Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem #1 Comprehensive Plan0.- INN't-Ild. 0 UNIIIIIIIIII Acknowledgements Chubbuck City Council and Mayor Kevin England - Mayor Melanie Evans Dan Heiner Roger Hernandez Norman Reece Chubbuck Personnel Joey Bowers Devin Hillam Don Matson Sue Parsons Steering Committee Land Use and Development Commission Skyler Beebe Jason Mendenhall — Chairman Jonathan Balls Mike Schwartz -Vice-Chair Wes Bell Boyd Byrd Mark Blanscett Carrie Holm © Brett Hiltbrand Shantay Bloxham MAPPING Bryson Smith Joe Borich Adam Thayer Tristan Bourquin Ric Boyce Kelly Cammack Jamie Carlson Melodie Halstead Deb Hemmert Maggie Mann Nidia Palmer Tyler Poole RaeLyn Price Kandi Rudd Kia Shaw Stewart Ward Amy Wuest Sincere thanks to Devin Hiiiam for the photographs that appear throughout this document. J -J -B FAMILY OF COMPANIES - THE l (JUB GATEWAY © LANGOON MAPPING GROUP INC. J -U-9 ENGINEERS. INC. TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................................................................2 A. PROCESS................................................................................................................................................................2 B. RELATED PLANS..................................................................................................................................................3 C. PUBLIC HEARINGS.............................................................................................................................................3 D. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT....................................................................................................................................5 E. ONLINE PUBLIC SURVEYS...............................................................................................................................5 F. PUBLIC OPEN HOUSE.......................................................................................................................................5 G. PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS...........................................................................................................................6 H. PLAN ORGANIZATION.....................................................................................................................................6 II. UNDERSTANDING CHUBBUCK.........................................................................................................................9 A. SETTING.................................................................................................................................................................9 B. HISTORY.............................................................................................................................................................. 10 C. CHUBBUCK NOW............................................................................................................................................ 10 D. CHUBBUCK 2045............................................................................................................................................. 11 III. HEALTHY CONNECTIONS................................................................................................................................ 14 A. CHUBBUCK NOW............................................................................................................................................ 14 B. CHUBBUCK 2045............................................................................................................................................. 20 C. GOAL, OBJECTIVES AND STRATEGIES.....................................................................................................21 IV. LIVABLE SPACES................................................................................................................................................... 24 A. CHUBBUCK NOW............................................................................................................................................24 B. CHUBBUCK 2045............................................................................................................................................. 26 C. GOAL, OBJECTIVES AND STRATEGIES.....................................................................................................30 V. ECONOMIC AND EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES............................................................................... 33 A. CHUBBUCK NOW............................................................................................................................................33 B. CHUBBUCK 2045............................................................................................................................................. 35 C. GOAL, OBJECTIVES AND STRATEGIES.....................................................................................................36 VI. ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY............................................................................................................................ 38 A. CHUBBUCK NOW............................................................................................................................................38 B. CHUBBUCK 2045.............................................................................................................................................40 C. GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND STRATEGIES..................................................................................................42 VII. COMMUNITY SERVICES AND SAFETY........................................................................................................45 A. CHUBBUCK NOW............................................................................................................................................45 LUDC/SC Review— Preliminary Draft Chubbuck 2045: Comprehensive Plan iii B. CHUBBUCK 2045.............................................................................................................................................46 C. GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND STRATEGIES..................................................................................................49 VIII. GUIDING CHUBBUCK........................................................................................................................................ 