Document Jerome_doc_1d120105f3

i City of Jerome Comprehensive Plan Preliminary Draft – CAC Review April 4, 2023 ---PAGE BREAK--- Acknowledgements ii Special thanks to the Blue Cross of Idaho Foundation for Health for their financial support of this comprehensive planning process. Historic Photos Courtesy of Linda Helms, Jerome County Historical Society Acknowledgements This plan was prepared with the support of community members and the dedicated assistance of the following: City of Jerome Mayor and Council Members Mayor Dave Davis Chris Barber, Council President Brent Johnson Jason Peterson Bryan Craig 2022 Planning and Zoning Commissioners Rod Mink, Chair Shonna Fraser Jeff Schroeder Benjamin Reed Carl McEntarffer Paul Johnson City of Jerome Personnel Mike Williams, City Administrator Esmeralda Chavez, Planning Director Ervina Covcic, Planner Citizens Advisory Committee Brian Ahrens Tyson Carpenter Pat Charlton Blair Crouch Kyli Gough Joshua Kern Nancy Marshall Linda Mecham Beth Mower Patricia Murillo Cesar Perez Will Ritter Duane Rubink Gary Warr Kevin Williams ---PAGE BREAK--- Table of Contents i Table of Contents Introduction 1 A. Process 2 B. Private Property Rights 6 2. Who We Are 8 A. Setting 8 B. History 8 C. Population 12 3. Our Natural Environment 15 A. Natural Resources and Hazardous Areas 15 B. Agriculture 16 C. Looking 16 D. Goal, Objectives, and Implementation Strategies 17 4. Our Built Environment 21 A. Land Use 21 B. Housing 21 C. Looking 23 D. Goal, Objectives, and Implementation Strategies 23 5. Our Public Services 32 A. Public Services, Facilities, and Utilities 32 B. Recreation 35 C. School Facilities 37 D. Transportation (includes Airports) 38 E. Looking 40 F. Goal, Objectives, and Implementation Strategies 40 6. Our Quality of Life 44 A. Economic Development 45 ---PAGE BREAK--- Table of Contents ii B. Community Design/Special 47 C. Community Health 49 D. Looking 51 E. Goal, Objectives, and Implementation Strategies 51 7. Our Future 55 Implementation 56 ---PAGE BREAK--- 1 1. Introduction ---PAGE BREAK--- Executive Summary Jerome is the Jerome County seat, and with over 12,000 people, is the largest city in the county and the 2nd largest city in the Magic Valley (neighboring Twin Falls is home to over 51,000). Jerome has a long and proud history as the hub of a thriving agricultural area, welcoming workers and entrepreneurs, shoppers and shopkeepers, parents and children, to enjoy the community together. The City of Jerome’s Comprehensive Plan was last updated in 2010 from a document initially prepared in 2005. With the passage of the decade mark, the City began to consider drafting a new plan that would establish goals, objectives and strategies into the year 2040. The geographic extent of this plan extends beyond the city limits to include an Area of City Impact jointly administered with Jerome County. Jerome was incorporated in 1909 and still possesses the classic town elements that are fundamental to a healthy and welcoming community. The bonds that develop among residents when they share common meeting places, allowing frequent interaction and shared experiences, are at the core of the successful small town. While the bigger city may offer more opportunities, the small city can be accessible, distinctive, and friendly. Welcome 2040: City of Jerome Comprehensive Plan endeavors to capture the warmth and spirit of the city today, the aspirations for the future and a path forward for a modern, healthy, and successful community that is welcoming to all. Plan Contents Chapter 1 - Introduction Chapter 2 - Who We Are These chapters (1 – 2) introduce the plan and the community, including population projections Chapter 3 – Our Natural Environment Chapter 4 – Our Built Environment Chapter 5 - Our Public Services Chapter 6 - Our Quality of Life These chapters (3 describe existing conditions, future trends and present goals, objectives, and strategies Chapter 7 - Our Future presents an Implementation program derived from the plan strategies Appendices ---PAGE BREAK--- Resumen Ejecutivo Jerome es la sede del condado de Jerome y, con más de 12 000 habitantes, es la ciudad más grande del condado y la segunda ciudad más grande del Valle Mágico (la cuidad vecina Twin Falls alberga a más de 51 000). Jerome tiene una larga y orgullosa historia como centro de una próspera zona agrícola, que acoge a trabajadores y empresarios, compradores y comerciantes, padres e hijos, para disfrutar juntos de la comunidad. El Plan Integral de la Ciudad de Jerome se actualizó por última vez en 2010 a partir de un documento preparado inicialmente en 2005. Con el paso de la década, la Ciudad comenzó a considerar la redacción de un nuevo plan que establecería metas, objetivos y estrategias para el año 2040. La extensión geográfica de este plan se extiende más allá de los límites de la ciudad para incluir un Área de Impacto de la Ciudad administrada conjuntamente con el Condado de Jerome. Jerome se incorporó en 1909 y aún posee los elementos clásicos de la ciudad que son fundamentales para una comunidad sana y acogedora. Los lazos que se desarrollan entre los residentes cuando comparten lugares comunes de reunión, lo que permite una interacción frecuente y experiencias compartidas, son el núcleo de la pequeña ciudad exitosa. Mientras que una ciudad más grande puede ofrecer más oportunidades, una ciudad pequeña puede ser accesible, distintiva y amigble. Bienvenido 2040: El Plan integral de la ciudad de Jerome se esfuerza por capturar la calidez y el espíritu de la ciudad en la actualidad, las aspiraciones para el futuro y el camino a seguir para una comunidad moderna, saludable y exitosa que sea acogedora para todos. Contenidos del Plan Capítulo 1 – Introducción Capítulo 2 – Quiénes Somos Estos capítulos (1 – 2) presentan el plan y la comunidad, incluidas las proyecciones de población. Capítulo 3 – Nuestro Entorno Natural Capítulo 4 – Nuestro Entorno Construido Capítulo 5 – Nuestros Servicios Públicos Capítulo 6 – Nuestra Calidad de Vida Estos capítulos (3 a 6) describen las condiciones existentes, las tendencias futuras y las metas, objetivos y estrategias actuales. Capítulo 7 – Nuestro Futuro presenta un programa de Implementación derivado de las estrategias del plan. Apéndices ---PAGE BREAK--- Introduction 2 A. Introduction The City of Jerome’s Comprehensive Plan was last updated in 2010 from a document initially prepared in 2005. With the passage of the decade mark, the City began to consider drafting a new plan that would establish goals, objectives and strategies into the year 2040. The geographic extent of this plan extends beyond the city limits to include an Area of City Impact jointly administered with Jerome County (refer to Figure 1.1). A. Process A Comprehensive Plan is a road map for the future of the City. While the focus of a Comprehensive Plan is to guide planning and zoning decisions, the scope of the Plan is much broader, encompassing many issues that impact city residents including public services, natural resources, housing, and public health, among others. This Plan was prepared with the involvement of city residents, businesses, non-profits, and other public agencies, and reflects their issues and concerns. The City of Jerome began a five-phase planning process, initiating a consultant contract in December 2021, to update the City of Jerome Comprehensive Plan by the end of spring 2023. Before embarking on the planning process, the City of Jerome successfully applied for a grant from the Blue Cross of Idaho Foundation for Health to support the plan update with enhanced public outreach, including community surveys and a specific focus on community health. Public Involvement Appendix A provides results of the various public involvement activities associated with the planning process. Working closely with the planning consultants, the City formed a Community Advisory Committee (CAC) to ensure that various interests throughout the County would guide the planning process. The CAC met at key points throughout the process and received communication between meetings. In addition to the CAC, key community representatives or stakeholders, were interviewed to ensure that the planning process was tailored to address current city concerns. ---PAGE BREAK--- Introduction 3 Figure 1.1: Jerome City Limits and Area of City Impact ---PAGE BREAK--- Introduction 4 The following outreach methods served to both educate the public and other stakeholders on the elements of comprehensive planning and provide multiple avenues for two-way communication and community input. Specific methods used to achieve meaningful citizen engagement included: Online Public Surveys Two bilingual surveys were opened to the public: one in June 2022, and the second in January 2023. The first survey sought to determine the community’s primary concerns and it received 381 responses. The second survey gathered feedback on the goals, objectives, and strategies compiled throughout the planning process, this survey received approximately 100 responses. Public Open House On September 28, 2022 an open house was held at the Jerome Community Library. The open house was an interactive way to collect feedback from residents on Comprehensive Plan goals, objectives, and strategies and to create an ongoing dialogue with residents, stakeholders, and all interested parties. On April 25, 2023 a public workshop was held with the CAC, the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council to review a Preliminary Draft plan, incorporating the input from the second survey. Public Hearings On April XX, 2023 the Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing to consider the Draft Comprehensive Plan and make a recommendation to the City Council. On May XX, 2023, the Mayor and Council conducted a public hearing to consider and approve the Draft Plan. Related Plans There are several related plans and programs that are considered in the local comprehensive planning process, including other comprehensive plans, specific facility or management plans and programs. Related plans to the Jerome Comprehensive Plan were evaluated and are summarized below: Flyer for the Comprehensive Plan's Public Event Public Comments on the Future of Jerome ---PAGE BREAK--- Introduction 5 Jerome County Comprehensive Plan, 2018 Jerome Master Transportation Plan, 2022 Jerome County Multi- Jurisdictional All Hazard Mitigation Plan, 2022 Jerome Strategic Plan, 2015 Jerome County Airport Master Plan, 2023 Integrates the opinions of residents into a document that outlines how the County should grow and develop. Provides an analysis of the existing transportation system and outlines projects, policies, and programs to meet both the current and future needs of the community. Seeks to identify the county’s and city’s hazards and understand their impact on vulnerable populations and infrastructure. An internal action plan that provides a deliberate method to connecting current decisions with the long-term vision of the city. A 20-year vision outlining the improvements necessary to maintain a safe and efficient airport that is economically, environmentally, and socially sustainable. ---PAGE BREAK--- Introduction 6 Idaho Code Compliance Idaho Cities and Counties must prepare and maintain a current comprehensive plan in accordance with Idaho Code Section 67-6508. The plan must consider “previous and existing conditions, trends, desirable goals and objectives, or desirable future situations” within 17 separate planning components. For ease of reading, the 17 components have been grouped into six chapters suited to the unique character of Jerome. Refer to Table 1.1: Plan Component Matrix as a guide to locate where each planning component is discussed within each of the plan chapters. As allowed by Idaho Code, some components of the Plan have been merged (such as Airports which may be found in the Transportation component). Each chapter concludes with a goal statement and a series of objectives and implementation strategies. The Idaho Local Land Use Planning Act requires that zoning districts, as well as zone changes, special permits and zoning ordinances, are in accordance with the adopted comprehensive plan. Therefore, the Comprehensive Plan should be based on a thorough analysis of existing conditions, public concerns and future projections. Upon adoption, City personnel along with the Planning and Zoning Commission should commence a systematic program of review and engagement in completing each implementation strategy. Furthermore, annual review of the plan should be conducted, with regular updates at 5 year increments. B. Private Property Rights This plan was prepared with the intent of protecting, and otherwise avoiding negative impacts to, private property rights. The plan itself is not regulatory in nature and should not “adversely impact values or create unnecessary technical limitations on the use of property.” (Idaho Code Section 67-6508 This document does include recommendations regarding land use policies and programs, therefore should regulations, restrictions or conditions ensue during the implementation of this plan, the Office of the Attorney General’s checklist for private property rights should be consulted (see Appendix The Planning and Zoning Commission should undertake a periodic review of this comprehensive plan and all applicable land use regulations to ensure no private property rights are violated and continue to maintain the community’s health, safety, and welfare. C. How to Read this Plan This plan is organized into seven chapters beginning with this introductory chapter summarizing the purpose of the plan the preparation process and the contents. Chapter 2 (Who We Are) introduces the reader to the City of Jerome, its setting, history, and demographics. This chapter concludes with future growth projections to be applied to each plan component. Chapters 3 through 6 include numerous plan components separated by Natural Environment, Built Environment, Public Services and Quality of Life. Each of these chapters presents a brief description of existing conditions (refer to Appendix and a look forward based on information derived during public engagement regarding community values and concerns. Each of these chapters concludes with a focused goal and specific objectives and strategies, designed to achieve that goal. The plan concludes with Chapter 7 (Our Future), which presents an Implementation Program derived from the plan strategies organized to provide guidance to realize community priorities. Appendices with supporting documentation may be found at the end of the plan. ---PAGE BREAK--- Introduction 7 TABLE 1.1: Plan Component Matrix Idaho Code List of Plan Components Chapter 1: Introduction Chapter 2: Who We Are Chapter 3: Our Natural Environment Chapter 4: Our Built Environment Chapter 5: Our Public Services Chapter 6: Our Quality of Life Chapter 7: Our Future Property Rights Population School Facilities Economic Development Land Use Natural Resources Hazardous Areas Public Services, Facilities, & Utilities Transportation Recreation Special Areas or Sites Housing Community Design Agriculture Implementation National Interest Electric Transmission Public Airports ---PAGE BREAK--- Introduction 1 2. Who We Are ---PAGE BREAK--- Who We Are 9 B. Who We Are The small towns that evolved along Idaho’s railroads or state highways, amid new homesteads and farming enterprises, contained all the building blocks for a strong community. Jerome still possesses those essentials: orderly streets designed on a grid, schools and churches, a courthouse and parks, factories, and farmland. The natural and built environment of Jerome 100 years ago still provides the fundamentals to a healthy and welcoming community. The bonds that develop among residents when they share common meeting places, allowing frequent interaction and shared experiences, are at the core of the successful small town. While the bigger city may offer more opportunities, the small city is distinctive and friendly by its very familiarity, accessibility, and authenticity. Jerome has the essential foundation of a welcoming and healthy town based in its early 20th century origins, and has grown into a 21st century community that fosters innovation and welcomes the benefits of technology. Welcome 2040: City of Jerome Comprehensive Plan endeavors to capture the warmth and spirit of the city today, the aspirations for the future and a path forward for a modern and successful community that is welcoming to all. A. Background Located in south-central Idaho within the Magic Valley, the City of Jerome is surrounded by a flourishing agricultural with purple mountains to the north and the majestic Snake River Canyon to the south. Centrally located off Interstate 84, Jerome is approximately 116 miles (187 km) from Idaho’s Capitol City, Boise, and about 75 miles (121 km) south of notable Sun Valley ski resort on US-93. Jerome County consists of vast sage brush areas, basalt rock formations and acres of irrigated fields. Jerome’s topography is relatively flat, and the city receives an average of 204 sunny days a year, creating the quintessential environment for agriculture. The City’s climate is dry with average annual precipitation of 10.2 inches and low humidity. History Nemme sosoni'ihnee'e (Shoshone-Bannock) tribes called these sage brush plains home long before the arrival of settlers. Being well acquainted with desert regions, the Shoshoni people were able to take full advantage of the food resources in southern Idaho. The men hunted while the women harvested and gathered native plants such as balsamroot, arrow-leaf, and wild onion. The plentiful sagebrush was used for clothing by both men and women. As these people were nomadic, they did not spend their time and energy building permanent structures. Basalt caves along the river likely served as welcome shelter. In 1884 a cattle farmer named Ira Burton Perrine was tired of standing waist deep in snow during Ketchum winters. Followed by his cows, he ventured down off the mountains onto the great basin land of the present- day Magic Valley. He found land at the bottom of the Snake River Canyon and began his successful cattle farm. Perrine realized that he had water while those above him, had little access to water and he sought to remedy that situation. Perrine envisioned a dam that could bring water to the rim and a bridge for easy ---PAGE BREAK--- Who We Are 10 access across. He reached out to eastern investors Frank H. Buhl and Peter L. Kimberly to help him make this vision a reality. The 1894 Carey Act allowed private individuals who met certain criteria to buy land at $.50 an acre from the Government and $35.00 an acre for water shares from the irrigation company for water rights. Under the Carey Act, Milner Dam was built and completed in 1905. With the dam built, opportunity flowed like the waters of the Snake below. Jerome Kuhn saw this opportunity and bought land north of the Snake River in the early 20th century while his brother, Wendel H. Kuhn bought land on the south side. They sought to utilize the Milner Dam and bring water to barren sagebrush desert through a system of canals. Seeking an area of the land suitable for a town, they settled on the site we know as Jerome. A petition containing more than 200 signatures was presented to the Lincoln County commissioners on July 15, 1909, requesting that Jerome be incorporated as a Village. The petition was granted. A new section of the townsite opened in September 1908, and in February 1909 the forty-acre strip around the perimeter of the original townsite was opened in a drawing. City of Jerome became a municipal corporation on March 24, 1919 and today is the seat of Jerome County. On October 1, 1908, ground was broken for the construction of the grand North Side Inn. The hotel was built to host potential buyers while they examined the land for sale. The building was a beloved landmark until its demise in 1968 when it was demolished. In 2009, The Heritage Plaza was built as a replica of the North Side Inn. It is located on Heritage Drive near Highway 93. In February 1942, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066 which put over 120,000 Japanese Americans in 10 different “War Relocation Camps” in seven states. One of these camps lay in the high desert of southern Idaho – in Hunt, mere miles from Jerome. When the camp, which housed over 10,000 Japanese Americans, closed in 1945, the barracks that served as the homes and cities of so many Japanese families were left as reminders of an ugly past, so the structures were donated to schools, churches, and even private residences. One of the barracks that served as a mess hall in the prison camp, was brought into Jerome to serve as a canning kitchen. Big pots of chilis, soups, and vegetables were made and canned here so that Jerome residents would not have to go through the painstaking food preparation process at home. Throughout the 1980s and 90s as grocery stores became prevalent and well stocked, the need for canning dwindled, the building sat empty. From the 1950s – 1970s several barracks went to a migrant camp a mile south of town. Migrant workers from Texas and other states came to the valley to work in the fields in the spring and harvest in the fall. They would live in these barracks seasonally with their families. The internment site was established as the Minidoka Internment National Monument in 2001, and then in 2008 President George W. Bush signed legislation changing the status to a National Historic Site. As the National Park Service pursued interpretive opportunities to enhance understanding of the site, they asked North Side Inn ---PAGE BREAK--- Who We Are 11 for all the barracks to be brought back to the Minidoka National Historic Site. Two barracks have been integrated into the site’s interpretive programs along with a visitor center that opened in 2021. Two barracks are sited on the Idaho Farm & Ranch Museum (I-FARM) as exhibits. The post-World War II years brought growth to Jerome. JC Penney opened its doors and served the few thousand residents of the city. The highway passed through the center of the city, which kept downtown Jerome active and busy. Jerome was a stop along the Union Pacific Railroad, which brought passengers and freight through town. In 1978 passenger service stopped, and the train depot was moved to Shepherd’s Park, where it now serves as the Jerome County Historical Museum operated by the Jerome County Historical Society. With the planning and execution of an Interstate highway system, State Highway 25 Main Street would no longer be the quickest east west connection. In 1965, I-84 was constructed south of town and bypassed Jerome’s downtown. As a result of this, Jerome suffered a loss of retail establishments. The Magic Valley Mall was built in Twin Falls in 1985 and JC Penney’s closed its Jerome location to move to the new mall across the bridge. Jerome has experienced many changes, but the 21st century has brought additions to the city as well. Development of the Crossroads Point Business Center at Highway 93 has provided been an extension of new services, professional offices, and hospitality businesses. The participation in local business expansion by a growing Hispanic community, along with the focused efforts of the Chamber of Commerce and Jerome 20/20, have kept the city economically viable. Cover of the National Park Service’s General Management Plan for the Minidoka Internment National Monument ---PAGE BREAK--- Who We Are 12 bl l i B. Population The City of Jerome is home to a diverse, relatively young population. As presented in Table 2.1, 37 percent of the city’s population identifies as Hispanic/Latino and the median age of the current population is 30.1 years of age. It should be noted that Jerome County population is also quite young (32.7), while state of Idaho median age is 36.1. Race and age demographics are anticipated to continue in the years ahead. Approximately 58 percent of the City’s population is 30 years or younger, 34 percent being school age (18 years and younger). The City of Jerome encompasses 5.67 square miles and has a population density of 2,267 people per square mile. Jerome is the Jerome County seat and the most populous city in the county. Approximately 23,000 people reside in the County and nearby City of Twin Falls has approximately 50,000 residents. Table 2.1: Population Race, Education, Age (2022) Jerome has experienced steady growth over the past two decades as its population base has seen an eleven percent increase just over the last ten-year period from 10,890 citizens in 2010 to 12,162 in 2020. Using statistical information published by US Census Bureau and Idaho Department of Labor, population forecasts were determined using a 1.1% population increase per year (refer to Table 2.2). Table 2.2: Historic and Future Population Historic Population Population Forecast 2000 2010 2018 2020 2040 8,106 10,890 11,503 12,162 14,886 ---PAGE BREAK--- Who We Are 13 Table 2.3 Work Force Table 2.4 Health Indicators The highly diverse City has maintained a relatively low unemployment rate; 4.2 percent with data collected in 2020. However, the poverty rate within the City of Jerome is 23.1 percent, significantly higher than the average rate for the State of Idaho (11.9 percent). Average wages may contribute to this, as displayed by the median household income for the City ($47,389) versus that of the State of Idaho ($63, 377). The City of Jerome is a productive, generally active community as the percentage of the community participating in physical activity is just above 75 percent of the overall population. It was reported that approximately 24.4 percent of the population does not participate in physical activity outside of the workplace contributing to the 30.8 percent of the City’s population that has been identified as obese. ---PAGE BREAK--- 14 3. Our Natural Environment ---PAGE BREAK--- Our Natural Environment 15 C. Our Natural Environment Jerome’s principal assets include the surrounding agricultural land, creeks and canals, and the nearby Snake River Canyon. This chapter considers our natural environment including resources such as water, soils, wildlife, and minerals, hazardous areas including potential pollutants, flood and/or fire hazards, and agriculture. A. Natural Resources and Hazardous Areas As one of the largest agricultural producers in the State, the City of Jerome inhabits a large area of prime farmland mostly due to the available water resources and volcanic soils present in the area. As the crops are irrigation driven, the available water resources are essential for production. The North Side Canal traverses Jerome County and several other canal systems are present within the City, such as the J Canal and M Canal, providing irrigation water to agricultural properties and livestock companies. The Snake River Plain aquifer also extends throughout southern Idaho and the City of Jerome is situated entirely within the aquifer system. While the City of Jerome does not experience frequent hazards, or have many hazardous areas at present, it is important to identify resources and areas that could become potentially hazardous and plan accordingly. Jerome is relatively flat as no major hills, buttes, or slopes are present within the area that would allow for major soil related hazards. While likelihood remains low, the presence of surface water canals presents a chance of flooding from overflow. Hazardous materials (such as ammonia, which is used as a refrigerant in the dairy industry) are often transported as freight via rail and truck and can present a high-risk of spill while in transit. The City participated in the preparation of the Jerome County Multi- Jurisdictional All Hazard Mitigation Plan (2022). The Plan asserts that within the city of Jerome there have been a few flooding occurrences, mostly associated with canal failures or localized flooding from spring melt. Hazards related to hazardous material use and storage are a more prevalent concern. The All Hazard Mitigation Plan identifies methods and resources to best respond to the various potential hazards that could arise. ---PAGE BREAK--- Our Natural Environment 16 B. Agriculture Since the City’s inception in 1909, agriculture has played a large role in Jerome’s livelihood. From I.B. Perrine and his cattle farm to the acres of potato and sugar beet fields that dominated the landscape for decades, Jerome’s farming heritage has remained strong throughout the passing years. While agricultural operations take place outside of city limits, the local economy of agricultural production is deeply entwined with local producers. Jerome County is Idaho’s fourth largest agricultural production counties, and this contributes greatly to the economy of the City. Jerome County has 171,643 acres of farmland, as depicted in Table 3.1 Hay and corn silage contribute to the City’s prevalent dairy industry. Most farmers in the county are between 35 and 64. Of the 486 farms in the county, 96 are family farms. Agriculture employs 14.5 percent of the City’s employed population 16 years and over. This is far above the national average of 1.6 percent. Table 3.1 Jerome County Agriculture Idaho is the 4th largest milk and cheese producer in the country, with dairy contributing $600 million to the state’s Gross Domestic Product. The Magic Valley is home to nearly three quarters of the state’s dairy cows. Jerome has almost half of the dairy processing plants in the region, including Idaho Milk Products, Darigold, Commercial Creamery, Jerome Cheese/Agropur, and Magic Valley Quality Milk Producers Inc. Other dairy industry related companies also call Jerome home, including Western Dairy Transport. Jerome farm, 1907 ---PAGE BREAK--- Our Natural Environment 17 C. Looking Forward As the city’s agricultural lands and other natural resources are integral to the local economy and quality of life, careful management of these resources are essential. The planning process yielded public comment on the importance of protecting these resources so that they remain for future productivity and public appreciation. Agricultural lands provide beneficial open space and a visual identity along the edge of the city, as well as a valuable link to the agricultural processing industries that provide critical local employment opportunities. Likewise, agricultural creeks and corridors provide opportunities for flood protection, habitat for wildlife, and potential for trails and byways to serve residents, and visitors seeking exercise and outdoor enjoyment. Encouraging new development to collaborate with local governments and irrigation districts, could open a new network of pathways that connect Jerome residents with the nearby open spaces and enhance appreciation of the agriculture. Another open space and recreation opportunity awaits, as Jerome grows south beyond the Interstate, with the proximity to the scenic Snake River Canyon. Liaisons among agencies and organizations, who are willing to support a regional open space reserve or park, to begin now to secure this important connection for Jerome residents and visitors. Rendering of enhanced open space with a multi-use pathway adjacent to an irrigation canal. Prepared by J-U-B Engineers Inc. ---PAGE BREAK--- Our Natural Environment 18 D. Goal, Objectives, and Implementation Strategies Our Natural Environment Goal: Conserve our natural resources for future generations including our agricultural lands, irrigation facilities and other waterways, and protect residents from potential hazards. Objective 3.1: Ensure clean air, water, and soil through collaborative environmental management efforts. Strategies: 3.1.a Support regional air quality efforts and collaborate with Idaho’s Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ) to assess air quality in and around the City. 3.1.b Encourage non-motorized forms of transportation to improve carbon emissions directly related to air quality. 