HomeMy WebLinkAboutSouthwest RAA Eligibility Report 8-8-24 L edits.docx
DRAFT
Twin Falls
Southwest Revenue Allocation Area
Eligibility Report
Prepared for
The Urban Renewal Agency of the
City of Twin Falls
August 19, 2024
Kushlan | Associates
Boise, Idaho
1 | Page
Introduction: Kushlan | Associates was retained by the Urban Renewal Agency
of the City of Twin Falls (the Agency) to assist them in their consideration of
establishing a new urban renewal district in the City of Twin Falls, Idaho (the City).
The Mayor, with the confirmation of the City Council, has appointed seven
members to the Urban Renewal Agency of the City of Twin Falls to guide the
development of urban renewal plans and oversee their implementation. The
current membership of the Commission is as follows:
Chair: Rudy Ashenbrener
Vice Chair Andy Hohwieler Dave McAlindin
Secretary Eric Smallwood
Commissioners Dan Brizee
Jan Rogers
JJ McBride
Jennifer Colvin
Urban Renewal
Executive Director: Shawn Barigar
Background: While Native Americans inhabited the area for millennia, the
development of the community of Twin Falls, as we know it today was initiated in
1900. I. B. Perrine had farmed in the Snake River Canyon since 1884, providing
sustenance to the Wood River mines and the surrounding area in South Central
Idaho. In response to the adoption of the Carey Act in 1894 that encouraged the
development of facilities to irrigate traditionally arid lands, Perrine lead an effort
to create the Twin Falls Land and Water Company (TFLWC) in 1900 supported by
Salt Lake and Eastern financial interests. The first infrastructure investment was
the construction of Milner Dam on the Snake River on which construction was
commenced in 1903 and completed in 1905. Construction of distribution facilities
in the Main Line, Highline and Lowline canals set the stage for the establishment
of the community of Twin Falls with the original plat being filed on May 12, 1904,
with formal incorporation occurring in 1905.
The Idaho State Legislature created Twin Falls County on February 21, 1907,
naming the City if of Twin Falls as County Seat. The county had previously been
part of Cassia County and Owyhee County at different times in its history. As
farming grew as the lead component of the area’s economy, the community grew
to support those engaged in that enterprise.
Over time the community has grown and prospered, often influenced by
transportation improvements impacting the region. The Minidoka and
Southwestern Railroad (M&SW) arrived in Twin Falls on August 7, 1904. The
M&SW was acquired by the Oregon Short Line Railroad, a division of the Union
Pacific Railroad, in 1912. The Twin Falls – Jerome Intercounty Bridge was opened
in 1927 connecting the communities north and south of the Snake River. Now
called the I.B. Perrine Bridge, it serves as the crossing for US Highway 93 that
2 | Page
connects Mexico and Canada through Arizona, Nevada, Idaho and Montana. U.S
93 runs through the city, as do US Highway 30 and State Highways 50 and 74.
Interstate 84 now carries its east-west traffic approximately 3 miles north of Twin
Falls.
In support of that continuing economic vitality of the region, the community
turned to the Urban Renewal Law in 1965 with the creation of the Urban Renewal
Agency of the City of Twin Falls by Resolution 909 adopted by the Twin Falls City
Council on July 19, 1965. In 1997 the City Council adopted Resolution 1603 that
consolidated prior existing urban renewal areas into a new combined Area 4.
Subsequent to that action, the City Council has established six revenue allocation
areas to pursue specific objectives. Those areas are noted below with their
expiration dates:
Area 4-1 (Old Towne) 2022 (Closed)
Area 4-3 (Chobani) 2031
Area 4-4 (Clif Bar) 2035
Washington Street South 2039 (to be closed 2024)
Orchard Avenue Dr. East 2042
Old Towne-2 2043
A formal Eligibility Study as required under Idaho Code must be conducted for this
and any future areas that the Agency and City will consider ensuring the decision
makers have current information on which to exercise their discretion.