51 IX. SELECTED REFERENCES....................................................................................................................................63 ACRONYMS AOI Area of Impact BCIFH Blue Cross of Idaho Foundation for Health BLM Bureau of Land Management BTPO Bannock Transportation Planning Organization CC City Council CDA Chubbuck Development Authority FLUM Future Land Use Map ITD Idaho Transportation Department LHTAC Local Highway Technical Assistance Council LU DC Land Use and Development Commission NRPA National Recreation and Parks Association PCSD Pocatello Chubbuck School District PUD Planned Unit Development RFP Request for Proposal SC Steering Committee SDOH Social Determinants of Health STAR Southern Idaho Special Tactics and Response ULI Urban Land Institute USDA United States Department of Agriculture LUDC/SC Review— Preliminary Draft Chubbuck 2045: Comprehensive Plan iv Ilk I. INTRODUCTION Chubbuck's Comprehensive Plan was last updated in 2002 as a part of updates that were prepared for Portneuf River Valley communities who participate in the Our Valley — Our Vision regional plan. Chubbuck's Future Land Use Maps and Urban Service Area maps were updated and adopted by Chubbuck in 2010. With the age of the existing Comprehensive Plan and increases in population growth in Chubbuck, a Comprehensive Plan update was needed to support Chubbuck through this decade and on to 2045. A. PROCESS A Comprehensive Plan is a living document which guides a city as it grows and adapts to new times. A Comprehensive Plan supports the work of a city's planning and zoning personnel, land use and development commission and the City Council by providing goals, objectives, strategies and policies. The Plan sets the tone for the type of community the city wants to become. Idaho State Code Section 67-6508 requires that all cities and counties prepare and maintain a current comprehensive plan considering the existing and future trends associated with 17 different planning components (refer to Section I.H) The City of Chubbuck began a four-phase planning process, initiating a consultant contract in July 2023 to update the City's Comprehensive Plan by spring 2025. Plan Initiation 1 JUL 2023 -OCT 2023 Plan Development 3SEP 2024 -JAN 2025 3 4 Phase Phase 2 Plan Evaluation NOV 2023 -AUG 2024 Plan Adoption 4 FEB 2025 -MAY 2025 LUDC/SC Review — Preliminary Draft Chubbuck 2045: Comprehensive Plan 2 B. RELATED PLANS Planning and governance of the City of Chubbuck has always been closely tied to Bannock County and the City of Pocatello. The City of Chubbuck has been an active participant in planning for the Portneuf River Valley, accommodating spikes in growth and addressing dips in economic prosperity. This plan frequently references planning efforts of Bannock County, City of Pocatello and the Metropolitan Planning Organization, due to Chubbuck's social, economic, and geographical setting. There are several related plans and programs that are considered in the local comprehensive planning process, including those presented in Table 1.1. Bannock County has undertaken a comprehensive plan update during the period in which this plan was prepared. In addition, the Idaho legislature amended the process for Area of Impact designation during their 2024 session. Further coordination with Bannock County is anticipated to align planning efforts. C. PUBLIC HEARINGS On (Insert Date) the draft comprehensive plan was presented to the Land Use and Development Commission (LUDC) at a public hearing. On (Insert Date) the draft comprehensive plan was presented to the City Council, with a recommendation from the LUDC. The Chubbuck Comprehensive Plan was adopted by the City Council on (Insert Date) by Resolution (Insert number). LUDC/SC Review — Preliminary Draft Chubbuck 2045: Comprehensive Plan Table 1.1. Existing Plans POCATELLO 2040 Pocatello Comprehensive Plan COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 2040 Pocatello is the largest city in Bannock County and neighbor to Chubbuck; this plan discusses collaboration between Pocatello and Chubbuck. The future goals, strategies and objectives developed by Pocatello are relevant to Chubbuck. Chubbuck Strategic Plan FY 2019 -2024 Strategic plan for the FY2019-2024, this plan analyzed the strengths and areas that require improvement as stated by the community members who participated in the surveys. This is a living document to be a9ootPla�wlve.uorR@raucuj JY reassessed before budget periods end. CTTYOFUrIIBIiUCK S ItA l -(;W P] _1\ Bannock County Community Action Plan, 2022 BANNOCK COUNTY This plan was created to develop an updated assessment on health COMMUNITY ACTION PLAN equity in Bannock County. This assessment consisted of a review of the existing health service landscape and an assessment of information gathered in the spring of 2022. Our Valley — Our Vision, Chubbuck Comprehensive Plan, 2002 �•°°=�.rosP Since 1995 a regional planning effort known as Our Valley, Our Vision ' (Bannock County, Cities of Pocatello and Chubbuck, Idaho Department of Transportation and School District #25) characterizes the cooperative Our Vall Our Vlsiun efforts present in the Portneuf Valley. Includes updated FLUM and Service Area Maps, 2010 Chubbuck Park Master Plan 2018 _ Provides inventory and existing conditions for Chubbuck's parks and -N recreational areas. This plan provides insight to parks within Chubbuck and showcases successful park planning from 2019 to present day. LUDC/SC Review — Preliminary Draft Chubbuck 2045: Comprehensive Plan D. 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 Steering Committee to ensure that various interests throughout the City would guide the planning process. The Steering Committee met at key points throughout the process and received communication between meetings. The City of Chubbuck's priority was to involve the public from the beginning of the planning process to ensure that residents had an opportunity to voice their concerns and vision for the future of Chubbuck. The following outreach methods served to both educate the public on the elements of comprehensive planning and provide opportunities for communication with the public. Specific methods used to achieve meaningful engagement included: E. ONLINE PUBLIC SURVEYS Two surveys were opened to the public: one in April 2024 to establish community issues and concerns and the second in January 2025 to review a Future Land Use Map and potential plan objectives and strategies. Each survey sought to gather information from individuals throughout the community. The survey results are presented in Appendix A. F. PUBLIC OPEN HOUSE On June 23, 2024, an open house was held at Chubbuck City Hall. 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 interested parties. While only 13 people attended the in-person event, the City also posted all activities in a series of post -Open House online requests. These 3 mini surveys were successful in receiving 488 responses. LUDC/SC Review — Preliminary Draft Chubbuck 2045: Comprehensive Plan G. 