessons: The next language less will be held from noon to 1:30 at the library on 7/18. Contact
Rachel (rcebull@gmail.com) if you have questions.
Hosting Preparations:
RSVP Forms: Whitney collected the RSVP forms and Peter collected the money. She passed out t-shirts
to people who had paid for them. Whitney answered questions about the RSVP forms. If you are driving
on your own to Yellowstone and/or Lagoon or have zoo or museum memberships, please indicate this
on the RSVP form. Whitney will be buying the rodeo tickets this week, and she will need to have the
numbers and money to purchase the tickets.
Speeches: Rachel went through the speeches with the students and adults giving speeches.
Hosting Food and Equipment Sign-ups:
Members will be bringing potluck items to the following meals:
Friendship Garden (7/27) – Check with Wendy if you haven’t signed-up
Welcome Dinner (7/28) – Whitney has this sign-up and will send it out.
Rodeo Dinner (8/3) - Whitney has this sign-up and will send it out.
Farewell Dinner (8/5) Whitney has this sign-up and will send it out.
Whitney will bring the plates, cups, and flatware to all of the meals.
Melinda will bring coolers with water and lemonade to the Friendship Garden.
Wendy will pass them on to Kendra to use at lunch.
Brenda will bring additional coolers with lemonade and water to the Welcome Party and tables and
chairs.
** If you are coordinating a meals and need coolers, tables, or any other equipment, let Whitney know.
Welcome Bags: Whitney has t-shirts, spud bars, Yellowstone pens, and a small note pad for each
student and chaperone.
Translation: Haruka has asked us to provide talks from as many of the activities as possible in advance.
She would like to be able to translate as much as possible ahead of time. Rachel will try to translate as
many of the preplanned Idaho activities as possible but may need help with some of the more difficult
translations.
Farewell Dinner: We talked about the activities during the party. The students will show the Japanese
student a little bit about how we celebrate Halloween, Easter, Christmas, and Thanksgiving. The
students should come in Halloween costumes so they can trick-or-treat in a nearby neighborhood.
Idaho families should bring Easter baskets and Halloween containers for the students to use to collect
candy and use during the Easter egg hunt. Idaho families should bring a small (~$5) wrapped Christmas
present for anyone who wants to participate in the gift exchange and their Japanese student. Farewell
speeches and group gifts will be presented at the dinner.
Gifts: People asked about gift ideas for their Japanese student. Some suggestions were:
Idaho souvenirs
Farmers’ Market or Art Walks may provide unique Idaho items
T-shirts, hats, calendars
Beef jerky, candy
You can buy gifts during the visit after you know more about what your student likes.
August Meeting
Katie asked if there was any reason to meet in August. We usually don’t meet in August unless there is a
special reason. The group decided not to meet in August.
Student Section of the Meeting
The students went over all the jobs that they would do throughout the trip. They each signed up for
about four.
We also watched a video that the Japanese sent us introducing most of the delegates coming to Idaho.
Rachel then recorded us introducing ourselves similarly to theirs, and she posted the recording to
Facebook for the Japanese to see.
Motion to adjourn was made by Maureen and seconded by Karen.
Comprehensive Plan. The Bonneville County Comprehensive Plan shall apply to
the area of impact. The Comprehensive Plan maps of each jurisdiction were
reviewed and found to be generally compatible with each other. Idaho Falls
should make minor adjustments to its Comprehensive Plan map within the area
of impact to be more consistent with Bonneville County’s Comprehensive Plan,
as outlined below. Future amendments to the City of Idaho Falls and
Bonneville County Comprehensive Plan, within the area of impact, should be
coordinated between Bonneville County and the City of Idaho Falls, where
possible.
Recommended changes to the Idaho Falls Comprehensive Plan map:
1. Idaho Falls should amend its Comprehensive Plan to reduce the size of
the plan area to more closely match the boundaries of the area of
impact.
2. Idaho Falls should amend its Comprehensive Plan in the area along
Lincoln Road, generally between 15th East and 25th East to match the
Bonneville County’s designation.
3. Idaho Falls should amend its Comprehensive Plan in the area south of
Sunnyside, west of the Carriage Gate Subdivision to match the County’s
“industrial” designation.