Cities across the nation actively participate in the economic vitality of their
communities through investment in infrastructure. Water and sewer facilities as
well as transportation and other systems are all integral elements of an
economically vital community. Idaho cities have a significant challenge in
responding to these demands along with the on-going need to reinvest in their
general physical plant to ensure it does not deteriorate to the point of system
failure. Idaho cities face stringent constitutional limitations and near total
dependence upon legislative action to provide funding. An Idaho city’s access to
funding sources and the ability to employ effective financing mechanisms such as
General Obligation bonding, severely constrain capital investment strategies.
With a difficult approval threshold (66 2/3%) for General Obligation bond issues,
accessing what few tools exist in Idaho cities remains a prudent exercise of the
City’s fiduciary obligations. The tools made available to cities in Title 50, Chapters
20 and 29, the Urban Renewal Law and Economic Development Act are some of
the few that are available. New sources of State support are not likely to become
available in the foreseeable future, thus the Twin Falls Urban Renewal Agency’s
interest in exploring the potential for establishing their seventh urban renewal
district is appropriate.
3 | Page
Demographics:
According to the US Census Bureau, the estimated 2024 population of the City of
Twin Falls is 56,521 and has grown by 17.4% since 2020. This is a higher growth
rate than that experienced statewide which was 6.8% during that period.
At 25.2%, Twin Falls’ percentage of people under 18 years of age exceeds the
statewide percentage of 23.9% by 1.3%. The percentage of population under 5 years
of age exceeds the statewide figure by 1.1% (6.9% vs. 5.8%). The percentage of the
Twin Falls population over 65 years of age (15.8%) is less than the statewide
percentage (17.0%) by 1.2%. These statistics reflect a population base that is
slightly younger than that found statewide.
The population is predominately white at 83.8% as compared to the statewide
percentage of 92.6%. The Hispanic population exceeds the statewide percentage
by 1.6% (15.1% vs. 13.5%).
Housing units are 63.0% owner-occupied as opposed to the statewide statistic of
72.0%. Median value of owner-occupied housing units is $243,700 as compared to
$331,600 statewide. Monthly owner costs with mortgage are $1,375 as compared
to the statewide figure of $1,520. Median gross rent in Twin Falls is reported as
$952 as compared to $1,061 statewide.
When income statistics are compared to statewide numbers, we see that the
population of Twin Falls lags the rest of Idaho in these categories as well. The
median household income in Twin Falls is $58,024, approximately 21% below the
statewide figure of $70,214. Per capita money income for the Twin Falls population
is $31,255 as compared to the statewide number of $34,919. The percentage of the
Twin Falls population below poverty level is 12.1% as compared to the statewide
number of 10.7%.
These statistics suggest that the Twin Falls population may have limited capacity
to fund new or increasing revenue sources to support economic development
efforts in addition to on-going operational requirements. Thus, utilizing existing
investment mechanisms such as found in Title 50, Chapters 20 and 29 is a prudent
exercise of local legislative authority.
Statistics are derived from the latest United States Census Bureau Report.
Steps in Consideration of an Urban Renewal District:
The first step in consideration of establishing an urban renewal district in Idaho is
to define a potential area for analysis as to whether conditions exist within it to
qualify for redevelopment activities under the statute. We have called this the
“Study Area”.
4 | Page
The next step in the process is to review the conditions within the Study Area to
determine whether the area is eligible for creating a district. The State Law
governing urban renewal sets out the following criteria, at least one of which must
be found, for an area to be considered eligible for urban renewal activities:
1. The Presence of a Substantial Number of Deteriorated or
Deteriorating Structures and Deterioration of Site or Other
Improvements \[50-2018(9) and 50-2903(8)(b); 50-2903(8)(c)\]
2. Age or Obsolescence \[50-2018(8) and 50-2903(8)(a)\]
3. Predominance of Defective or Inadequate Street Layout \[50-2018(9)
and 50-2903(8)(b)\]
4. Faulty Lot Layout in Relation to Size, Adequacy, Accessibility, or
Usefulness; Obsolete Platting \[50-2018(9) and 50-2903(8)(b); 50-
2903(8)(c)\]
5. Insanitary or Unsafe Conditions \[50-2018(9) and 50-2903(8)(b)\]
6. Diversity of Ownership \[50-2018(9) and 50-2903(8)(b); 50-
2903(8)(c)\]
7. Tax or Special Assessment Delinquency \[50-2018(9) and 50-
2903(8)(b)\]
8. Defective or Unusual Conditions of Title \[50-2018(9) and 50-
2903(8)(b)\]
9. Results in Economic Underdevelopment of the Area \[50-2903(8)(b);
50-2903(8)(c)\]
10. Substantially Impairs or Arrests the Sound Growth of a Municipality
\[50-2018(9) and 50-2903(8)(b); 50-2903(8)(c)\]
If the Eligibility Report finds that one or more of the conditions noted above
exists within the Study Area, then the Urban Renewal Agency may adopt it and
forward it to the City Council for their consideration. If the City Council concurs
with the determination of the Urban Renewal Agency, they may direct that an
Urban Renewal Plan be developed for the area that addresses the issues raised
in the Eligibility Report.