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(a)). This document does include recommendations regarding land use policies and programs, therefore should regulations, restrictions or conditions result in conflict with property owners during the implementation of this plan, the Office of the Attorney General's checklist for private property rights should be consulted (refer to Appendix B). The Land Use and Development Commission should undertake a periodic review of this Comprehensive Plan and all applicable land use regulations to protect private property rights and continue to maintain the community's health, safety, and welfare. H. PLAN ORGANIZATION The Chubbuck Comprehensive Plan is organized in 8 chapters. Each chapter considers plan components required by Idaho State Statute (refer to TABLE 1.2). Within chapters 2 through 7, existing conditions are summarized (Chubbuck Now), future trends are discussed (Chubbuck 2045), and a goal, objectives and strategies are presented. A complete Existing Conditions report is provided as Appendix C. Introduction (Chapter 1) explains the general process that was undertaken to update the Plan and this section details how the plan meets Idaho Code requirements for Comprehensive Plans. Understanding Chubbuck (Chapter 2) discusses the history of Chubbuck, the geographical setting, and current demographic data as well as population projections. The Vision statement (developed by the Steering Committee) is also identified in this chapter. Healthy Connections (Chapter 3) discusses recreation facilities in the community, transportation issues including roadways and pedestrian and bicycle connections, and health- related connections such as access to healthcare and access to food. Livable Spaces (Chapter 4) includes the Future Land Use Map identifying land uses that are compatible with Chubbuck's vision for future growth. Community design and housing are also addressed in this chapter. Economic and Educational Opportunity (Chapter 5) discusses school facilities and economic development plans and initiatives in Chubbuck. Environmental Quality (Chapter 6) addresses natural resources, special areas and site, hazardous areas and agriculture and how elements of the Chubbuck Plan and the Future Land Use Map can be used to protect these areas. Community Services and Safety (Chapter 7) discusses public services, facilities and utilities, including safety considerations for the community. Guiding Chubbuck (Chapter 8) presents a summary of strategies and priorities along with the identification of community partners who will be essential in the implementation of the plan. Selected References (Chapter 9) provides citations of documents and sources used in this plan. LUDC/SC Review — Preliminary Draft Chubbuck 2045: Comprehensive Plan 6 TABLE 1.2 Chubbuck Plan Chapters Chapter 1: Introduction Chapter 2: Understanding Chubbuck Chapter 3: Healthy Connections Chapter 4: Livable Spaces Chapter 5: Economic and Educational Opportunity Chapter 6: Environmental Quality Chapter 7: Community Service and Safety Chapter 8: Guiding Chubbuck Chapter 9: Selected References Property Rights Population Transportation, Recreation, Public Airports Land Use, Housing, Community Design School Facilities, Economic Development Natural Resources, Agriculture Hazardous Areas, Special Areas or Sites, Public Services, Facilities, & Utilities, National Interest Electric Transmission Implementation LUDC/SC Review — Preliminary Draft Chubbuck 2045: Comprehensive Plan 7 �f til _ - I JERSTAN L rl4UBBUCI 1.1 I JERSTAN L rl4UBBUCI II. UNDERSTANDING CHUBBUCK A. SETTING Chubbuck is an incorporated community of approximately 16,000 people located in Bannock County in southeast Idaho. The City of Chubbuck is located immediately north of the City of Pocatello. The Portneuf River flows west of the City, the Fort Hall reservation lies to the north, and the Pocatello Range rises to the east. Chubbuck is transected by both 1-15 and 1-86 and is approximately seven -square miles in size. Idaho's capital city, Boise, is located approximately 230 miles to the west of Chubbuck and Utah's capital city, Salt Lake City, is located approximately 170 miles to the south. F • 'Ammon S B O N N E V I L L E -i COU N T Y Firth 91, B I N G HSA M oo�(live�� C O U N T Y �a WN.A.A RockfordBlac€oot Fort Hall Fort Hall' Reservation CRATERS IF71-IE J 'r Chubbuck MOON -. CheSterf/eld � NATIONAL PRESERVE 34'' ReSEIVoir Pocatello 1 American Falls Inkom er C A R I B O U BAN NOCK �� COUNTY t C O U N T Y T POW ER COUNTY o Bancroft s PORTNEUF WMA - .. Crystal McCammon 37 30. Lava '.Rockland Hot C A S S I A COUNTY Arimo Springs e.iue , "r ■®= LUDC/SC Review — Preliminary Draft Chubbuck 2045: Comprehensive Plan 9 B. HISTORY Shoshone and Bannock people have lived in southeastern Idaho for hundreds of years, benefitting from the abundance of wildlife, including fish from streams and rivers, and vegetation including camas bulb. As hunters and gatherers, they travelled during the spring and summer seasons, collecting foods for use during the winter months. (Shoshone -Bannock Tribes) In 1805 the Lewis and Clark expedition crossed Idaho and fur trappers soon followed. In 1834, Nathaniel Wyeth established a permanent settlement Fort Hall north of where Chubbuck now sits. As trading gave way to stocking provisions for Oregon Trail immigrants, Fort Hall adapted as a supply station. (City of Pocatello) The Shoshone and Bannock entered into peace treaties in 1863 and 1868 known today as the Fort Bridger Treaty. The Fort Hall Reservation was allotted for various tribes under the treaty agreement along with 1.8 million acres, although that was diminished over time. The lands where Chubbuck and Pocatello were eventually developed, was separated from the Shoshone Bannock under the Dawes Severalty (or General Allotment) Act of 1887. Between 1888 and 1902, the Shoshone Bannock were pressured to cede away nearly a third of the reservation to the growing town of Pocatello. (Larsen, N.) With the arrival of rail in the late 1800s the landscape in and around Pocatello changed dramatically. The railroad car siding located where Chubbuck is today, was known as "beet run siding" as sugar beets were a major crop in the area. A senior conductor for the Oregon Short Line by the name of Walter Elmer Chubbuck was in charge of loading the railroad cars at "beet run siding". The railroad later began a tradition of naming sidings after senior conductors, so "beet run siding" was renamed Chubbuck in 1889. (Roberts -Wright, B. M. S.) The City of Chubbuck originated in the mid -20th Century with the establishment of the Village of Chubbuck in December 1949, with a population of just 125. C. CHUBBUCK NOW Through a combination of good leadership, strategic planning, and Chubbuck's prime location adjacent to major transportation corridors, Chubbuck became a vibrant community that has captured a large share of the region's commercial development. Chubbuck's commercial areas now include the headquarters for Idaho Central Credit Union, along with a range of national and regional retailers and convenience restaurants. There are currently 5,671 households in the City of Chubbuck, the population of Chubbuck increased by nearly 12% between 2010 and 2020. The U.S. Census 2020 population of Chubbuck was 15,570 with the dominant race as white (85%). The educational attainment rate beyond a high school diploma is LUDC/SC Review — Preliminary Draft Chubbuck 2045: Comprehensive Plan 10 approximately 72% of adults aged 18 and above. The median age in Chubbuck is 35, however, at present there is a large percentage of the population under the age of 18 (about 36%) and a small percentage of persons 65 and over (14%). As a whole Chubbuck performs