3.1.c Support IDEQ’s groundwater monitoring program and consider special well construction techniques where needed to protect groundwater, in coordination with Jerome County. 3.1.d Continue to require Best Management Practices (BMPs) for stormwater in all development proposals. 3.1.e Ensure that development regulations provide for environmental evaluations as necessary to address drainage, erosion, sedimentation, and other soil concerns. 3.1.f Require lighting plans comply with dark sky principles that minimize light pollution. 3.1.g Explore interpretive public education opportunities for natural resource areas. Objective 3.2: Protect and prepare City residents for natural and human induced hazards. Strategies: 3.2.a Continue to participate in County Wide All Hazard planning and mitigation plans and incorporate recommendations into all applicable plans and policies. 3.2.b Evaluate canals and ditches for potential flood or accident hazards, in coordination with applicable irrigation districts 3.2.c Coordinate with applicable irrigation districts to remediate any identified risks and identify educational opportunities 3.2.d Implement safety improvements and coordinate with ITD and applicable railroad companies to try and mitigate dangers. 3.2.e Continue to modify and improve the emergency response plan with respect to the transport of hazardous materials by rail or vehicle, in coordination with Jerome County. ---PAGE BREAK--- Our Natural Environment 19 Objective 3.3: Ensure that new growth within the Area of City Impact considers on-going agricultural uses and that new development supports the agricultural industry. Strategies: 3.3.a Continue to coordinate with Jerome County on Area of City Impact boundaries and appropriate land use processes. 3.3.b Ensure City ordinances protect potentially environmentally sensitive lands and address site concerns (drainage, erosion, etc.) by including appropriate design and development standards. 3.3.c Collaborate with partner agencies and private entities to minimize conflict with agricultural pursuits and adjacent urban uses. 3.3.d Consider the impact to adjacent agricultural businesses (fertilizer production, food processing, shipping,3.3.i etc.) when reviewing new annexations and development applications. 3.3.e Encourage design and site plans that minimize impact to canals and ditches, riparian habitats and stands of large trees. 3.3.f Ensure recreational and open space areas are compatible with agricultural and natural resource areas. 3.3.g Explore opportunities for a trail system along the various canals, through and around the city, enhanced by perennial water amenities, supported by public and private partnerships. 3.3.h Study the potential for trail or pathway connections to the Snake River Canyon. 3.3.i Develop and maintain partnerships with irrigation districts and involve them in plan implementation and land use application review. 3.3.j Consider provisions in the zoning ordinance for rural residential uses in city limits to include some agricultural activity and limited animal husbandry. “ ” “Some type of "kids’ pond" supported by Idaho Fish and Game would be a really nice addition to the area. There is not much close to Jerome where families can take their kids fishing for an afternoon.” Survey Response ---PAGE BREAK--- 20 4. Our Built Environment ---PAGE BREAK--- Our Built Environment 21 D. Our Built Environment In urban areas such as Jerome, buildings and structures are defining features. From the prominent (courthouses, libraries, schools, and churches), to the quotidian (stores and service stations) and personal (homes and apartments), we are constantly interacting with buildings. This chapter considers our built environment through land use types and location, within the city and its impact area, today and in the future. Current and future housing conditions and opportunities are also discussed. A. Land Use The City of Jerome covers approximately 5.6 square miles and includes a variety of land uses. Jerome is distinguished by a historic downtown commercial area surrounded by older residential neighborhoods, punctuated by churches, parks and public buildings (police and fire stations, the County courthouse and library). Commercial development also extends beyond downtown along State Highways 25 (Main Street) and 79 (Lincoln Avenue) and clustered at the Interstate interchanges #165 and #168. Significant industrial uses are located along rail lines and other transportation corridors, notably I-84. Larger lot residential development and small farms, along with agricultural support uses such as manufacturing and processing, occur on the outskirts of town within the Area of City Impact (ACI). The City of Jerome and Jerome County agreed on the current ACI in November 2015. As depicted on Figure 1.1, the ACI provides a buffer around the city to include areas that the city may reasonably expect to serve in the decades ahead. In addition, the ACI extends east to US 93 on two corridors; the southern “arm” includes the land area associated with the Crossroads development north of the I-84 interchange 173) and the northern “arm” includes the Jerome County Airport at the intersection of SH 25 and US 93. B. Housing For decades, Jerome has been addressing the need for housing local workers and their families. In the early 20th century plats were approved around the city center to house the shopkeepers, bankers and teachers who supported the growing town. As factories were constructed, subdivisions for single family homes on small lots were developed. Variations on these subdivisions to accommodate employees of industrial uses continues today, with proposed development of new industry northeast of the city. ---PAGE BREAK--- Our Built Environment 22 Table 4.1 Poverty Jerome continues to experience demand for housing due to population growth, having experienced an eleven percent increase over the last ten-year period from 10,890 citizens in 2010 to 12,162 in 2020. The homeownership rate in Jerome is 62 percent which compared to the state-wide homeowner rate of 71.9 percent. In 2021 there were 217 vacant housing units in the City. As vacancy rates have declined in recent years, median house prices doubled in 2019 from 2010 prices ($66,800 to $154,827). In 2019 the median rent was $803. The percentage of residents living in poverty in 2021 was 18.2 percent as depicted in Table 4.1 Public comment during the planning process expressed concern in all sectors regarding housing, however residents in poverty have a particular struggle to meet their housing needs. In larger communities these residents may find housing in apartments or multi-family dwellings. This type of development is not common in Jerome however it could help ease some of the housing insecurity experienced in the community. A cursory review of housing conditions in Jerome reveal that the city lacks a diversity in types and ranges of housing for a variety of housing needs (single workers, young and growing families, smaller families and seniors), regardless of family type or income. C. Looking Forward In anticipation of the increase in population (14,866 total population in 2040, an increase of 2,704 residents or about 900 new households) a FLUM been prepared for those land areas inside City Limits (Figure 4.1) as well as within the ACI (Figure 4.2). These maps illustrate the various types and distribution of land uses anticipated in the years ahead. The land use categories identify the types and nature of development depicted on the FLUM (Table 4.1). For the most part, the land uses identified on the FLUM inside city limits reflect existing development. During the planning process, the community discussed how vacant land should be developed to be compatible with existing and surrounding uses, and where appropriate, how some developed land may be redeveloped for other uses. Public input focused on the importance of diversifying land uses by creating pedestrian and ---PAGE BREAK--- Our Built Environment 23 bike-friendly activity nodes with a mix of more dine in restaurants and cafes, entertainment and musical venues, boutiques for clothes, books, and stationery). The community expressed a strong desire for improving the downtown area with improved walkability, enhanced streetscapes and renovated historic buildings, along with a mix of restaurants and retail space. In addition, the lack of maintenance and upkeep of private and public properties was cited as a reason for not frequenting the downtown area. To address these concerns and provide a framework for future public investment and private sector support, three downtown related overlay areas are proposed and depicted on the FLUM. The proposed downtown overlay districts are described in Table 4.2 and depicted on Figure 4.1. Two of the districts (Central Business and Civic Center) are located within existing Urban Renewal Areas, described in Section 6.A. Downtown building on W. Main Street ---PAGE BREAK--- Our Built Environment 24 Figure 4.1 FLUM City Limits ---PAGE BREAK--- Our Built Environment 25 Figure 2.2 FLUM Area of City Impact ---PAGE BREAK--- Our Built Environment 26 Table 4.1 FLUM Land Use Categories Residential Rural Residential Low Areas outside City limits but inside the Area of City Impact, to allow single family homes and agricultural uses. It is anticipated that anyone desiring an urban subdivision would apply to the City for annexation, requiring a comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance amendment. Areas for single family dwellings, on a variety of lot sizes, located in established neighborhoods and on the town edges. Some other uses such as parks and recreation, and places of worship may be allowed by special permit. Residential Medium Residential High Areas adjacent to low density residential areas, to encourage a mix of housing types, including duplexes, patio homes and townhouses. Other uses may be considered by Planned Unit Developments (PUD), including public assembly and care facilities as well as incidental commercial or office uses. Areas adjacent to commercial land uses and major corridors, to encourage condominiums and apartment buildings. Other uses may be considered by Planned Unit Developments (PUD), including public assembly and care facilities as well as incidental commercial or office uses. Commercial Industrial Areas that provide for and encourage the grouping together of business, retail, public, quasi-public, and other related uses. Special permits including PUD’s, may be considered for more intense uses or to incorporate residential uses. Areas that provide for manufacturing and other industrial uses which usually contain heavy manufacturing, processing, assembling, storing, testing and similar industrial uses which are generally major operations. Special Use permits may be required to ensure appropriate screening, hours of operation and other mitigations for impacts on surrounding uses. Public Areas that provide for uses that are open to the public. This includes parks, libraries, public schools, and post offices. Public areas encourage recreation, socialization, and cultural events and contribute to the quality of life of residents. Table 4.2 Proposed Downtown Overlay Districts ---PAGE BREAK--- Our Built Environment 27 Name Description Location Central Business District (CBD) The traditional downtown area has a wonderful array of historic buildings. An overlay would encourage preservation and adaptive re- use of these structures and ensure that any infill of new development would be compatible with the historic buildings. Specific design and development standards would be created. Possible façade improvement loans or other incentives would be considered. Downtown, along Main Street and Lincoln Avenue from the Creamery property to the City Parks. Civic Center District This overlay would encourage new development in this area surrounding the CBD, with the potential use of special design and development standards. The focus would be on enhancements by the public entities for the sites that comprise the District, allowing for usable gathering spaces in and around the parks and across the Courthouse, School District, and planned College of Southern Idaho (CSI)/Boys and Girls Club sites. 1st Avenue East and N. Lincoln Avenue Gateways District To encourage visitors from I-84 to the west and south of downtown and on SH 25 to the west and east of downtown, this overlay would provide for enhanced design and development standards along these corridors to extend the look and feel of the historic downtown. In addition, this would encourage public-private partnerships for gateway signs, artwork, landscaping, and other community related facilities along the street edge. Main Street, S. Lincoln Avenue to I-84 Rendering of a revitalized “festival street” within the proposed Civic Center District to include enhanced streetscape, recreation and public facilities to support public gatherings. Prepared by J-U-B Engineers, Inc. ---PAGE BREAK--- Our Built Environment 28 Future growth is also visualized within the ACI, as annexations requests are received adjacent to city limits, they will continue to be evaluated to ensure that adequate public services and facilities are available, and that any new development is compatible with the surrounding urban uses. While agricultural land within the ACI will at some point be converted to urban uses, the City has endeavored to focus on areas situated along highways and where urban services can be extended (thus creating the two “arms” to US 93). An expansion to the ACI is proposed around the Jerome County Airport to address land use recommendations based on noise and safety considerations (Figure 4.2). At present the County regulates development surrounding the airport to ensure compatibility with the airport. Providing for the future development in the area, it is appropriate for the City of Jerome to include the area (depicted in more detail in Section 5.D, Figure 5.4. Future city regulations will specify appropriate uses and identify any unique provisions regarding height, lighting, bird, and wildlife attractants, in collaboration with Jerome County and the Airport. The FLUM also presents a diversity of residential areas based on increasing levels of density. These include higher density residential areas adjacent to existing commercial and industrial areas to provide more walkable areas and convenience for shopping and places of employment. Some commercial areas have also been added to provide for accessible shopping opportunities in areas that have been exclusively residential subdivision. The dynamics of housing in Jerome and surrounding communities has not been fully studied, so to understand housing concerns a housing action plan is recommended. This would be a focused analysis of housing availability, housing production and diversity, maintenance and preservation of neighborhoods, affordability and adequacy, special needs, and housing assistance. Other considerations related to the built environment include recreation and public spaces, transportation, and other public services, discussed in detail in Chapter 5, Our Public Services. D. Goal, Objectives, and Implementation Strategies Our Built Environment Goal: Enhance our built environment to offer a harmonious blend of land uses that serve our entire community, residents, and visitors, now and in the future. Objective 4.1: Revitalize historic downtown to support existing businesses and facilitate new opportunities such as retail, restaurant, and entertainment venues. Strategies: 4.1.a Develop design standards for the new overlay districts depicted on the FLUM to include: Central Business, Civic Center, and Downtown Gateways. ---PAGE BREAK--- Our Built Environment 29 4.1.b Fund historic resource inventory of downtown and surrounding blocks to identify preservation opportunities. 4.1.c Enforce existing code requirements related to building maintenance, consider code amendments as needed. 4.1.d Encourage and incentivize the creation of businesses focused on local shopping, entertainment, and dining, to attract and keep visitors downtown. 4.1.e Continue investment of urban renewal monies to improve sidewalks and enhanced streetscapes. 4.1.f Develop program to support property owner/business owners to revitalize building facades through grant and loan programs. 4.1.g Evaluate and update the City’s zoning code to ensure appropriate regulations are in place regarding building maintenance, revitalization of upper stories and infill development to promote a walkable downtown. 4.1.h Evaluate the possibility of establishing a Main Street program and/or downtown business improvement district (BID) to encourage coordinated programming, design, promotion and sustainable business practices. 4.1.i Address short term parking concerns by activating underutilized spaces, vacant lots, to support current businesses, while exploring long term solutions. Objective 4.2: Encourage a diversity of land uses at gateways and along key corridors to encourage a desirable, walkable community. Strategies: 4.2.a Implement the future land use designations as established in this plan. 4.2.b Update design and development standards within the zoning ordinance to ensure distinctive new developments that enhance community character. 4.2.c Evaluate opportunities for new public land uses (park, trails, schools, government buildings) within existing neighborhoods and traditional commercial and industrial areas, as needed. 4.2.d Collaborate with the Airport to develop a gateway to the city that provides visitor information and mutually supports facility objectives and local business development. 4.2.e Assess gateway opportunities at the 93/I-84 connection to provide visitor information. Objective 4.3: Diversify the variety of housing types within the City, while protecting existing neighborhoods. Strategies: 4.3.a Protect single family neighborhoods with provisions in the zoning ordinance regarding permitted and conditional uses. 4.3.b Review and amend zoning ordinance to create a rural residential zone to allow for larger lots (particularly in areas abutting agricultural lands) utilizing the planned unit development process to ensure compatibility with future extension of city services. ---PAGE BREAK--- Our Built Environment 30 4.3.c Encourage new housing developments that provide a mix of duplexes, townhomes and age-in-place options that include walkable design and access to community amenities and healthcare. 4.3.d Encourage areas for larger lot, single family homes to offer alternatives to the current small lot single family subdivisions, and to provide options for growing families. 4.3.e Consider zoning ordinance amendments to promote a variety of housing types including higher density residential along corridors and adjacent to commercial and industrial areas. 4.3.f Seek funding for a housing action plan, in collaboration with neighboring municipalities and Jerome County, to evaluate population and economic trends, consider existing housing conditions and needs, and present actionable housing strategies. 4.3.g Collaborate with community partners to produce a homeowner’s guide to maintenance, including weatherization, energy efficiency, and renovation resources. Objective 4.4: Support development of affordable housing for a full range of employees and residents (retirees, families, etc.). Strategies: 4.4.a Collaborate with local employers to determine needs and concerns for current and future employees and explore possible partnership opportunities. 4.4.b Provide incentives for residential development that offer on-site amenities including open space and park areas, childcare and indoor fitness options. 4.4.c Evaluate the potential and appropriateness of Accessory Dwelling Unit provisions and other alternative housing types. 4.4.d Work with community partners to monitor and establish services to address homelessness, eviction prevention assistance and rapid re-housing programs. “ “ “To recruit teachers and doctors, we need places for them to live.” Survey Response ---PAGE BREAK--- 31 5. Our Public Services ---PAGE BREAK--- Our Public Services 32 E. Our Public Services The provision of adequate levels of public services is a critical factor in planning for future development. This section focuses on public service, facilities, and utilities. Recreational resources are also discussed including park facilities and recreational programs. Although schools are owned and operated by the Jerome School District, they are integral to the well-being of all Jerome residents. Likewise, transportation facilities are administered by the Highway District and Airport Manager, but circulation and access are key physical attributes in any city. A. Public Services, Facilities, and Utilities Public facilities consist of those services, programs, and capital projects that meet the immediate needs of the public (refer to Figure 5.1). The efficiency of public facilities is a strong determining factor for the quality of life and development within the City. Water, sewer services, fire and safety protection, public and private health services, privately operated utilities, schools, highways, and parks are all considered public facilities. Growth related demand will require expansion and improvements of those public facilities, utilities, and services. Policies concerning the way public utilities and services are expanded play an important role in the location and density of future housing, commercial, and industrial development. The City of Jerome provides residents with water, irrigation, sewer, police and fire protection, and emergency medical service. Safety The Jerome Fire Department employees 14 full- time and 10- part-time men and women that operate out of two fire stations. The Fire Department covers a primary response area of 5.6 square miles. The Jerome Police Department is located at 124 S. Lincoln Avenue. The department serves a population of 12,349 as well as additional nonresidents who visit the area. Services provided by the department include general law enforcement, criminal investigation, code enforcement and animal control. The Criminal Investigation Division is assigned to investigate crimes including arson, assault, burglary, homicide, robbery, etc. The Uniform Services Division’s daily patrol activities include enforcement of city ordinances, fire and ambulance assistance, and enforcement of state and federal laws. Southern Idaho Regional Communications Center (SIRCOMM) is responsible for dispatching Police, Fire, and Medical Services for the City of Jerome. Jerome County Sherriff vehicles parked at the County Fair ---PAGE BREAK--- Our Public Services 33 Utilities All utilities in the city are provided by the utility division, located in City Hall. The City of Jerome provides wastewater treatment for City residents, commercial retail, and Industrial facilities. The three main industrial users being Jerome Cheese, Idaho Milk Products, and Darigold. A facility planning study was adopted in 2013, outlining the next 20 years of wastewater treatment needs and capital projects. Drinking water is also provided by the City. An annual drinking water quality report is available on the City’s website. Jerome provides irrigation throughout the irrigation season which runs from about May to October every year. Irrigators are on hand to help landowners get connected to City irrigation. Several private companies provide waste disposal services to the City. These companies include PSI and Western Waste Services. They provide Jerome residents with residential, commercial, industrial, and construction garbage removal. Southern Idaho Solid Waste serves as the landfill for Jerome. Their transfer station is located within Jerome County, to the east of the city. City Buildings City Hall is near the Police Station and shares a building with Jerome Fire Station No. 1. City Hall provides offices for city council, the mayor, the city administrator, the city clerk, and the building and fire departments. Other city-owned structures include the public library, the street and sewer department facilities on W. Fourth St., the Prescott Building at Lincoln and A streets, and the county museum which is leased to the county historical society. Jerome Public Library serves the community Monday through Saturday. The library has been at its location on 1st Avenue East since 1952 and was remodeled and expanded in 2005. The library provides meeting rooms, computers, Wi-Fi, books, and digital content, for no charge to City residents. Idaho Power updated the Magic Valley Electric Plan in 2018 identifying the existing and preferred 138-kV transmission lines and existing source substation located within the City. The Plan also identifies the preferred 230-kV transmission lines located to the west of Jerome running east, to the south of Twin Falls. The City also has access to various broadband services such as CenturyLink, Rise Broadband, Sparklight. Jerome Public Library ---PAGE BREAK--- Our Public Services 34 Figure 5.1 Public Services ---PAGE BREAK--- Our Public Services 35 B. Recreation The City of Jerome owns and operates 14 various park and recreation facilities. Bike paths, trails and sidewalks located within the City as Jerome are planned and maintained by the City. Jerome County Fairgrounds is also situated within the city limits (refer to Figure 5.2). The Jerome Recreation District (JRD) is funded through a tax assessment and is operated by a Board of Directors and a full time Director and staff. The JRD works collaboratively with the City to provide additional parks and recreation facilities to the greater Jerome community. The principal JRD facility is a 32,000 square foot Recreation Center that offers indoor activities and sports, as well as indoor and outdoor swimming pools. Other features include basketball/volleyball courts, a weight room and locker rooms. The City and the JRD collaborate regularly for existing and future park planning efforts. Other entities supporting recreation include service organizations such as the Kiwanis and Rotary Club and government agencies such as Jerome County. State Parks in the vicinity include Bruneau Dunes, Malad Gorge, Three Island Crossing, and Thousand Springs. Regional ski areas include Soldier Mountain, Magic Mountain, and Pomerelle. Nearby reservoirs include American Falls and Wilson Lake. National Park units in the area include Hagerman Fossil Beds National Monument (NM), Minidoka NHS and Craters of the Moon NM. Other notable sites within easy driving distance include Balanced Rock, Shoshone Falls and Shoshone Ice Caves. ” “The Rec Center is the best thing going for Jerome.” Survey Response ---PAGE BREAK--- Our Public Services 36 Figure 5.2 Recreation and Schools ---PAGE BREAK--- Our Public Services 37 C. School Facilities Jerome Joint School District #261 serves 4,113 students in six schools, including three elementary schools, a middle school, a high school, and an alternative school which serves grades 6-12 (refer to Figure 5.2). Enrollment numbers have fluctuated over the last five years. The City also has two private Christian schools. At present, the Boys and Girls Club of the Magic Valley provides after school services at Summit Elementary, with hopes for future expansion in other