City Council
Regular MeetingIdaho Falls, ID · July 6, 2021
Minutes
July 6, 2021 Work Session
The City Council of the City of Idaho Falls met in Council Work Session, Tuesday, July 6, 2021, 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
Council President Michelle Ziel-Dingman
Councilor Thomas Hally
Councilor Jim Freeman
Councilor Jim Francis
Councilor Lisa Burtenshaw
Councilor John Radford (arrived at 3:02 p.m.)
Also present:
Brad Cramer, Community Development Services Director
Catherine Smith, Idaho Falls Downtown Development Corporation (IFDDC) Executive Director
Michael Kirkham, Assistant City Attorney
Randy Fife, City Attorney
Pamela Alexander, Municipal Services Director
Mark Hagedorn, Controller
Kathy Hampton, City Clerk
Calendars, Announcements, Reports:
Mayor Casper stated Funland at the Zoo will be holding an informational event on August 21.
Liaison Reports and Councilmember Concerns:
Council President Dingman had no items to report.
Councilor Radford had no items to report.
Councilor Burtenshaw had no items to report.
Councilor Freeman stated there are several construction events occurring in the community.
Councilor Francis stated, per the Parks and Recreation (P&R) Department, the splashpad could be ready in the near
future.
Councilor Hally stated the Idaho Falls Fire Department (IFFD) expenses for the July 4 activities/events amounted to
approximately $10,000, there were 80 ambulance calls of which 33 were firework related. He also stated the Fire
District contract will be presented to the Council at the July 8 City Council Meeting.
Mayor Casper noted there were no major incidents related to the July 4 activities/events. She also noted the Idaho
Falls Police Department (IFPD) contracted with a private security agency to assist with parking, which the IFPD
believes was helpful. She believes this was a one-time contract price, in the amount of approximately $6,000. She
recognized the inter-agency cooperation for law enforcement during the July 4 activities/events.
Report: Business Improvement District (BID):
Director Cramer stated as part of the BID agreement with the IFDDC, an annual report is required to report spending
of funds as well as sharing goals for the upcoming year. Ms. Smith stated the IFDDC is a non-profit corporation
dedicated to establishing Historic Downtown Idaho Falls as the regional center for commercial, cultural, and leisure
activities for residents and visitors alike. She noted the residents have increased over the course of the previous
two (2) years. Ms. Smith reiterated the IFDDC manages the BID. She briefly reviewed the boundaries of the BID
1
July 6, 2021 Work Session
noting the properties within the BID receive the property assessment tax, .002, as set by the Council. She noted the
total amount is approximately $90,000 which is received three (3) times a fiscal year for the IFDDC operating budget.
She also noted this will require approval again in 2027. Ms. Smith reviewed the State of Downtown Dashboard on
the IFDDC website. She indicated this was a $5,000 investment and is a live document that follows the census tracts.
She reviewed the Dashboard with general comments throughout:
• Demographics – this will include important information.
• Year in Review – all downtown events were cancelled in 2020 due to Coronavirus (COVID-19). Ms. Smith
reviewed upcoming downtown events and happenings for the 2021 year including Chalk Art with Artsy
Aussie, Dogs of Downtown, Downtown in Bloom (sidewalk pots and downtown hanging baskets), Where
Are We Wednesday, and Mural Monday. She stated local downtown businesses are featured, new
businesses are recognized, and there is a presence on Instagram.
• Communications to Downtowners – quarterly updates, information from the Small Business Administration
(SBA), Payroll Protection Program (PPP), information on the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security
(CARES) Act, and the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA).
• Holidays Downtown – modified tree lighting with 19 decorated trees.
• Spring Brew occurred in June 2021, and Alive After Five began in June 2021.
• Planned Events for 2021 – Ladies’ Shopping Days, Oktoberfest, Fall Brew (these events raise approximately
$65,000 for operations), Help Find Santa’s Puppy, downtown trolley (November through January), and Shop
for a Cause Autism Fundraiser (all proceeds go to School Districts 91 and 93).