well on Social Determinants of Health (SDOH) or the conditions in which people are born, grow, live, work and age that shape health. In addition to access to health care systems, these determinants include economic stability, physical environment, education, food and community context. Appendix C provides r Aue in Chubbuck metrics for each of these criteria. About 10% of Idaho's population lives below the poverty line; Chubbuck's poverty is 8%. Chubbuck residents score well on community, mobility, and social capital measures. Households Married Families Families Non Families Chubbuck Median Income $0 $20000 $40000 $60000 $80000 $100000 D. CHUBBUCK 2045 Population projections prepared by the Bannock Transportation Planning Organization (BTPO) and the City of Chubbuck forecast a population of 17,791 in 2045; population within the Area of Impact is anticipated to be approximately 20,000. The graphic on the next page depicts the relatively slow growth experienced in both the City and County from 2016 to 2023, and flat growth projections out to 2029. LUDC/SC Review — Preliminary Draft Chubbuck 2045: Comprehensive Plan 11 The number of households were projected to increase from approximately 5,500 in 2023 to approximately 6,000 in 2045, necessitating an additional 500 dwelling units. Chubbuck appears to be outstripping the forecast, however, with building permits issued for 416 new homes in 2023 and 2024. Population Growth Projection 180000 80000 60088 40000 20000 0 2016 2023 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Over the next 20 years, an a Chubbuck Bannock County increase in the older cohort of residents can be anticipated along with accommodations for the needs of persons 65 and older. With a current median age of 35 and a healthy cohort of young people, serving the traditional family demographic of toddlers and school age children should be a focus for the city. Addressing these factors is a major consideration in developing each of the plan components. The public engagement that occurred throughout the planning process indicated a desire among Chubbuck residents to plan for a future that strives toward the following: ■ Healthy Connections ■ Livable Spaces ■ Economic and Educational Opportunities ■ Environmental Quality ■ Community Services and Safety Each of these themes are discussed in plan chapters III — VII. Each chapter concludes with a goal and objectives to meet that goal, as well as strategies or action items to reach the objectives. The Vision statement was developed by the Steering Committee, confirmed by the public during various outreach opportunities; this Vision statement will guide planning and decision-making in the years ahead: "In 2045 the City of Chubbuck will be a welcoming, healthy and connected community with opportunities for every age" LUDC/SC Review — Preliminary Draft Chubbuck 2045: Comprehensive Plan 12 rrEH'��CK ioRHo III. HEALTHY CONNECTIONS A welcoming, healthy, and connected community with growing opportunities for every age. III. HEALTHY CONNECTIONS The City of Chubbuck participated in a cooperative planning effort in 2022 and 2023 -- the Bannock County Health Assessment. This included a community review of the health needs and social determinants of health (housing insecurity, food insecurity, local access to health and social services, living in rural environments, and advanced age). Findings of the focus groups and Community Action Team included increasing community engagement, improving access to healthcare services and to other activities that support health and wellbeing, and promote knowledge of transportation services. F-1111111111341111 a 31113454101 This comprehensive planning process integrated the concepts of the health assessment with funding from the Blue Cross of Idaho Foundation for Health (BCIFH). Representatives from local community health entities were interviewed as part of the initial stakeholder assessment, others were invited to participate in the Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee and others in a Community Health Workshop. The result was the identification of Healthy Connections as the first of five planning goals: A community with easy access to healthy opportunities and services. Transportation Transportation is a critical element to achieving the healthy connections goal. The Bannock County Transportation Plan (2022) has planned for growth in the Chubbuck area. The plan has identified several roads in Chubbuck that need reconstruction or rehabilitation. Figure 111.1 depicts State and U.S. Highways and local collectors and arterials. Notably, the principal gateway to Chubbuck from the West is the 1-86 diverging diamond intersection, providing access to the north and south (to Pocatello) on the Yellowstone Avenue corridor. 1-15 transects the eastern portion of the city, providing access south to Salt Lake City and north to Idaho Falls. New Day Parkway is Chubbuck's primary connection to the 1-15 interchange. Local transit service is provided by Pocatello Regional Transit. Current bus stops and routes, along with pathways and sidewalks are depicted on Figure 111.2 (Alternative Transportation) Chubbuck residents also benefit from nearby Pocatello Regional Airport, as well as Salt Lake City International Airport for air travel. LUDC/SC Review — Preliminary Draft Chubbuck 2045: Comprehensive Plan 14 Figure 111.1 Transportation City of Chuhhuck Comprehensive Plan Update Transportation Potential Connectivity Areas — Railroads City Limits Existing Area of City Impact Functional Classification: /"-,v Interstate Principal Arterial ^� Minor Arterial ^V Major Collector Minor Collector Local N o 0.4 0.8 A Miles (JUB CHUBBUCK LUDC/SC Review — Preliminary Draft Chubbuck 2045: Comprehensive Plan 15 Figure 111.2 Alternative Transportation City of Chuhhuck Comprehensive Plan Update Alternative Transportation ;J Bus Stops Bus Routes Sidewalks - Walking Paths •�+ Bike Lanes City Limits �'%%� Existing Area of City Impact N 0 0.4 0.8 n Miles N ® - . CHUBBUCK LUDC/SC Review — Preliminary Draft Chubbuck 2045: Comprehensive Plan 16 Recreation Recreational opportunities also contribute to healthy communities. Chubbuck residents have easy access to National Park units (Yellowstone, Grand Teton, Craters of the Moon, City of Rocks), State Parks (Massacre Rocks, Lake Walcott, Harriman, Bear Lake), and access to public lands (United States Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management) for a variety of activities such as mountain biking, camping, hiking, hunting, and fishing. Snow sports are popular including snowmobiling and alpine and Nordic skiing; Pebble Creek Ski Resort and East Fork Mink Creek Nordic Center are located 30 minutes from Chubbuck, while the Grand Targhee, Kelly Canyon and Pomerelle resorts are within a 2 -hour drive. Local recreation opportunities are identified in the Parks Master Plan (2018) and further depicted on Figure 111.3. The Parks Master Plan reflected community sentiment and specifically made recommendations for future park development, as well as operations and maintenance policies. The Parks Master