school locations. Table 5.1 Student Information Jerome Joint School District #261 Year Number of Students 2023 4,113 2022 4,117 2021 4,066 2020 4,172 2019 4,067 Jerome Joint School District contracts with North Side Bus Company to serve the students of Jerome, including county residents. In the north, bus routes go as far as the county line and in the west, they cross over into Wendell. For students in east Jerome, bus routes extend as far as 800 East; in the south routes go out to Golf Course Road in the South. The City of Jerome received funding in 2021 through the Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) to install sidewalk on East Main Street from South Tiger Drive to Garfield Street, providing increased connectivity for students to walk to school or to nearby bus stops. Jerome is served by a variety of postsecondary institutions, many of which are in nearby Twin Falls (College of Southern Idaho, Idaho State University). College of Southern Idaho Jerome Center is located downtown Jerome, with plans to expand to a new 20,000-square-foot building north of the current location on Lincoln Avenue. Over $3 million in federal funding was appropriated in December 2022 to construct the Jerome Education and Training Center. Jerome High School ---PAGE BREAK--- Our Public Services 38 Figure 5.3 Current Airport Influence Areas D. Transportation As discussed in the 2021 Jerome Master Transportation Plan, Jerome is comprised of 69.6 miles of improved and unimproved roadways, which are maintained by the City (within city limits). The City is traversed by a major thoroughfare, Main Street, that is a state-owned facility otherwise known as Highway 25 (refer to Figure 5.4). The City also owns and maintains several pathways and truck routes. The Eastern Idaho Railroad provides freight services through the southern portion of town, connecting to the Union Pacific Railroad. At present there are no transit options for Jerome residents. Past efforts such as Trans IV were not sustainable, yet the Master Transportation Plan identified public transit as a future need. The transportation planning process also identified that other modes of transportation such as bicycle and pedestrian facilities have not kept pace with a growing population. Given the demographics of Jerome (higher poverty rates, younger population, etc.) alternatives to vehicular transportation including safe pathways are a concern. The Jerome County Airport is located west of city limits within the ACI. The current runway and related impact areas (and associated land use restrictions) are depicted on Figure 5.3. Jerome County Airport is currently updating its Master Plan, for adoption in 2023. For commercial flights, residents must commute to the Magic Valley Regional Airport (Twin Falls) or the Boise Airport. Historic Jerome Train Depot ---PAGE BREAK--- Our Public Services 39 Figure 5.4 Transportation ---PAGE BREAK--- Our Public Services 40 E. Looking Forward As Jerome continues to grow in population, continued attention to serving the public is essential. With a perspective on the diverse and young population (described in Chapter 2) public services related to opportunities for safe neighborhoods, ample recreational and educational options, are a priority. Likewise, providing connections throughout the Magic Valley so that Jerome residents and visitors can enjoy urban amenities is desirable. City Services The City of Jerome has outgrown several of their facilities and is considering creating new administrative offices within the downtown. This will provide an opportunity to implement technology upgrades and improved public meeting space, among other community programs. Recreation The JRD is anticipating development of new Master Plan in 2023 – 24 to articulate future plans for facilities, programs and activities, within the District including the City of Jerome. Current plans are being implemented including a new park and recreation facility (a collaboration between JRD and Jerome URA) in the south end of Jerome Nez Perce Avenue) in spring 2023 as depicted on Figure 5.2. The project is being funded through a combination of about $2.3 million from the American Rescue Plan Act and $1.5 million from the URA. This plan also recommends a variety of park and trail amenities, providing connectivity to key sites within the community, including some jointly developed within residential subdivisions, and alongside irrigation facilities. Schools The Jerome School District anticipates the need for a new school in south Jerome the years ahead. In the meantime, collaboration with the City of Jerome, monitoring population growth and cooperating on a housing action plan, will be essential. The future CSI campus will greatly enhance the post-secondary opportunities for Jerome residents, including job training and mentoring options. A Boys and Girls Club facility would also assist in addressing community concerns regarding childcare and bi-lingual community resource center. Transportation The City of Jerome has outlined all future transportation projects and/or capital projects within the City’s Master Transportation Plan. The Master Transportation Plan identifies all future projects for various modes of transportation, in addition to vehicular improvements. Streetscape improvements underway in the greater downtown area, funded by the URA, will greatly improve walkability, enhance the bicyclist experience, and encourage more activity downtown. Other opportunities for public transit are recommended as part of this planning process based on the public comments received, including some form of van or ride share to connect with Twin Falls, and other destinations. Potential for regional rail service is also a future consideration. ---PAGE BREAK--- Our Public Services 41 The Jerome County Airport Master Plan is nearing completion and will be considering an extension to Runway 9. This plan recommends that a new Area of City Impact agreement should consider a boundary change to simplify land use decisions within the airport influence area. F. Goal, Objectives, and Implementation Strategies Our Public Services Goal: Provide exemplary public services and educational opportunities for our community, maintain, and expand water and sewer utilities, first response, recreational parks and open space, and a diverse array of transportation services. Objective 5.1: Continue providing upgrades to water, trash, and sewer infrastructure to address current and future growth. Strategies: 5.1.a Work with partner agencies to develop waste reduction programs such as a city-wide recycling and compost program. Jerome County, PSI, Landfill 5.1.b Monitor building permit activity as well as public usage of public utilities to efficiently plan future extension of water and sewer facilities 5.1.c Maintain an updated Capital Improvement Program and monitor the potential for development impact fees. Objective 5.2: Explore improvements to City administrative and safety (Police and Fire) facilities. Strategies: 5.2.a Strive to stay current by implementing technology upgrades in accordance with state and federal standards (including police, fire and library services). 5.2.b Explore opportunities for new municipal buildings, to provide suitable public meeting and hearing venues. Objective 5.3: Preserve existing City parks and recreation activities while seeking opportunities for new parks, open space, and programs for all ages. Strategies: 5.3.a Implement the East Nez Perce Avenue park (soccer fields, playground, pathways and parking. 5.3.b Support development of Jerome Recreation District Master Plan that evaluates existing facilities and programs, identifies standard policies and outlines costs and funding opportunities for parks, facilities, and programs. 5.3.c Establish requirements for functional open areas or park space within all new applicable developments. 5.3.d Utilize flexible zoning options such as conservation areas within a Planned Unit Development code to preserve open space and park areas. ---PAGE BREAK--- Our Public Services 42 5.3.e Enhance cooperative efforts with applicable County, State and/or Federal agencies to expand locations and activities for future open space and recreation opportunities, including possible connections to the Snake River Canyon. Objective 5.4: Provide safe connectivity and walkability through sidewalks and other pathways. Strategies 5.4.a Implement downtown streetscaping project on Main and Lincoln streets (sidewalks, street furnishings and trees) and other funded streetscape improvement projects 5.4.b Explore implementation of bike lanes throughout downtown core, providing connections to parks and other destinations. 5.4.c Connect all existing and future parks and open spaces to bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure with appropriate wayfinding signage. 5.4.d Partner with other agencies to maintain, expand and create new connections (irrigation districts, railroad, Jerome County, JRD etc.) 5.4.e Continue to apply for grants such as the state Transportation Alternative Program (TAP) grant to implement sidewalk projects. Objective 5.5: Maintain and improve the city transportation system to include public transportation opportunities locally and regionally. Strategies: 5.5.a Regularly refer to current Transportation Master Plan and assess capital project lists for necessary updates. 5.5.b Develop regional partnerships to access grant funding for regional transportation improvements. 5.5.c Evaluate public transportation needs as part of development application review, as it relates to hospitals, education, recreation, and workforce development. 5.5.d Collaborate with College of Southern Idaho (CSI) and St. Luke’s on possible Jerome – Twin Falls shuttle service. 5.5.e Plan for and invest in bicycle and pedestrian facilities to be completed with roadway improvements and capital projects. 5.5.f Encourage developers to incorporate bicycle and pedestrian facilities and connections as they apply for development approval. Objective 5.6: Provide appropriate land use designations in coordination with the Jerome County Airport planning efforts. Strategies: 5.6.a Evaluate Airport Overlay District to ensure appropriate land uses adjacent to the facility and surrounding influence areas ---PAGE BREAK--- Our Public Services 43 5.6.b Collaborate with Airport on transportation to and from the historic downtown. 5.6.c Consider appropriate delineation of the Area of City Impact adjacent to the Airport, in coordination with Jerome County. Objective 5.7: Support Jerome Joint School District and College of Southern Idaho (CSI) to provide safe and accessible educational opportunities. Strategies: 5.7.a Support development of the new 20,000 square foot CSI facility. 5.7.b Continue to collaborate on the creation of career training and employment opportunities. 5.7.c Collaborate with the Idaho Department of Labor to increase access to workforce development training funds. 5.7.d Encourage integration of charter and other private schools in community activities. 5.7.e Collect and share data related to population growth, permit and development activity with JSD to ensure informed school facility planning. 5.7.f Collaborate on school safety protocols and preparedness. 5.7.g Identify opportunities for additional funding from the Safe Routes to School program. “ ” “I would LOVE LOVE LOVE if Jerome had a recycling program!! Cardboard especially, but also aluminum, plastics and glass. I cringe every time I put cardboard in my PSI box.” Survey Response ---PAGE BREAK--- 44 6. Our Quality of Life ---PAGE BREAK--- Our Quality of Life 45 Table 6.1 Major Economic Sectors F. Our Quality of Life Jerome resident’s value their access to employment, houses close to schools and parks, clean and safe streets, and an easy connection to bigger cities such as Twin Falls and Boise. These are all essential elements to measuring a high quality of life. Other considerations are potential for economic growth (discussed in this chapter as Economic Development) and opportunities to enjoy nature and culture with others. And for each of us, the foundation of a high quality of life is our personal health and that of our family and neighbors. This chapter concludes with a section on community health; a high performing community is able to support its residents as they seek personal well-being. A. Economic Development The City of Jerome has participated and led numerous economic development programs over the past. At present the City works closely with Jerome 20/20, Inc., an organization focused on economic growth in the city and county. The principal economic drivers for the City are manufacturing, agriculture, agriculture related industry (processing) and education. Major employers are listed in Table 6.1. Other economic development efforts include support of the Southern Idaho Economic Development organization that advocates for communities throughout the Magic Valley and assists with business retention and expansion. In addition, much of the downtown area is located within an opportunity zone (depicted on Figure 6.1) which provides incentives for long-term investments, including tax relief on the capital gains generated through private investment. Opportunity zones were established by Congress in 2017, so the benefits of this program have not been fully realized in Jerome. The Jerome City Urban Renewal Agency has considered methods of addressing redevelopment primarily in the city core since the late 1990s. The agency has four urban renewal areas depicted on Figure 6.1. Within these areas, projects have been developed to eliminate blight, revitalize commercial areas, facilitate the construction of housing, and improve neighborhoods. Specific current projects include: • Development of apartments and commercial space Lincoln and E) • New school on S. Tiger • New Town home complex Lincoln and 10th) • Redevelopment of Block 55/56 (3rd and Lincoln) include new CSI campus, Boys and Girls Club • New streetscape including curb/gutter, sidewalk, street furnishings (Main, Lincoln, A and Alder) ---PAGE BREAK--- Our Quality of Life 46 Figure 6.1 Economic Development and Urban Renewal Areas ---PAGE BREAK--- Our Quality of Life 47 B. Community Design/Special Areas Jerome is in an advantageous position, having a relatively compact city center, a diversifying economy, and a location which is within driving distance to many outdoor attractions. The design features of Jerome are particularly evident in the City’s downtown historic buildings which maintain many of their architectural details and embody a classic Main Street style (2 – 3 story structures, building entries on the sidewalk, street level shop windows). Other older and historic buildings extend beyond the downtown business district and include older churches, social clubs, and neighborhood clusters of historically significant homes. The National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) is the official list of historic places identified for preservation. There are fifty-six properties within Jerome that are listed in the NRHP, the majority of which are homes and churches. Stone or rocks are a prominent design feature for many structures in Jerome. There are approximately 25 rock houses, many of which are bungalows, listed in the NRHP. Lava rock was a popular building material, as the area is rich with basalt that was suitable for homes, churches, a hotel, porches, fireplaces, walls and foundations. There are two historical museums in the area. The Jerome County Historical Society was established in 1981 and is located downtown in the original Southern Idaho Railway Depot. They have collected numerous exhibits and artifacts that showcase life in Jerome throughout the decades. It is opened to the public at no cost. Idaho Farm and Ranch Museum (IFARM) is located at the crossroads of Interstate 84 and U.S. Highway 93. This museum brings history to life with tours and activities surrounding farming life in Jerome. Other historic sites are within driving distance of Jerome and are identified in Section 5.B, Recreation. Historic Main Street ---PAGE BREAK--- Our Quality of Life 48 “ ” “A way to bring the community together and educate everyone on the amazing, wide variety of cultures. Like a farmers market but all ethnic foods and items.” Survey Response Table 6.2 National Register of Historic Places Listed Properties Property Name Date Built Location Year Listed Allton Building 1909 160 E. Main Street 1983 City Pump House 1918 600 Block of E. B St. 1983 Archie, Webster House c. 1924 W. Ave and W. Ave. B 1983 Brick, Frank J. House 1917 300 N. Fillmore St. 1983 First Baptist Church 1929 First Ave. 1983 Gleason, F.C. House 1918 209 E. Ave. A 1983 Jerome Cooperative Creamery 1915, 1924, 1933 313 S. Birch St. 1983 Jerome County Courthouse 1939 300 N. Lincoln Ave 1987 Jerome National Bank 1921 100 E. Main St 1983 Lee, J.O. House 1922 322 Fifth Ave. E 1983 Lee, J.O. Honey House 1922 324 Fifth Ave. E 1983 Mandle, Joseph House 1918 800 N. Fillmore St. 1983 Schmerschall, John F House 1917 248 E. Ave. A 1983 Vipham, Thomas House 1920 313 E Ave. D 1983 Webster, Archie House 1924 West Ave. and W. Ave. B 1983 ---PAGE BREAK--- Our Quality of Life 49 C. Community Health The City of Jerome received a grant from the Blue Cross of Idaho Foundation for Health in 2021 to support the update of the comprehensive plan with a community health lens. To do so, the public involvement efforts associated with the plan integrate the topic into all elements of the Comprehensive Plan. Jerome residents have identified community health in several topic areas: Access to healthcare facilities/community resources. The St. Luke’s Jerome Medical Center provides local care along with the Magic Valley Medical Center in Twin Falls. While a new Jerome clinic has been discussed, attracting new personnel has been a challenge. The public has expressed concern for improved ambulance services as well as added quick care, mental health care and counseling resources. In addition, information for underserved communities is primarily on-line and the local library is the sole source for those who do not have internet connection. Walkability and connectivity. As discussed in Section 5.D sidewalks, enhanced trails and bicycle/pedestrian facilities have not kept pace with growth. Likewise, community transit to support households with less than two vehicles or with non-drivers is an on- going topic of conversation. Recreational opportunities. As discussed in Section 5.B, Jerome continues to expand facilities and programs. Special consideration to the variety of recreational options (from passive to active areas, indoor to outdoor activities, youth to adult) and the topics of affordability and accessibility. Food security and poverty. As discussed in Section 2.C and depicted on Table 2.4, obesity and chronic disease are concerns. In addition, 50-60% of children in schools are on the subsidized lunch program, which can contribute to poor nutrition at home. While there are two food banks available to the public, each food bank (Jerome School District and Catholic Church) has their own constituents to serve. As part of this plan a food desert analysis was conducted, see figure 6.1. Childcare and early education. Present facilities and programs for childcare and early childhood education are limited and while the Community Schools program (administered by United Way and supported by the City of Jerome, CSI and JSD) endeavors to address these issues, it continues to be a challenge ---PAGE BREAK--- Our Quality of Life 50 An analysis of food availability in Jerome compared the location of grocery stores to the concentration of residential housing, households living in poverty, and households without access to a vehicle. Based on this data, access to fresh foods is a local concern. In each map, green circles represent grocery stores; sidewalks and pathways are shown with dark blue lines. The darker orange shaded areas have the largest number of homes without vehicles. Over 10 percent of the households in this area do not own a vehicle. The yellow shaded area represents residential areas. Residential development continues to the North of the City while grocery stores are scattered south of the downtown. Residents in the north side of town do not have immediate access to fresh foods. The darkest purple area represents the highest concentration of people living below poverty level. Again, these households are in the north of the City, while access to fresh foods requires a commute to south Jerome. Homes Without Vehicles Residential Areas Households Below Poverty Level Figure 6.1 Food Desert Analysis ---PAGE BREAK--- Our Quality of Life 51 D. Looking Forward For Jerome to be a truly welcoming city, maintaining and improving the quality of life for current and future residents is essential. This plan recognizes the importance of continued economic development. The proposed FLUM designates adequate areas to generate sufficient tax revenues, to cover the annual costs of services for existing and proposed development. Furthermore, the objectives and strategies encourage fostering the unique agriculture support market niche; enhancing downtown in all its components; expanding trails and pathways; and focusing on housing affordability and availability. The Plan also recognizes the importance of the community’s history is to its identity, particularly as it is embodied in the remaining historic structures. Public comments overwhelmingly support preservation of these buildings, primarily in the downtown area, and encourage policies to improve these spaces and manage changes to and near these resources, as they are impacted by new development. A more focused approach to attracting new businesses so that a variety of retail and entertainment options is encouraged to attract visitors from all over the Magic Valley. Part of this effort would involve demonstrating the value in preserving the City’s heritage and culture, expanding on the contributions of the Hispanic community, which contribute to the appeal of the City by both residents and visitors. Joining the State’s Certified Local Government program, through the Idaho State Historic Preservation Office, would open more opportunities for preservation tools and resources. The overlay districts proposed for the FLUM, once implemented in the zoning code, along with recently adopted city-wide landscape standards, should also improve the visual appeal of the city. Other factors related to community health are also underway, chief among them the development of the CSI Jerome campus and the Boys and Girls Club both providing vital community services to residents. Topics such as food security and walkability are also addressed in the FLUM (identifying areas for potential commercial uses within residential areas), or within strategies for recreation and transportation. This new campus might also address the public concern that there should be a center to connect people to Rendering of a proposed Main Street streetscape with improved pedestrian amenities and enhanced building façade, to re-activate downtown Jerome. Rendering by J-U-B Engineers, Inc. ---PAGE BREAK--- Our Quality of Life 52 community resources (such as tutoring, food information, scholarships, jobs, etc.). While the library provides some of these services, with many resources (like unemployment payments) online and limited number of library staff, another community resource center would be helpful. E. Goal Objectives, and Implementation Strategies Our Quality of Life Goal: Foster a supportive, healthy, and resilient community of residents, rooted in Jerome’s rich history, that collaborates to welcome visitors and newcomers, and offers opportunities for everyone to live, work, and play. Objective 6.1: Enhance business development to support in state and regional tourism opportunities. Strategies: 6.1.a Promote and advertise Jerome as a gateway to nearby regional, state, and national park units. (Minidoka National Historic Site, Hagerman Fossil Beds National Monument, etc.) 6.1.b Evaluate opportunities to promote regional agri-tourism through local farms and agricultural industries to restaurants and retail operations. 6.1.c Coordinate fairs, festivals and local events to capitalize on shared activities within the region. 6.1.d Collaborate with neighboring communities and Jerome County to encourage Magic Valley visitors to the city. 6.1.e Continue to recruit new businesses using public-private partnerships and regional grant funding. Objective 6.2: Diversify the economic base of businesses and industries (through retention, expansion, and recruitment) while preserving Jerome’s identity. Strategies: 6.2.a Continue to collaborate with the Jerome Chamber of Commerce and regional economic development efforts to continue business retention and attraction efforts. 6.2.b Coordinate closely with Jerome County to preserve agricultural vitality and explore opportunities to enhance connections between communities and special areas and sites. Objective 6.3: Recognize, conserve, and promote Jerome’s historic and cultural resources. Strategies: 6.3.a Coordinate with the Idaho State Historic Preservation Office regarding the Certified Local Government program and assess the potential for the City of Jerome’s participation. 6.3.b Collaborate with the local historical society to identify events, projects (historical markers, interpretive signs, murals, etc.) to support awareness of local history. ---PAGE BREAK--- Our Quality of Life 53 6.3.c Incorporate historic structures in City’s revitalization plans, to encourage and demonstrate the feasibility and importance of sustaining older buildings. 6.3.d Investigate appropriate building and zoning codes, that will facilitate the adaptive reuse of historic structures, including upper story residential development. Objective 6.4: Enhance and improve visual identity and community pride. Strategies: 6.4.a Collaborate with the County to prepare a wayfinding study to identify and brand gateways, entries, signage, destinations, routes, and connection points. 6.4.b Review zoning ordinances for appropriate revisions to enhance design and development standards, including landscaping and sign provisions. 6.4.c Form an arts commission to develop a community art program (theatre and dance, visual art and writing, music, and poetry) to enhance sense of place. 6.4.d Explore the potential for community centers, theatres, and musical venues within existing and proposed developments. Objective 6.5: Encourage the updating of medical facilities (hospitals and ambulance services), including mental health care programs. Strategies: 6.5.a Collaborate with South Central Public Health regarding specific programs and projects that will enhance delivery of physical and mental health care. 6.5.b Coordinate with St. Luke’s on potential partnerships to deliver emergency management services and other community related programs. 6.5.c Explore development of a bilingual central information center to support community health education and awareness. Objective 6.6: Enhance walkability of the City to ensure options for all residents and visitors to connect from home to work, school, shopping, and recreation. Strategies: 6.6.a Implement the future land use designations as established in this plan, through code amendments and rezone requests. 6.6.b Consider utilizing vacant parcels, portions of underutilized parking lots or low-traffic areas for events, temporary use, and art/education installations. 6.6.c Continue to study sidewalks, identifying areas of concern (new connections, maintenance, etc.). ---PAGE BREAK--- Our Quality of Life 54 Objective 6.7: Address food availability and security for Jerome residents. Strategies: 6.7.a Initiate local, affordable downtown farmers market with an emphasis on community connection to local farms and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. 6.7.b Seek options for an additional food pantry, with current food bank providers, to enhance participation potentially integrated in the new Boys and Girls Club. 6.7.c Evaluate the potential for community garden programs and pocket parks, as part of public parks development and as part of new private development applications. ---PAGE BREAK--- Implementation 55 7. Our Future ” ---PAGE BREAK--- Our Quality of Life 56 Implementation Objectives were identified for each of these goals and were also applied to the refinement of a Future Land Use Map. For each objective, a series of implementation strategies were developed, intended to provide a series of steps for city personnel to follow in order to achieve each objective. This chapter has captured those strategies and sorted them by type, including future policies, regulations, coordination, funding, and further study. Upon adoption, City personnel along with the Planning and Zoning Commission should commence a systematic program of review and engagement in completing each implementation strategy. Furthermore, annual review of the plan should be conducted, with regular updates at 5- year increments. The Tables presented in this chapter provide the number of the strategy as it appears in the plan in the first column and the strategy in the second column. In some instances, one strategy is applied to more than one objective so multiple strategy numbers may be displayed in the first column. The process for developing this plan established 4 goals for the future of Jerome:  Our Natural Environment: Conserve our natural resources for future generations including our agricultural lands, irrigation facilities and other waterways, and protect residents from potential hazards.  