• Parking by the numbers – earned $31,048 since October 2020, wrote 2,932 parking citations through July 6
(versus 2,563 citations from October 1-June 2020), collected on 1,732 parking tickets, collection rate of 59%
(versus 41% in the previous year), 169 citations were contested (85% of those were cleared as warnings),
installed eight (8) parking A Frames on downtown corners, and distributed over 15,000 parking brochures
which will continue. Ms. Smith stated the goal is to be on a decline of tickets and to provide education for
the public. She also stated the goal is to have 1-2 available parking spaces on each downtown block.
• Goals – meet financial goals for all events, continue to execute robust marketing plan, public art projects,
improve signage on the River Walk and downtown entry ways, continue to make positive efforts managing
downtown parking, and explore grants for public art funding.
Ms. Smith stated IFDDC has re-joined the Mainstream America program which is found in many downtowns. She
indicated the problems in the City of Idaho Falls downtown are no different than many other downtowns across
the U.S. Ms. Smith is hoping to work with Community Development Services on the downtown plan including vacant
storefronts, hammocks in the parks (would need to work with P&R), murals and signage, lighting (on The Broadway
and holidays), bike racks, and art works. Ms. Smith briefly reviewed financials – software costs for parking were
higher than anticipated at $19,240, the income shows a ‘profit’ due to the BID assessment (total for the year is
$85,000), the budget was reduced by $45,000 but is slowly coming back as events return, management of watering
downtown (total of $22,570.37), and parking lot expenses (total of $32,759). General discussion followed including
scooters in the downtown area and the BID boundary and process. Ms. Smith noted the BID is voluntary.
Update: Block Face Parking Code Change:
Director Cramer stated the draft ordinance as previously discussed (at the May 24, 2021 Council Work Session) has
been updated per Councilmembers’ requests. He indicated changes clarified the distance of moving a vehicle and
the timeframe was moved from three (3) hours to twelve hours. Director Cramer also stated Ms. Smith has been
working on signage. Mr. Kirkham noted a street would be enforced per the sign posted on the block(s). Ms. Smith
reminded the Council this ordinance would force the employees to move 500’ (each block is approximately 389’) to
another block to re-start their two-hour timeframe of parking. She noted each block is considered a ‘block face’.
2
July 6, 2021 Work Session
She displayed and explained potential signage. She also stated this code change would assist with potential parking
meters in the future. Ms. Smith emphasized she does not want this to be perceived that being downtown is limited
to two (2) hours. Per Council President Dingman, Ms. Smith believes a 3-hour timeframe for parking would
compound the problem. Per Councilor Francis, Ms. Smith stated education would occur for 3-4 weeks prior to
implementation. She indicated marketing is currently being developed. Also per Councilor Francis, Ms. Smith
confirmed the goal is to get the employees to utilize other parking locations. She stated spaces are always available
in the off-street parking lots. Director Cramer stated he will have discussion with Public Works as he believes there
would be signage costs to implement this ordinance. Mr. Kirkham stated the language would allow the flexibility to
change the blocks over time. Per Councilor Francis, Mr. Kirkham stated the City would decide which blocks would
receive the signage. This item will tentatively be included on a future City Council Meeting agenda.
Discussion: Utilities Relocation Policy:
Mr. Fife stated the government does not have the right to take property without due compensation, or to impose
new regulations (most of the time). He also stated the Local Land Use Planning Act (LLUPA) has given direct authority
to cities who can require development standards to maintain the same level of service, taxpayers are not supposed
to pay for development, development should pay for development within the City, although the City can assist, and
cities can decide what level of service they can maintain per Idaho Code. Discussion followed regarding annexation
and initial zoning, City streets, and City services. Mr. Fife stated the Bonneville Metropolitan Planning Organization
(BMPO) reviews how streets and transportation systems work within the region and they help classify those streets
as local, collector, arterial, and highways. He reviewed the process of annexing an arterial street. Mr. Fife stated the
proposed resolution was reviewed internally by Idaho Falls Power (IFP), Idaho Falls Fiber (IFF), the Legal
Department, Community Development Services, and Public Works. He also stated the resolution addresses public
utility relocation and recovery of relocation costs from developers – where relocation is required by City regulation,
where relocation is requested by a developer but not required by regulation, and where there is a question about
who should bear relocation costs. Mr. Fife stated per the resolution, IFP/IFF and water/sewer would act like a utility.