The Urban Renewal Agency, then acts to prepare the Urban Renewal Plan for
the new District and determines whether to also recommend the establishment
of a Revenue Allocation Area to fund improvements called for in the Plan. Once
the Plan for the District and Revenue Allocation Area are completed, the Urban
Renewal Board forwards it to the City Council for their consideration.
5 | Page
The City Council must refer the Urban Renewal Plan to the Planning and
Zoning Commission for a finding that the Plan, as presented, is consistent with
the City’s Comprehensive Plan. At the same time, other taxing entities levying
property taxes within the boundaries of the proposed Urban Renewal District
are provided a thirty-day opportunity to comment on the Plan to the City
Council. While the taxing entities are invited to comment on the Plan, their
concurrence is not required for the City Council to proceed with their formal
consideration.
Once the Planning and Zoning Commission makes their finding of consistency
and the thirty-day comment period has passed, the City Council is permitted to
hold a public hearing and formally consider the Adoption of the Plan creating
the new Urban Renewal District and Revenue Allocation Area.
The City Council must also find that the taxable value of the district to be
created, when added to the Base Assessed Value of any existing Urban
Renewal/Revenue Allocation area, does not exceed the statutory maximum of
10% of the citywide assessed valuation.
If the City Council, in their discretion, chooses to proceed, they will officially
adopt the Urban Renewal Plan and Revenue Allocation Area and provide
official notification of that action to the County Assessor and Idaho State Tax
Commission.
The Urban Renewal Agency then proceeds to implement the Plan.
Description of the Southwest Park Study Area:
The Study Area subject to the current review (Southwest Park) is located primarily
in the south-central part of the city and consists of parcels adjacent or in close
proximity to a major north/south arterial, Washington Street South. The
thoroughfare is the primary access to the Twin Falls Regional Airport and, in this
section, is also designated as Idaho State Highway 74.
According to the records supplied by the Twin Falls County Assessor, the area
contains a total of 415.1 343.25 acres, excluding public rights-of-way. This area
encompasses sixteen (16) fifteen (15) individual tax parcels. The total area is
taxable with no properties being exempt from taxation. The majority of the acreage
is currently used for agricultural purposes, and thus, is assessed at agricultural
land values.
Table 1 reflects the data for each of the 16 tax parcels represented in the Study Area:
6 | Page
Table 1
Improvement
Tax Parcel Owner Acres Land Value Total Value
Value
Gem State Dairy
RPT00107201805A 34.64 $72,385 $0 $72,385
Products, LLC
Gem State Dairy
RPT00107201200A 40.61 $183,150 $106 $183,256
Products, LLC
Gem State Dairy
RPT00107201830A 0.84 $74,886 $0 $74,886
Products, LLC
Dermody Family
RPT00107201821A 0.75 $90,808 $1,995,768 $2,086,576
Limited
Dermody Family
RPT00107201811A 0.484 $58,680 $0 $58,680
Limited
Dermody Family
RPT00107202300A 1.31 $159,066 $68,230 $227,296
Limited
RPT00107201806 E & J Holdings LLC 0.326 $52,799 $458,739 $511,538
RPT00107201801 E & J Holdings LLC 0.478 $77,418 $0 $77,418
$10313150
RPT00107200010A Glanbia Foods, Inc 18.66 $754,460 $11,067,610
Lewis Land and
RPT00107202410A 77.5 $245,943 $109,146 $355,089
Livestock Co.