Plan adapted the National Recreation and Parks Association (NRPA) planning metric for adequate park space per resident, settling on 6.0 acres of developed park land per 1,000 residents. At that time the City of Chubbuck offered 22 parks encompassing 87.4 acres serving the estimated population of 14,644 people. At present there are 21 parks encompassing 99 acres serving the current population of approximately 16,000. Thus, the City has maintained the 6:1000 ratio which aligns well with NRPA guidelines, and the City's current level of service. Community Health During the planning process, food security was identified as a concern in the Portneuf Valley and in Chubbuck in particular. While the poverty level is relatively low (8.2%), social service providers are concerned whether basic needs can be met with a median income of about $70,000 a year. Using digital data, a food desert analysis was undertaken depicting walkable zones from residential areas to grocery stores or bus stops. Walkability was assessed as areas that are within .6 miles of a destination. Road layouts and barriers (railroads, subdivisions, fields, etc.) were considered to guarantee that a route is walkable and not just "as the bird flies". As depicted on Figure 111.4, the blue zone shows all the areas where someone could walk to a bus stop within .6 miles, while the green zone consists of areas where someone can walk to a grocery store within .6 miles. The walkable zones were compared to the areas of the population with no vehicles, followed by an assessment of location of populations below the poverty level. Figure 111.4 presents the walkable zones over the demographic areas in which the population is below the poverty level in the past 12 months. The darker the purple, the higher the percentage of the population is considered in the poverty level. The vast area to the north is less populated and more likely to have access to a vehicle. The presence of transit is a mitigating factor for access to the various food stores located around the Yellowstone Avenue and 1-86 interchange. LUDC/SC Review — Preliminary Draft Chubbuck 2045: Comprehensive Plan 17 Figure 111.3 Recreation City of Chuhhuck Comprehensive Plan Update Recreation Parks I Maintained Grass City Limits 1 Existing Area of City Impact N 0 0.4 0.8 n Miles N �� —J—V- ° ..e.. ®. CHUBBUCK LUDC/SC Review — Preliminary Draft Chubbuck 2045: Comprehensive Plan 18 Figure 111.3 Food Desert Analysis Composition Map City of Chuhhuck Comprehensive Plan Update Food Desert Population Below Poverty Level �F) Bus Stops -•— Bus Routes Walkable Areas 0 Within .6 miles of Grocery Store r—'771 Within .6 miles of a Bus Stop Percent of Population whose income in the past 12 months is below poverty level _ >15%- 17% _ >12% - 15% — >10% - 12% >6% - 10% 0-6% City Limits Existing Area of City Impact N 0 0.5 1 A Miles KJAUg 9 E9CHUBBUCK 1 9 n H 0 LUDC/SC Review— Preliminary Draft Chubbuck 2045: Comprehensive Plan 19 B. CHUBBUCK 2045 In coordination with BTPO, using the recent Transportation Plan as a guide, the City is committed to ensuring a viable street system. This planning process revealed the value of the regional transit system as it provides a critical alternative mode of transportation for those who rely on access without personal vehicles, including youth and seniors. The challenges of the diverging diamond at Interstate 86 and Yellowstone Corridor persist and will require continued attention with the state transportation department. The City has successfully established a first-rate parks system that provides many health benefits and provides the types of community connections that many residents both expect and appreciate. Recent park planning efforts have endeavored to focus on larger parks (fewer pocket parks) with more regional attractions including sports fields, and other interactive attractions for visitors as well as residents. The concept of enhanced pathways connecting community attractions and population centers, as well as parks and schools, continues to be a priority. While community health has continued to be an ongoing concern, progress has been made on a number of fronts. The current demographics indicate a relatively healthy population; the transit system supports access to health care, social services and healthy food options. The community health focus group (assembled during the planning effort) also recommended three projects for consideration (depicted below). Since these projects were discussed in Summer 2024, opportunities have arisen to pursue both a community garden and a community centerpiece. Community Garden fgh11111i1y We have vulneratie residents (se Hrallh Is�un cw9Ared mlgranO. abet lhw connections and resources tai Proposal: Inlheie a Camrnunlly Carden program that mould begin with one she wilts * limits and would be aftr(Mle, awesslf . and wekorning to aR WhyT To hey lower community and encourage new for reslaeim who may W isolab%i anaeor In need of fresh food. Gardening is a recognized stress reliever and a source Of exercise. W>.—, • Collaborate with u of t County extension office, I5u, agencies (with expo el)ee or road Mn eCvrlryj, developers, and kra119rt. ldenRi j amoprWe AeM. - Wnhily+ long -tend maintenance labor endfundinp sources, CommunityCenterpiece Recreation Area We Awe resldems M6 have phy2cal Community and mefM health Iswws that would M06MIth I�[rYB be Improved by access'lo engaging mrbkcr spaces and anorides- *>Peapwal: Integrate a'cdnVf%Mry Ceaterptece" concept into the dEwAopmerrtof Mier Park. Cmtluct an outreach program to identify possible atlractims (FitPark, wafer realum. OWCeftWct spate, or reading keel Chat engage rCsitletY3 And enmur"e klsfrarsl VXV7 To serve residents who desire outdoor opponundies including seasonal eywft The City iso bveky planrig grew parks at this lime. so the prospect of a new OAL aaiae that is Inle-grated olio Miller Park makes. Mlsa da -stile protea. How, Identity pnucners aim would w rlreresled In idennk ing me protect P- -Engage the public in design aid develcprnent. identltyawoorim sie(s). phhsirka. and Reding sew m. Mobile Food Pantry ChubbuA res+dettls haue WOW Community acoeesto health resources includerg H17Alikh 10fve cllnlm, food pantries end crisis censers Inside city limlts. Prepq#al: wiiMe a "le FOOd Pon lhnl "Id �p�n�e wlm existing loon beaks and oihercamrndnity service pro,Murs. R plot progtarn voids explore pmernial for Other he®Ilh services 6n be mswo aled-th the road deliv v sysr nt (load pressure Checks, neallh ngwala). a'Vdhyl To serve residelos. who need assciance wdh access heahhy road and lack nanVom" is e> ling s wet NOW? • rdINUV WrWS rhpt wGSrld qa �9areSldd ih er198t4n9lhe oommuntty In Iaunchltkgthls program ncluding ldehd Food Bank and Untied Way. . ndentify funding sourws. LUDC/SC Review — Preliminary Draft Chubbuck 2045: Comprehensive Plan 20 C. GOAL, OBJECTIVES AND STRATEGIES Healthy Connections GOAL: A community with easy access to healthy opportunities and services. Objective 3.1: Continue to maintain and improve City's transportation systems including alternate modes of transportation Strategies: 3.1.a Continue to coordinate with Bannock Transportation Planning Organization, City of Pocatello, and Bannock County on regional transportation planning efforts (plans, committees and activities). 