Discussion followed regarding the potential delay of development and the extent and cost of accommodation to
the utility. Mr. Fife stated this resolution does not amend the sub-development code, development standards, or
internal practices and shouldn’t change any practices externally. The resolution establishes the City’s view as a
policy through the Council. It was noted the Exhibit attached to the resolution, describing the policy, cannot be
changed without Council approval. Mayor Casper stated this resolution will be included on the July 8 City Council
Meeting agenda.
Introduction and Overview: Proposed 2021/2022 Budget:
Director Alexander stated the Council budget package includes draft budget worksheets by department as of July
2, 2021, the budget calendar, salary and benefit calculations, health insurance benefit calculations, and full-time
equivalent position count (position control).
Mr. Hagedorn reviewed a summary of the 2021/22 Proposed City-wide Budget:
Total By Fund 2020/21 2020/21 2021/22 2021/22 $ Change 2020/21
Expenditure Revenue Proposed Proposed Expenditure Position
Budget Budget Expenditure Budget Revenue Budget Count
General Fund $49,304,612 $8,047,241 $53,826,172 $8,798,302 $4,521,560 422
Government Funds 79,427,133 31,949,883 76,415,736 31,881,256 <3,011,397> 114
Capital
Improvement
Funds (CIF) 9,180,000 8,506,423 35,420,000 34,712,396 26,240,000 --
Enterprise Funds 142,818,729 126,267,690 147,151,070 114,095,237 4,332,341 175
Total All Funds $4,332,341 $174,771,237 $312,812,978 $189,487,191 $32,082,504 711
3
July 6, 2021 Work Session
He stated the General Fund is expected to receive more than $8M in revenue, this amount is not included in this
summary. He also stated this overall number will change as contingency funds from the ARPA are received. He
noted the $4.5M/9% change in the General Fund is higher than expected, although there are other increases in
revenue. He indicated the accountants are reviewing this amount. Mr. Hagedorn stated contingency from the
previous year was allocated into the CIF for the Law Enforcement Complex. He also stated directors were asked not
to budget for ARPA. Mr. Hagedorn stated expenditures includes change in health insurance benefits (3% tentative
increase) as well as the new compensation plan. It was noted the Proposed Position Count does not include any
new employee(s) requests. Mr. Hagedorn stated Government Funds are funds that have a government/taxpayer
purpose that are not considered a General Fund such as golf, recreation, and streets. He also stated the accounting
groups are segregated into Government Funds, Business-type Funds, Fiduciary Funds, and Internal Service Funds.
Mr. Hagedorn reviewed the Property Tax Overview – new legislation effective January 1, 2021:
• Growth and annexations – currently calculating
• 3% Statutory increase – approximately $1,165,949
• Maximum increase 8% – approximately $3,109,198 (capped amount that includes growth, annexation, and
3%—this goes to the base)
• Forgone 1% - approximately $388,649 (not part of 8%—this goes to the base in perpetuity)
• Forgone 3% - approximately (only for Capital $1,165,949—this does not go to the base)
Mr. Hagedorn noted the third option would take Forgone (approximately $6.5M) and not take growth, annexation,
and 3%. He believes this is not a good option. Per Mayor Casper, Mr. Hagedorn believes the City could get to the
8%. He also noted property tax covers approximately 55% of General Fund revenue, the remaining revenue is from
Charges for Services and State-shared revenues. Per Council Radford, Mr. Hagedorn stated revenues have been
increasing approximately $1.5M annually from Fiscal Year 2019. He noted wages have been the largest impact to
the budget. He also stated the City is very controlled and limited on how to grow revenues and there must be
control and limits how to spend ongoing resources. He noted not all departments submitted a flat operational
budget. He also noted the $4.5M includes $1M for the Law Enforcement Complex (LEC) which the City has already
committed to, therefore, operationally the budget has increased $3.5M. Brief comments followed regarding
budgeting of the Aquatic Center dehumidification (dehydes) system and the Law Enforcement Complex. Mr.