Grandview Falls,
RPT00107204800A 154.94 $319,215 0 $319,215
LLC
RP10S17E2072240 Goold Family LLC 71.85 $205,063 0 $205,063
Gem State Dairy
RP10S17E207201 2.0 $4,242 0 $4,242
Products, LLC
J & G Steel
RP10S17E200610 9.58 $202,287 0 $202,287
Properties, LLC
J & G Steel
RPT00107200620 0.42 $895 0 $895
Properties, LLC
RPT00107200600 Craig Casperson 10.21 $19,366 0 $19,366
415.1 $2,2,520,663 $15,15,15,465,802
Total $12,12,945,139
343.25 $2,315,600 $15,260,739
Please see the following map for a graphic representation of the study areas.
7 | Page
Need New Map with added parcels
8 | Page
Analysis of the Study Area:
The Study Area consists of 16 15 tax parcels representing 415.1 343.25 acres located
in and immediately adjacent to the South-central part of the City of Twin Falls.
Those properties located within unincorporated Twin Falls County are expected to
annex to the city coincident to the consideration of this process.
It is located generally west of Washington Street South and south of Diamond
Avenue West. It is a mixture of commercially and industrially zones properties. A
significant portion of the Study Area (326 acres – 75.78%) remains in agricultural
uses pending urban level development. As such, written consent of the property
owners will be required before they may be included within the boundary of an
urban renewal district.
A detailed review of the Study Area reflects a pattern of underinvestment and
disinvestment over time. Within the Study Area one finds properties where recent
investment has been made with either new construction or significant renovation.
Four of the parcels reflect this condition.
Conversely where one finds improvement values less than land values, the
property is either vacant or the structures are generally obsolete. Table 1 above
shows that a substantial percentage of the properties located within the Study Area
reflect this condition. Thirteen (13) properties representing 404.85 acres are
primarily vacant and dedicated to agricultural use. Three parcels reflect
improvement values substantially below land value.
The American Institute of Appraisers suggests that an economically viable,
developed property would reflect a ratio of 30% land to 70% improvements. After
initial improvements are made, without continuing reinvestment, the
improvement ratio declines and as it approaches par, a condition of disinvestment
or deterioration is assumed.
Additionally, one (1) parcel within the Study Area is landlocked with no access to a
public street and one (1) of the major parcels is connected to Washington Street by
only a narrow twenty-foot extension of the property, a condition inadequate for
any level of intense urban development.
A major gasoline pipeline transects the Study Area on a prescribed easement
limiting development potential along its length.
Even if one arbitrarily sets an Improvement to Land Value ratio of 1:1 as a
benchmark below which one finds notable disinvestment, one finds the vast
majority of the area within the Study Area is below this line.
9 | Page
Table 2
The Comparison of Land Value to Improvement Value
Percentage of
Category Number of Lots
Area
Vacant 11 78.5%
Improvement Value < 1.0 X Land 3 28.8.0%
Value
200% - 300% 0 0%
300% - 400% 0 0%
400% - 500% 0 0%
500% - 600% 0 0 %
600% - 700% 0 0%
700% - 800% 0 0%
800%-900% 1 0.08%
900% - 1000% 0 0%
Improvement Value > 1000% 2 4.5%
As the table shows, the percentage of properties where re-investment has been
made is relatively small.
Infrastructure:
A similar pattern of under-investment exists in the public infrastructure in the
Study Area. While limited investment has been made on Washington Street South
associated with recent development, full improvement to current City standards
has not been made. Curb and gutter is are in place on the west side fronting new
commercial development, but no pedestrian facilities or storm drainage facilities
are in place. The balance of Washington Street South through the Study Area
shows an improvement standard reflective of historic rural state highways
consisting of an asphalt mat with no provision for storm drainage, pedestrian
facilities or urban levels of illumination. Such facilities were not designed to
accommodate projected levels of commercial and industrial traffic envisioned in
City planning documents, potentially resulting in significant deterioration of the
street surface.
At the point in time of this investigation, no street network exists west of
Washington Street South. Any substantial industrial development as envisioned in
the City’s Comprehensive Plan would require a more robust street network
throughout the area currently being used for agricultural purposes.