4. Idaho Falls should add a commercial node to their Comprehensive Plan
map at the intersection of 65th South and 15th East.
Zoning Ordinance. Bonneville County should amend its Zoning Ordinance,
within the area of impact, to be compatible with Idaho Falls Comprehensive
Zoning Ordinance, as outlined below. The amended Zoning ordinance of
Bonneville County shall apply to the area of impact.
Recommended changes to the Bonneville County Zoning Ordinance:
1. Add a minimum landscaping requirement of 20% of the total lot area as
is done in the County’s C-2 Zone within the C-1, HC-1, P-B, I&M-1
Zones.
2. Remove hatcheries as an allowed use within the C-2 Zone.
Subdivision Ordinance. The Bonneville County Subdivision Ordinance shall
apply to the area of impact. The Idaho Falls and Bonneville County Public
Works Departments should review and compare City and County infrastructure
standards and determine whether amendments are necessary to make the County
standards compatible with City standards within the area of impact.
Development Agreements. Bonneville County should enter into development
agreements with owners, tenants, and developers of property located within
the area of impact. The purpose of these development agreements should be to
address the implementation of standards for development in the area of
impact, as agreed to by Bonneville County and the City of Idaho Falls.
Development agreements for properties requesting a utility service from the
City of Idaho Falls should include language requiring the property to be
annexed upon the property becoming contiguous to the City’s corporate limits.
Annexations. City of Idaho Falls should adopt a written annexation policy as
part of the area of city impact agreement. Annexations to the City of Idaho
Falls shall be in accordance with Idaho Code. When land is proposed for
rezoning in the area of impact and such land is eligible for annexation per
State Code, Section 50-222(i.e. is contiguous to city limits), Bonneville
County should not approve requests for rezoning unless the applicant has
filed a request for annexation and initial zoning, of a similar zone, to the
City of Idaho Falls and the City has denied the request.
Utility Extensions. In its sole discretion, the City of Idaho Falls may
offer to provide utilities to properties within the area of impact. If such
service is requested, the cost to extend and connect to such utilities shall
be borne entirely by the applicant, developer, or recipient of the services
unless otherwise agreed. The City should provide for a cost recovery program
to reimburse the developer for installing new infrastructure that will be
used by other future developments. As a prerequisite for service, any
recipient of City utilities in the area of impact shall enter into a
development agreement requiring the property to be annexed immediately upon
the property becoming contiguous to the City’s corporate limits. Electric
utilities may be provided pursuant to agreements with Rocky Mountain Power
and Idaho Code.
Existing Developments. When developments approved by Bonneville County,
(including phased development), are annexed into the City of Idaho Falls,
prior to completion of all of the phases, they may continue to develop
remaining phases according to the standards established at the time of
approval. If City of Idaho Falls utilities are requested, the City may
require any necessary upgrades to utility infrastructure in order to meet
City standards. Tax supported infrastructure shall be grandfathered upon
annexation.
Administration and Enforcement. Bonneville County shall be responsible for
administration and enforcement this agreement. Final decision making
authority in the area of impact shall be retained by Bonneville County.
The Bonneville County Planning and Zoning Commission shall act as the
Planning and Zoning Commission for unincorporated areas within the area of
impact. The Bonneville County Commissioners shall appoint one resident of
the City or its impact area as a representative to the Bonneville County
Planning and Zoning Commission. The City Council may submit nominations for
the Bonneville County Planning and Zoning Commission to the Chair of the
Board of County Commissioners.
At least twenty (20)days prior to the Bonneville County Commission or
Planning and Zoning Commission taking action on an applications for rezones,
conditional use permits, comprehensive plan changes, and subdivision plats,
the Zoning Administrator of Bonneville County should submit those application
materials to the City Community Development Services Department for review
and comment.
City Review. For any development which includes utilities that will be
connected to the City of Idaho Falls utilities, Bonneville County shall
forward all improvement drawings, development agreements, and final plats to
the City of Idaho Falls for review and comment on those items that will be
connected to City of Idaho Falls utilities or maintained by the City. The
City of Idaho Falls will return comments to Bonneville County within fifteen
(15) days of receipt. Bonneville County shall forward City of Idaho Falls
comments to the applicant for corrections. If the City of Idaho Falls
comments and corrections regarding utility infrastructure and connections are
not made and enforced by Bonneville County and infrastructure is not built
and inspected to City approved standards, the City of Idaho Falls may reject
acceptance of the infrastructure improvements and not provide utility service
to the development. Bonneville County shall allow the City to inspect any of
the installed infrastructure for compliance.