Hagedorn stated property taxes covers General Fund, Rec Fund, and Library. He indicated this will be a stressful
year for the budget due to items that have been committed to, pre-pandemic issues, and growth issues. He also
indicated there are not enough financial resources to meet all the needs. He reminded the Council that $460,000
has already been allocated to the airport. Director Alexander stated next steps include department budget
presentations, General Fund summary review, employee benefits and balanced budget discussion, and Council-
directed budget discussion. She reviewed 2021/22 budget dates including approval of the tentative budget,
publication of public hearing notifications, public hearings for budget, fees, and forgone (if applicable), and final
adoption of budget. Mayor Casper stated department presentations are a time for advocacy for the needs and
pressures they face. She also stated the Council needs to listen for the City as a whole including what must happen
and what can be postponed. She believes the liaisons have more insight to specific directors. She also believes the
liaisons need to be an advocate as well as a team player. Director Alexander recommended the use of data for
continued services and ongoing costs. Council President Dingman believes the Council needs to find the balance
between needs versus wants, and any decisions that have already been made are fully funded prior to any new
projects, expansion, and new services. General discussion followed including the new compensation structure, the
Rec Levy, the airport agreement, overtime costs, contracted services, and grant/matching-fund opportunities.
Councilor Hally believes growth is important although one must live within the budget. Councilor Radford believes
the Councilmembers will need to listen critically as he does not believe there will be many choices about wants, he
recommended Councilmembers listen to ongoing operations, he believes money should be set aside in the General
Fund, he is hopeful to receive money from the state to help with benefits/health insurance, and he believes the
4
July 6, 2021 Work Session
liaison system can be emotionally dangerous during the budget time. Councilor Burtenshaw agrees the budget must
be a data-driven decision. Councilor Freeman expressed his disappointment/frustration with the State legislators
and the limitations on the amount of money that can be brought in, especially with the growth that is occurring.
Councilor Francis believes a goal should be not to change the benefit package if possible. Mayor Casper believes
commitments should not be made until Council has heard all presentations.
Announcements:
Mayor Casper announced IFP Board Meeting and City Council Meeting on July 8, and Budget Session on July 12.
Council President Dingman expressed her appreciation to all those who participated with the Community Food
Basket Interfaith drive during the July 4 parade. She indicated 1,900 pounds of food and $17,000 in cash donations
were received.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 5:46 p.m.
s/ Kathy Hampton s/ Rebecca L. Noah Casper
Kathy Hampton, City Clerk Rebecca L. Noah Casper, Mayor
5
Agenda
Legal: Utilities Relocation Policy
RESOLUTION NO. 2021-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF IDAHO FALLS, IDAHO, A MUNICIPAL
CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF IDAHO, ESTABLISHING A CITY
POLICY FOR RELOCATION OF UTILITIES TO ACCOMMODATE
DEVELOPMENT AND PROVIDING THAT THIS RESOLUTION BE
EFFECTIVE UPON ITS PASSAGE.