Our Built Environment: Enhance our built environment to offer a harmonious blend of land uses that serve our entire community, residents, and visitors, now and in the future.  Our Public Services: Provide exemplary public services and educational opportunities for our community, maintain, and expand water and sewer utilities, first response, recreational parks and open space, and a diverse array of transportation services.  Our Quality of Life: Foster a supportive, healthy, and resilient community of residents, rooted in Jerome’s rich history, that collaborates to welcome visitors and newcomers, and offers opportunities for everyone to live, work, and play. CAC meeting to discuss plan objectives ---PAGE BREAK--- Our Quality of Life 57 Table 7.1 lists implementation strategies that may be characterized as policies. These are items to be considered in reviewing development applications or in collaboration with other agencies. The City is the primary entity required to ensure that these policies are applied. Table 7.1 Policies identified to ensure Plan Implementation Number Implementation Strategy 3.1.b Encourage non-motorized forms of transportation to improve carbon emissions directly related to air quality. 3.3.d Consider the impact to adjacent agricultural businesses (fertilizer production, food processing, shipping, etc.) when reviewing new annexations and development applications. 3.3.e Encourage design and site plans that minimize impact to canals and ditches, riparian habitats and stands of large trees. 3.3.f Ensure recreational and open space areas are compatible with agricultural and natural resource areas. 4.1.d Encourage and incentivize the creation of businesses focused on local shopping, entertainment, and dining, to attract and keep visitors downtown. 4.1.i Address short term parking concerns by activating underutilized spaces, vacant lots, to support current businesses, while exploring long term solutions. 4.3.c; 4.3.d Encourage new housing developments that provide a mix of duplexes, townhomes and age-in-place options that include walkable design and access to community amenities and healthcare. 5.4.c Connect all existing and future parks and open spaces to bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure with appropriate wayfinding signage. 5.5.a Regularly refer to current Transportation Master Plan and assess capital project lists for necessary updates. 5.5.c Evaluate public transportation needs as part of development application review, as it relates to hospitals, education, recreation, and workforce development. 5.5.e Plan for and invest in bicycle and pedestrian facilities to be completed with roadway improvements and capital projects. 5.5.f Encourage developers to incorporate bicycle and pedestrian facilities and connections as they apply for development approval. 5.7.d Encourage integration of charter and other private schools in community activities. 6.1.a Promote and advertise Jerome as a gateway to nearby regional, state, and national park units. (Minidoka National Historic Site, Hagerman Fossil Beds National Monument, etc.) 6.1.b; 6.1.c Evaluate opportunities to promote regional agri-tourism through local farms and agricultural industries to restaurants and retail operations 6.3.c Incorporate historic structures in City’s revitalization plans, to encourage and demonstrate the feasibility and importance of sustaining older buildings. 6.6.b Consider utilizing vacant parcels, portions of underutilized parking lots or low-traffic areas for events, temporary use, and art/education installations. ---PAGE BREAK--- Our Quality of Life 59 Table 7.2 lists implementation strategies that will require amendments to local regulations. With the adoption of this Comprehensive Plan, amendments to the Zoning Code will be required to ensure compliance with the new Comprehensive Plan document. Other regulations such as subdivision and building codes may also by affected. Table 7.2 Regulations identified to ensure Plan implementation Number Implementation Strategy 3.1.e Ensure that development regulations provide for environmental evaluations as necessary to address drainage, erosion, sedimentation, and other soil concerns. 3.1.f; 3.3.b Require lighting plans comply with dark sky principles that minimize light pollution. 3.3.j; 4.1.a Consider provisions in the zoning ordinance for rural residential uses in city limits to include some agricultural activity and limited animal husbandry. 4.1.c Enforce existing code requirements related to building maintenance, consider code amendments as needed. 4.1.g Evaluate and update the City’s zoning code to ensure appropriate regulations are in place regarding building maintenance, revitalization of upper stories and infill development to promote a walkable downtown. 4.2.a Implement the future land use designations as established in this plan. 4.2.b Update design and development standards within the zoning ordinance to ensure distinctive new developments that enhance community character. 4.3.a Protect single family neighborhoods with provisions in the zoning ordinance regarding permitted and conditional uses. 4.3.e;4.4.b; 4.3.b Review and amend zoning ordinance to create a rural residential zone to allow for larger lots (particularly in areas abutting agricultural lands) utilizing the planned unit development process to ensure compatibility with future extension of city services. 5.3.c; 5.3.d Establish requirements for functional open areas or park space within all new applicable developments. 5.6.a Evaluate Airport Overlay District to ensure appropriate land uses adjacent to the facility and surrounding influence areas 5.6.c; 6.3.d Consider appropriate delineation of the Area of City Impact adjacent to the Airport, in coordination with Jerome County. 6.4.b Review zoning ordinances for appropriate revisions to enhance design and development standards, including landscaping and sign provisions. 6.6.a Implement the future land use designations as established in this plan, through code amendments and rezone requests. ---PAGE BREAK--- Our Quality of Life 60 The remaining tables (Tables 7.3, Coordination, 7.4, Funding, and 7.5, Further Study) list implementation strategies that require partnership with other entities. Possible partners are listed in the third column. Table 7.3 Coordination strategies to ensure Plan implementation Number Implementation Strategy Potential Partners 3.1.a Support regional air quality efforts and collaborate with Idaho’s Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ) to assess air quality in and around the City. Idaho Dept of Environmental Quality (IDEQ), Jerome County 3,1,c Support IDEQ’s groundwater monitoring program and consider special well construction techniques where needed to protect groundwater, in coordination with Jerome County. IDEQ, Jerome County 3.1.d; 3.2.a; 3.2.b Continue to require Best Management Practices (BMPs) for stormwater in all development proposals. IDEQ 3.2.c; 3.2.d Coordinate with applicable irrigation districts to remediate any identified risks and identify educational opportunities Irrigation Districts 3.2.e Continue to modify and improve the emergency response plan with respect to the transport of hazardous materials by rail or vehicle, in coordination with Jerome County. Jerome County 3.3.a; 3.3.c Continue to coordinate with Jerome County on Area of City Impact boundaries and appropriate land use processes. Jerome County 3.3.g Explore opportunities for a trail system along the various canals, through and around the city, enhanced by perennial water amenities, supported by public and private partnerships. Irrigation Districts 3.3.i Develop and maintain partnerships with irrigation districts and involve them in plan implementation and land use application review. Irrigation Districts 4.2.d Collaborate with the Airport to develop a gateway to the city that provides visitor information and mutually supports facility objectives and local business development. Jerome County Airport 4.3.g Collaborate with community partners to produce a homeowner’s guide to maintenance, including weatherization, energy efficiency, and renovation resources. Community Schools, Jerome County 4.4.a Collaborate with local employers to determine needs and concerns for current and future employees and explore possible partnership opportunities. Jerome Chamber, College of Southern Idaho (CSI) 4.4.d Work with community partners to monitor and establish services to address homelessness, eviction prevention assistance and rapid re-housing programs. Community Schools, Jerome County Health care providers 5.1.a Work with partner agencies to develop waste reduction programs such as a city-wide recycling and compost program. Jerome County, PSI, local landfill 5.3.b Support development of Jerome Recreation District (JRD) Master Plan that evaluates existing facilities and programs, identifies standard policies and outlines costs and funding opportunities. JRD ---PAGE BREAK--- Our Quality of Life 61 5.3.e; 5.4.d Enhance cooperative efforts with applicable County, State and/or Federal agencies to expand locations and activities for future open space and recreation opportunities, including connections to the Snake River Canyon. Jerome County, Idaho Parks and Recreation, National Park Service 5.5.d Collaborate with College of Southern Idaho (CSI) and St. Luke’s on possible Jerome – Twin Falls shuttle service. CSI, St. Luke’s 5.6.b Collaborate with Jerome County Airport on transportation to and from the historic downtown. Jerome County Airport 5.7.a Support development of the new 20,000 square foot CSI facility. CSI 5.7.b Continue to collaborate on the creation of career training and employment opportunities. CSI, Jerome School District (JSD) 5.7.c Collaborate with the Idaho Department of Labor to increase access to workforce development training funds. Idaho Department of Labor 5.7.e Collect and share data related to population growth, permit and development activity with JSD to ensure informed school facility planning. JSD 5.7.f Collaborate on school safety protocols and preparedness. JSD; Law enforcement; EMS 6.1.d Collaborate with neighboring communities and Jerome County to encourage Magic Valley visitors to the city. Jerome County, neighboring cities 6.2.a Continue to collaborate with the Chamber of Commerce and regional economic development efforts to continue business retention and attraction. Jerome Chamber 6.2.b Coordinate closely with Jerome County to preserve agricultural vitality and explore opportunities to enhance connections between communities and special areas and sites. Jerome County 6.3.a Coordinate with the Idaho State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) regarding the Certified Local Government program and assess the potential for the City of Jerome’s participation. Idaho SHPO; Jerome Historical Society 6.3.b Collaborate with the local historical society to identify events, projects (historical markers, interpretive signs, murals, etc.) Jerome Historical Society 6.5.a Collaborate with South Central Public Health regarding specific programs and projects that will enhance delivery of physical and mental health care. South Central Public Health 6.5.b Coordinate with St. Luke’s on potential partnerships to deliver emergency management services and other community programs. St. Luke’s; EMS ---PAGE BREAK--- Our Quality of Life 62 Table 7.4 Funding strategies to ensure Plan implementation Number Implementation Strategy Potential Partners 4.1.b Fund historic resource inventory of downtown and surrounding blocks to identify preservation opportunities. Idaho SHPO; Department of Commerce 4.1.e Continue investment of urban renewal monies to improve sidewalks and enhanced streetscapes. Urban Renewal Agency 4.3.f Seek funding for a housing action plan, in collaboration with neighboring municipalities and Jerome County, to evaluate population and economic trends, consider existing housing conditions and needs, and present actionable housing strategies. Jerome County, other neighboring cities 5.2.a Strive to stay current by implementing technology upgrades in accordance with state and federal standards (including police, fire, and library services). Idaho Department of Commerce 5.2.b Explore opportunities for new municipal buildings, to provide suitable public meeting and hearing venues. Urban Renewal Agency 5.4.a Implement downtown streetscaping project on Main and Lincoln streets (sidewalks, street furnishings and trees) and other funded streetscape improvement projects Urban Renewal Agency, local property owners 5.5.e Continue to apply for grants such as the state Transportation Alternative Program (TAP) grant to implement sidewalk projects. Idaho Transportation Department ---PAGE BREAK--- Our Quality of Life 63 Table 7.5 Further Study strategies to ensure Plan implementation Number Implementation Strategy Partners 3.1.g Explore interpretive public education opportunities for natural resource areas. JRD, JSD, CSI, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 3.3.h Study the potential for trail or pathway connections to the Snake River Canyon. JRD, BLM 4.1.f Develop program to support property owner/business owners to revitalize building facades through grant and loan programs. Idaho SHPO 4.1.h Evaluate the possibility of establishing a Main Street program and/or downtown business improvement district (BID) to encourage coordinated programming, design, promotion and sustainable business practices. Idaho Department of Commerce 4.2.c Evaluate opportunities for new public land uses (park, trails, schools, government buildings) within existing neighborhoods and traditional commercial and industrial areas, as needed. JRD, JSD 4.2.e; 4.4.c Assess gateway opportunities at the 93/I-84 connection to provide visitor information. Jerome Chamber, Idaho Department of Commerce 5.1.b Monitor building permit activity as well as public usage of public utilities to efficiently plan future extension of water and sewer facilities. Planning and Building Department/Public Works 5.1.c Maintain an updated Capital Improvement Program and monitor the potential for development impact fees. Planning and Building Department/Public Works 5.4.b Explore implementation of bike lanes throughout downtown core, providing connections to parks and other destination JRD 6.5.c Explore development of a bilingual central information center to support community health education and awareness. JRD, JSD, CSI, South Central Health ---PAGE BREAK--- 64 Appendices A. Public Involvement Summary B. Idaho Attorney General Checklist C. Existing Conditions Summary / References ---PAGE BREAK--- APPENDIX A Public Involvement Summary ---PAGE BREAK--- Introduction The Public Involvement process is characterized by meaningful communication with stakeholders. It involves input from the community throughout the life of the planning process. This Public Involvement Summary details how the City conducted public outreach and solicited public feedback on its Comprehensive Plan. These public involvement efforts provided public awareness, education, and involvement, and reflected good stewardship from Jerome to its community. Feedback from the public helped the planning team develop a Comprehensive Plan that not only addressed the character and future growth of the City, but also buy-in from the community. Public Involvement Goals and Objectives The goal of public outreach is to inform, educate, and receive input from the community about the City of Jerome Comprehensive Plan. Andrea Gumm from The Langdon Group (TLG), a subsidiary of J- U-B Engineers, facilitated stakeholder communication with the City to ensure all feedback and concerns were addressed. Esmeralda Chavez, Ervina Covcic, and Mike Williams were the main points of contact for the City of Jerome. Key objectives of the public outreach process included:  Providing complete, accurate and timely information regarding the planning process.  Facilitating fair and constructive communication between the public and the County.  Offering meaningful and accessible opportunities for participation preparing the Plan.  Ensuring all feedback is reflected in the Plan, through appropriate modifications and as a summary of the public outreach process. Community Advisory Committee (CAC) Meetings A Community Advisory Committee was organized by the County to help facilitate information and input for the Comprehensive Plan. The CAC acts in an advisory position to the project team throughout the planning process. In total there were three CAC meetings. The first meeting familiarized the newly formed committee with their roles and introduced CAC members to the planning process. TLG facilitated the meeting, reviewed issues previously collected, and shared the initial data collection. During the second meeting, CAC members drafted goals, objectives, and strategies and reviewed and provided feedback on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). The final meeting focused further on the FLUM. Public Events TLG coordinated and facilitated an in-person public open house on September 28, 2022 at the Jerome Public Library. The event ran for two hours, had multiple displays to educate people on the planning process, and several activities for attendees to participate and provide their thoughts and concerns. ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Jerome Survey Summary July 2022 English Responses ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- In one or two sentences, please add any issues we haven’t addressed. N/A Would like to have restaurants not fast food. Activity Center for kids. We need to work on helping our foreign born population better integrate with services and the community. We need a boys and girls club for a place for older kids to go. Ways to improve properties or support investment in many of the run down and unsafe neighborhoods in Jerome. This ranks high for me also but ran out of options: Provide a community resource board/staff position to connect resid ents to resources and programs (such as tutoring, food information, scholarships, jobs, etc.), including increasing publi c accessibility and affordability of internet service (beyond the public library). The wind farm is a very bad idea in so many ways. Jerome needs to check into the bad effects of having them. Nothin g will benefit from having a wind farm The vandalism is getting worse, especially graffiti. The over grown yards. I live off Date St. And in the alley last year they put in a foundation and now it is over grown wit h weeds. Along with a trailer next to it on Date st. Looks horrible. Need to keep.property looking nice The only gym in magic valley with an indoor pool to work-out in and do laps is in twin falls which makes exercise in the winter a challenge for me - Jerome needs a gym with year round pool especially for seniors and retired folks The new halfway house and the people it brings to our small town. This is going to cause more problems as time goes . Also the high school and the growth of our city and taxes continue to rise every year… what about our elderly that ar e on a fixed income? The lack of a dog park The housing market The housing crisis really does need to be addressed. I work for Jerome Motels LLC. We have so many families who ar e working(sometimes multiple jobs) and they cannot afford proper housing for themselves and their families. These fa milies are put down by the community because they are living in motels but because of how over priced the housing a nd rental market have become it is all they can afford. I think we need rent caps put in place and landlords and propert y management companies need to be monitored and held accountable for their actions. ---PAGE BREAK--- The horrible smell that comes from Jerome Cheese, it makes that part of town unlivable The city needs to enforce city codes, there are lots all over the city where homeowners do not mow their lawns and ar e code enforcement needs to enforce current laws The City and County of Jerome need to stand up against Lava Ridge Wind Farm. It will have many detrimental effect on our population. The bloody wind farms!!!! Don’t do support freedom by Reviewing overly restrictive city ordinances. Support for our Latino community Strengthen the relationship between the school district and the city street lights Stop signs and sidewalks would be a great start- some side streets still don’t have stop signs! Revitalizing the older ar eas of town with new schools and parks built in the south western area of town. Also, the sidewalks should be safe, w heelchair accessible, and maintained. It would be so great to have walkways on ALL streets-Sidewalks should be mai ntained in summer and winter for snow shoveling as well. A slower speed limit by the high school is also needed. Tha nks for the putting together this survey! Stop allowing subdivisions to pop up anywhere. Some of us would like to continue to live in the country. Smells at the sewer plant School safety Roads need fixed and or repaved. Roads improvements. Clean up the slum areas on the west side of Jerome. Reduce urban sprawl in agriculture areas Providing more community events to help provide and promote connections between diverse groups. Provide a service that picks up dead cats & dogs out of the street that have been hit by cars. I called dispatch on Tues day July 5, 2022 for Animal Control to come pick the dead cat out of the street in front of my house on North Lincoln A ---PAGE BREAK--- venue but he said "They don't typically do that" and for me to "put it in a garage bag and put it in my garbage." I reluct antly did that after crying my eys out for the dead cat (it wasn't mine I was just heartbroken over it.) After being in the g arage can for a day (it was the only thing in there), we couldn't stand the smell or the flies and possibly maggots by no w so I called PSI and they said they would come dump my can. I told them what happened. They said someone would pick it up Friday morning so I put my can out Thursday night. It is still out. Nobody came to get it as of yet. It's really s melling up the neighborhood. Sickening and sad. Shalila Lewis 521 N Lincoln Ave Jerome Protecting our school zones. The one on North Birch seems to get over looked. Design a better bus route so the peopl e that live at the end of North Birch can get out of our driveways Please stop.the lava Ridge Windmill Project ,protect our communities and agricultural way of life bye keeping projects like these out of our county ,there is too large of an negative impact from projects like these that will effect our lives he re in the magic Valley for many years too come effecting many generations and all our wildlife .It will put a major strain on our ranchers ,farmers ,and even our citizens here destroying our way of life here in Jerome County .So I ask you to put a stop too this project and any project of its kind in our area for GOOD Please focus on opportunities to improve our societies approach to the health and education of our youth. Parks for kids .we need better ones like maybe the first federal park in twin falls .I literally drive to twin just for my kids to play at that park. Even if we did it outside of town like they do and closed up after hours . Parking at the schools needs to be addressed. Not having any American dining cafes. No wind farm! Need to stop the windfarm from being build for out of state power companies. Need to focus on cleaning up the middle of town Main Street & North & South Lincoln. This twin looks like a hell hole. Compare to 25 30 years ago. How about taking a little pride in your town. Need stricter laws/penalties about all these dogs running loose. Can’t even walk my own dog o for fear of being attack ed! na More opportunity for kids of all ages to have things to do... Possibly more disc golf in town? Or a second skate park. N ice basketball courts would be wonderful as well. ---PAGE BREAK--- More activities for children and teenagers that are free or low cost to them. Maybe fix our roads. We pay taxes for this kind of thing yet not once in 5 years has our roads been fixed. The local res idence on our subdivision have had to repair the bad pot holes at our expense. The roads are a crumbled mess throug hout our subdivision. You have consistently raised our property taxes every year to the point of choosing food over pa ying bills. What are you doing with all that monsy?? Many years ago they had drawings weekly, downtown Jerome. When you bought from a business you earned tickets. Businesses would donate prizes. It would bring people to Jerome to support businesses weekly. Bring something like t his back. Make bike lanes. Connect canyon bridge to Jerome side. Losing labor & delivery options at our hospital and emergency services!!!! Keeping our city clean. Sidewalks yards alleys clean. Weeds garbage gone. Keep the community quiet from disrupitve neighbors who like to constantly through parties and play loud music. It mak es the community negative and gives it an unsafe ghetto appeal. Encourage the city council to raise the fines for city o rdinances regarding loud parties and music that become distruptive to surrounding neigborhoods to 500 to 1000 dollar s per citation. Keep magic valley energy off of our public lands we do not want theses windmills or need them. Thanks Jerome needs Retail. Focus on that. Don’t look to far ahead. Take care of what we need now. Jerome has become a Hispanic community which In turn has overwhelmingly crowded our schools and the Hispanic c ommunity tends to be in rentals and cash jobs with no taxes. This is not integration. Increase, as growth supports, local law enforcement especially working with the schools. Improve roads and traffic flow. Jerome also needs more family fun activities like movies and bowling. Improve followup to homeowners responsibilities to maintain. Yards free from weeds and excess debris. I’d like residents to be made more accountable for keeping their property looking presentable. Weeds especially are ta ll and rampant on many. If they can’t afford to water they can at least keep their weeds cut and/or mowed. ---PAGE BREAK--- I would LOVE LOVE LOVE if Jerome had a recycling program!! Cardboard especially, but also aluminum, plastics and glass. I cringe every time I put cardboard in my PSI box. Please work with PSI (or even Western Waste - they are ama zing) to implement something like this I miss the old Jerome, we had more than 2 grocery stores and other businesses, that was the 70’s and we had less pe ople in this community but 5 grocery stores. Maybe I’m wrong but we need restaurants that you can eat a sit down me al not fast food. So tired of everything on the south end, we live north and that’s beyond stupid to not have anything in the northend. I ha e heard countless times in the community how nice it would be to have more diverse food options in Jerome. Ther e is either fast food or Mexican food so most people drink to Twin for a nicer sit down restaurant. Even a food court lik e Second South in Twin with options or a brewery like Koto that offers weekend events like music or comedy is greatly needed in Jerome. I feel the new freeway ramps that they are planning by Walmart south of town are way too much. We will never need t hat extensive or complicated of a system. I believe there is a need for a community resource center that brings all the available non profit service together in one place. There are many services that require separate applications and or an overwhelming process for those in need, some are not even able to read but need assistance. I am very fearful of our strain on our water resources and of losing farmland to extreme overdevelopment. Huge increase in property taxes How about making East I a dead end road. Traffic is bad enough without making it faster. We already have East H tha t goes through all the way. Explore other routes with the same issues that could be broken up to slow traffic down. Do n`t use the cop out that law enforcement will handle it. They are busy enough. How about fixing the access to the middle school on north road, who ever thought it was a good idea to put the school in that location needs to rethink the job they have. Having more affordable housing. Greenspace Youth programs Water conservation Fight the war on drugs in jerome. Explore and consider the financial impact that these policies and programs have on local residents and businesses. ---PAGE BREAK--- Expand running path to connect north west Jerome by middle school. Don't try to be like boise. Keep the small town feel. Keep regulations to a minimum. Each case is different. One size d oes not fit all. Don’t let downtown main street die - attract more business so people don’t have to go to Twin Falls all the time. More pride in what our city looks like - main street and Lincoln look very sad. Don’t focus so much on zoning and controlling neighborhoods. Don’t micromanage. Don’t build any stupid windmills! Consider a reduction in new building permits for residential areas - too much building with lack of infrastructure. Reduc e property taxes & address water wastage. Community building programs to encourage cultural and neighborhood interactions. Clearly, our mayor lied about his political affiliation to get elected. These suggestions are disturbing and show a compl ete lack of understanding of the real issues facing our community. You should take the remaining budget, divide it up among the homeowners and provide a nice financial boost during these hard times. Do not waste our money on social ist pet projects! City hall is not responsive to