Street lighting is inadequate on Washington Street South and totally non-existent
in the balance of the Study Area. Areas of the city, experiencing more recent
development enjoy a significantly higher standard of illumination than found in
the Study Area.
10 | Page
Strom Drainage: As noted above, none of Washington Street South frontage has
storm drainage facilities installed. In the areas where no curbs and gutters exist,
storm drainage facilities, piped systems or open ditches, are not in place to handle
discharges from storms or from melting snow. This allows ponding of water
creating traffic hazards as well as deterioration of the roadbed itself. This condition
is predominant in the Study Area especially on the east side of Washington Street
South, south of Highland Avenue.
As the City grows, national standards for handling storm drainage will apply to the
City. One can expect substantial investment in such facilities will be required
during the life of an urban renewal district.
Water: Municipal water service is available in the Study Area only in the
Washington Street South right-of-way. Fire hydrant placement appears
inadequate even for the current land uses.
The City of Twin Falls Water System Master Plan, adopted in 2016, notes
inadequate fire flows in the area to support the land uses envisioned in the City’s
Comprehensive Plan. Much of the area is undeveloped vacant land that is zoned
for significantly more dense urban uses represented by their commercial and
industrial zoning designations. Extensions will be required to serve the large
parcels when development occurs. Depending upon specific uses, fire flows may
have to be upgraded to ensure adequate fire protection is available in a denser
development environment.
Sewer: As with the water system, the sewer collection system will need to be
enhanced throughout the area to serve the development envisioned in the City’s
Comprehensive Plan and zoning documents. Additionally, the type of development
envisioned, with high treatment requirements due to the processing of milk
products, will cause significant demands upon the City’s wastewater treatment
facility located adjacent to the river in the Snake River Canyon. It has been the
City’s policy to require pre-treatment of effluent such as will be generated in the
Study Area prior to its being discharged into the City’s collection system to ensure
compliance with the environmental requirements of the permits issued by the
State Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ).
Required Findings Regarding Eligibility for the Washington Street
South:
In order to make a finding that the Study Area is, in fact, eligible for being
considered for the establishment of an urban renewal district, one must compare
the conditions found in the area with the statutory criteria noted above. For the
convenience of the reader those criteria are repeated here:
1. The Presence of a Substantial Number of Deteriorated or Deteriorating
Structures and Deterioration of Site or Other Improvements \[50-2018(9)
and 50-2903(8)(b); 50-2903(8)(c)\]
11 | Page
2. Age or Obsolescence \[50-2018(8) and 50-2903(8)(a)\]
3. Predominance of Defective or Inadequate Street Layout \[50-2018(9) and
50-2903(8)(b)\]
4. Faulty Lot Layout in Relation to Size, Adequacy, Accessibility, or
Usefulness; Obsolete Platting \[50-2018(9) and 50-2903(8)(b); 50-
2903(8)(c)\]
5. Insanitary or Unsafe Conditions \[50-2018(9) and 50-2903(8)(b)\]
6. Diversity of Ownership \[50-2018(9) and 50-2903(8)(b); 50-2903(8)(c)\]
7. Tax or Special Assessment Delinquency \[50-2018(9) and 50-2903(8)(b)\]
8. Defective or Unusual Conditions of Title \[50-2018(9) and 50-2903(8)(b)\]
9. Results in Economic Underdevelopment of the Area \[50-2903(8)(b); 50-
2903(8)(c)\]
10. Substantially Impairs or Arrests the Sound Growth of a Municipality \[50-
2018(9) and 50-2903(8) (c)\]
Criterion #1: The Presence of a Substantial Number of Deteriorated or
Deteriorating Structures; and Deterioration of Site: As noted above 11 of the
properties representing 78.5% of the acreage in the Study Area are vacant or have
minimal improvements. The other 3 parcels reflect recent commercial investment.
Given that most of the land is vacant and what structures are present are relatively
new, one cannot find that a “Substantial Number of deteriorated structures” are
present. Therefore, Criterion #1 is not met.
Criterion #2: Age or Obsolescence: The majority of the Study Area is vacant land
currently under cultivation. Given the designation in the City’s Comprehensive
Plan and zoning documents, the current agricultural use is obsolete. Therefore
Criterion #2 is met.