Renegotiation. Renegotiation shall follow the procedures outlined in Idaho
Code Section 67-6526.
Periodic Review. Bonneville County and the City of Idaho Falls Planning and
Zoning Commissions should meet at least annually and on an “as needed basis”
to review growth and development within the area of impact, the City of Idaho
Falls, and Bonneville County. At such meetings the Planning and Zoning
Commissions may recommend that Bonneville County and the City of Idaho Falls
revise part or all of the area of impact agreement or to not revise the
agreement. If it is determined by the two Planning Commissions that only
minor changes are needed and are jointly agreed to by the two Planning
Commissions then a simple hearing schedule process may be used to make those
changes (rather than implementing the full renegotiation process).
Severability. The provisions of this ordinance are severable. In the event,
any provision hereof is determined to be unenforceable or invalid, such
determination shall not affect the validity of the remaining provisions.
Effective Date. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and
after its execution by both the City and County and passage and publication
as required by law.
Proposed Area of City Impact Boundary
N 25TH EAST (HITT RD)
Legend
N 5TH EAST (LEWISVILLE HWY)
RD)
Proposed Area of Impact
W 65TH NORTH (EAMES RD)
EST
W 65TH NORTH (TOWER RD) E 65TH NORTH (TOWER RD)
RIVE
¯
R
Current Area of Impact
ER R
D (W
Current City Boundaries
N RIV
Snake River
N 35TH WEST (OSGOOD RD)
E 49TH NORTH (TELFORD RD)
N 5TH WEST (EAST RIVER RD)
N 15TH EAST (ST LEON RD)
D
Y
BLV
) HW
RD
AY
NE
NA
DS
O
20 ST
LIN
(IO Y W
R TH HW LL
O
W 33RD NORTH (SNARR RD) E 33RD N O US E IONA RD Y E E IONA RD
N
ST
N 26TH WEST (OLD BUTTE RD)
EY
N HOLMES AV
L
AN
ST HE M M E
RT
A V
N BOULEVARD
AV
NT
FRE M O
TE
INTERSTA
SCIENCE C E
NT
ER
DR
W 17TH NORTH (AIRWAY RD) E ANDERSON ST LINCOLN RD LINCOLN RD
ERSTA T
15 INT
E 15
RD GRAND V I E W DR W ELVA ST LE E ELVA ST
MI
BU RI V
TT
N WOODRUFF AV
E NO
N SKYLINE DR
E RT
SID HG
ER
OL
D
AT GARFIELD ST
N BELLIN RD
N E
DR
FS LOMAX ST
W BROADWAY TAH T
ES E 1ST ST
AV OR
IA DS T
LD
S OLD BUTTE RD
T
NU R
BIR
CH
S WOODRUFF AV
Y
E 5TH ST JOHN A D AMS PKW
ME
M ST
S SKYLINE DR
S BELLIN RD
AS
H HO
EL ST E 9TH ST
PANCHERI DR M ES
V
AL ST E 10TH ST OP
A
AV
P IT
E 12TH ST
V
AV
ZL
S U T AH S CA
YA AS
HMENT AV
G RI Z
S BOULEVARD
W 17TH ST
W 17TH SOUTH (MILL RD) E 17TH ST
S 35TH WEST (NEW SWEDEN SCHOOL RD)
W 19TH ST
WY
ROLLANDET AV
PK
E 25TH ST
R
VE
RI E 25TH ST
K
E
A
SN
C H A NN I N
G WY
W SUNNYSIDE RD E SUNNYSIDE RD
W 33RD SOUTH (PIONEER RD)
S HOLMES AV
TO
NE
AV
EL
LO
WS
SY
W 49TH SOUTH W 49TH SOUTH (TOWNSHIP RD) E 49TH SOUTH (TOWNSHIP RD)
S 15TH EAST (ST CLAIR RD)
S 15TH WEST (JAMESTON RD)
W 65TH SOUTH (YORK RD)
E 65TH SOUTH (YORK RD) E 65TH SOUTH (YORK RD)
S 25TH EAST (HITT RD)
S 5TH WEST (PARK RD)
TO
NE
HW E 73RD SOUT H
Y
EL
LO
WS
S 1ST EAST
SY
W 81ST SOUTH W 81ST SOUTH (COTTON RD) E 81ST SOUTH
City Council Proposed real estate
Mayor Rebecca Casper land transfer with
September 8, 2017 Bonneville County
Attached please find a report from Councilman David Smith which provides
background and insight with respect to the many issues surrounding the
proposed real estate land transfer with Bonneville County.