residents. Mayor should still be in prison for his former ambulance services scan City and county roads are in bad disrepair, we boast about tax surplus but our roads aren't getting repaved and proper ly maintained Bringing in more businesses other than hispanic businesses Also more things for the youth to do and feel safe Attract more restaurants Atteact a quick shopping option on the north side of town for a gallon of milk or a loaf of bread. As the city grows, Traffic is becoming a problem. As the city grows I think there needs to be consideration for traffic patterns. There are only 2 roads that run north to so uth. They are often under construction in the summer or closed due to drifting in the winter. Tiger drive is especially no t big enough for the increased traffic we can expect from the new elementary school and the many new housing devel opments in the area. There needs to be some thought put in to alternate driving routes and widening some roads to b e main arterials. ---PAGE BREAK--- As part of making pathways or walkways around the city. Goat heads need to be addressed. Evan with paths an side walks lots of flat tires occur in bikes and strollers, making it difficult to use the pathways and sidewalks that exist. As always, continue exploring new ways to communicate with community members Are we taking care of our veterans? Our soldiers? Address the road conditions and look into better upkeep of the road systems. Address the great need for childcare in Jerome! The limited amount of space for children while promoting growth is rid iculous! Kids have to have a safe place to go while parents are at work! A way to bring the community together and educate everyone on the amazing wide variety of cultures. Like a farmers market but all ethnic foods and items. German, Spanish, Dutch, basque, etc etc etc. A POLICY TO REMOVE JUNK FROM RESIDENTIAL AND INDUSTRIAL AREAS. DEVELOP STRICT CONTROLS O N POLLUTION COUSIN INDUSTRIES AND PROGRAMS TO MONITOR SAME. ---PAGE BREAK--- Are there any projects or programs you think the city should continue to support OR any new projects or programs that should be undertaken as a new priority? Boys and Girls Club Year round recreation facility that can support a variety of different activities (swimming, racket sports, basketball, bas eball/softball, volleyball, running, group exercise, weightlifting, enrichment classes, etc). While not a current resident of Jerome, but Twin- We look to move to Jerome and my husband current commutes ther e as he has for past 4 years. The lava wind project is a great concern. Please use your weight to make this project go away. We look forward to seeing Jerome responsibly grow and being able to do more and more there. We need a youth program for kids to go after school or during the summer. Things for kids to do or a safe place for them to be There is a new tennis court, tons of baseball fields. Our community would benefit from a soccer complex instead of tak ing our youth into twin falls. There is a lack of affordable healthcare for cash pay patients that don't have health insurance. The school district needs to focus on education and not dressing up for homecoming week unless the child is in high s chool. Also, focus on bullying while children are on the playground or waiting for their bus. The rec center is the best thing going for Jerome. The Public Library is essential to community resource accessibility and recruitment and support of educators will be cri tical for our future. The only gym in magic valley with an indoor pool to work-out in and do laps is in twin falls which makes exercise in the winter a challenge for me - Jerome needs a gym with year round pool especially for seniors and retired folks The only good thing Jerome has done in the last several years is the Freedom Fest. And that is great. Community eve nts like this need to be more frequent. It breeds many, many good attributes. Tennis courts were a big plus. Continued support for infrastructure at Becker Park, toilets, Pavillion, etc Stop light at Lincoln and I Something for kids to do maybe a public pool ---PAGE BREAK--- Solar Sidewalks need to be a priority. Should have more things for family to do. Maybe trying a street dance. On Saturdays. Jerome used to have those whe n I was a kid and loved going to them. Have local bands play at the street dances Should fix the roads in many places. Save our open spaces. Our prayers laced for hunting. Grazing. Living. Our Idaho Revitalize downtown and incentivise local small businesses. Revitalization has been talked about for several years yet nothing has been harvested. Sidewalks and irrigation needs are also something that has been talked about but has not been addressed in a substantial way. Restrict the number of Hispanic business and promote business which are more attractive to all such as a family style diner.(depot grill, Norms cafe). More retail stores with quality merchandise like d&b or co-op… Remember the history of buildings with a town tour of historical businesses and homes. Real law enforcement, police chief should not hide in office until his retirement as Dan Hall did. Providing / expandinginfrastructure south of town. Our older kids need more to do 13-18 years None should be supported No n/a More walking trails/sidewalks. Youth activities helping the Jerome Historical Society on projects. Rejecting the wind mi lls in Jerome County. More sport parks for kids - also a public swimming pool - covered for winter use. Have a Boys/Girls club to keep kids o ut of trouble. More officer presence in the school zone on North Birch. More meetings in the park on meeting the great officers that are in our city including the state police. ---PAGE BREAK--- More housing within the town that is available to all people. Maybe stop raising our property taxes. You have assessed my dumpy house as if it is a mansion. Where is the mo ey going? MAybe fix our roads?? Maybe building a Frisbee golf course in one of the shaded city parks Making the recipe pool available year round through the addition of a bubble or working toward building a new city poo l that could be used year round. Make bike lanes. Connect canyon bridge to Jerome side. Lighted stop signs in rural areas. This hasn't been addressed like they said it would. Keep Jerome an agriculture based community. Improve the look of the town. Cleaning up the sidewalk streets. How about enforcing people to clean up there yards lik e the town use to. I would love to see more access to the arts and theatre for the community. I would LOVE LOVE LOVE if Jerome had a recycling program!! Cardboard especially, but also aluminum, plastics and glass. I cringe every time I put cardboard in my PSI box. Please work with PSI (or even Western Waste - they are ama zing) to implement something like this I would like Jerome to find a way to keep the wind farm from destroying our land and way of life. I wished we could get rid of alot if the older buildings and have new things out in .the buildings are yucky smelling like old .we could use more places like youth ranch. Like a D.I . All the places downtown are all Hispanic and I dont know anyone who ever goes in any of them . I feel we don't have alot of choices for stores, or even restaurants. Or things fo r our kids to do . I wish this area would consider some indoor activities for families to get out and enjoy. We have lots of outdoor recreat ion. In the winter there is skiing for those who can afford it. I really feel an ice skating rink would be great! A full sized i ndoor ice skating rink would be used by many, including the surrounding towns because there aren’t any others aroun d. Currently we drive to Boise or sun valley in order to go ice skating. It’s a physical, affordable activity for families to d o together. ---PAGE BREAK--- I have lived here for 13 years. I love the increase of community activities. (Christmas, 4th of July etc) this is definitely s omething that should continue and grow. I and South Lincoln should have a real stoplight. People turn through the Ridleys parking lot or get out and push the p edestrian button when they are tired of waiting. Hispanic Cultural Center Helping the schools to implement robotics and provide more opportunities for learning a trade. For recreation I would like to see Becker park finished (tables, pavilions, play equipment). Parking lot at park p aved or otherwise improved. Focus on the children. Explore public/private partnerships to address mutual needs. Event Center Relocate the Fairgrounds to a larger footprint Downtown Water Conservation Downtown is nearing blight, no wonder no new business wants to start in downtown, again code enforcement, Downtown could definitely use a face lift! Do not support wind farm Discontinue the “roundabout” exit ramp Continue or expand grants to revitalize older buildings in Jerome. Including grants to meet new codes. Community center Clothes Helpers is a new program located out of Jerome. We give out FREE clothes and shoes ALL sizes infant-adult. We are looking for more community support and to continue spreading the word that we are here to help more people in the Magic Valley. We are hoping if we can do our part to lesson families burdens of clothing the community, it will m ake a big impact especially with all the raised prices. Clean up the weeds on sidewalks and along the roads. Fix the road to the cemetery it’s like an obstacle course and ad dress the roads in general instead of fixing it like a preschooler did it. ---PAGE BREAK--- Childcare— boys and girls club and other similar project Businesses can't survive without more parking downtown Jerome. The empty lot where the business burned could be used for public Parking. Just one idea. Building a full calisthenics exercise park, equipped with: Pull-Up Bars, Dip Bars, Ladders, varying heights of pushup b ars, planchet bars, stationary platforms, benches/seats, etc... Boys & Girls Club is very important to the future generations in Jerome. A summer concert series In the park once a week. ---PAGE BREAK--- Public Open House Summary 1 Public Open House Summary Wednesday, September 28, 2022 Jerome Public Library Comprehensive Plan 2023 ---PAGE BREAK--- Public Open House Summary 2 Open House Goals and Objectives The first public open house of the Jerome Comprehesive Plan process sought to achieve the following goals: • Collect feedback from residents on comprehensive plan goals, objectives, strategies, land use designations, community health initiatives, and overall themes. • Inform and keep residents updated on the comprehensive plan process. • Create an open and ongoing dialogue with residents, stakeholders and those interested in the outcomes of the comprehensive plan. Open House An open house took place at the Jerome Public Library on September 28, 2022, from 5-7 p.m. The purpose of the open house was to gather input from the public about city goals, existing conditions, and future initiatives and direction for Jerome. The meeting provided an opportunity to build awareness for the planning process and to build relationships between the community and the City of Jerome. No formal presentations were scheduled, and the public was invited to attend at any time during the 5-7 p.m. timeframe. Jerome City and J-U-B staff were available to answer questions and receive comments. The material presented was provided in English and Spanish. Tacos Villa was present outside the entrance to provide food for attendees and passers-by. Further outreach will be conducted by the city to reach a wider audience. Activities from the open house will be set up in the City Hall Utilities lobby, city staff will attend the next Planning and Zoning Commission meeting to collect input and will also present to the Community Schools Group. ---PAGE BREAK--- Public Open House Summary 3 Advance Stakeholder Outreach J-U-B and city staff used the following methods to notify the public about the open house: • Social media postings • Emails to key stakeholders and Community Advisory Committee (CAC) members with the request to share to their networks • Website postings • Utility mailer • City staff emails • Local radio announcements Open House Participants Fourteen people signed in at the open house. Attendees included individuals from local agency and government entities, elected representatives, CAC members, and other residents of the community. A copy of the sign in sheets is included in Appendix A. Meeting Configuration & Displays The meeting was designed to be interactive and inviting. The open house configuration allowed residents to drop by when it was convenient for them and to move through the displays at their own pace. Most displays were interactive activities, providing an opportunity for participants to give feedback and comments. Members of the project team wore nametags and stood at different activities to serve as subject matter experts when attendees had questions or needed more information. Posters and fliers were available in English and Spanish. Meeting participants moved from a welcome table and through the following activity stations: 1. Interactive goals and objectives posters: Participants reviewed preliminary draft goal, objective and strategies statements presented on large flip chart sheets in English and Spanish. Attendees were encouraged to comment and write their own goals, objectives, and strategies on sticky notes put directly on a poster. (APPENDIX B) 2. Land Use Map Commenting: Two Land Use Maps (City map with Area of Impact and Downtown map) were set up where participants could place numbered stickers on the maps to identify locations for commenting. Participants wrote the number from the sticker on a flip chart with details on their comment. (APPENDIX C) 3. Jerome Perceptions and Vision: Two flip charts were set up where attendees could choose from a list of words to describe how they perceive Jerome now and how they want to Jerome to be in the future. (APPENDIX D) 4. Community Health Activity: Participants were given 10 coins to distribute between three opportunities to promote community health, based on their preference and interest. The results of the coin distribution were: • Community Connectivity with 44 coins. • Recreational Opportunities with 40 coins. • Downtown Farmer’s Market with 35 coins. ---PAGE BREAK--- Public Open House Summary 4 Information Displays The display boards educated residents about the Jerome Comprehensive Plan and included: • Welcome board and “What is a Plan” • Timeline and “For more Information” • Existing Conditions summary • Area of City Impact Map • Area of City Impact Land Use Map • Downtown Land Use Map • Community Health Opportunities (Voting Activity) The team also provided an information take-away sheet that gave an overview of the comprehensive plan process and timeline. Other displays associated with activities, discussed above, included the following: • Goals, Objectives, and Strategies interactive posters. • Jerome word activity • Community Health Opportunities A copy of the displays, along with feedback from the activities, are included in Appendices B, C, and D. ---PAGE BREAK--- Public Open House Summary 5 Planning and Zoning Commission Input (October 25th) City of Jerome staff brought activities to the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Commission members that were not present at the open house gave feedback during the “discussion period” of the agenda slot. Feedback from City Hall Lobby Posters Sticker activity poster boards, stickers, and markers were hung up from 10/10/22-11/8/22. Jerome city staff created an instruction sheets in English and Spanish to get feedback from residents when they came to city hall to pay their utilities bills. A copy of display is included in Appendix E. Presentation to Community Schools group (October 11th) City staff presented the map and sticker activities to the Community Schools group. Jerome High School Government Class City staff visited two government classes (Mr. Waitley and Mr. Robinson). The students were taught about the Comprehensive Plan Process and then split up into groups to provide feedback on the word activity. Worksheet versions of the poster boards were created, and the students had about 10 minutes to share their thoughts. Full feedback of activities available in Appendices F and G. ---PAGE BREAK--- Public Open House Summary 6 Appendix A ---PAGE BREAK--- Public Open House Summary 7 Transportation Goal “Lack of a regional plan and transportation around Jerome to Twin is a major issue” “Additional North-South Connections to the 100 s Rd. S Fillmore? Davis?” “New Truck Route/ Not Main St” Strategy “For better flow in some areas use yield replacing stop signs” Schools “I think the CSI center planned is too small for the future. They need something 3x the size” “We need more sidewalks for kids to make it to safely Economic Development Goal “We need more support for minority business.” “Visitor center north side of Perrine Bridge” “Overlook/ Visitor Center county partnership?” Strategy “Wilson Lake near Hazelton” “Regional: Snake River Canyons Park. Diverse sites within 7,000 acres” Objective “Jerome’s identity? Our identity is changing and much more diverse.” Special Areas and Sites Goal “Create a Hispanic Cultural Center” Strategy “Idaho farm and ranch museum crossroads. Jerome Historical Society (depot). Minidoka NHS (County)” Objective “Locate downtown Hispanic emphasis?” “Integrate theater in CSI Building Appendix B ---PAGE BREAK--- Public Open House Summary 8 Community Health Goal “Work on promoting culturally appropriate preventative health program” “Mental Health – Resiliency – Education to Community” Strategy “Market that accepts SNAP” Mobile market? To rotate in different areas?” Community Design Goal “Allow for more culturally appropriate colors.” “Need to remove city ordinance that requires signs to be in English” Strategy “Develop a façade improvement program (Use BID?)” Natural Resources & Hazardous Ares “The Truck repair shop is a biohazard.” “Need to have a convenient recycle location paper, cardboard, metals.” Agriculture Strategy “Don’t take good farmland for homes. Use desert Land for homes.” Land Use “We need new commercial areas around the new subdivisions” “Yes- need full-service restaurant not just fast-food.” Housing Goal “We need non-subsidized economical rent. Many who ae undocumented don’t qualify for subsidized. Also, many people just above the threshold but can’t afford market value.” “Assistance to help property owners fix the sidewalks on their property.” “More low income housing for our ALICE population. Asset Limited Income Constrained Employed.” Objective “Collaborate with IHFA to support local resilience (infill) devt” Public Services Goal “Quality low cost housing for every level income.” ---PAGE BREAK--- Public Open House Summary 9 “Need a community resource center” “Community resource center that serves our demographics English/Spanish” Recreation Strategy “Ensure new subdivisions have open space, can include but not limited to school grounds. This could be closed in the future.” ---PAGE BREAK--- Public Open House Summary 10 ---PAGE BREAK--- Public Open House Summary 11 ---PAGE BREAK--- Public Open House Summary 12 ---PAGE BREAK--- Public Open House Summary 13 ---PAGE BREAK--- Public Open House Summary 14 ---PAGE BREAK--- Public Open House Summary 15 ---PAGE BREAK--- Public Open House Summary 16 City Map S. Lincoln Ave – Zoning (389) Through street to Nez Perce (390) Main St - Reduce Speed to 25 mph East to Stinker (392) ? – Blight. Redevelop property to better use. (401&421) W. Main St – Reduce Speed on West Main. It jumps 45-25-25 at Railroad, 35-25. Make it all 35 to RR then continue 25 through to RR East (381) North of W. Main st – Some alleys are not useful because people are parking in alleyways. (382) Traffic (422) Appendix C ---PAGE BREAK--- Public Open House Summary 17 Lincoln Ave – Traffic Signal (437) ---PAGE BREAK--- Public Open House Summary 18 Downtown Map W. Avenue A & S. Lincoln Ave – Blight. Redevelop property to better use. (401&421) Avenue C & Alder St- Blight/Junk/does not fit in downtown (391&404) E Main St & S. Buchanan St – Complimentary business to parks (411) Main St & S. Lincoln Ave – Too many vacant or underused buildings (412) ---PAGE BREAK--- Public Open House Summary 19 Appendix D ---PAGE BREAK--- Public Open House Summary 20 Appendix E ---PAGE BREAK--- Public Open House Summary 21 Map Activity 389 – zoning 390 – through street to Nez Perce 392 – reduce speed to 25mph east to Stinker Gas Station 401 – blight redevelop property to better use 421 – same comment 381 – reduce speed on West main. It jumps 45-35-25 at railroad. 382 – some alleys re not useful because people are parking in alleyways. 42 – traffic 391-404 – blight, junk, doesn’t fit in downtown PJ – need a community resource center. Main Lincoln turn lanes. 411 – complimentary business to parks 412 – too many vacant or underused buildings 437 – traffic signal I – smells bad 391 – truck repair shop!!! 4 – I Street and Lin need stop light! JK – needs repaved EC – commercial in north half of town DR – run down neighborhoods, gangs and drugs. SR – 1, 2, 3 Ave East traffic for racing (school) MW – road repaired bad AB – SW part of town help BC – feels unsafe for families to walk AP – run down, need more attention KL – need sidewalks on Birch between 4th & 10th. Students in road during winter due to snow build up. Appendix F ---PAGE BREAK--- Public Open House Summary 22 ---PAGE BREAK--- Public Open House Summary 23 Results from Public Open House, City Benefits Fair, City Hall Lobby, Community Schools Group, Jerome Government Class JEROME IS . . . Historic x5 Old x17 Rural x9 Rundown x12 L Family ikeable Rural – smell better! Agricultural x15 oriented x3 Peaceful x4 Friendly x4 No pride x2 Exciting Community x2 Picturesque Quiet x8 Abandoned x2 Busy Bleak x3 Home Dull x11 Crowded x4 Diverse x10 Fun Loud Ugly x3 Graffiti x2 Evolving Too suburban Lacking 24hr service Better than Burley Getting expensive x2 Ghetto x7 Small x8 Uninteresting Not fun x4 Sad x4 Depressing Dirty Strict Under paid Boring x9 Not much to do Lonely Dangerous x2 Lame x3 Split Simple x3 Cold Industrial Normal Growing x3 Increasing crime Medium sized Well known Limited activities Smells bad x3 Crap town No traffic Basic x2 Horrible x2 Cool Safe x2 Cows Calm Average Distanced Dumb Weird Empty x3 Desert x2 Not diverse Toxic Plain x2 Slow Spread out Culture Bland Poor education Poor High poverty No support for locals Drugs Violent No activiti Appendix G ---PAGE BREAK--- Public Open House Summary I WANT JEROME TO BE . . . Results from Public Open House, City Benefits Fair, City Hall Lobby, Community Schools Group, Jerome High Schools Government Class Picturesque x3 Family oriented x5 Diverse x7 Open space x2 Peaceful x5 Modern x9 Community Musical x6 Vibrant x5 Historic Safe x12 Affordable x9 Smell better x3 Agricultural Energized downtown Successful x2 Inclusive x4 Retail oriented Neighborly/kind x5 Quiet x2 More bike paths x2 Fun x15 Exciting x8 Bleak Drug free x2 Active x10 Walkable x5 Likeable Better housing x2 More community events x6 Better job opportunities x2 Rural x2 More traffic capacity Small business friendly Less progressive Cleaner x6 24-hour services Welcoming x2 Better than Twin Falls Pretty x2 Less populated More trees Bigger x5 Better roads Public transportation More local shops x3 Small x2 Renewed x3 Revitalize buildings More colorful x4 Enjoyable More united x2 Less dull x2 Proud place to live Ice skating rink Better restaurants x3 Fancy restaurants Decorative Better shopping Entertaining Same size Reliable Better community x2 Better education x2 Interesting Above average Rich More attractions x2 More appealing Movie theater Night life Social Less poverty Better support programs Non-discriminative Sports centered x2 Simple Spread out ---PAGE BREAK--- Natural Resources Do you generally believe that these objectives will conserve and protect the city's natural resources? 55 Responses: 1.69% Strongly Disagree 3.39% Disagree 18.64% Neautral 49.15% Agree 20.34% Strongly Agree Creation Date Please provide any additional comments about the Natural Environment 1/11/2023 22:19 1) The city doesn't care about agriculture. It cares about new business and 2) Clean air? When Jerome Cheeses, Commercial Creamery, and the WWTP are allowed to put off the odors they do isn't it more about not air? Water and soil the city does a great job at. 3) Police and fire do a great job of protecting the city residence. Improvement could be made in keeping an ambulance in town instead of doi numerous transports to other facilities. I believe public works has worked on the "natural" part with fixing the flooding issues we've had in the 1/15/2023 1:56 The traffic is so bad in town that we need more full stop lights. In the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s we had less population and four full traffic light need the traffic lights back again. Streets are torn up with lots of potholes, even at Main and Lincoln and by the post office. We are not totally agricultural. To bring in more people we need to have more cultural items or events, indoor and outdoor. Concerts not just in bars where mos people and children can't attend or at the outdoor fairgrounds . Clean up the weeds in front of businesses on the main streets. The residents are fined if they don't clean up the weeds. 1/23/2023 19:30 Because you keep expanding the city limits and taking more agriculture away from the future farmers. God is not making anymore land. Stop taking away the agricultural essence of Jerome. 1/25/2023 1:35 Unfortunately, there is a foul smell in every direction. Its either the waste treatment plant, that smells for miles down wind or, the dairy proces that stink up the area. As a taxpayer, I believe it is not right to have to smell something that is preventable. If it is cheaper for a processor to p fines for their stink, then to run their exhaust fans, then they need higher fines. I would like to be able to go out my back porch in the summer and smell the food I am grilling and not the cheap cheese smell (Commercial Creamery) or the rotten whey/other by products, from all of the processors. In all honesty, if I had smelled these things when I purchased my home, I would have bought elsewhere. And to be completely hon again, I will be looking to move out of town, when the housing market stabilizes. All to get away from the stink. 1/26/2023 18:10 Existing problems should be addressed before bringing on new and possibly improved new growth within the Area of City Impact considering going agricultural and industrial uses and that new development supports the agricultural industry. 1/26/2023 19:36 I like to see some strong initiative to grow our community in the right direction. 1/27/2023 17:59 Is our aquifer taken into consideration regarding new Construction, i.e. digging, blasting rocks, dumping of solvents, excess oils/fats? 1/30/2023 1:01 We need to protect what we already have. 1/31/2023 14:37 I think the City is doing a great job addressing these issues including the clean air, water, and soil. ---PAGE BREAK--- Built Environment Do you generally believe that these objectives will guide future development that will enhance our community? 56 Responses: 3.39% Strongly Disagree 3.39% Disagree 13.56% Neautral 50.85% Agree 23.73% Strongly Agree Creation Date Please provide any additional comments about the Built Environment 1/10/2023 21:32 Jerome has a lot of starter homes. We need to increase development of nicer homes as well to keep residents here instead of moving to 1/11/2023 22:19 1) Until liquor licenses become available in the city we will be stuck with the same old not worth eating out restaurants. Wouldn't a revitalizing downtown be like putting lipstick on a pig? There needs to be a ton of money put into the buildings themselves just so they can be safe. 2) No opinion 3) Affordable housing? Good one! 4) We already have the low income on the west side of town up to the new subdivision north of town. 3ish trailer parks and a little better hou 1/11/2023 22:37 We need two things to revitalize downtown. One is parking and the second is housing. Every downtown area that has been revitalized is bec 1/11/2023 23:14 Although variety is important, the type of structure is of equal importance. It would be nice to see affordable housing without it being in the f 1/12/2023 17:57 Affordable housing is important but also needs to be nicely maintained. 1/13/2023 4:01 The revitalization of historic downtown is the one im most eager to see addressed 1/15/2023 1:38 "Affordable housing" is a valid concern, a city must be careful not to create "slums" or project type of neighborhoods. 1/15/2023 1:56 Need more low income housing so there won't be people living in their vehicles! Yes, it does exist in Jerome. Quit tearing up our parks so the aren't useable. We used to have a bandshell in South Park for concerts and more picnic tables and a barbeque area. More trees needed for sh 1/23/2023 19:30 You keep allowing new buildings to come in with out utilizing our current empty buildings. Look at Main Street. 1/24/2023 15:55 No more trailer parks! 1/25/2023 1:35 one thing that would help with housing is, cleaning up the existing ones. If the owner has a yard/street car that hasn't moved in a year, it's tim put it somewhere else or get rid of it. It makes homes look run down. Obvious trash piled in yards needs to be mitigated. 1/26/2023 17:01 Jerome desperately needs a truck bypass around East Main Street, the sooner, the better. 