WHEREAS, Council desires that development within the City is predictable, orderly, and
consistent with development principles and regulations; and
WHEREAS, the Idaho Code (including the Local Land Use Planning Act) and City Code
(including the Zoning and Subdivision codes) assist in the regulation of development; and
WHEREAS, a clear and standard policy should assist developers, City staff, and public and private
utilities in planning for anticipated growth while recognizing the rights and responsibilities of those
interests in a fair, legal, practical, and equitable manner; and
WHEREAS, growth should be the legal and economic responsibility of those who most directly
benefit from it; and
WHEREAS, this Resolution establishes the City’s policy relative to relocation of public and
private utilities; and
WHEREAS, this policy documents long established legal and practical approached to relocation
of utilities triggered by development.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF IDAHO FALLS, IDAHO, AS FOLLOWS:
1. The City Council hereby adopts the Development Triggered Requests for Relocation of
Public Utilities attached to this Resolution as Exhibit “A”.
ADOPTED this day of , 2021.
EFFECTIVE on the _____ day of ___________, 2021.
DEVELOPMENT RELOCATION OF UTILITIES POLICY 6.10.21
PAGE 1 OF 7
ATTEST: CITY OF IDAHO FALLS, IDAHO
_________________________ ___________________________________
Kathy Hampton, City Clerk Rebecca L. Noah Casper, Mayor
(SEAL)
STATE OF IDAHO )
) ss:
County of Bonneville )
I, KATHY HAMPTON, CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF IDAHO FALLS, IDAHO, DO
HEREBY CERTIFY:
That the above and foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of the Resolution
entitled, “A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF IDAHO FALLS, IDAHO, A
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF IDAHO, ESTABLISHING
A CITY POLICY FOR RELOCATION OF UTILITIES TO ACCOMMODATE
DEVELOPMENT AND PROVIDING THAT THIS RESOLUTION BE
EFFECTIVE UPON ITS PASSAGE.”
_______________________________
Kathy Hampton, City Clerk
(SEAL)
DEVELOPMENT RELOCATION OF UTILITIES POLICY 6.10.21
PAGE 2 OF 7
EXHIBIT “A”
DEVELOPMENT-TRIGGERED REQUESTS FOR
RELOCATION OF PUBLIC UTILITIES
I. Purpose
This document is meant to explain and to establish a general policy related to relocation
of public utilities for City subdivision construction projects.
II. Idaho Law
Idaho's cities have authority to regulate all uses associated with a public right of way.
This authority is derived, in part, from Article XII, Section 2 of the Idaho Constitution. This
section of the Idaho Constitution grants police authority to incorporated cities within the State of
Idaho to enforce order and provide for the general welfare within a city's boards, as long the
city's ordinances are not in conflict with the City charter or with the general laws of the State of
Idaho. The City of Idaho Falls was incorporated on July 8, 1899. See Idaho Falls City Code 1-1-
1 and 1-1-2.
Idaho Code Section 50-301 allows cities "...to exercise all powers and perform all
functions of local self-government in City affairs as they are not specifically prohibited by or in
conflict with the general laws or the Constitution of the State of Idaho."
Idaho Code Section 50- 302(1) allows cities to make any ordinances, bylaws, rules,
regulations, and resolutions not inconsistent with the law of the State of Idaho as may be
expedient, in addition to the special powers granted, to maintain the peace, good government,
and welfare of the corporation and its trade, commerce, and industry.
In addition to these general grants of authority, the Idaho Legislature has specifically
granted authority to Idaho cities over streets, avenues, alleys, lanes, rights-of-way, and other
properties include those in Idaho Code Sections 50-311; 50-312; 50-313; 50-314; 50-315; and
50-316. Please note that Idaho Code Section 50-313 grants to city councils the "... care,
supervision, and control of all public highways and bridges within the corporate limits ...".
The Legislature has granted Idaho cities authority to regulate utility transmission systems.
Idaho Code Section 50-328 states:
All cities shall have power to remit, authorize, provide for and regulate the erection,
maintenance, and removal of utility transmission systems, and the laying and use
of underground conduits or subways for the same in, under, upon, or over the
DEVELOPMENT RELOCATION OF UTILITIES POLICY 6.10.21
PAGE 3 OF 7
streets, alleys, public parks, and public places of said cities; and in, under, over, and
upon any lands owned or under the control of said city, whether they may be within
or without the city limits.