As you will recall, Councilman Smith was assigned to represent the Council in this
matter. In preparation for the scheduled discussion in the City Council Work
Session on Monday September 11th, I recommend review of the report. I wish to
extend my thanks to Councilman Smith for this thorough report which will ensure
a well-rounded discussion.
Report to the Mayor and City Council
City/County Property Exchange
Fair Grounds/Dispatch Building
Purpose
The purpose of this report is to provide the information necessary for the Mayor and City Council to
make an informed decision regarding whether to exchange the building owned by the City of Idaho Falls,
occupied by the 911/Dispatch center (Dispatch) with the Fairgrounds property owned by Bonneville
County.
The potential exchange would accommodate a new location for the construction of The William J.
Maeck Education Center. According to the terms of the donation for the construction of the Education
Center, construction must be substantially commenced before June 1, 2018 and substantially completed
by October 1, 2020. The Donation Agreement specifies the exact location for the construction, but
allows for the selection of an alternative location.
On the surface, the exchange seems logical and beneficial to both parties. However, there are multiple
City Departments that have identified complications regarding the exchange of the Dispatch. It should
be noted that the concerns expressed regarding the exchange are not based on personal agendas or
from government bodies inability to work together as someone may have suggested, but on real, long
term costs.
Sources of Information
Discussions with:
Bonneville County Commissioner Bryon Reed
Bonneville County Sherriff Paul Wilde
Idaho Falls Police Chief Mark McBride
Idaho Falls Police Chief Bryce Johnson
Idaho Falls Fire Chief Dave Hanneman
Idaho Falls City Attorney Randy Fife
Director of Idaho Falls Power, Jackie Flowers
Documents:
Idaho State Statues
Memorandum of Directors meeting
Lease Agreement of Dispatch dated October 29, 2012
MOU Zoo Education Center Donation
Law Enforcement Building Agreement Memo
Exchange
An exchange is essentially a purchase, made by two or more entities whereby property ownership is
traded, with or without additional cash (Boot) changing hands. Properties of equal value can simply be
exchanged, and properties of unequal value require some other form of boot, or cash to equalize the
values traded.
Properties
Dispatch
The Dispatch building is a former fire station. The Dispatch houses the 911 emergency call center, and
the dispatch employees. In a simplistic view, an incoming call is a 911 emergency function, while an
outgoing call assigning the appropriate first response, is a Dispatch function.
The Dispatch building is leased to the County as the 911 emergency response center for $2,515.44 per
month. The current 20 year lease was signed October 8, 2012 and contains an option to renew for an
additional 10 years. There is a five year inflation adjustment to the monthly lease payment (and each
five year anniversary). The City is responsible for exterior maintenance and the County is responsible for
the interior maintenance and utilities. At the end of the lease, all additions to the premises become
property of the City, except for furniture and fixtures that are not permanently attached.
The Dispatch houses a fiber hub belonging to Idaho Falls Power and a utility meter receiver is attached
to the antennae. I received two different explanations for the location of the Fiber Hub. One was the
County requested access to fiber for faster speed than the T1 line that existed. The other is the City
asked for the space to house the hub. I also received two different explanations for the space in an
electronics rack used by the hub. First, the City owned a rack that was in place, and that rack was
removed and consolidated to save floor space. The other explanation, only one rack was ever there.
The hub and associated equipment could be relocated to another City owned property (Recreation
Center) at a cost. The meter reading receiver can be relocated if permission can be obtained from the
FAA. Both would take time. Currently, the plan is to move the receiver to another space on the same
antennae and then test to see if it causes any interference. I am not aware that the receiver has ever
caused any interference, even in the existing location.