1/26/2023 18:10 The owners of the existing downtown buildings and businesses need to be dealt with on cleaning up, repairing, and maintaining what is alrea falling apart and making our city look rundown and making the city feel filthy. 1/26/2023 19:36 I think affordable housing will be key to the future success in the City of Jerome. I would like to have more detail on how the City plans to dev affordable housing and keep it affordable. I would also like to see investment into existing properties with in the city. I am sure there are ways incentivize real estate owners to improve their properties. There are many dilapidated properties within the city limits which are tough to look 1/26/2023 23:43 It would be good to keep new residential construction out of the gateway zones. I think the commercial zone near the south interstate interch 1/27/2023 17:59 I think the building of 2-3 story apartment complexes would invite the overcrowding of too many people in a small space and lead to increase crime, pollution and decreased upkeep. 1/30/2023 1:01 It is nice seeing low-income housing coming in, yet we need to make sure that we done put them to where they make homeowners value goe down. ---PAGE BREAK--- Public Services Do you generally believe that these objectives will help maintain and improve public facilities and services? 55 Responses: 0% Strongly Disagree 0% Disagree 11.86% Neautral 49.15% Agree 32.2% Strongly Agree Creation Date Please provide any additional comments about Public Services 1/9/2023 22:41 Connectivity and walkability is very important. 1/11/2023 22:19 1) Basically rebuilding the new PD building is great! As far as moving the FD to the armory unless a total rebuild is done isn't that the same as lipstick on a pig? 2) North and South parks get used quite a bit. Do the other parks actually get used or are we wasting money? 3) Yes 4) Yes 5) Yes 1/11/2023 22:37 Include the new Boys and Girls Club that will be so important to our children's futures. 1/11/2023 23:14 These are great objectives, but there will also be a need to have more staff or at least a more efficient management of staff especially as it per to managing more open spaces. Connectivity is severely needed, but it is also very expensive. 1/12/2023 20:17 RE:#3 Also to support Heritage Academy Public Charter School (LEA 479) to provide safe and accessible educational opportunities. 1/13/2023 4:01 Nice and easily walkable areas for people would be nice 1/15/2023 1:56 The sidewalks are horrible or non-existent. Need some low priced public transportation especially for elderly and handicapped. 1/25/2023 1:35 the police station and the city hall fire station are run down, they deserve better. I have been past volunteer fire station in other towns that co millions, and no one is there full time. Is there not enough tax dollars from the milk processors/famers to help with this? If the police stopped more cars that don't follow the crosswalk laws, then I would say more would be better. I also see speed traps by the rec. center and not in the school zones. People speed through those all the time. 1/26/2023 18:10 What about Streets and Wastewater services? Our streets are falling apart and need to be addressed. Before we know it with all of the bonds taxes are going to be outrageously high. 1/26/2023 19:36 I think the city is major potential for growth. With growth will come increased taxes and fees for the City to carry out it's goals in connection t objectives above. All of these objectives stated are important to a strong community. 1/26/2023 23:43 Safe sidewalks and pedestrian routes should be a priority. 1/27/2023 17:59 We may need to increase the police force as well as the fire dept. Personnel, facilities and equipment . 1/30/2023 1:01 We have new restrooms at the ICCU Park that is always locked when it should be opened from 7am to 10pm during the summer days. Even if need to hire a security company to lock and unlock the restrooms. We need an indoor and outdoor entertainment for families to go and enjoy playing different games together. I think our schools are going in the right direction. The sidewalks are to be desired in my neighborhood you be enjoying the sidewalks then if you're not watching you can go tripping because the sidewalks are uneven by more than three inches. 1/31/2023 14:37 I would like to see the public service and more specifically the public safety departments (Fire and Police) grow to accommodate for more peo so that the City is known for its safety which allows for more growth of the parks and people to feel safe at them. ---PAGE BREAK--- Quality of Life Do you generally believe that these objectives will support a healthy, resilient, and welcoming community for all? 56 Responses: 1.69% Strongly Disagree 1.69% Disagree 23.73% Neautral 47.46% Agree 20.34% Strongly Agree Creation Date Please provide any additional comments about Quality of Life 1/11/2023 22:19 1) No opinion 2) Jerome is a dairy based community. That`s not going to change. There are no decent restaurants, places to buy clothing, and the air stinks a time. How do we expand and recruit new business with that? 3) No opinion 4) This would be GREAT! 5) Our hospital is a joke! Ambulances are always out of town on transports (don`t my tax dollars pay to have an ambulance IN the city?) Good the FD provides EMS. If we were able to retain mental health facilities in Jerome that would be good. Not like the one just north of the hospita 1/12/2023 17:57 More Entertainment options. Keep people spending their money in Jerome County. 1/15/2023 1:56 There is no place to watch movies indoors, roller skate for all ages of persons or inside to play pool or other games that is not a bar. Young pe like to play pool and other games as well. Should have a recreation center in town where people could even play board games or put togethe puzzles or sew quilts. A room to have birthday parties since the Legion Hall and the Library do not allow birthday parties for children. The hos is now only an immediate care facility if you cut your finger. No baby deliveries and no surgeries. Now we are made to go to Twin Falls or Goo or Burley for deliveries or surgeries. There's no public transportation for invalid or elderly people to get to the store or other appointments. 1/23/2023 19:30 Enhance business development to support in state and regional tourism opportunities. Haven't done anything to show for this Diversify the economic base of business and industries (through retention, expansion, and recruitment). while preserving Jerome's identity. You are losing Jerome's identity; we are agricultural; what does another subdivision bring in a field that the future farmer lost? 1/26/2023 18:10 What about a new City Hall? 1/26/2023 19:36 I am happy to see a plan to increase commerce and investment with in the city. I would like to see more detail on how the City plans on payin the development and entice private investment into these goals. 1/26/2023 23:43 I'd just as soon not put much effort into tourism interests. 1/27/2023 17:59 Something needs to be done about the awful smells wafting around the south lincoln corridor or there will be rare tourism or new businesses wanting to locate here. 1/27/2023 22:09 What is Jerome's identity? Seems like that should be defined in order to preserve it. For 5 "encourage" seems like the wrong word, perhaps "support", "be an active partner" "collaborate" - what does encouragement mean or do? What is the city's role in that? I think it should be clea The way #2 on natural environment is framed seems like it could work in this area as well. 1/30/2023 1:01 We need to make sure that we do things that will improve the community for all cultures because the way a lot of it is now it seems like it is fo only one cultural group. 1/31/2023 21:44 This is a tough line to walk and I'm not sure what the solution is. As a 20-something year old, buying my first house has become an outrageou undertaking due to the influx of citizens with much higher incomes from out-of-state. Being a welcoming community to outsiders has become detriment to the Quality of Life of those that grew up in Jerome and wish to remain in Jerome. What steps are being taken to accommodate t younger, lower-income demographic? Perhaps a more foundational question is this: is City growth so important that it must be pursued even means a lower Quality of Life for those that grew up here? You risk losing the identity and sense of community of the City by welcoming outsi while shunning the next generation. Now, I recognize that this isn't necessarily something that the City can control, but it is something that th should be mindful of. How much growth is there really if you're bring people in but not retaining those that are here? ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B Idaho Attorney General Checklist ---PAGE BREAK--- Office of the Attorney General Idaho Regulatory Takings Act Guidelines JANUARY 2023 RAÚL R. LABRADOR Attorney General 700 West Jefferson Street Boise, ID 83720-0010 www.ag.idaho.gov ---PAGE BREAK--- State of Idaho Office of Attorney General Raúl R. Labrador Dear Fellow Idahoans: Property rights are most effectively protected when government and citizens understand their respective rights. The purpose of this pamphlet is to facilitate that understanding and provide guidelines to governmental entities to help evaluate the impact of proposed regulatory or administrative actions on private property owners. One of the foundations of American democracy is the primacy of private property rights. The sanctity of private property ownership found expression in the 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, written by James Madison, and in Article I, § 14 of the Idaho Constitution. Both provisions ensure private property, whether it be land or intangible property rights, and will not be arbitrarily confiscated by any agency of government. Madison wrote in Federalist Paper 54, that “government is instituted no less for the protection of the property than of the persons of individuals.” As your Attorney General, I feel a responsibility to ensure that the Constitution and state laws protecting the property rights of Idahoans are enforced. I am committed to ensuring that every state agency, department and official complies with both the spirit and letter of these laws. In furtherance of this goal, the Idaho legislature enacted, and the Governor signed into law, Chapter 80, Title 67 of the Idaho Code. Originally passed in 1994, the law required the Attorney General to provide a checklist to assist state agencies in determining whether their administrative actions could be construed as a taking of private property. In 1995, the legislature amended the statute to apply to local units of government. Idaho Code § 67-6508 was also amended to ensure that planning and zoning land use policies do not violate private property ---PAGE BREAK--- rights. In 2003, Idaho legislators amended Chapter 80, Title 67 of the Idaho Code, allowing a property owner to request a regulatory takings analysis from a state agency or local governmental entity should their actions appear to conflict with private property rights. In 2016, the legislature amended the statute to clarify that a property owner’s right to request a regulatory takings analysis is discretionary and does not limit the property owner’s right to pursue other legal or equitable remedies. The 2016 amendment also clarified that the regulatory takings analysis applies to potential takings of both real and personal property. Combined, these laws assure Idaho property owners that their rights will be protected. The Office of the Attorney General has prepared this informational brochure for your use. If you have any questions, feel free to call your city or county prosecuting attorney. RAÚL R. LABRADOR Attorney General ---PAGE BREAK--- TABLE OF CONTENTS IDAHO REGULATORY TAKINGS LAWS 1 IDAHO CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS 1 IDAHO STATUTORY PROVISIONS 1 ADVISORY MEMORANDUM 5 GENERAL BACKGROUND PRINCIPLES 6 ATTORNEY GENERAL’S RECOMMENDED 7 ATTORNEY GENERAL’S CHECKLIST CRITERIA 8 APPENDIX A: SIGNIFICANT FEDERAL AND STATE CASES A-1 SUMMARIES OF SIGNIFICANT FEDERAL “TAKINGS” CASES A-1 SUMMARIES OF SIGNIFICANT IDAHO “TAKINGS” CASES A-9 APPENDIX B: REQUEST FOR REGULATORY TAKING B-1 APPENDIX C: REGULATORY TAKINGS CHECKLIST C-1 ---PAGE BREAK--- 1 Idaho Regulatory Takings Guidelines IDAHO REGULATORY TAKINGS LAWS Idaho Constitutional Provisions Article I, section 13. Guaranties in criminal actions and due process of law. In all criminal prosecutions, the party accused shall have the right to a speedy and public trial; to have the process of the court to compel the attendance of witnesses in his behalf, and to appear and defend in person and with counsel. No person shall be twice put in jeopardy for the same offense; nor be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself; nor be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. Article I, section 14. Right of eminent domain. The necessary use of lands for the construction of reservoirs or storage basins, for the purpose of irrigation, or for rights of way for the construction of canals, ditches, flumes or pipes, to convey water to the place of use for any useful, beneficial or necessary purpose, or for drainage; or for the drainage of mines, or the working thereof, by means of roads, railroads, tramways, cuts, tunnels, shafts, hoisting works, dumps, or other necessary means to their complete development, or any other use necessary to the complete development of the material resources of the state, or the preservation of the health of its inhabitants, is hereby declared to be a public use, and subject to the regulation and control of the state. Private property may be taken for public use, but not until a just compensation, to be ascertained in the manner prescribed by law, shall be paid therefor. Idaho Statutory Provisions 67-8001. Declaration of purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to establish an orderly, consistent review process that better enables state agencies and local governments to evaluate whether proposed regulatory or administrative actions may result in a taking of private property without due process of law. It is not the purpose of this chapter to expand or reduce the scope of private property protections provided in the state and federal constitutions. [67-8001, added 1994, ch. 116, sec. 1, p. 265; am. 1995, ch. 182, sec. 1, p. 668.] ---PAGE BREAK--- Idaho Regulatory Takings Act Guidelines 2 67-8002. Definitions. As used in this chapter: “Local government” means any city, county, taxing district or other political subdivision of state government with a governing body. “Private property” means all property protected by the constitution of the United States or the constitution of the state of Idaho. “State agency” means the state of Idaho and any officer, agency, board, commission, department or similar body of the executive branch of the state government. “Regulatory taking” means a regulatory or administrative action resulting in deprivation of private property that is the subject of such action, whether such deprivation is total or partial, permanent or temporary, in violation of the state or federal constitution. [67-8002, added 1994, ch. 116, sec. 1, p. 265; am. 1995, ch. 182, sec. 2, p. 668; am. 2003, ch. 141, sec. 1, p. 409.] 67-8003. Protection of private property. 1. The attorney general shall establish, by October 1, 1994, an orderly, consistent process, including a checklist, that better enables a state agency or local government to evaluate proposed regulatory or administrative actions to assure that such actions do not result in an unconstitutional taking of private property. The attorney general shall review and update the process at least on an annual basis to maintain consistency with changes in law. All state agencies and local governments shall follow the guidelines of the attorney general. 2. An owner of private property that is the subject of such action may submit a written request with the clerk or the agency or entity undertaking the regulatory or administrative action. Not more than twenty- eight (28) days after the final decision concerning the matter at issue, a state agency or local governmental entity shall prepare a written taking analysis concerning the action. Any regulatory taking analysis prepared hereto shall comply with the process set forth in this chapter, including use of the checklist developed by the attorney general pursuant to subsection of this section and shall be provided to the private property owner no longer than forty-two (42) days after the date of the filing of the request with the clerk or secretary of the agency whose action is questioned. A regulatory taking analysis prepared pursuant to this action shall be considered public information. 3. A governmental action is voidable if a written taking analysis is not prepared after a request has been made pursuant to this chapter. A ---PAGE BREAK--- Idaho Regulatory Takings Act Guidelines 3 private property owner, whose property is the subject of governmental action, affected by a governmental action without the preparation of a requested taking analysis as required by this section, may seek judicial determination of the validity of the governmental action by initiating a declaratory judgment action or other appropriate legal procedure. A suit seeking to invalidate a governmental action for noncompliance with subsection of this section must be filed in a district court in the county in which the private property owner’s affected private property is located. If the affected property is located in more than one county, the private property owner may file suit in any county in which the affected private property is located. 4. During the preparation of the taking analysis, any time limitation relevant to the regulatory or administrative actions shall be tolled. Such tolling shall cease when the taking analysis has been provided to the property owner. Both the request for a taking analysis and the taking analysis shall be part of the official record regarding the regulatory or administrative action. 5. A private property owner is not required to submit a request under this chapter. The decision by the private property owner not to submit a request under this chapter shall not prevent or prohibit the private property owner from seeking any legal or equitable remedy including, but not limited to, the payment of just compensation. [67-8003, added 1994, ch. 116, sec. 1, p. 265; am. 1995, ch. 182, sec. 3, p. 669; am. 2003, ch. 141, sec. 2, p. 409; am. 2016, ch. 225, sec. 1, p. 620.] 67-6508. Planning duties. It shall be the duty of the planning or planning and zoning commission to conduct a comprehensive planning process designed to prepare, implement, and review and update a comprehensive plan, hereafter referred to as the plan. The plan shall include all land within the jurisdiction of the governing board. The plan shall consider previous and existing conditions, trends, compatibility of land uses, desirable goals and objectives, or desirable future situations for each planning component. The plan with maps, charts, and reports shall be based on the following components as they may apply to land use regulations and actions unless the plan specifies reasons why a particular component is unneeded. Property Rights An analysis of provisions which may be necessary to ensure that land use policies, restrictions, conditions and fees do not violate private property rights, adversely impact property values or create unnecessary technical limitations on the use of property and analysis as prescribed under the declarations of purpose in chapter 80, title 67, Idaho Code. ---PAGE BREAK--- Idaho Regulatory Takings Act Guidelines 4 67-6523. Emergency ordinances and moratoriums. If a governing board finds that an imminent peril to the public health, safety, or welfare requires adoption of ordinances as required or authorized under this chapter, or adoption of a moratorium upon the issuance of selected classes of permits, or both, it shall state in writing its reasons for that finding. The governing board may then proceed without recommendation of a commission, upon any abbreviated notice of hearing that it finds practical, to adopt the ordinance or moratorium. An emergency ordinance or moratorium may be effective for a period of not longer than one hundred eighty-two (182) days. Restrictions established by an emergency ordinance or moratorium may not be imposed for consecutive periods. Further, an intervening period of not less than one year shall exist between an emergency ordinance or moratorium and reinstatement of the same. To sustain restrictions established by an emergency ordinance or moratorium beyond the one hundred eighty-two (182) day period, a governing board must adopt an interim or regular ordinance, following the notice and hearing procedures provided in section 67-6509, Idaho Code. [67-6523, added I.C., sec. 67-6523, as added by 1975, ch. 188, sec. 2, p. 515; am. 2003, ch. 142, sec. 6, p. 415.] 67-6524. Interim ordinances and moratoriums. If a governing board finds that a plan, a plan component, or an amendment to a plan is being prepared for its jurisdiction, it may adopt interim ordinances as required or authorized under this chapter, following the notice and hearing procedures provided in section 67-6509, Idaho Code. The governing board may also adopt an interim moratorium upon the issuance of selected classes of permits if, in addition to the foregoing, the governing board finds and states in writing that an imminent peril to the public health, safety, or welfare requires the adoption of an interim moratorium. An interim ordinance or moratorium shall state a definite period of time, not to exceed one calendar year, when it shall be in full force and effect. To sustain restrictions established by an interim ordinance or moratorium, a governing board must adopt a regular ordinance, following the notice and hearing procedures provided in section 67-6509, Idaho Code. [67-6524, added I.C., sec. 67-6524, as added by 1975, ch. 188, sec. 2, p. 515; am. 2003, ch. 142, sec. 7, p. 415.] ---PAGE BREAK--- Idaho Regulatory Takings Act Guidelines 5 ADVISORY MEMORANDUM STATE OF IDAHO ATTORNEY GENERAL’S ADVISORY MEMORANDUM FOR EVALUATION OF PROPOSED REGULATORY OR ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS TO IDENTIFY POTENTIAL TAKINGS OF PRIVATE PROPERTY The Office of the Attorney General is required to develop an orderly, consistent internal management process for state agencies and local governments to evaluate the effects of proposed regulatory or administrative actions on private property. Idaho Code § 67-8003(1). This is the Attorney General’s recommended process and advisory memorandum. It is not a formal Attorney General’s Opinion under Idaho Code § 67-1401(6), and should not be construed as an opinion by the Attorney General on whether a specific action constitutes a “taking.” Agencies shall use this process to identify those situations requiring further assessment by legal counsel. Appendix A contains a brief discussion of some of the important federal and state cases that set forth the elements of a “taking.” State agencies and local governments are required to use this procedure to evaluate the impact of proposed administrative or regulatory actions on private property. Idaho Code § 67-8003(1). Upon the written request of an owner of private property that is the subject of such action, a state agency or local governmental entity shall prepare a written taking analysis concerning the action. Appendix B contains a form that can be used to request a taking analysis. Appendix C contains a sample form for completing a regulatory taking analysis. The written request must be filed not more than twenty-eight (28) days after the final decision concerning the matter at issue and the completed takings analysis shall be provided to the property owner no longer than forty-two (42) days after the date of filing the request with the clerk or secretary of the agency whose action is questioned. Idaho law also provides that “a regulatory taking analysis shall be considered public information.” See Idaho Code § 67-8003(2). Should a state agency or local governmental entity not prepare a regulatory taking analysis following a written request, the property owner may seek judicial determination of validity of the action by initiating legal action. Such a claim must be filed in a district court in the county in which the private property owner’s affected private property is located. See Idaho Code § 67-8003(3). ---PAGE BREAK--- Idaho Regulatory Takings Act Guidelines 6 General Background Principles The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation. Article I, section 14 of the Idaho State Constitution provides in relevant part: Private property may be taken for public use, but not until a just compensation, to be ascertained in the manner prescribed by law, shall be paid therefor. Thus, under both the federal and state constitutions, private property may not be taken for public purposes without payment of just compensation. Courts have recognized three situations in which a taking requiring just compensation may occur: when a government action causes physical occupancy of property, when a government action causes physical invasion of property, and when government regulation effectively eliminates all economic value of private property. A “taking” may be permanent or temporary. The most easily recognized type of “taking” occurs when government physically occupies private property. This may happen when the government exercises its eminent domain authority to take private property for a public use. Property owners must be paid just compensation when the government acquires private property through eminent domain authority. The types of public uses that may be the subject of eminent domain authority under state law are identified in section 7-701, Idaho Code. Clearly, when the government seeks to use private property for a public building, a highway, a utility easement, or some other public purpose, it must compensate the property owner. Physical invasions of property, as distinguished from physical occupancies, may also give rise to a “taking” where the invasions are of a recurring or substantial nature. Examples of physical invasions include, among others, flooding and water-related intrusions and overflight or aviation easement intrusions. Like physical occupations or invasions, a regulation that affects the value, use, or transfer of property may also constitute a “taking,” but only if it “goes too far.” Although most land use regulation does not constitute a “taking” of property, the courts have recognized that when regulation divests an owner of the essential attributes of ownership, it amounts to a “taking” subject to compensation. ---PAGE BREAK--- Idaho Regulatory Takings Act Guidelines 7 Regulatory actions are harder to evaluate for “takings” because government may properly regulate or limit the use of private property, relying on its authority and responsibility to protect public health, safety and welfare. Accordingly, government may abate public nuisances, terminate illegal activity, and establish building codes, safety standards, or sanitary requirements generally without creating a compensatory “taking.” Government may also limit the use of property through land use planning, zoning ordinances, setback requirements, and environmental regulations. If a government regulation, however, destroys a fundamental property right – such as the right to possess, exclude others from, or dispose of property – it could constitute a compensable “taking.” Similarly, if a regulation imposes substantial and significant limitations on property use, there could be a “taking.” In assessing whether there has been such a limitation on property use as to constitute a “taking,” the court will consider both the purpose of the regulatory action and the degree to which it limits the owner’s property rights. An important factor in evaluating each action is the degree to which the action interferes with a property owner’s reasonable investment-backed development expectations; in other words, the owner’s expectations of the investment potential of the property and the impact of the regulation on those expectations. For instance, in determining whether a “taking” has occurred, a court might, among other things, weigh the regulation’s impact on vested development rights against the government’s interest in promulgating the regulation. If a regulation prohibits all economically viable or beneficial uses of property, there may be liability for just compensation unless government can demonstrate that laws of nuisance or other pre-existing limitations on the use of the property prohibit the proposed uses. If a court determines there has been a regulatory “taking,” the government has the option of either paying just compensation or withdrawing the regulatory limitation. If the regulation is withdrawn, the government may still be liable to the property owner for a temporary “taking” of the property. Attorney General’s Recommended Process 1. State agencies and local governments must use this evaluation process whenever the agency contemplates action that affects privately owned property. Each agency and local government must also use this process to assess the impacts of proposed regulations before the agency publishes the regulations for public comment. In Idaho, real property ---PAGE BREAK--- Idaho Regulatory Takings Act Guidelines 8 includes land, possessors’ rights to land, ditch and water rights, mining claims (lode and placer), and freestanding timber. Idaho Code 55-101 and 63-108. In addition, the right to continue to conduct a business may be a sufficient property interest to invoke the protections of the just compensation clause of the Idaho Constitution. For example, see Idaho Code 22-4501 to 22-4504. 