Council hears detailed update on impact-fee study; square-footage method gains interest
April 14, 2025 | Idaho Falls, Bonneville County, Idaho
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
Idaho Falls — City staff and consultant Colin Zamerell briefed the City Council on a draft update to the city’s five-year impact-fee study, outlining growth projections, capital-improvement projects that would be funded by fee revenue and two methodological choices for calculating residential fees.
Pam (city staff) explained the planned schedule: the Impact Fee Advisory Committee will review the study again; the city aims to hold a public hearing on June 26 and implement new fees on Oct. 1 if the process proceeds as planned. The city signaled it will allow extra outreach to developers and stakeholder groups before finalizing the report.
Consultant Colin Zamerell summarized the technical approach and emphasized legal requirements. "Impact fees are one-time payments that new growth pays to offset their new demand on infrastructure," he said, outlining the three nexus tests that Idaho requires: need, benefit and proportionality. Zamerell described the incremental expansion method the consultant used: calculate current level of service, identify growth-driven need from the capital-improvement plan (CIP), and apportion costs by development-type demand factors.
Key inputs and draft findings presented to council included:
- Growth assumptions: roughly 21% growth in housing over the next 10 years (about 6,200 new homes) and an increase of roughly 15,000 residents, slightly higher than the previous study’s growth assumption.
- Construction-cost inflation: consultant-provided cost estimates increased by about 47% since the last study, which raises fee calculations.
- Parks: a 10-year need of about $10.8 million for community-park land, amenities and civic-park improvements was identified; staff reported existing park impact-fee balances and recommended continuing community-park collection but pausing future neighborhood-park and indoor-recreation fee collections until costs and plans are clearer.
- Transportation: an estimated need of about 32 lane miles over the 10-year horizon, with the CIP covering a large portion; transportation fund balances are substantial and the consultant applied credits so the draft does not over-collect.
- Public safety: police and fire needs were updated using calls-for-service and fleet/facility plans; fire additions include station work and apparatus and a training-facility design study.
A key methodological option drew sustained discussion: whether to base residential fees on housing type (single-family vs. multifamily) or on dwelling square footage bands. Zamerell explained that bands by square footage can better reflect persons-per-household demand and could reduce fees for smaller units while increasing fees for very large homes. "We are looking to... do the residential fee schedule by the size of the home," he said. Council members expressed interest in the square-footage approach for equity and to encourage smaller, more affordable units. Pam and staff said the advisory committee will weigh the options and the council could discuss the committee’s recommendation at the April 17 or a subsequent council meeting as timing allows.
No fees were adopted at the meeting. Council members asked for additional detail and time to review CPIs and project lists, and staff committed to expanded outreach to developers and internal departments. Councilor Francis said he wanted the committee’s reasoning documented: "I'd like to not just look at their recommendation but look at their reason." Council members also asked practical questions about eligibility (for example, how accessory dwelling units would be treated) and accounting for existing fund balances.
Next steps: the Impact Fee Advisory Committee meets to review the draft; staff will circulate updated CIP details and sample calculations based on square-footage bands; planning-and-zoning and council hearings are scheduled in late May/June with a targeted implementation date of Oct. 1. Staff asked council for direction on whether to defer methodology decisions until the advisory committee’s formal recommendation; several councilors expressed support for receiving the committee’s advice before finalizing methodology.
Ending: The presentation produced multiple technical follow-ups. Staff will incorporate advisory-committee feedback and developer outreach into a final report for planning-and-zoning and city-council consideration; any adoption of revised fees would follow state law for nexus findings and public hearings.
Pam (city staff) explained the planned schedule: the Impact Fee Advisory Committee will review the study again; the city aims to hold a public hearing on June 26 and implement new fees on Oct. 1 if the process proceeds as planned. The city signaled it will allow extra outreach to developers and stakeholder groups before finalizing the report.
Consultant Colin Zamerell summarized the technical approach and emphasized legal requirements. "Impact fees are one-time payments that new growth pays to offset their new demand on infrastructure," he said, outlining the three nexus tests that Idaho requires: need, benefit and proportionality. Zamerell described the incremental expansion method the consultant used: calculate current level of service, identify growth-driven need from the capital-improvement plan (CIP), and apportion costs by development-type demand factors.
Key inputs and draft findings presented to council included:
- Growth assumptions: roughly 21% growth in housing over the next 10 years (about 6,200 new homes) and an increase of roughly 15,000 residents, slightly higher than the previous study’s growth assumption.
- Construction-cost inflation: consultant-provided cost estimates increased by about 47% since the last study, which raises fee calculations.
- Parks: a 10-year need of about $10.8 million for community-park land, amenities and civic-park improvements was identified; staff reported existing park impact-fee balances and recommended continuing community-park collection but pausing future neighborhood-park and indoor-recreation fee collections until costs and plans are clearer.
- Transportation: an estimated need of about 32 lane miles over the 10-year horizon, with the CIP covering a large portion; transportation fund balances are substantial and the consultant applied credits so the draft does not over-collect.
- Public safety: police and fire needs were updated using calls-for-service and fleet/facility plans; fire additions include station work and apparatus and a training-facility design study.
A key methodological option drew sustained discussion: whether to base residential fees on housing type (single-family vs. multifamily) or on dwelling square footage bands. Zamerell explained that bands by square footage can better reflect persons-per-household demand and could reduce fees for smaller units while increasing fees for very large homes. "We are looking to... do the residential fee schedule by the size of the home," he said. Council members expressed interest in the square-footage approach for equity and to encourage smaller, more affordable units. Pam and staff said the advisory committee will weigh the options and the council could discuss the committee’s recommendation at the April 17 or a subsequent council meeting as timing allows.
No fees were adopted at the meeting. Council members asked for additional detail and time to review CPIs and project lists, and staff committed to expanded outreach to developers and internal departments. Councilor Francis said he wanted the committee’s reasoning documented: "I'd like to not just look at their recommendation but look at their reason." Council members also asked practical questions about eligibility (for example, how accessory dwelling units would be treated) and accounting for existing fund balances.
Next steps: the Impact Fee Advisory Committee meets to review the draft; staff will circulate updated CIP details and sample calculations based on square-footage bands; planning-and-zoning and council hearings are scheduled in late May/June with a targeted implementation date of Oct. 1. Staff asked council for direction on whether to defer methodology decisions until the advisory committee’s formal recommendation; several councilors expressed support for receiving the committee’s advice before finalizing methodology.
Ending: The presentation produced multiple technical follow-ups. Staff will incorporate advisory-committee feedback and developer outreach into a final report for planning-and-zoning and city-council consideration; any adoption of revised fees would follow state law for nexus findings and public hearings.
View full meeting
This article is based on a recent meeting—watch the full video and explore the complete transcript for deeper insights into the discussion.
View full meeting