3.1.b Consistently evaluate traffic impacts of new development to ensure that there are adequate roadways. 3.1.c Participate in Idaho Transportation Department planning efforts to ensure that their facilities are serving local as well as statewide travelers. 3.1.d Support & coordinate with Pocatello Regional Transit to ensure stops and routes are consistent with land use designations. 3.1.e Conduct a traffic impact study for the whole city and explore street impact fees so that growth can pay for itself. 3.1.f Require development and redevelopment projects construct the necessary sized transportation infrastructure and dedicate appropriate rights-of-way and easements as indicated on this plan's Transportation Plan. Objective 3.2: Provide safe connections through well maintained sidewalks and accessible pathways. Strategies: 3.2.a Prioritize curb, sidewalks and other accessibility measures as part of Capital Improvement programs. 3.2.b Continue to collaborate with Fort Hall Irrigation Project, Portneuf Greenway Foundation, and other stakeholders to co -locate multi -modal paths along irrigation facilities. 3.2.c Engage with the School District to regularly address concerns regarding location and accessibility of their facilities and joint use where appropriate; ensure school sites are walkable and bikeable from neighborhoods through the Conditional Use Permit and other approval processes. Objective 3.3: Provide updated amenities such as trails, sports complexes, and cultural centers. Strategies: 3.3.a Seek partnerships with other public entities and private development to identify land and funding for community amenities. LUDC/SC Review — Preliminary Draft Chubbuck 2045: Comprehensive Plan 21 3.3.b Improve existing recreational resources and amenities to include public event venues (small and large), walking and biking paths and recreation centers. 3.3.c Explore options to expand community educational programs including lifelong learning resources and information centers. Objective 3.4: Ensure that the community has access to healthy food and basic care. Strategies: 3.4.a Continue to pursue opportunities in new development for retail establishments that provide food and services to nearby residential areas. 3.4.b Collaborate with local non -profits to identify partners, funding and operations of a community garden. 3.4.c Explore the potential for a mobile food pantry to serve Chubbuck residents, in conjunction with operating food banks and related programs. LUDC/SC Review — Preliminary Draft Chubbuck 2045: Comprehensive Plan 22 low, dh -VIM AMINItz,- _P� IV. LIVABLE SPACES In 2018 the City of Chubbuck created their first Strategic Plan. The Central theme was Our CommUNITY— a great place to live, work and raise a family. Key to achieving this vision is the identification of appropriate land uses, that serve the community's need for housing, commerce and education, accessible connections between those uses, and a pleasing design aesthetic that engenders community pride. A. CHUBBUCK NOW Land Use The City of Chubbuck covers approximately seven square miles and includes a variety of land uses. Chubbuck is distinct from many other Idaho cities because of its origins as an unincorporated settlement, this has resulted in rail line and other transportation corridors becoming some of the dominant features of the community. The Mid -20th century residential subdivisions and ample park amenities are notable features. The Pine Ridge Mall which opened in 1981 (prior to that there was a Drive In theatre on the site) and the long Yellowstone Avenue corridor are well known commercial areas The city is also defined by the Portneuf River that skirts along the lower southwest edge of the city, the foothills that are located on the city's eastern side, and the City of Pocatello to the south. Significant industrial uses are located along rail lines and other transportation corridors, notably 1-86. The largest area designated for industrial use is in the southwestern portion of the city planning area/Area of Impact (AOI). Larger lot residential development and farms, along with agricultural support services occur on the outskirts of town within the AOI. In 2020 the City engaged in a local planning effort to envision a designated downtown area, soon named Chubbuck Village. The area's boundaries include Yellowstone Avenue to the West and the Railroad to the East, 1-86 to the South and Chubbuck Road to the North. Two key developments provide catalytic opportunities for redevelopment of the area, the Idaho Central Credit Union (ICCU) corporate office campus and the new Chubbuck City Hall with plaza and park. In 2022, the Chubbuck Village plan was _ articulated and added to the Comprehensive Plan and a form -based zoning code was adopted. The Chubbuck Development Authority (CDA) has taken an active role in seeking new development proposals on properties within the Village to provide new destinations for LUDC/SC Review — Preliminary Draft Chubbuck 2045: Comprehensive Plan 24 Chubbuck residents and increase pedestrian activity. In 2024, the CDA welcomed the Urban Land Institute (ULI) to assemble a Technical Assistance Panel to review the Village and make recommendations on how to encourage future enhancement of the area. The City of Chubbuck and Bannock County agreed on the current AOI in 1998; a new AOI is anticipated by December 2025. As depicted on Figure IV.1, the AOI provides a buffer around the city to include areas that the city may reasonably expect to serve in the decades ahead. Housing Chubbuck continues to see increased demand for housing due to population growth, having experienced twelve percent increase over a ten-year period from 13,922 residents in 2010 to 15,570 in 2020 (decennial Census). The 2023 estimated population was 15,900 a nearly 22% jump from the Census Bureau 2010 estimate. The owner -occupied housing unit rate from 2019- 2023 was 74.5% which is comparable to the state-wide homeowner rate of 72.9 percent. Median value of owner -occupied housing units in the same period was $313,700, with owner's median costs (including a mortgage) was $1,571, while median gross rent cost was $917. The latter was less than the median monthly gross residential rent in Idaho in 2023 ($1,150). The principal housing type in Chubbuck is the single-family home, mainly at a low density of 2 — 4 dwelling units per acre. The dominant density is 5 — 7 dwelling units largely due to the town's origins as a collection of subdivisions with easy access to both Pocatello and Idaho Falls, with their educational and cultural attractions as well as more diverse retail and visitor opportunities. The appeal of life in Chubbuck is the family centered, friendly landscape of homes, schools and parks. Community Design The City of Chubbuck has incorporated key design strategies into their Zoning Code for two separate zoning districts in Chubbuck Village. The