2. Agencies and local governments must incorporate this evaluation process into their respective review processes. It is not a substitute, however, for that existing review procedure. Since the extent of the assessment necessarily depends on the type of agency or local government action and the specific nature of the impacts on private property, the agency or local government may tailor the extent and form of the assessment to the type of action contemplated. For example, in some types of actions, the assessment might focus on a specific piece of property. In others, it may be useful to consider the potential impacts on types of property or geographic areas. 3. Each agency and local government must review this advisory memorandum and recommended process with appropriate legal counsel to ensure that it reflects the specific agency or local government mission. It should be distributed to all decision makers and key staff. 4. Each agency and local government must use the following checklist to determine whether a proposed regulatory or administrative action should be reviewed by legal counsel. If there are any affirmative answers to any of the questions on the checklist, the proposed regulatory or administrative action must be reviewed in detail by staff and legal counsel. Since the legislature has specifically found the process is protected by the attorney-client privilege, each agency and local government can determine the extent of distribution and publication of reports developed as part of the recommended process. However, once the report is provided to anyone outside the executive or legislative branch or local governmental body, the privilege has been waived. Attorney General’s Checklist Criteria Agency or local government staff must use the following questions in reviewing the potential impact of a regulatory or administrative action on specific property. While these questions also provide a framework for evaluating the impact proposed regulations may have generally, takings questions normally arise in the context of specific affected property. The public review process used for evaluating proposed regulations is another tool that the agency or local government should use aggressively to safeguard rights of private property owners. If property is ---PAGE BREAK--- Idaho Regulatory Takings Act Guidelines 9 subject to regulatory jurisdiction of multiple governmental agencies, each agency or local government should be sensitive to the cumulative impacts of the various regulatory restrictions. Although a question may be answered affirmatively, it does not mean that there has been a “taking.” Rather, it means there could be a constitutional issue and that the proposed action should be carefully reviewed with legal counsel. 1. Does the Regulation or Action Result in a Permanent or Temporary Physical Occupation of Private Property? Regulation or action resulting in a permanent or temporary physical occupation of all or a portion of private property will generally constitute a “taking.” For example, a regulation that required landlords to allow the installation of cable television boxes in their apartments was found to constitute a “taking.” See Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S. 419, 102 S. Ct. 3164 (1982). The acquisition of private property through eminent domain authority is distinct from situations where a regulation results in the physical occupation of private property. The exercise of eminent domain authority is governed by the procedures in chapter 7, title 7, Idaho Code. Whenever a state or local unit of government, or a public utility, is negotiating to acquire private property under eminent domain, the condemning authority must provide the private property owner with a form summarizing the property owner’s rights. Section 7-711A, Idaho Code, identifies the required content for the advice of rights form. 2. Does the Regulation or Action Condition the Receipt of a Government Benefit on a Property Owner Dedicating a Portion of Property, Granting an Easement, or Expending Funds for Items Unrelated to the Impacts of the Proposed Action? A government entity may condition or regulate an action that it has the authority to prohibit altogether. However, there must be a nexus and rough proportionality between the government’s demands and the social costs of the proposed action. Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Mgmt. Dist., 570 U.S. 595, 133 S. Ct. 2586 (2013); Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 483 U.S. 825, 107 S. Ct. 3141 (1987); Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374, 114 S. Ct. 2309 (1994). The condition must be reasonably and specifically designed to prevent or compensate for adverse impacts of the proposed development. Likewise, the magnitude of the burden placed on the proposed development should be reasonably related to the adverse impacts created by the development. Where a condition to ---PAGE BREAK--- Idaho Regulatory Takings Act Guidelines 10 a land-use permit includes the dedication of property or grant of an easement, courts consider whether the exaction “has an essential nexus and rough proportionality” to the social impacts of the permitted action. Put another way, does the dedication or grant substantially advance the same state interest that would allow the government entity to deny the permit altogether? Lacking this connection, the dedication of property to public use would be just as unconstitutional as it would be if imposed outside the permit context. For example, the United States Supreme Court determined in Nollan v. California Coastal Comm’n, 483 U.S. 825, 107 S. Ct. 3141 (1987), that compelling an owner of waterfront property to grant a public easement across his property that does not substantially advance the public’s interest in beach access, constitutes a “taking.” Likewise, the United States Supreme Court held that compelling a property owner to leave a public green way, as opposed to a private one, did not substantially advance protection of a flood plain, and was a “taking.” Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374, 114 S. Ct. 2309 (1994). In Koontz, the United States Supreme Court applied the same reasoning to a monetary condition on a land-use permit. The Court held that the regulatory takings analysis applied to a water management district’s conditioning a land-use permit on a landowner funding offsite wetland mitigation. The Court held that such a condition would be an unconstitutional taking if the condition did not have an essential nexus and rough proportionality to the impacts of the proposed development. After Koontz, government entities need to consider monetary conditions for potential regulatory takings, not just conditions that involve an easement or dedication of property. 3. Does the Regulation Deprive the Owner of All Economically Viable Uses of the Property? If a regulation prohibits all economically viable or beneficial uses of the land, it will likely constitute a “taking.” In this situation, the agency can avoid liability for just compensation only if it can demonstrate that the proposed uses are prohibited by the laws of nuisance or other preexisting limitations on the use of the property. See Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003, 112 S. Ct. 2886 (1992). Unlike 1 and 2 above, it is important to analyze the regulation’s impact on the property as a whole, and not just the impact on a portion of the property. See Murr v. Wisconsin, U.S. ___,137 S. Ct. 1933 (2017). It is also important to assess whether there is any profitable use of the remaining property available. See Florida Rock Industries, Inc. v. United States, 18 F.3d 1560 (Fed. Cir. 1994). The remaining use does not ---PAGE BREAK--- Idaho Regulatory Takings Act Guidelines 11 necessarily have to be the owner’s planned use, a prior use or the highest and best use of the property. One factor in this assessment is the degree to which the regulatory action interferes with a property owner’s reasonable investment-backed development expectations. Carefully review regulations requiring that all of a particular parcel of land be left substantially in its natural state. A prohibition of all economically viable uses of the property is vulnerable to a takings challenge. In some situations, however, there may be pre-existing limitations on the use of property that could insulate the government from takings liability. 4. Does the Regulation Have a Significant Impact on the Landowner’s Economic Interest? Carefully review regulations that have a significant impact on the owner’s economic interest. Courts will often compare the value of property before and after the impact of the challenged regulation. Although a reduction in property value alone may not be a “taking,” a severe reduction in property value often indicates a reduction or elimination of reasonably profitable uses. Another economic factor courts will consider is the degree to which the challenged regulation impacts any development rights of the owner. As with 3, above, these economic factors are normally applied to the property as a whole. A moratorium as a planning tool may be used pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-6523—Emergency Ordinances and Moratoriums (written findings of imminent peril to public health, safety, or welfare; may not be longer than 182 days); and Idaho Code § 67-6524—Interim Ordinances and Moratoriums (written findings of imminent peril to public health, safety, or welfare; the ordinance must state a definite period of time for the moratorium). Absence of the written findings may prove fatal to a determination of the reasonableness of the government action. The Idaho moratorium provisions appear to be consistent with the United States Supreme Court’s interpretation of moratorium as a planning tool as well. In Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 535 U.S. 302, 122 S. Ct. 1465 (2002), the Court held that planning moratoriums may be effective land use planning tools. Generally, moratoriums in excess of one year should be viewed with skepticism, but should be considered as one factor in the determination of whether a taking has occurred. An essential element pursuant to Idaho law is the issuance of written findings in conjunction with the issuance of moratoriums. See Idaho Code 67-6523 to 67-6524. ---PAGE BREAK--- Idaho Regulatory Takings Act Guidelines 12 5. Does the Regulation Deny a Fundamental Attribute of Ownership? Regulations that deny the landowner a fundamental attribute of ownership including the right to possess, exclude others and dispose of all or a portion of the property are potential takings. The United States Supreme Court held that requiring a public easement for recreational purposes where the harm to be prevented was to the flood plain was a “taking.” In finding this to be a “taking,” the Court stated: The city has never said why a public greenway, as opposed to a private one, was required in the interest of flood control. The difference to the petitioner, of course, is the loss of her ability to exclude others. . . . [T]his right to exclude others is “one of the most essential sticks in the bundle of rights that are commonly characterized as property.” Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374, 114 S. Ct. 2309 (1994). The United States Supreme Court has also held that barring the inheritance (an essential attribute of ownership) of certain interests in land held by individual members of an Indian tribe constituted a “taking.” Hodel v. Irving, 481 U.S. 704, 107 S. Ct. 2076 (1987). More recently, the United States Supreme Court held that a regulation requiring producers to reserve a certain percentage of their raisin crop for government use constituted a per se physical taking of property. Horne v. Dep’t of Agric., U.S. 135 S. Ct. 2419 (2015). There, the Court reasoned that “[r]aisin growers subject to the reserve requirement…lose the entire bundle of property rights in the appropriated raisins—the rights to possess, use and dispose of them.” Regulatory actions which closely resemble, or have the effects of a physical invasion or occupation of property, are more likely to be found to be takings. The greater the deprivation of use, the greater the likelihood that a “taking” will be found. ---PAGE BREAK--- A-1 Idaho Regulatory Takings Act Guidelines APPENDIX A: SIGNIFICANT FEDERAL AND STATE CASES Summaries of Significant Federal “Takings” Cases Knick v. Twp. of Scott, Penn., U.S. 139 S. Ct. 2162 (2019). A property owner brought a Fifth Amendment Takings claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in federal court. The property owner had not brought an inverse condemnation claim under state law, and prior to the federal action, the township withdrew the violation notice and stayed enforcement of the ordinance. The United States Supreme Court overruled Williamson Cnty. Reg’l Planning Comm’n v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U.S. 172, 105 S. Ct. 3108 (1985), and held that a property owner may bring a takings claim under § 1983 regardless of whether the property owner had previously sought compensation through procedures available under state law. The Court concluded that a takings claim under § 1983 becomes ripe as soon as a government takes a person’s property for public use without paying for it. Murr v. Wisconsin, U.S. 137 S. Ct. 1933 (2017). The United States Supreme Court held that a regulation preventing the use of adjacent lots on the Lower St. Croix River as separate building sites unless each lot had at least one acre of land suitable for development did not effect a regulatory taking. The regulation at issue had been adopted by the Wisconsin State Department of Natural Resources in response to the Lower St. Croix River being designated a Wild and Scenic River under federal law. Due to that designation, Wisconsin was required to develop a management and development program for the river area. The Court concluded that for purposes of a regulatory takings analysis, the two adjacent lots must be evaluated as a single parcel because: the state regulation in effect merged the two lots; the physical characteristics, location, and relationship between the two lots made the lots significantly more valuable together than when considered separately; and the characteristics of the lots made it reasonable to expect that the range of their potential uses separately may be limited. The Court concluded that the property owner had not been deprived of all economically beneficial use of the property because the lots together could still be used for residential purposes, including larger residential improvements. The Court also concluded that the property owner had not suffered a takings under the Penn Central test because the ---PAGE BREAK--- Idaho Regulatory Takings Act Guidelines Appendix A: Significant Federal and State Cases A-2 property owner could not have reasonably expected to develop the lots separately because the regulation predated their acquisition of both lots; the appraisal of the property showed the value of the properties decreased by less than ten percent; and the regulation was reasonable as part of a coordinated effort by federal, state, and local governments to protect a designated Wild and Scenic River. Horne v. Dep’t of Agric., U.S. 135 S. Ct. 2419 (2015). The United States Supreme Court considered a regulatory takings challenge to the United States Department of Agriculture’s California Raisin Marketing Order which required producers to reserve a percentage of their raisin crop in certain years free of charge for the government to dispose of in ways it determines are necessary to maintain an orderly market. The Court held that the same standard should apply regardless of whether the property at issue was personal or real property. The Court then concluded that the reserve requirement imposed is a physical taking not a regulatory taking of personal property as the reserve requirement removes from the producer the entire bundle of property rights in the reserved raisins. Additionally, because the reserve rule effectuated a per se physical taking, the fact that the producers received the value of the reserved raisins if sold by the government and that the producers could choose to plant different crops did not weigh against the finding of a taking. Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Mgmt. Dist., 570 U.S. 595, 133 S. Ct. 2586 (2013). The United States Supreme Court considered a regulatory takings challenge to a water management district’s decision to require a landowner to fund off-site wetland mitigation as a condition of a land-use permit. The Court reversed the Florida Supreme Court’s holding that the regulatory takings analysis did not apply to the water management district’s decision because the condition at issue was a demand for money. The Court held that the constitutional takings analysis applied to monetary exaction on land-use permits. Additionally, the Court held that the constitutional takings analysis applied equally whether a permit was granted with an allegedly unconstitutional condition or denied because the applicant failed to agree to the allegedly unconstitutional condition. The Court emphasized that while a government entity may choose whether and how a permit applicant is required to mitigate the impacts of a proposed development, it may not leverage its interests in mitigation to pursue governmental interests that lack an essential nexus and rough proportionality to those impacts. ---PAGE BREAK--- Idaho Regulatory Takings Act Guidelines Appendix A: Significant Federal and State Cases A-3 Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc. v. Fla. Dept. of Env. Prot., 130 S. Ct. 2592, 177 L. Ed. 2d 184 (2010). The United States Supreme Court considered a judicial taking challenge to a decision by the Florida Supreme Court. A Florida state agency granted a permit under state law to restore a beach. The beach was eroded by hurricanes, and the permit would have allowed the restoration of the beach by adding sand to the beach. A non-profit corporation comprised of beachfront landowners challenged the agency decision in state court arguing the decision eliminated the littoral rights of landowners to receive accretions to their property and the right to have contact of their property with water remain intact. The Florida Supreme Court reversed a lower court and held the state law authorizing the beach restoration did not unconstitutionally deprive littoral rights. The non-profit corporation claimed the Florida Supreme Court’s decision itself effectuated a taking of its members’ littoral rights. The United States Supreme Court unanimously held that the Florida Supreme Court did not take private property without just compensation in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Court recognized two property law principles under Florida law: 1. The State owned the seabed and was allowed to fill in its own seabed; and 2. When an avulsion exposes land seaward of littoral property that had previously been submerged, the land belongs to the State even if it interrupts the littoral owner’s contact with water. Therefore, when the State filled in previously submerged land for beach restoration, the State treated it as an avulsion for purposes of ownership. The non-profit members’ right to accretions was therefore subordinate to the State’s right to fill in its land. The United States Supreme Court did not reach a majority on the judicial taking question. Kelo, et al. v. City of New London, Connecticut, et al., 545 U.S. 469, 125 S. Ct. 2655 (2005). The United States Supreme Court held that a city’s exercise of eminent domain power in furtherance of its economic development plan satisfied the Constitution’s Fifth Amendment requirement that a taking be for public use. To effectuate its plan, the city invoked a state statute that specifically authorized the use of eminent domain to promote economic development. The Court observed that promoting economic development ---PAGE BREAK--- Idaho Regulatory Takings Act Guidelines Appendix A: Significant Federal and State Cases A-4 is a traditional and long accepted governmental function that serves a public purpose. Although the condemned land would not be open in its entirety to actual use by the general public, the purpose of its taking satisfied the constitutional requirement that a taking be for public use. In response to the Kelo decision, the Fifty-eighth Idaho Legislature enacted House Bill No. 555 adding a new section, 7-701A, to the Idaho Code that specifically prohibits the use of eminent domain power to promote or effectuate economic development except where allowed by existing statute. Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc., 544 U.S. 528, 125 S.Ct. 2074 (2005). The United State Supreme Court reversed and remanded a decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals concluding that a Hawaii statute limiting rent that oil companies could charge dealers leasing company-owned service stations was an unconstitutional taking. In so holding the United States Supreme Court abrogated prior decisions that held that a government regulation of private property that does not substantially advance legitimate state interests effects a taking. The Court concluded that the “substantially advances” test was not an appropriate regulatory takings test because it reveals nothing about the magnitude or character of the burden a particular regulation imposes upon private property rights or provide any information about how any regulatory burden is distributed among property owners. The Court was also concerned that such an inquiry invited courts to substitute their predictive judgments for those of elected legislatures and expert agencies. The United States Supreme Court did, however, indicate that the determination of whether a dedication of property substantially advances a government interest may be appropriate in situations where a government entity includes a dedication of property as a condition of approving a permit. In that situation the question is not whether the exaction substantially advances some legitimate state interest, but whether the exaction substantially advances the same interest that would allow the government entity to deny the permit altogether. Lacking this connection, the dedication of property would be just as unconstitutional as it would be if imposed outside the permit context. Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc., et al. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, et al., 535 U.S. 302, 122 S. Ct. 1465 (2002). The United States Supreme Court held that imposition of a moratorium lasting thirty-two (32) months restricting development within ---PAGE BREAK--- Idaho Regulatory Takings Act Guidelines Appendix A: Significant Federal and State Cases A-5 the Lake Tahoe Basin was not a compensable taking. The Court noted the importance of Lake Tahoe in that it is one of only three lakes with such transparency of water due in large part to the absence of nitrogen and phosphorous which in turn results in a lack of algae. The Court also noted the rapid development of the Lake Tahoe area. In noting this development, the Court recognized the uniqueness of the area, and the importance of planning tools to the preservation of Lake Tahoe. The Court further noted that the geographic dimensions of the property affected, as well as the term in years, must be considered when determining whether a taking has occurred. Finally, the interest in protecting the decisional process is stronger when the process is applied to regional planning as opposed to a single parcel of land. Noteworthy is the extensive process that was followed by the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency along with the uniqueness of the Lake Tahoe region. The balance of interests favored the use of moratorium. Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374, 114 S. Ct. 2309 (1994). In this case, the United States Supreme Court held that reconditioning an issuance of a permit on the dedication of bond to public use violated the Fifth Amendment. The city council conditioned Dolan’s permit to expand her store and pave her parking lot upon her agreement to dedicate land for a public greenway and a pedestrian/bicycle pathway. The expressed purpose for the public greenway requirement was to protect the flood plain. The pedestrian/bicycle path was intended to relieve traffic congestion. The United States Supreme Court held that the city had to make “some sort of individualized determination that the required dedication [was] related both in nature and extent to the impact of the proposed development” in order to justify the requirements and avoid a “takings” claim. In this case, the Court held that the city had not done so. It held that the public or private character of the greenway would have no impact on the flood plain and that the city had not shown that Dolan’s customers would use the pedestrian/bicycle path to relieve congestion. Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003, 112 S. Ct. 2886 (1992). Lucas was a challenge to the 1988 South Carolina Beach Front Management Act. The stated purpose of this Act was to protect life and property by creating a storm barrier, providing habitat for endangered species and to serve as a tourism industry. To accomplish the stated purposes, the Act prohibited or severely limited development within certain critical areas of the state’s beach-dune system. ---PAGE BREAK--- Idaho Regulatory Takings Act Guidelines Appendix A: Significant Federal and State Cases A-6 Before the Act’s passage, David Lucas bought two South Carolina beach front lots intending to develop them. As required by the Act, the South Carolina Coastal Council drew a “baseline” that prevented Mr. Lucas from developing his beach front property. Mr. Lucas sued the council, alleging its actions under the Act constituted a “taking” requiring compensation under the Fifth Amendment. The trial court agreed, awarding him $1,232,387.50. A divided South Carolina Supreme Court reversed, however, holding that the Act was within the scope of the nuisance exception. The United States Supreme Court reversed. Justice Scalia’s majority opinion held that a regulation which “denies all economically beneficial or productive use of land” will be a “taking” unless the government can show that the proposed uses of the property are prohibited by nuisance laws or other pre-existing limitations on the use of property. This opinion noted that such total takings will be “relatively rare” and the usual balancing approach for determining takings will apply in the majority of cases. Hodel v. Irving, 481 U.S. 704, 107 S. Ct. 2076 (1987). Where the character of the government regulation destroys “one of the most essential” rights of ownership the right to devise property, especially to one’s family this is an unconstitutional “taking” without just compensation. In 1889, portions of Sioux Indian reservation land were “allotted” by Congress to individual tribal members (held in trust by the United States). Allotted parcels could be willed to the heirs of the original allottees. As time passed, the original 160-acre allotments became fractionated, sometimes into very small parcels. Good land often lay fallow, amidst great poverty, because of the difficulties in managing property held in this manner. In 1983, Congress passed legislation that provided that any undivided fractional interest that represented less than two percent of the tract’s acreage and which earned less than $100 in the preceding year would revert to the tribe. Under the statute, tribal members who lost property as a result of this action would receive no compensation. Tribal members challenged the statute. The United States Supreme Court held this was an unconstitutional “taking” for which compensation was required. ---PAGE BREAK--- Idaho Regulatory Takings Act Guidelines Appendix A: Significant Federal and State Cases A-7 Nollan v. California Coastal Comm’n, 483 U.S. 825, 107 S. Ct. 3141 (1987). The United States Supreme Court held that it was an unconstitutional “taking” to condition the issuance of a permit to land owners on the grant of an easement to the public to use their beach. James and Marilyn Nollan, the prospective purchasers of a beach front lot in California, sought a permit to tear down a bungalow on the property and replace it with a larger house. The property lay between two public beaches. The Nollans were granted a permit, subject to the condition that they allow the public an easement to pass up and down their beach. On appeal, the United States Supreme Court held that such a permit condition is only valid if it substantially advances legitimate state interests. Since there was no indication that the Nollans’ house plans interfered in any way with the public’s ability to walk up and down the beach, there was no “nexus” between any public interest that might be harmed by the construction of the house and the permit condition. Lacking this connection, the required easement was just as unconstitutional as it would be if imposed outside the permit context. (The Court noted that protecting views from the highway by limiting the size of the structure or banning fences may have been lawful.) Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S. 419, 102 S. Ct. 3164 (1982). The United States Supreme Court ruled that a statute that required landlords to allow the installation of cable television on their property was unconstitutional. The Court concluded that “a permanent physical occupation authorized by government is a ‘taking’ without regard to the public interest that it may serve.” The Court reasoned that an owner suffers a special kind of injury when a “stranger” invades and occupies the owner’s property, and that such an occupation is “qualitatively more severe” than a regulation on the use of the property. The installation in question required only a small amount of space to attach equipment and wires on the roof and outside walls of the building. Penn Central Transp. Co. v. City of New York, 438 U.S. 104, 98 S. Ct. 2646 (1978). The United States Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of a New York City historic preservation ordinance under which the city had declared Grand Central Station a “landmark.” In response to Penn Central’s takings claim, the United States Supreme Court noted that there ---PAGE BREAK--- Idaho Regulatory Takings Act Guidelines Appendix A: Significant Federal and State Cases A-8 was a valid public purpose to the city ordinance, and that Penn Central could still make a reasonable return on its investment by retaining the station as it was. Penn Central argued that the landmark ordinance would deny it the value of its “preexisting air rights” to build above the terminal. The Court found that it must consider the impact of the ordinance upon the property as a whole, not just upon “air rights.” Further, under the ordinance in question, these rights were transferable to other lots, so they might not be lost. Florida Rock Industries, Inc. v. United States, 18 F.3d 1560 (Fed. Cir. 1994) cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1109, 115 S. Ct. 898 (1995) (Florida Rock IV). This is a Clean Water Act case. There have been several court decisions, and the most recent one affirms the holding that in the absence of a public nuisance, economic impact alone may be determinative of whether a regulatory “taking” under the Fifth Amendment has occurred. If the regulation categorically prohibits all economically beneficial use of land, destroying its economic value for private ownership, and the use prohibited is not a public nuisance, the court held that regulation has the effect equivalent to permanent physical occupation, and there is, without more, a compensable “taking.” In 1972, a mining company purchased 1,560 acres of wetlands (formerly part of the Everglades, but now excluded by road, canal and levee) for the purposes of mining limestone. In 1980, the company applied to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for a “section 404” permit for the dredging and filling involved in the mining operation. The Corps of Engineers denied the application, primarily for the purpose of protecting the wetlands. While several courts had previously held that the United States had unconstitutionally taken the mining company’s property, and required the government to compensate the company, the Federal Circuit ruled that the evidence did not support a finding that the permit denial prohibited all economically beneficial use of the land or destroyed its value. On remand, the Court of Federal Claims held that permit denial resulted in a compensable partial regulatory taking of property and that a “partial taking” occurs when a regulation singles out a few property owners to bear burdens, while benefits are spread widely across the community. Florida Rock Industries, Inc. v. United States, 45 Fed.Cl. 21, 49 ERC 1292 (1999). ---PAGE BREAK--- Idaho Regulatory Takings Act Guidelines Appendix A: Significant Federal and State Cases A-9 Summaries of Significant Idaho “Takings” Cases REGULATORY TAKINGS UPDATES N. Idaho Bldg. Contractors Assoc. v. City of Hayden, 164 Idaho 530, 432 P. 3d 976 (2018). Plaintiff brought a claim alleging that a city’s sewer connection/capitalization fee was an unlawful regulatory taking. The Idaho Supreme Court held that the plaintiffs were not required to file a notice of claim under Idaho Code 50-219 and 6-906 to maintain a claim against a city based upon the Takings Clause in the United States Constitution. The Court also concluded that the plaintiff’s federal taking claim was not barred by failing to file a written request for a regulatory takings analysis under Idaho Code § 67-8003. The Court concluded that when the plaintiff filed the complaint the Regulatory Takings Act only applied to owners of real property. The Court’s reasoning that Idaho Code § 67-8003 only applies to real property is likely no longer applicable since the Idaho Legislature passed Senate Bill No. 1325, amending Idaho Code § 67-8003 to change the term “real property” to “private property.” 2016 Idaho Sess. Laws ch. 225, sec. 1, p. 620. Hehr v. City of McCall, 155 Idaho 92, 305 P.3d 536 (2013). The Idaho Supreme Court held that the developer’s claims for inverse condemnation under state law were barred under Idaho Code 50-219 and 6-906 because the developer failed to file a notice of claim with the city within the required 180 day period. The Court also held that the developer’s federal takings claims were not ripe because the contribution was made by voluntarily agreement, not as a final decision of the city regarding the application of the ordinances to the property at issue. Additionally the Court found that the developer failed to exhaust its remedies because it did not request a regulatory takings analysis under Idaho Code § 67-8003. The Court’s reasoning that the federal takings claim was not ripe is likely no longer applicable after the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Knick v. Twp. of Scott, Penn., U.S. 139 S. Ct. 2162 (2019). Additionally, in 2016, the Idaho Legislature passed Senate Bill No. 1325, amending Idaho Code § 67-8003 to specifically provide that a private property owner is not required to submit a written request for a regulatory takings analysis as a prerequisite to seeking other legal and ---PAGE BREAK--- Idaho Regulatory Takings Act Guidelines Appendix A: Significant Federal and State Cases A-10 equitable remedies including payment of just compensation. 2016 Idaho Sess. Laws ch. 225, sec. 1, p. 620. Alpine Vill. Co. v. City of McCall, 154 Idaho 930, 303 P.3d 617 (2013). The Idaho Supreme Court held that the developers claims for inverse condemnation under state law were barred under Idaho Code 50-219 and 6-906 because the developer failed to file a notice of claim with the city within the required 180 day period. The Idaho Supreme Court also upheld the dismissal of the developer’s federal claims for unlawful taking concluding that the claims were not ripe because the city had made no final decision as to the application of the ordinance to the development and because the developer had not requested a regulatory takings analysis under Idaho Code § 67-8003. The Court’s reasoning that the federal takings claim was not ripe is likely no longer applicable after the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Knick v. Twp. Of Scott, Penn., U.S. 139 S. Ct. 2162 (2019). Additionally, in 2016, the Idaho Legislature passed Senate Bill No. 1325, amending Idaho Code § 67-8003 to specifically provide that a private property owner is not required to submit a written request for a regulatory takings analysis as a prerequisite to seeking other legal and equitable remedies including payment of just compensation. 2016 Idaho Sess. Laws ch. 225, sec. 1, p. 620. Buckskin Props., Inc v. Valley Cty., 154 Idaho 486, 300 P.3d 18 (2013). The Idaho Supreme Court considered a regulatory takings challenge brought by a developer challenging conditions contained in an agreement between the county and the developer that the developer would contribute capital to road impact mitigation for its proposed development. The Idaho Supreme Court ruled that a governmental entity had authority to enter into a voluntary agreement with a developer for the developer to fund and construct capital improvements that will facilitate the developer’s development plans. The Court also concluded that there was no taking because the capital contribution condition had been initially proposed by the developer in its application and the developer did not object to the inclusion of the condition by seeking judicial review of the county’s permitting decision under the Local Land Use Planning Act or by requesting a regulatory takings analysis. ---PAGE BREAK--- Idaho Regulatory Takings Act Guidelines Appendix A: Significant Federal and State Cases A-11 The Court’s reasoning that there was no takings claim because the developer did not timely request a regulatory takings analysis is no longer applicable. In 2016, the Idaho Legislature passed Senate Bill No. 1325, amending Idaho Code § 67-8003 to specifically provide that a private property owner is not required to submit a written request for a regulatory takings analysis as a prerequisite to seeking other legal and equitable remedies including payment of just compensation. 2016 Idaho Sess. Laws ch. 225, sec. 1, p. 620. City of Coeur d’Alene v. Simpson, 142 Idaho 839, 136 P.3d 310 (2006). The Idaho Supreme Court ruled that regulatory taking claims were ripe, even though the landowners had not sought a variance under the ordinance. A regulatory takings claim accrues when the burden of the ordinance on the landowners’ property is known, not upon the enactment of an ordinance. Generally, if an ordinance provides a procedure for a variance, the landowner must seek the variance before filing a regulatory takings claim. The Court explained that landowners’ failure to seek a variance was not fatal here because the city did not have discretion under the ordinances to grant a variance. The requirement for a variance was not fatal because a variance in this situation could not have provided the property owners with relief under the stated purposes of the city’s ordinances. The Court also considered the valuation of property when the basis for regulatory takings claims is that an ordinance deprives the property of all economically productive or beneficial uses, or alternatively, that the value of the property is diminished by city ordinances. The Court explained that the task is to compare the value of the property taken with the value that remains in the property. This process requires identifying the property to be valued as realistically and fairly as possible in light of the regulatory scheme and factual circumstances. In this case, the property in question was divided during the course of the litigation, and the parcels owned by separate entities. The lower court concluded that the transfer of the property had no effect on valuation and dismissed the regulatory takings claims. The Idaho Supreme Court reversed and remanded, concluding that, based on the current record, it was improper for the district court to disregard the separate ownership of the parcels for the purpose of determining the property taken and the value of the property. ---PAGE BREAK--- Idaho Regulatory Takings Act Guidelines Appendix A: Significant Federal and State Cases A-12 Inama v. Boise County, 138 Idaho 324, 63 P.3d 450 (2003). Boise County was not obligated to compensate the plaintiff for the loss of his front end loader because the Idaho Disaster Preparedness Act of 1975 created immunity for a subdivision of the state engaged in disaster relief activities following a declaration of disaster emergency. First, the Idaho Supreme Court rejects the plaintiff’s argument that the scope of immunity granted by Idaho Code § 46-1017 is narrowed by Idaho Code § 46-1012(3), which provides for compensation for property “only if the property was commandeered or otherwise used in coping with a disaster emergency and its use or destruction was ordered by the governor or his representative.” The Court held that the statute was “clear and unambiguous,” and since Idaho Code § 46-1017 does not specifically limit the scope of immunity to damages compensable under Idaho Code § 46- 1012, Idaho Code § 46-1017 grants Boise County immunity from damages. Second, the Court held that compensation is not allowed for inverse condemnation under art. I, sec. 14 of the Idaho Constitution because of the immunity granted under Idaho Code § 46-1017. McCuskey v. Canyon County Comm’rs, 128 Idaho 213, 912 P.2d 100 (1996). The Idaho Supreme Court held that when a regulation of private property that amounts to a taking is later invalidated, the subsequent invalidation converts the taking to a “temporary” taking. In such cases, the government must pay the landowner for the value of the use of the land during the period that the invalid regulation was in effect. The Idaho Supreme Court also discussed the application of the statute of limitations to takings and inverse condemnation actions. The Court ruled that a taking occurs as of the time that the full extent of the plaintiff’s loss of use and enjoyment of the property becomes apparent. As a result, the Court ruled that the statute of limitations begins to run when the plaintiff’s loss of use and enjoyment of the property first becomes apparent, even if the full extent of damages cannot be assessed until a later date. Sprenger Grubb & Assoc. v. Hailey, 127 Idaho 576, 903 P.2d 741 (1995). The Idaho Supreme Court held that the City of Hailey’s decision to rezone a parcel of land from “Business” to “Limited Business” was not a taking because some “residual value” remained in the property. The rezone reduced the value of the plaintiff’s property from $3.3 million to ---PAGE BREAK--- Idaho Regulatory Takings Act Guidelines Appendix A: Significant Federal and State Cases A-13 $2.5 million. In addition, the Idaho Supreme Court held that the rezone did not violate the “proportionality” standard set out in Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374, 114 S. Ct. 2309 (1994), because none of the plaintiff’s property was dedicated to a public use. Brown v. City of Twin Falls, 124 Idaho 39, 855 P.2d 876 (1993). The Idaho Supreme Court held that the placement of road median barriers by city and state, which restrained business traffic flow to a shopping center, was exercise of police power and did not amount to compensable taking, since landowners had no property right in the way traffic flowed on streets abutting their property. Hayden Pines Water Co. v. Idaho Public Utilities Commission, 122 Idaho 356, 834 P.2d 873 (1992). Without extensive discussion, the Idaho Supreme Court held that an Idaho Public Utilities Commission order requiring a water company to perform certain accounting functions (at an estimated cost of $15,000 per year), without considering those costs in the rate proceeding, was an unconstitutional “taking.” Coeur d’Alene Garbage Service v. Coeur d’Alene, 114 Idaho 588, 759 P.2d 879 (1988). The just compensation clause of the Idaho State Constitution art. I, sec. 14, requires compensation be paid by a city, where that city either by annexation or by contract prevents a company from continuing service to its customers. The Idaho Supreme Court held that a company has a property interest protected by the Idaho Constitution in continuing to conduct business. In this case, a garbage company already operating in the city and providing garbage service to customers lost the right to continue its business when the city entered into an exclusive garbage collection contract with another company, permitting only that company to operate within the annexed areas. Ada County v. Henry, 105 Idaho 263, 668 P.2d 994 (1983). The Idaho Supreme Court held that property owners had no “takings” claim where the owners were aware of zoning restrictions before they purchased the property, even though the zoning ordinance reduced their property’s value. ---PAGE BREAK--- Idaho Regulatory Takings Act Guidelines Appendix A: Significant Federal and State Cases A-14 Nettleton v. Higginson, 98 Idaho 87, 558 P.2d 1048 (1977). In times of shortage, a call on water that allows water right holders with junior priority dates to use water while senior holders of beneficial use water rights are not allowed to use water, is not a taking protected by the just compensation clause of the Idaho Constitution. Dawson Enterprises, Inc. v. Blaine County, 98 Idaho 506, 567 P.2d 1257 (1977). A zoning ordinance that deprives an owner of the highest and best use of his land is not, absent more, a “taking.” There are two methods for finding a zoning ordinance unconstitutional. First, it may be shown that it is not “substantially related to the public health, safety, or welfare.” Second, it may be shown that the “zoning ordinance precludes the use of . . . property for any reasonable purpose.” State ex rel. Andrus v. Click, 97 Idaho 791, 554 P.2d 969 (1976). The Idaho Supreme Court held that where statutory or regulatory provisions are reasonably related to an enactment’s legitimate purpose, provisions regulating property uses are within the legitimate police powers of the state and are not a “taking” of private property without compensation. In this case, the Court upheld the permit, bonding, and restoration requirements of the Dredge and Placer Mining Protection Act. It found that they were reasonably related to the enactment’s purpose in protecting state lands and watercourses from pollution and destruction and in preserving these resources for the enjoyment and benefit of all people. Boise Redevelopment Agency v. Yick Kong Corporation, 94 Idaho 876, 499 P.2d 575 (1972). The Idaho Supreme Court held that the Idaho Constitution grants a power of eminent domain much broader than that granted in most other state constitutions. According to the Idaho Supreme Court, even completely private irrigation and mining businesses can use eminent domain. It held that the state, both through the power of eminent domain and the police powers, may protect the public from disease, crime, and “blight and ugliness.” ---PAGE BREAK--- Idaho Regulatory Takings Act Guidelines Appendix A: Significant Federal and State Cases A-15 Unity Light & Power Co. v. City of Burley, 92 Idaho 499, 445 P.2d 720 (1968). Once a supplier of a service lawfully enters into an area to provide that service, annexation by a city does not authorize an ouster of that supplier from that area without condemnation. Johnston v. Boise City, 87 Idaho 44, 390 P.2d 291 (1964). Where government exercises its authority under its police powers and the exercise is reasonable and not arbitrary, a harmful effect to private property resulting from that exercise alone is insufficient to justify an action for damages. The court must weigh the relative interests of the public and that of the individual to arrive at a just balance in order that government will not be unduly restricted in the proper exercise of its functions for the public good, while at the same time giving due effect to the policy of the eminent domain clause of ensuring the individual against an unreasonable loss occasioned by the exercise of governmental power. Roark v. City of Caldwell, 87 Idaho 557, 394 P.2d 641 (1964). The Idaho Supreme Court held that certain height restrictions, which limited use of private land adjacent to an airport to agricultural uses or to single family dwelling units, was an unconstitutional “taking” if no compensation was provided. The Court held that a landowner’s property right in the reasonable airspace above his land cannot be taken for public use without reasonable compensation. Mabe v. State, 83 Idaho 222, 360 P.2d 799 (1961). The Idaho Supreme Court held that destroying or impairing a property owner’s right to business access to his or her property constitutes a “taking” of property whether accompanied by actual occupation of or confiscation of the property. Anderson v. Cummings, 81 Idaho 327, 340 P.2d 1111 (1959). The Idaho Supreme Court recognized individual water rights are real property rights protected from “taking” without compensation. Hughes v. State, 80 Idaho 286, 328 P.2d 397 (1958). The Idaho Supreme Court held that private property of all classifications is protected under the Idaho Constitution just compensation clause. ---PAGE BREAK--- Idaho Regulatory Takings Act Guidelines Appendix A: Significant Federal and State Cases A-16 Robison v. Hotel & Restaurant Employees Local #782, 35 Idaho 418, 207 P. 132 (1922). The Idaho Supreme Court held that the right to conduct a business is a property interest protected under the Idaho Constitution just compensation clause. ---PAGE BREAK--- B-1 Idaho Regulatory Takings Act Guidelines APPENDIX B: REQUEST FOR REGULATORY TAKING ANALYSIS Recommended Form for: REQUEST FOR TAKING ANALYSIS Name: Address: City: Zip Code: County: 1. Background Information This form satisfies the written request requirement for a regulatory taking analysis from a state agency or local governmental entity pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-8003(2). The owner of the property subject to the government action must file this with the clerk or secretary of the agency whose act is questioned within twenty-eight (28) days of the final decision concerning the matter at issue. A regulatory taking analysis is considered public information. Such an analysis is to be performed in accordance with the checklist established by the Attorney General of the State of Idaho pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-8003(1). See page 8 of the Idaho Regulatory Takings Act Guidelines for a description of the checklist. 2. Description of Property a. Location of Property: b. Legal Description of Property: 3. Description of Act in Question a. Date Property was Affected: b. Description of How Property was Affected: c. Regulation or Act in Question: d. Are You the Only Affected Property Owner?  Yes  No e. State Agency or Local Governmental Entity Affecting Property: f. Address of Agency or Local Governmental Entity: ---PAGE BREAK--- C-1 Idaho Regulatory Takings Act Guidelines APPENDIX C: REGULATORY TAKINGS CHECKLIST State of Idaho Office of the Attorney General Regulatory Takings Checklist Yes No 1 Does the Regulation or Action Result in Either a Permanent or Temporary Physical Occupation of Private Property? 2 Does the Regulation or Action Require a Property Owner to Either Dedicate a Portion of Property or to Grant an Easement? If Yes, is There a “Nexus and Rough Proportionality” Between the Property that the Government Demands and the Impacts of the Property Use Being Regulated? 3 Does the Regulation or Action Require the Owner to Expend Funds to Address Items That Lack a “Rough Proportionality” to the Social Costs of the Proposed Use of Property? 4 Does the Regulation Deprive the Owner of All Economically Viable Uses of the Property? 5 Does the Regulation Have a Significant Impact on the Landowner’s Economic Interest? 6 Does the Regulation Deny a Fundamental Attribute of Ownership? Remember: Although a question may be answered affirmatively, it does not mean that there has been a “taking.” Rather, it means there could be a constitutional issue and that proposed action should be carefully reviewed with legal counsel. This checklist should be included with a requested analysis pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-8003(2). ---PAGE BREAK--- v Appendix C Existing Conditions Summary/References ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Jerome Comprehensive Plan – Data Review Topics Demographic US Census Bureau Population data & percent change: Cities-Pop-2010-2020.xlsx (live.com) US Census Bureau Demographic data table: demographics-2010-2019.xlsx (live.com) US Census Reporter Demographic web map: Jerome, ID - Profile data - Census Reporter Item Years Source Area population Previous 5 years U.S. Census Bureau (2020). American Community Survey 5-year estimates. Retrieved from Census Reporter Profile page for Jerome, ID 11,824 Population growth projections Out to 2040 Census Bureau Age (Median) Current See population, above 30.1 Sex Current See population, above 50% male Race and Ethnicity Current See population, above 60% White 37% Hispanic Median Household Income Previous 10 years See population, above $47,389 Employment, Education and Economic Development ID Dep. of Labor: Jerome County Labor Force & Economic Profile - JeromeProfile.pdf (idaho.gov) ID Dep. of Labor: 2021 annual average labor force data - 2021_LaborForce.xls (live.com) US Bureau of Labor Statistics - Occupational Employment and Wages in Twin Falls — May 2020 : Western Information Office : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (bls.gov) Item Years Source Workforce participation Current Census Bureau County – 95% Unemployment Current Census Bureau, Idaho Department of Labor County - 4.2% Employment by industry sector Current Idaho Department of Labor Farmers, Ranchers, Ag General Operations Managers ---PAGE BREAK--- Housing Item Years Source Owner occupied Current Census Bureau, Idaho Department of Commerce 65.4% Renter occupied Current Census Bureau, Idaho Department of Commerce 34.5% Average household size Current U.S. Census Bureau (2020). American Community Survey 5-year estimates. Retrieved from Census Reporter Profile page for Jerome, ID 3 persons Average median assessed home value Previous 5 years Data USA $273,100; Idaho $291,700 Number of vacant housing units Current Census Bureau, HUD 217 units Transportation Item Years Source Vehicle ownership Current Data USA Average number of vehicles: 2 cars Bike routes Current City of Jerome 5.2 miles Pedestrian crossings Current City of Jerome Sidewalk coverage and map Current City of Jerome 6.8 miles Area trails and pathways Current City of Jerome Average Commute Time Current Data USA 17.5 minutes Walk score Current Jerome ID - Walk Score 73 – Very walkable Carpenters Sales Representatives Major Employers Current Department of Labor Area Colleges and Technical Programs Current College of Southern ID – Jerome Center; Aletheia Christian College Facilities, school transportation (safe routes, bus etc.) Current City of Jerome HOME I Jerome SD #261 (jeromeschooldistrict.org) Reference Transportation MP policies, areas of concern, & proposed improvements ---PAGE BREAK--- City Character Item Years Source Parks Current City of Jerome Parks and Recreation Jerome maintains over 30 acres of parks. Infrastructure, Geography, and Land Use Item Years Source Land uses as a % of total land Past 5 years City of Jerome Residential 39.8% Industrial 24.6% Commercial 18.2% Public 10% Mixed Use 5.9% Unknown 1.5% Agriculture (Soil Types) Current City of Jerome Bahem silt loam, 1 to 4 percent slopes Barrymore silt loam, 1 to 4 percent slopes Barrymore-Starbuck complex, 1 to 4 percent slopes Harsan fine sandy loam, 1 to 4 percent slopes Kecko fine sandy loam, 1 to 4 percent slopes Paulville-Idow complex, 1 to 4 percent slopes Rad silt loam, 2 to 4 percent slopes Shano silt loam, 1 to 4 percent slopes Sluka silt loam, 1 to 4 percent slopes Taunton sandy loam, 1 to 4 percent slopes Natural Hazard (floodways, seismic) Current Jerome County No Flood Zones No Nitrate Priority Areas Canals Current City of Jerome, IDWR ---PAGE BREAK--- Irrigation Current City of Jerome, IDWR; Irrigation Organizations I Irrigation Organizations I GIS Data at IDWR (arcgis.com) North Side Canal Co. LTD. Telecommunication infrastructure (cell, wireless, fiber optics, cable) Current City of Jerome, Idaho Power CenturyLink, Sparklight, Satellite Power transmission infrastructure Current City of Jerome, Idaho Power Health IDHW reports - Reports and Statistics I Idaho Department of Health and Welfare United Way South Central Idaho programs - Our Impact & Programs I United Way of South Central Idaho (unitedwayscid.org) Item Years Source Rates of Chronic Diseases (Diabetes, Heart Disease, Asthma, etc.) Current United Way South Central Idaho, Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, South Central District Health, Diabetes: 8% adults told they had diabetes (south central public health) Asthma: 7.6% adults told they had asthma Heart Disease: 3.7% adults have been told they had coronary heart disease Rates of preventative care doctor visits Current United Way, Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, South Central District Health, Obesity Current United Way, Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, South Central District Health, 30.8% of adults reported to be obese Nutrition Current United Way, Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, South Central District Health, Physical activity Current United Way, Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, South Central District Health, 24.4% adults are estimated to not participate in physical activity outside of work Specific Geospatial Data (may be represented in above sections) Item Years Source Irrigation districts Current City of Jerome Canals Current City of Jerome Parcels Current City of Jerome Parks and public spaces Current City of Jerome Trails Current City of Jerome Land ownership Current City of Jerome ---PAGE BREAK--- Sidewalks Current City of Jerome Bike lanes/routes Current City of Jerome Roads Current City of Jerome Railroads Current City of Jerome Public art and historic landmarks/Special Areas or Sites Current City of Jerome City Limits/ACI Boundary Current City of Jerome References (Existing Conditions) City of Jerome, 2021. U.S. Census Bureau, 2017-2021 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. City of Jerome, 2020. U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census. Jerome County, Idaho. 2017 Census of Agriculture