Criterion #3: Predominance of Defective or Inadequate Street Layout. While
some of the parcels can be served from Washington Street South, Grandview Drive
S and Orchard Drive W, the presence of large undeveloped acreages suggests the
current network will prove inadequate to support future development. Both
Highland and Park Avenue will need to be extended to the west of Washington
Street South providing access to the interior portions of the currently vacant
parcels. A more dense circulation system will be required to support more
intensive uses. Improvement of Grandview and Orchard will be necessary to
provide a circulation pattern consistent with urban standards. Therefore Criterion
#3 is met.
12 | Page
Criterion #4: Outmoded Street Patterns. See analysis under Criterion #3. Criterion
#4 is met.
Criterion #5: Need for Correlation of Area with Other Areas of a Municipality by
Streets; and Modern Traffic Requirements. The Study Area is served by
Washington Street South, Grandview Drive South and Orchard Drive West. As
noted above, only partial improvements have been made to these facilities through
the Study Area. Washington Street South also serves as the primary community
access to the Twin Falls Regional Airport, so ensuring an adequate level of service
as the area develops is essential. Therefore Criterion #5 is met.
Criterion #6: Faulty Lot Layout in Relation to Size, Adequacy, Accessibility or
Usefulness. Six (11) of the parcels within the Study Area are large, and mostly
vacant. Future development consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan will
require subdivision and the extension of public access to the completed parcels.
Also, as noted above, there is one parcel that currently has no access to a public
street, and one large 40-acre parcel has limited 20-foot frontage, thus severely
limiting their utility in an urban setting. Therefore Criterion #6 is met.
Criterion #7: Unsuitable Topography or Faulty Lot Layouts. While no unusual
topographical features exist within the Study Area, the lot layouts as discussed in
Criterion #6 apply. The noted gasoline pipeline runs diagonally across portions of
the Study Area limiting development options. Therefore, Criterion #7 is met.
Criterion #8: Insanitary or Unsafe Conditions. The substandard condition of the
streets, the lack of storm drainage facilities, the incomplete street lighting system
and the lack of adequate pedestrian facilities point to current unsafe conditions
that will be exacerbated as development occurs consistent with the City’s
Comprehensive Plan. The water system will need to be expanded into the large
parcels to provide adequate fire protection. Sewer treatment system upgrades will
be required to fully serve the anticipated development. Therefore Criterion #8 is
met.
Criterion #9: Diversity of Ownership. The 16 15 parcels examined in this study are
under the ownership of 9 8 entities. Such diversity of ownership creates challenges
for creating and executing a common vision for the area. Therefore Criterion #9 is
met.
Criterion #10: Tax or Special Assessment Delinquency: The records of the Twin
Falls County Assessor do not reflect any tax or special assessment delinquency.
Therefore Criterion #10 is not met.
Criterion #11: Substantially Impairs or Arrests the Sound Growth of a
Municipality. The Study Area exists within and adjacent to the corporate limits of
the City of Twin Falls and abuts dense urban development on the north, and east
sides. Annexation of those parcels located in unincorporated Twin Falls County is
13 | Page
being intitated initiated. The lack of adequate infrastructure within the Study Area
inhibits the development envisioned in the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Therefore
Criterion #11 is met.
Criterion #12: Conditions Which Retard Development of the Area. Large and
landlocked parcels, a diverse ownership pattern and inadequate infrastructure are
all factors that inhibit the development of properties within the Study Area as
envisioned in City planning documents. The gasoline pipeline limits design options
in the development of a major portion of the Study Area. Therefore, Criterion #12
is met.
Criterion #13: Results in Economic Underdevelopment of the Area. The South
Park ?? Southwest area in Twin Falls has seen sporadic investment in recent years.
However, the majority of the land within the Study Area remains underutilized.
Criterion #13 is met.
Findings: Southwest Park Urban Renewal District: Conditions exist
within the district to allow the Board of Commissioners of the Urban Renewal
Agency of the City of Twin Falls and the Twin Falls City Council to determine that
the area is eligible for urban renewal activities as prescribed in State Law.