The dispatch employees (23) are employees of the Idaho Falls Police department. The 911 Center
manager is an employee of the County, paid out of 911 funds. The County has also placed IT personnel
in the building that are paid from County funds, but the space the County IT employees occupy is paid
for out of 911 funds (included in the lease).
The expenses of the 911 Emergency Center are paid by a tax on phone lines and cell phones. The County
administers these funds and does not own the 911 system. The City pays the expense of the Dispatch
function from City taxpayer general funds (Police Department budget). The County taxpayers do not
have any actual cost for either the 911 Emergency Center or Dispatch. Ammon, Iona, and Ucon
contribute towards the Dispatch based on contracts with the City. Other incorporated cities in
Bonneville County, ambulance dispatch calls outside of the County or fire districts do not share the cost
of dispatch. The City budget for dispatch is $1,300,000 annually, Ammon pays $118,068, Iona pays
$9,122, and Ucon pays $3,600.
Approximately $250,000 of 911 tax funds were originally spent to remodel the Dispatch Center. In
return, the City charges a below market lease rate for the 911 Emergency Center. Recently the Police
Department paid $300,000 and the Fire Department paid $100,000 towards the purchase of new 911
software (New World ERP from Tyler Technologies). The County presumably disbursed matching funds
from the 911 funds. The City share of the annual maintenance for the software is $31,000. New World
provides a mapping system for first responders, but the Police Officers use Google maps instead,
because it works better.
Fairgrounds
The Fairgrounds includes a heated building used for 4H indoor displays and other events (the Hamilton
Building) three livestock barns (sheds), and a heated, but uninsulated sales building. The Fairgrounds are
contiguous to the Idaho Falls Zoo, separated by a road that the Tautphaus Park Master Plan designates
to be abandoned.
Access to the Fairgrounds would allow the Zoo to be open more months per year, thereby spreading
fixed costs over more time and customers. However, the Fairground property will require additional
funds to actually place the buildings in use. Meaning the Zoo will be requesting budgeted funds for
remodeling in the near future. Obtaining the Fairgrounds for the Zoo could be a very desirable addition
to the Zoo, but exchanging the Dispatch could include an ongoing annual cost to the City.
Appraisals
Actual third party appraisals have not been prepared (or ordered) at this time.
Commissioner Reed requested that two county real estate appraisers (county employees) appraise the
properties. Two different appraisers concluded two different values for the Fairgrounds, with a
substantial difference in value. Commissioner Reed proposed a value of $750,000 for the Fairgrounds,
less the appraised value of the barns (due to the condition) for a net value of $550,000. The County
appraiser valued the Dispatch at $525,000 to $575,000. If these value are acceptable to both parties, an
even trade may be possible.
Due to the large disparity in the two Fairground appraisals, Commissioner Reed and I felt a third party,
independent appraisal of the properties should be made. We also agreed, that since the properties are
owned by different taxpayers, a third party appraisal should be done anyway
We agreed the MAI Appraiser, Brent Thompson would be the appraiser of choice for an appraisal. Mr.
Thompson indicates if the appraisal is ordered right away, it would be sometime in December before it
is complete.
If the Commissioners and the Council agreed on the value of $550,000 for both properties, the
properties could legally be exchanged without waiting until December for an appraisal.
Background
History
In 1977 the City dispatch was located in the “Old” City building. The County had their own dispatch in
the County building. Both entities also had separate jails. In a spirit of cooperation, the City elected to
“get out of the Jail business” and an agreement was made to construct the Law Enforcement Building
(LEB). The LEB was constructed by the City and County to jointly provide law enforcement.
The County paid $887,737 by obtaining a Federal grant of $889,880. The County taxpayers did not
actually expend tax dollars for the construction of the LEB. The City taxpayers paid $320,000 but there is
no record of how the County expended the City’s contribution towards the LEB.
The jails and dispatch were moved to the LEB. The county paid for the operation of the jails, and the City
paid for the dispatch. Both radio frequencies were used, one as primary, and the other as a secondary.
Fire had its own radio frequency.