Highway Corridor District for parcels adjacent to Yellowstone Avenue and the creation of the Village District for new construction and redevelopment in the area east of the Highway Corridor zone. The purpose of the Chubbuck Village standards is to encourage the development of urban meeting spaces and pedestrian oriented development in the area between Yellowstone Avenue and the railroad, and Chubbuck Road and Interstate 86. The Chubbuck Village standards include design standards for buildings, streetscapes, site layouts, and landscaping. The code is form -based with a focus on design and the suitability of proposed uses. The City Code also provides for design and dimensional standards, landscape and screening LUDC/SC Review — Preliminary Draft Chubbuck 2045: Comprehensive Plan 25 requirements, and sign provisions for other areas of the city. Project level design review is also incorporated into commercial and multi -family review and permitting processes city-wide. B. CHUBBUCK 2045 The Future Land Use Map (FLUM) presented as Figure IVA, was developed by reviewing the existing Chubbuck Comprehensive Plan FLUM as a follow up to the public outreach discussed during the first phase of the planning process. Principal feedback received from the community members was that the single-family neighborhoods were a key part of the quality of life in the City. However, more opportunities for community gathering, entertainment and retail uses were also considered desirable. Some of the older commercial areas were identified as needing revitalization to be truly viable and interesting to current residents. Feedback during the process indicated that the mixed-use designation along major streets, providing dense residential use combined with office or commercial activity, was not welcome. The proposed Future Land Use designations (refer to Table IVA) provides the major land use designations and provides an opportunity for existing and future zones to meet the intent of the FLUM and Comprehensive Plan. The FLUM reflects large areas of low to medium density residential particularly in the west half of the city and the AOI. Residential Low is designated throughout the northwest portion of the AOI and covers large areas of land presently used for agricultural purposes. With the designation of a new AOI boundary these areas may revert to a County land use designation. The industrial areas are largely unchanged and do not depart from current land uses. Mixed use designation was removed from the previous FLUM at the urging of community members. However, this designation was retained on some key corridors particularly those with transit service. Several potential areas for future specific planning efforts are identified to address unique characteristics of these areas: • Community Centers (3) — East Gateway, along with neighboring Elk Hills, is anticipated to provide an 1-15 accessible area of town that can accommodate a mix of uses. These could include higher density residential with appropriate related commercial activity that benefits from freeway access. Trails and open space, within the center identified as Elk Hills, will provide a complementary use but also a potential regional attraction. The Chubbuck Village is the third (existing) community center. • Mixed Use Hubs (3) — Yellowstone Corridor provides commercial opportunities along a north south spine. As residential development continues to the north, new opportunities should be considered for this aging commercial corridor. Pine Ridge Hub is currently undergoing redevelopment and will continue to be a shopping destination, with the potential to offer more in the way of community and visitor services. The potential Philbin Place is a long-range project that should leverage future development on the west end of the city, adjacent to Miller Park. Potential land uses could include patio homes or other medium density development, along with appropriate related convenience retail or service commercial and office. • Connectivity Areas — A designated route for bus, bike, walking and other streetscape amenities connecting key destinations. LUDC/SC Review — Preliminary Draft Chubbuck 2045: Comprehensive Plan 26 The FLUM also reflects the importance of the preservation of parks and beautification of open space, expressed by community members during public outreach efforts. Opportunities to capitalize on the beauty of existing natural features include the beautification and development of areas along the Hiline and the Redman Lateral canals. These areas along with the corridors listed above, and others, are also ideal for gateways and welcoming signage, and wayfinding to optimize Chubbuck's sense of place. In addition, community members expressed the desire for urban beautification such as enhanced landscaping, improved sidewalks and pedestrian pathways, and well maintained residential and commercial areas. Specifically noted were improved code enforcement, enhanced property lighting and screening of storage areas. LUDC/SC Review — Preliminary Draft Chubbuck 2045: Comprehensive Plan 27 Figure IVA Future Land Use Map City of Chuhhuck Comprehensive Plan Update Proposed Future Land Use Potential Community Centers COO ", Potential Mixed Use Hubs 00 Potential Connectivity Areas City Limits Existing Area of City Impact Proposed Future Land Use: Commercial Mixed Use - Village - Employment Residential - Low Density Residential - Medium Density - Residential - High Density 0 0.5 Miles CJ -U -B 0 a� CHUBBUCK LUDC/SC Review — Preliminary Draft Chubbuck 2045: Comprehensive Plan 28 TABLE IVA Future Land Use Map Designations Commercial Mixed Use Areas adjacent to major transportation corridors, that provide for and encourage the grouping together of business, retail, public, quasi -public, Areas that allow for a mix of commercial and and other related uses. These areas my include high or medium density housing. Businesses may large retail establishments, hospitality and include retail, office, restaurants, and other uses entertainment uses. Special permits including that allow for a walkable neighborhood. Planned Unit Development (PUD) may be Zones: R1,R2,R2P,R3,R4,C1 considered for more intense uses or to incorporate residential uses. Zones: C1, C2 Industrial/Employment Residential -Lova Areas that encourage manufacturing, research facilities, and development such as warehousing, Areas for single family dwellings on a variety of office industrial parks and distributing. Some lot sizes, located in established neighborhoods incidental retail or wholesale activity may be and on the town edges. Some other uses such as expected. Industrial uses in these areas should be places of worship may be allowed by special clean and free of hazardous or objectionable permit. Special permits may also be considered elements and should be operated entirely, within for PUDs and more intense uses. enclosed structures. Zones: R1, R2, R2P Zones: C21 Residential- Medium Residential - High Located adjacent to low density residential areas, Areas adjacent to commercial land uses and these areas are intended for a mix of housing