Not
Criteria Met
Met
The Presence of a Substantial Number of Deteriorated or
1 X
Deteriorating Structures; and Deterioration of Site
2 Age or Obsolescence X
3 Predominance of Defective or Inadequate Street Layout X
4 Outmoded Street Patterns X
Need for Correlation of Area with Other Areas of a
5 X
Municipality by Streets; and Modern Traffic Requirements
Faulty Lot Layout in Relation to Size, Adequacy,
6 X
Accessibility or Usefulness
7 Unsuitable Topography or Faulty Lot Layouts X
8 Insanitary or Unsafe Conditions X
9 Diversity of Ownership X
10 Tax or Special Assessment Delinquency X
11 Defective or unusual condition of title X
Substantially Impairs or Arrests the Sound Growth of a
12 X
Municipality
13 Results in Economic Underdevelopment of the Area X
Analysis: Open Land Conditions: In addition to the eligibility conditions
identified above, the geographic area under review is also required to satisfy the
“open land” conditions. Idaho Code Section 50-2903(8)(c) states: “\[a\]ny area
which is predominately open and which because of obsolete platting, diversity of
ownership, deterioration of structures or improvements, or otherwise, results in
economic underdevelopment of the area or substantially impairs or arrests the
14 | Page
sound growth of a municipality. The provisions of section 50-2008(d), Idaho Code,
shall apply to open areas.”
Many of the eligibility criteria set forth in Idaho Code Section 50-2903(8)(c) for
predominantly open land areas mirror or are the same as those criteria set forth in
Idaho Code Sections 50-2018(9) and 50-2903(8)(b). “Diversity of ownership” is
the same, while “obsolete platting” appears to be equivalent to “faulty lot layout in
relation to size, adequacy, accessibility, or usefulness.” “Deterioration of structures
or improvements” is the same or similar to “a substantial number of deteriorated
or deteriorating structures” and “deterioration of site or other improvements.”
There is also an additional qualification that the provisions of Idaho Code Section
50-2008(d) shall apply to open areas.
Idaho Code Section 50-2008(d)(4) primarily addresses the urban renewal plan
approval process and sets forth certain conditions and findings for agency
acquisition of open land as follows:
(4) the urban renewal plan will afford maximum opportunity, consistent
with the sound needs of the municipality as a whole, for the rehabilitation
or redevelopment of the urban renewal area by private enterprise:
Provided, that if the urban renewal area consists of an area of open land to
be acquired by the urban renewal agency, such area shall not be so
acquired unless (1) if it is to be developed for residential uses, the local
governing body shall determine that a shortage of housing of sound
standards and design which is decent, safe and sanitary exists in the
municipality; that the need for housing accommodations has been or will
be increased as a result of the clearance of slums in other areas; that the
conditions of blight in the area and the shortage of decent, safe and
sanitary housing cause or contribute to an increase in and spread of
disease and crime and constitute a menace to the public health, safety,
morals, or welfare; and that the acquisition of the area for residential uses
is an integral part of and essential to the program of the municipality, or
(2) if it is to be developed for nonresidential uses, the local governing body
shall determine that such nonresidential uses are necessary and
appropriate to facilitate the proper growth and development of the
community in accordance with sound planning standards and local
community objectives, which acquisition may require the exercise of
governmental action, as provided in this act, because of defective or
unusual conditions of title, diversity of ownership, tax delinquency,
improper subdivisions, outmoded street patterns, deterioration of site,
economic disuse, unsuitable topography or faulty lot layouts, the need for
the correlation of the area with other areas of a municipality by streets and
modern traffic requirements, or any combination of such factors or other
conditions which retard development of the area.
15 | Page
In sum summary, there is one set of findings if the area of open land is to be
acquired and developed for residential uses and a separate set of findings if the
land is to be acquired and developed for nonresidential uses.
Basically, open land areas may be acquired by an urban renewal agency and
developed for nonresidential uses if such acquisition is necessary to solve various
problems, associated with the land or the infrastructure, that have delayed the
area’s development. These problems include defective or usual conditions of title,
diversity of ownership, tax delinquency, improper subdivisions, outmoded street
patterns, deterioration of site, and faulty lot layout. All of the stated conditions are
included in one form or another in the definition of a deteriorated area and/or a
deteriorating area set forth in Idaho Code Sections 50-2903(8)(b) and 50-2018(9).
