City Council

September 3, 2024, City Council Special Meeting The City Council of the City of Idaho Falls met in a Special meeting, on Tuesday, September 3, 2024, in the Council Chambers in the City Annex Building located at 680 Park Avenue in Idaho Falls at 7:45 a.m. Call to Order and Roll Call There were present: Mayor Rebecca L. Noah Casper Council President Lisa Burtenshaw Councilor John Radford (Virtually) Councilor Ziel-Dingman Councilor Jim Freeman Councilor Kirk Larsen Absent: Councilor Jim Francis Also present: Wade Sanner, Community Development Services, Director Chris Fredericksen, Public Works Director Stephen Boorman, Idaho Falls Power, Assistant General Manager Margaret Wimborne, Chief of Staff Catherine Smith, Economic Development Administrator Michael Kirkham, City Attorney Corrin Wilde, City Clerk Mayor Casper called the meeting to order at 7:45 a.m. with the following items: Public Works: Consideration of Easement Vacation – Power Line Easement Vacation. Director Fredericksen stated that the property owner has requested a partial vacation of the easement. City staff members have reviewed the request and recommend approval. It was moved by Councilor Larsen, seconded by Councilor Burtenshaw to approve the easement vacation Ordinance under a suspension of the rules requiring three complete and separate readings and request that it be read by title and published by summary. The motion was carried by the following vote: Aye – Councilors Larsen, Burtenshaw, Dingman, Freeman, Radford. Nay – None Community Development Services and Public Works- Discussion and Questions: Area of City Impact Law and Application. Director Sanner provided an overview of the history of the area of impact negotiations between Idaho Falls and Bonneville County. He noted that the city's last area of impact was established around 18 years ago, with negotiations stalling over impact fees and utility extensions outside city boundaries. Before his tenure, the city proposed an area of impact based on a decade of growth patterns, but the county disagreed with some areas. Recent legislative changes have shifted more power to the county in establishing these areas. Despite this, the county planner has been cooperative, allowing city input. The county aims to renegotiate areas of impact with all cities in Bonneville County, acknowledging past mistakes in permitting suburban development outside city boundaries. Their goal is to encourage suburban growth closer to city boundaries through comprehensive plan updates. Councilor Freeman asked if some of the county's issues with suburban development outside city boundaries were related to sewer problems they were dealing with. Director Sanner acknowledged that while sewer issues were a factor, much of the county's motivation was political, with Commissioner Reed being frustrated with the loss of farmland and wanting to preserve agricultural areas. 1  September 3, 2024, City Council Special Meeting Director Sanner walked through the details of the new state statute governing the area of impact, highlighting the key changes. He explained that under the new law, the county commission now has the primary authority to establish the area of impact, with the city's role being limited to providing written comments and input during the public hearing process. Director Sanner noted that while this represents a shift in power away from the city, the county planner has been willing to work collaboratively with the city and incorporate its feedback. Director Sanner also outlined the process for modifying the area of impact in the future, which involves a public hearing and the county commission making the final determination. Additionally, Director Sanner discussed the state statute's provisions around the county's consideration of factors like commercial and residential growth, as well as geographic constraints, when establishing or modifying the area of impact. The utility extension discussion involved reviewing the Ammon ordinance, which allows the city, at its sole discretion, to extend utilities. Director Fredericksen says this ordinance was shared with the county before state legislation changed. A key point is that the city does not want to incentivize development in the county to avoid impact fees. Director Fredricksen indicated that other communities in the state have addressed this issue through specific payment options, and we have examples of their implementations. The city retains control over utility extensions and requires developers to pay impact fees and sign a consent for annexation when they become contiguous. This approach addresses several concerns related to utility extensions. Councilor Dingman inquired about the process when the city has sole discretion, asking if it requires Council approval or if staff can decide. Fredricksen responded that such decisions would be made by the Council, as they involve agreements the city must enter into and accept. The discussion focused on impact fees directly attributed to the developers. Mr. Kirkham emphasized that the key issue is the annexation process and the need for clear consent from property owners. For consent to be valid, it must be recorded against the property in the county recorder's office. Under current annexation rules, this recorded consent allows for a category one annexation without requiring an election. This process helps the city plan for orderly growth over the next five to ten years. However, even with agreements in place, annexations can still be contentious, with objections and community complaints. Kirkham expressed concern that legislative changes could invalidate these consents. The legislature has shown suspicion towards consent not given at the time of annexation, although recent laws have extended deadlines. To ensure a smooth transition, robust consent to annexation, tied to utility service, is essential. This approach is seen as the best way for the Council to manage the area of impact effectively. Director Fredericksen explained that the intent behind the agreements the city would seek to have with property owners in the area of impact is to ensure that when the city extends utilities outside its boundaries, the development will ultimately have the "look and feel" of a city subdivision when it is eventually annexed. He stated that the city's goal is not just to match the city's technical standards for things like water and sewer, but to create an expectation that the development will integrate seamlessly into the city when annexation occurs. Director Fredricksen emphasized the importance of sole discretion in deciding whether to extend services, as outlined in existing city ordinances. This decision ties into the right-of-way ordinance included in the current package. Reflecting on past discussions, Fredricksen noted that the city’s proposed expansions align with logical future growth. He highlighted that the county planning department and Austin are more open to changes and may not require a five-year wait to update maps for major changes. If a development is proposed at the farthest reaches of the area of impact, such as the southeast corner, extending utilities like water and sewer over a mile and a half would be feasible. The city could serve the area, charge impact fees, and require consent to annexation, ensuring all properties are served according to the initial ordinance. 