After the construction of the LEB, lawsuits began across the nation targeting jail conditions. The
Bonneville County jail was targeted by a lawsuit for over‐crowding. The lawsuits prompted the
construction of a new, larger jail. At about the same time, the enhanced 911 systems were developed
(emergency calls that provided the caller location).
The combined 911/dispatch center was moved to the old fire station on Skyline Drive, making additional
space available in the LEB for the City “muster” room. A vote was passed by the electorate to designate
the County as the administrator of the enhanced County‐wide 911 system. The Idaho statute specifies
what expenses can be paid from the 911 funds. Emergency Center expenses are covered, dispatch
expenses are not, and cannot be paid from the 911 tax.
The 911 emergency funds can be administered by a City, County, or a special taxing district. It does take
a vote of the electorate to set up the taxing authority. Although entities smaller than a County can
administer the funds, I believe that a reading of the law indicates the intent is to have the taxing district
cover as much ground as possible. Meaning Cities can do it, but if the system can be provided county‐
wide, then the County should administer the tax. The next evolution will most likely be regional
emergency centers rather than County based.
When the dispatch center was moved to Skyline drive, the County would collect and administer the 911
funds, rent the space from the City to house the 911 system (at a lower than market rate) and the City
would pay the expense of dispatch. The County would continue to provide for the cost of the jail. The
County is required under State law to provide the law enforcement for state offenses. Violations of City
ordinances are the responsibility of the City; however, an arrest for breaking an ordinance usually does
not happen, except for DUI and domestic disturbances. Even these may be State violations. In other
words the County is required by law to enforce state laws, which is most of the arrests in the County,
but percentage wise, the bulk of the arrests are made by Idaho Falls officers within Idaho Falls.
To summarize: The City pays for dispatch, the 911 funds pay for the 911 Emergency Center, and the
County pays for the jails.
As I previously stated, I believe this arrangement was made in the spirit of cooperation to provide
efficient and effective law enforcement.
A single operator of both the 911 Emergency Center and the Dispatch would probably be more efficient.
However, City Department directors feel that the ownership of the building and the lease are the only
bargaining chips available to obtain proper service from the 911 Center. As far as turning the function of
dispatch over to the County, one Director stated “I would need a very compelling reason to give up
dispatch”.
Issues
Numerous issues have been expressed by Department Directors regarding the transfer of ownership of
the Dispatch Center. The most important issues deal with the control of the Dispatch employees.
Control refers to the hiring, training, staffing, management, and compensation.
There are other issues of non‐performance from the existing 911 software system, such as dispatching
the wrong equipment, or equipment from the wrong location. Emergency Center staff have indicated
that these problems may be solved with the next update in October, which is unacceptable. The ability
for the City to make changes to the system was removed when access codes to the software were
changed.
Since the City is not the “owner” of the software (license), the software vendor cannot be approached
directly. Any problems with programming have to go through the 911 Emergency Center staff, which has
been slow to respond to, at best.
The relationship between the Emergency Center Management Advisory Board (made up of the Sherriff,
Police Department, Fire Department, Information Technology, and in the past the City of Ammon) and
the County Commissioners has been supplanted by Emergency Center staff. This action prevents the
flow of information from the users of the system to the Commissioners that administer the 911 funds.
It is not enough to just answer the phone when an emergency call is received. It also takes efficient,
accurate, and appropriate dispatch. The current arrangement has not provided sufficient performance.
Recently, Fire Chief Hanneman met with Emergency Center staff, Commissioner Christensen, and IT staff
to discuss some of these issues. Chief Hanneman has indicated that after the meeting, he felt the issues
were addressed, and might be resolved to his satisfaction.
However, prior experience indicates there are problems associated with two entities managing a
coordinated service.
Issues, or concerns of Department Directors, will continue whether the Dispatch is exchanged with the
Fairgrounds, or not. If a single entity assumes control of the entire 911/dispatch functions, then the
issues would most likely be resolved.
Alternatives
Alternative #1 – No change to dispatch or 911. The City continues providing dispatch services and the
911 Center pays rent for the occupied space. The City could purchase the Fairgrounds from the County
at the FMV appraised price, or at an agreed price. The law enforcement/dispatch issues still exist and
the entire purchase cost in cash may not be palatable to the Council.