The conditions listed only in Section 50-2008(d)(4)(2) (the open land section)
include economic disuse, unsuitable topography, and “the need for the correlation
of the area with other areas of a municipality by streets and modern traffic
requirements, or any combination of such factors or other conditions which retard
development of the area.”
The conclusion of this discussion concerning open land areas is that the area
qualifies if any of the eligibility conditions set forth in Idaho Code Sections 50-
2018(9) and 50-2903(8)(b) apply. Alternatively, the area under consideration
qualifies if any of the conditions listed only in Idaho Code Section 50-
2008(d)(4)(2) apply. The parcel size, the lack of water and sewer facilities; a
nonexistent access and internal street system; an inadequate storm drain system;
and lack of fire protection, are all conditions which delay development of the Study
Area.
Based on the above analysis, obsolete platting/faulty lot layout and economic
underdevelopment are conditions found in the Study Area, and therefore, the open
land condition is satisfied.
CONCLUSION:
Based upon our review of the data and the conditions that exist within the Study
Area as noted above, the Twin Falls City Council may, at its discretion, determine
that the Southwest Park Urban Renewal District, as proposed, is eligible for the
establishment of an urban renewal district.
Other Relevant Issues
Agricultural Land Owners Concurrence: A substantial part of the area
within the Study Area maintains an agricultural land property tax exemption as
authorized under state law. The statutory provisions concerning the creation of an
urban renewal district prohibit inclusion of any land used for agricultural purposes
without the express written consent of the property owner. Such consent has not
yet been requested. Final consideration of any urban renewal plan created through
this process could not proceed without the required consents being in-hand.
16 | Page
10% Analysis: In addition to the findings reported above, we also sought to verify
that the assessed value of the proposed Study Area is within the statutory limits.
As noted above, State Law limits the percentage of assessed value that can be
included in urban renewal/revenue allocation districts to 10% of the total valuation
of the City. According to Twin Falls County Assessor records, the most recent
certified value for the City of Twin Falls is $6,406,571,903. The taxable value of the
Study Area is $15,465,802 representing 0.241% of the total City assessed value.
The Base Assessed Value of the Twin Falls District RAA 4-3 is $1,096,508. Twin
Falls District RAA 4-4 is $4,090,577. Orchard Drive East RAA base value is
$483,336. Old Towne-2 District’s RAA base value is $233,672,752. The Assessed
value of the Proposed Southwest Revenue Allocation Area is $15,465,802. The
existing Washington Street South RAA is planned to be closed. The Table below
shows the result compared to the statutory requirement.
Statutory 10% Limitation Analysis
Area Base Assessed Value Percentage
Total City $6,406,571,903 100%
$1,069,508 0.017%
Twin Falls Area 4-3 (Chobani)
$4,090,577 0.064%
Twin Falls Area 4-4 (Clif Bar)
Washington Street South URD
$0 0. %
(To be Closed)
$483,336 0.008%
Orchard Drive East RAA
$233,6723752 3.65
Old Towne-2 RAA
$15,465,802 0.24%
Proposed Southwest RAA
Total UR Base Assessed Value
$239,316,173 3.98%
Percentage
We also explored the effect of creating this district on the capacity of the Urban
Renewal Agency to consider future districts should they choose to do so. The table
below shows that even if a new district similar to Southwest Park were to be
established, approximately 6.02% of the citywide assessed value would remain
uncommitted.
Remaining Urban Renewal Capacity
$640,657,190 10%
Maximum 10% Limitation
$1,069,508 0.017%
Twin Falls Area 4-3 (Chobani)
$4,090,577 0.064%
Twin Falls Area 4-4 (Clif Bar)
$483,336 0.008%
Orchard Drive East RAA
$233,672,752 3.647
Old Towne-2 RAA
$15,465,802 0.241
Proposed Southwest Park RAA
$239,316,173 3.977%
Total AV in Revenue Allocation Areas
$401,341,017 6.02%
Available AV under limitation
17 | Page