2  September 3, 2024, City Council Special Meeting Regarding the county's right-of-way ordinance, Mr. Kirkham expressed major concerns that the language in the ordinance appears to prohibit the city from requiring annexation as a condition of providing utility services. Mr. Kirkham stated that he does not see how the city could record an annexation agreement on a property without potentially violating the county's ordinance, which he believes is targeted at publicly owned utilities like the city's. Mr. Kirkham suggested that the city should seek further clarification from the county on their interpretation of the ordinance and its intended application. Director Fredericksen acknowledged that the county and city have not always seen eye-to-eye on whether developments outside the city limits were truly meeting the city's standards. However, he indicated the current approach is for the city to be involved in the review and approval process, even though the final decision rests with the county. The city wants to ensure that when utilities are extended, there is a clear path and agreement in place for eventual annexation, rather than having contentious battles down the road. Director Fredericksen's comments emphasized the city's desire to have a collaborative process with the county to shape development in the area of impact, with the ultimate goal of facilitating smooth annexation when properties become contiguous to the city limits. Councilor Dingman questioned the use of a memorandum of understanding (MOU) for impact fees, mentioning that Council member Jim Francis believed an MOU wouldn’t be legally strong enough. Mr. Kirkham replied that the strength of the agreement depends on the specific terms negotiated between the city and county, not the terminology. He explained that any agreement must be carefully crafted to be binding, whether it’s called a contract or an MOU. Director Fredricksen explained that if a property requests utility service and the main lines are installed, the impact fees are determined based on the building type and are due upon connection. If an agreement isn’t reached or the fees aren’t paid, the service is withheld. This is similar to the current system where connection fees must be paid to receive service. He emphasized that they retain control over this process. Mayor Casper expressed concerns about the area of impact lines, especially along the city boundary on 25th Street, South 65th, and between Broadway and East 17th, where housing developments are affected. She appreciated the willingness to review these lines more frequently than every five years, as some may need adjustment sooner. She also raised concerns about the cost of providing fiber infrastructure separately from electric services, which are currently budgeted together. She emphasized that residents want fiber for its benefits, not just as part of electric service. Mr. Kirkham cautioned that the city's authority to provide fiber may be tied to its electric utility, and any attempt to separate the two could raise legal challenges due to the lack of specific legislative authorization for the city to operate a standalone fiber utility. Councilor Radford noted that his views on these issues are well-known and emphasized that the city is now in a different bargaining position, needing strong guarantees. He suggested the county include a provision in its planning or zoning ordinance to ensure annexation agreements are recorded and followed for new developments in the area of impact. While unsure of its enforceability, Radford believed it was worth exploring to formalize annexation requirements. He stressed the importance of pursuing strong guarantees to uphold these agreements, especially given the shift in power towards the county under new state legislation. Councilor Dingman expressed concern about relying on the current county planner’s cooperation with the city, noting that leadership can change quickly, making today’s agreements potentially unenforceable in the future. Director Sanner acknowledged this issue and emphasized the need to formalize any agreements. Director Fredericksen stated that the Council would decide on service agreements, as these require city approval. 3  September 3, 2024, City Council Special Meeting There was discussion exploring ways to codify the annexation and utility extension requirements, such as potentially having the county include triggers or reminders in their planning and zoning ordinances to ensure the agreements are properly recorded and followed. There was also further discussion about the city's "sole discretion" in extending utilities and the need to have robust consent to annex agreements that would run with the property. Additionally, the Council members raised questions about the potential financial implications for the city, particularly regarding the cost of providing fiber optic services outside the city limits. The discussion also focused on identifying strategies to strengthen the city’s position and ensure the new area of impact rules are implemented in a way that protects the city’s interests and facilitates orderly growth. Mr. Kirkham's comments focused on the need for the city to thoroughly understand the legal implications of the agreements and ordinances being proposed, and to work closely with the county to ensure any requirements or conditions placed on the city are enforceable and do not conflict with existing laws or the city's authority. The Council members expressed a desire to ensure the city maintains control over utility extensions and annexation, while also addressing the potential challenges of relying on agreements that could be impacted by future changes in county leadership or state legislation. Adjournment: There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:22 a.m. s/Corrin Wilde s/Rebecca L. Noah Casper Corrin Wilde, City Clerk Rebecca L. Noah Casper, Mayor 4