Title 67, Chapter 5 of the Idaho State Code, grants to cities the authority to adopt
standards for such things as roadways, streets, lanes, bicycle ways, pedestrian walkways, rights-
of-way, grades, alignments, and intersections and other standards for public and private
development. See especially Idaho Code 67- 6518.
Idaho Code Section 67-6513 grants to cities the ability to adopt, by ordinance, standards
for the processing of applications for subdivision permits under Title 50 (Municipal
Corporations):
Each such Ordinance may provide for mitigation of the effects of subdivision
development on the ability of the political subdivisions of the State, including
school districts, to deliver services without compromising quality of service
delivery to current residents or imposing substantial additional costs upon current
residents to accommodate the proposed subdivision.
Idaho Falls' Subdivision Ordinance is in Title 10, Chapter 1 of the Idaho Falls City Code. City
bridge and street regulations is in Title 10, Chapter 2 of the Idaho Falls City Code.
Idaho Falls City Code Section 10-1-5(H)(1) requires roadway classification to comply
with both the City’s Comprehensive Plan and the current Access Management Plan provided by
the Bonneville Metropolitan Planning Organization (BMPO).
Idaho Falls City Code Section 10-2-4(E) requires all streets, sidewalks, curbs, gutters, or
other public improvements which developers are required to construct (including arterial streets)
to be constructed in accordance to City Standard Drawings and Engineering Specifications that
are adopted by City Ordinance. IFCC Section 10-2-4(A) requires such developments to be
installed entirely by the developer, consistent with Idaho Code Section 67-6513 and the City
Subdivision Ordinance.
III. Relevant Idaho Case Law
There are several cases decided by the Idaho Supreme Court that indicate that a public
utility must relocate utility lines when the utility receives a relocate request from an Idaho public
road agency, like the City of Idaho Falls.
In Mountain States Tel & Tel. Co. v. Boise Redevelopment Agency, 101 Idaho 30
(1980), an Idaho urban renewal agency vested with police power from the state proposed a
DEVELOPMENT RELOCATION OF UTILITIES POLICY 6.10.21
PAGE 4 OF 7
development plan that would require a utility line relocation. The utility conditioned the removal
on the public reimbursing the utilities costs. When the renewal agency refused to pay, the utility
sued. Ultimately, the Idaho Supreme Court confirmed that the State of Idaho follows a common
law rule that, where a governmental entity exercises police powers in requiring the relocation of
utilities (including telegraph, telephone, and electric power) out of public roads, streets, and
highways so as not to "incommode the public use," the utility pays all associated costs. Such is
the case unless there is specific and clear legislative authority to the contrary. The Supreme
Court failed to find specific authority to the contrary and therefore confirmed that the utility had
to bear the costs.
The company also argued that costs associated with the relocation should be borne by the
public. The Idaho Supreme Court stated that utilities use the public streets at the convenience and
tolerance of the public and that the public should not then have to pay to terminate a use which
they have permitted only as a courtesy to a utility. The fact the utilities have the benefit of using
public streets to generate profits over the years should not allow them to complain when the use
is terminated because, without the use of the public way, other alternatives costing far more to
the utilities would have likely been necessary to provide the utility service to its customers.
In Ada County Highway District v. Idaho Public Utility Commission, 151 Idaho 1
(2011), the Idaho Supreme Court held that modification of an electric power utility's tariff does
not interfere with electric utility responsibility to relocate on public rights-of-way. This
confirmed that the highway district and other governmental authorities have the exclusive
jurisdiction over public rights-of-way controlled by them. The court determined that the IPUC
exceeded its authority when it adopted a rule that would have allowed the IPUC to require third
parties to pay for services if the IPUC determined a relocation benefitted a third party. The Idaho
Supreme Court said that, there was no IPUC jurisdiction to impose a charge to a third party. If
the electric company wanted to recover relocation costs from a third party, it would have to sue
in court on some theory not related to IPUC requirement. The company's relocation obligation,
however, was required "regardless of whether it is reimbursed."