Alternative #2 – The Dispatch building is exchanged for the Fairgrounds, plus whatever cash would be
necessary to equalize the values. The City would then pay the County rent for the Dispatch Center,
unless the County agreed otherwise. This alternative saddles the City (Police Department) for additional
annual (continuing) cost of providing the Dispatch function, and does not solve the law
enforcement/dispatch issues.
Alternative #3 – The Dispatch building is exchanged for the Fairgrounds, plus whatever cash would be
necessary to equalize the values, and the County assumes the function of dispatch. The City would then
enter into a performance based contract with the County for the dispatch services. This alternative
removes control from the City of how Dispatch is staffed, trained, and compensated. The only method
of making changes in Dispatch is to enforce or modify a contract. However, Department Directors prefer
this alternative over #2 because of the existence of an enforceable performance contract. This
alternative may not be possible if the increased costs to the County exceed the ability to increase the
budget enough to cover the cost (3% cap on budget increases).
Alternative #4 – The Dispatch building is exchanged for the Fairgrounds, plus whatever cash would be
necessary to equalize the values, and the City assumes the 911 administrative function. The City would
then enter into performance based contracts with the County, cities within the County, and the fire
districts. This alternative would require a vote of the electorate to change the administrator of the 911
funds. County taxpayers would probably not vote for this alternative.
Next step
Whether the Fairgrounds are exchanged with Dispatch or not, the Fairgrounds property will need to be
appraised if the City purchases the property, which will take until December sometime. According to the
City Finance Department, to record the sale or exchange of the Fairgrounds property, the Government
Accounting Standards Board rules require an appraisal.
The law enforcement/dispatch issues need to be discussed, and negotiated, in a manner that continues
to provide a joint arrangement between the Cities (plural) and the County. All areas need to be
considered, not just dispatch. The City/County agreements for the Law Enforcement Building, the
operation of the jail, the shared software and equipment costs, Court costs, records, dispatch,
emergency response, ambulance, search and rescue, and fire services all need to be considered as a
whole to develop collaborative law enforcement and fair cost allocations. Evaluating just one
agreement without considering the entire picture will produce misleading conclusions. All these
agreements evolved over time, and are interrelated and dependent upon each other. Therefore, if the
exchange occurs, or if the City purchases the property, the transaction should be considered without
attempting to resolve other law enforcement issues. Those issues will require a more comprehensive
study.
If the Council and the Commission are in agreement that an exchange of the properties is in the best
interest of both entities, a memorandum of understanding, or a contract for exchange could be written
based upon the appraised values, yet to be determined. Or, the exchange could take place now at the
agreed upon values. Basing an exchange, or purchase, on the agreed values does present a risk that the
appraised value would be different than the agreed value (Farr Candy property).
I have been informed that the preferred location for the William J. Maeck Education Center on the
Fairgrounds property does not conflict with the needs of the next 4‐H fair. Therefore, a MOU at an
appraised price or a contract for purchase or exchange would not be a problem for the County/4‐H, as
long as any agreement provides the 4‐H program access until September 1, 2018 and the City can
substantially begin construction before June 1, 2018 with completion prior to October 1, 2020. In other
words, the construction will need to begin, but the City and the 4‐H program will need to work together
in the use, and access of the property. This needs to be spelled out in any agreement.
Executive Summary
If an exchange is in the best interest of both governments, a memorandum of understanding could be
written now, for an exchange based on yet to be determined appraised values. Exchanged property will
need to be appraised under GASB rules, and will take until December to complete. A MOU could allow
the City to proceed with construction planning for the William J. Maeck Education Center.
Or, a contract of exchange can be written now based on agreed values, but the appraised value will be
different than the agreed value. (I would not be in favor of this approach.) If the Dispatch is not deemed
“surplus property” then the use of agreed values may not be possible.
The City could also purchase the Fairgrounds property at the appraised value, yet to be determined. If a
purchase is made at an agreed value, the Fairgrounds property will still need to be appraised under
GASB rules. This approach allows the City to retain the ownership in the Dispatch Center and then
reconsidered when future City/County law enforcement agreements are evaluated.
For any of the above transfers, the City/County law enforcement agreements need to be considered,
evaluated, and negotiated separate from the Fairgrounds agreement.
Get email alerts for Idaho Falls
A daily email when new agendas and minutes are posted.