HomeMy WebLinkAboutSouthwest RAA Eligibility Rpt - FINAL DRAFT 20240812
DRAFT
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: Dave McAlindin
Secretary: Eric Smallwood
Commissioners: Dan Brizee
Jan Rogers
JJ McBride
Jennifer Colvin
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 led 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 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
2 | Page
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 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 2040 (to be closed 2024)
Orchard Drive 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 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”.
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
4 | Page
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.
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, the 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
5 | Page
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 overlapping taxing districts, County officials and Idaho State Tax
Commission.
The Urban Renewal Agency then proceeds to implement the Plan.
Description of the Southwest Study Area:
The Study Area subject to the current review (Southwest) 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 343.25 acres, excluding public rights-of-way. This area encompasses 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 15 tax parcels represented in the Study Area:
6 | Page
Table 1
Improvement
Tax Parcel Acres Land Value Total Value
Value
RPT00107201805A 34.64 $72,385 $0 $72,385
RPT00107201200A 40.61 $183,150 $106 $183,256
RPT00107201830A 0.84 $74,886 $0 $74,886
RPT00107201821A 0.75 $90,808 $1,995,768 $2,086,576
RPT00107201811A 0.484 $58,680 $0 $58,680
RPT00107202300A 1.31 $159,066 $68,230 $227,296
RPT00107201806 0.326 $52,799 $458,739 $511,538
RPT00107201801 0.478 $77,418 $0 $77,418
RPT00107200010A 18.66 $754,460 $10313150 $11,067,610
RPT00107202410A 77.5 $245,943 $109,146 $355,089
RPT00107204800A 154.94 $319,215 0 $319,215
RP10S17E207201 2.0 $4,242 0 $4,242
RP10S17E200610 9.58 $202,287 0 $202,287
RPT00107200620 0.42 $895 0 $895
RPT00107200600 10.21 $19,366 0 $19,366
Total 43.25 $2,315,600 $12,12,945,139 $15,260,739
Please see the following map for a graphic representation of the Study
Area.
7 | Page
8 | Page
Analysis of the Study Area:
The Study Area consists of 15 tax parcels representing 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 zoned 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. Ten (10) properties representing 254.2 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 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.
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
10 | Page
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, may
include high treatment requirements due to the type of processing, and are anticipated to
have 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 Study Area:
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 \[50-2018(9) and 50-2903(8)(b);
50-2903(8)(c)\].
2. Age or Obsolescence \[50-2018(8) and 50-2903(8)(a)\].
3. Predominance of Defective or Inadequate Street Layout \[50-2018(9) and 50-
2903(8)(b)\].
11 | Page
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 10 of the properties representing
74% 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 supporting commercial and industrial uses, 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 denser 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.
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.
12 | Page
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; Obsolete Platting. Six (6) 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 15 parcels examined in this study are under
the ownership of 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 being 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.
13 | Page
Criterion #13: Results in Economic Underdevelopment of the Area. The 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 Urban Renewal District: Conditions exist within the Study
Area 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, Accessibility
6 X
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 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,
14 | Page
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.
In 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
15 | Page
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, diversity of ownership,
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 Study
Area, 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 is valued as agricultural land. 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.
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 current assessed valuation of all taxable
property within 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 RAA 4-3 is $1,096,508; Twin Falls RAA 4-4 is
$4,090,577; Orchard Drive East RAA is $483,336; and Old Towne-2 RAA is
$233,672,752. The assessed value of the Study 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.
16 | Page
Statutory 10% Limitation Analysis
Area Base Assessed Value Percentage
Total City $6,406,571,903 100%
$1,069,508 0.017%
RAA 4-3 (Chobani)
$4,090,577 0.064%
RAA 4-4 (Clif Bar)
Washington Street South RAA
$0 0. %
(To be Closed TY2024)
$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 the Study Area 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%
RAA 4-3 (Chobani)
$4,090,577 0.064%
RAA 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 RAA
$239,316,173 3.977%
Total AV in Revenue Allocation Areas
$401,341,017 6.02%
Available AV under limitation
17 | Page