IV. Public Utility Relocation and Recovery of Relocation Costs from Developers
A. Where Relocation is Required by City Regulation
The City's Subdivision Ordinance (Idaho Falls City Code Title 10, Chapter 1),
adopted pursuant to Idaho law (especially Idaho Code Section 67-6513), provides for
mitigation of the effects of subdivision development or re-development on the City's
ability to deliver services without compromising quality of service delivery to current
City residents or imposing substantial additional costs upon current City residents to
accommodate the proposed subdivision development or re-development. City
requirements for installation of public facilities by a developer or re-developer are based
DEVELOPMENT RELOCATION OF UTILITIES POLICY 6.10.21
PAGE 5 OF 7
in Idaho Code authority granted to the City and provide such mitigation. These
improvements typically include street, curb, gutter, sidewalk, water, sewer, and
stormwater detention, as per City Standard Drawings and Engineering Specifications, the
Subdivision Ordinances, and BMPO street clarification. Common utilities affected
include telephone telecommunications, electric, cable, and fiber.
Where installation of the public improvements in the City right-of-way are triggered by
subdivision development or re-development requirements in the City Code (and not by a
developer’s preference) or where a public utility does not have its own easement for its
presence in the City right-of-way, the public utility should bear relocation costs. The
City should not collect, participate in, or support collection by a public utility of
relocation or removal costs related to the public utility’s facilities in the City right-of-way
(because such relocation or removal is not discretionary on the part of the developer).
B. Where Relocation is Requested by Developer, but Not Required by Regulation
Any public utility is free to collect its relocation or removal costs from any developer,
property owner, or other party where the relocation is not required by City development
regulations. For example, when the developer’s request for accommodations, removal,
construction, or relocation serves only developer’s interests or desires and is not triggered
by City ordinance, a public utility may seek reimbursement for the discretionary portion
of the costs from the developer who desires the accommodation.
Where installation of the City public improvements in the City right-of-way are not
triggered by subdivision development or re-development or by other applicable law and
the relocation, improvement, or removal, of the public utility’s facilities are at the request
of any third-party developer, property owner, or other party, the City should not interfere
with the public utility’s efforts to recover its costs.
Generally, where a public utility’s facilities are located within such public utility’s lawful
easement outside of the City right-of-way; outside of Bonneville County right-of-way; or
outside of a public prescriptive easement or public utility easement established prior to
subdivision development or re-development permitted by the City and the subdivision
development or re-development requires removal or relocation of facilities from a current
location within the subdivision development or re-development project area, the City
should not require the public utility to bear costs for relocation or removal of its facilities
from the project area.
C. Where There is a Question About Who Should Bear Relocation Costs
Where it is unclear whether a relocation request is triggered by City development
standards or solely by a developer’s preference, the City Department affected, or a
DEVELOPMENT RELOCATION OF UTILITIES POLICY 6.10.21
PAGE 6 OF 7
representative of a non-City public utility, should meet to discuss the specific request
with the City Attorney Department regarding the applicable laws related to the request.
Upon confirmation that relocation costs to the public utility are considered to be
reimbursable, the appropriate City Department, with the assistance of the Community
Development Services Department, should notify the developer to discuss an appropriate
mechanism to recover those costs.
NOTE: No required public development construction should be delayed while it is determined
by the City whether relocation costs are reimbursable to a public utility.
It is recognized that, on occasion, there may be facts unique to a project which results in a
decision that varies from this general policy. In those rare circumstances, the City will work
with the utility to determine whether and to what extent an accommodation to the utility may be
made and who shall bear the costs for the accommodation.
DEVELOPMENT RELOCATION OF UTILITIES POLICY 6.10.21
PAGE 7 OF 7
Get email alerts for Idaho Falls
A daily email when new agendas and minutes are posted.