major corridors, to encourage a mix of housing types, including small lot single family homes, types, including duplexes and apartment duplexes, patio homes and townhouses. Other uses buildings. This land use may also serve as a may be considered, including places of worship, buffer for single family residential areas. Other public assembly and care facilities as well as uses may be considered by PUD, including public incidental commercial or office uses. assembly and care facilities as well as incidental commercial or office uses. Zones: R2, R2P, R3 Zones: R3, R4 Village Agricultural Area that focuses on community interactions via development standards that emphasize the Areas that are used for agricultural purposes pedestrian experience and alternative such as farming, to encourage orderly transition transportation options such as bikes, scooters, etc. of farmlands to low density residential Emphasize a variety of housing types to reduce neighborhoods. suburban sprawl, with commercial land uses that encourage social interaction. Zones: A Zones: HC, V LUDC/SC Review — Preliminary Draft Chubbuck 2045: Comprehensive Plan 29 C. GOAL, OBJECTIVES AND STRATEGIES Livable Spaces GOAL: A built environment that establishes a unique identity for Chubbuck. Objective 4.1: Encourage a variety of land uses throughout the community to provide access to employment centers and a range commercial and professional services. Strategies: 4.1.a Implement the Future Land Use Map with appropriate zoning designations as properties develop. 4.1.b Coordinate with Bannock County to ensure that a new Area of Impact agreement, policies and future land use map are beneficial to existing and future Chubbuck residents; 4.1.c Coordinate with Bannock County to ensure that long-term higher density development opportunities through infill are preserved throughout current development in the County at lower county densities. 4.1.d Coordinate with Bannock County to ensure that when city utilities are extended to development, the infrastructure is built to city standards if expected to annex in the reasonably near future 4.1.e Continue to pursue opportunities in new development for retail establishments that provide food and services to nearby residential areas. Objective 4.2: Diversify the options of housing types, including moderate to high density dwelling units, while maintaining existing single-family neighborhoods. Strategies: 4.2.a Implement the Future Land Use Map with appropriate zoning designations as properties develop. 4.2.b Develop specific area plans for each of the planning nodes to ensure that housing options are well designed and integrated into these community service destinations. 4.2.c Establish and provide incentives for additional housing units within Mixed Use and Commercial districts. Objective 4.3: Expand the Village to provide amenities associated with a traditional downtown, with walkable streets connecting residential, commercial, civic and entertainment uses. Strategies: 4.3.a Implement the Future Land Use Map with appropriate zoning map and code amendments. 4.3.b Collaborate with the Chubbuck Development Authority and property owners to provide options for existing uses to transition to Chubbuck downtown LUDC/SC Review — Preliminary Draft Chubbuck 2045: Comprehensive Plan 30 development appropriate uses, that comply with design and development standards. 4.3.c Explore walking, biking and alternative modes of transportation connections between the future Chubbuck Village (downtown) area and other planning areas. 4.3.d Identify partners for funding of wayfinding and gateways to further community recognition of the Chubbuck Village downtown area and other activity centers. Objective 4A Provide for the beautification of Chubbuck to serve local residents and visitors. 4.4.a Continue to require builders and property developers to contribute to an aesthetically pleasing community, through design and development standards, including standards specific to multi -family housing. 4.4.b Enforce local codes regarding property maintenance particularly as it pertains to weed management, outdoor storage and other unsafe practices. 4.4.c Develop specific design standards for each of the specific area plan areas, to provide a distinctive yet complementary look and feel for these planning nodes. LUDC/SC Review — Preliminary Draft Chubbuck 2045: Comprehensive Plan 31 V. ECONOMIC AND EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES A welcoming, healthy, and connected community with growing opportunities for every age. V. ECONOMIC AND EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES The City of Chubbuck has engaged in a robust economic development process through the City's founding of the Chubbuck Development Authority (CDA) through their administration of redevelopment areas, and through the City's development of a form -based code for the Chubbuck Village area. Chubbuck's location adjacent to Pocatello and Idaho Falls also allows for Chubbuck residents to benefit from the educational and vocational programs available at Idaho State University and the College of Eastern Idaho in Idaho Falls. A. CHUBBUCK NOW Educational opportunities Chubbuck is a part of Pocatello / Chubbuck School District 25; PCSD has an enrollment of approximately 12,000 students and the district includes schools in Pocatello, Chubbuck, and Bannock County. There are five elementary schools that serve Chubbuck; 50-60% of elementary school students attend schools within the Chubbuck city limits and attend middle school and high school in Pocatello. Most Chubbuck students are bussed to both middle school and high school. There are also three public charter schools located within the city. Idaho State University (ISU) is a public research university located in Pocatello that enrolls 10,850 students; the university primarily serves students from Idaho and the western U.S. ISU has a significant number of local students enrolled. Residents of both Chubbuck and Pocatello attend the College of Eastern Idaho in Idaho Falls; the College of Eastern Idaho enrolls 24,000 full-time and part-time students and offers vocational and Associate programs. Educational Attainment 7% Graduate Degre 21% Bachelor's Degree 12Y. Associate's Degree LUDC/SC Review — Preliminary Draft Chubbuck 2045: Comprehensive Plan No High School Diploma 24% High School or Equivalent S Some College, no Degree 33 Economic Opportunities According to 2022 US Census data, Chubbuck's primary employment sectors include retail, healthcare, financial services, and food services. Major Employers. While the location of Chubbuck adjacent to Pocatello and within commuting distance of Idaho Falls and Idaho National Laboratory results in most residents working outside of Chubbuck, major employers in Chubbuck include Idaho Central Credit Union and retail, and restaurants located in Chubbuck's commercial areas. Regional employers include Idaho State University, Amy's Kitchen, Simplot, Portneuf Medical Center, and the Shoshone Bannock Tribes. Refer to Table V.1 Urban Renewal Areas. The Chubbuck Development Authority (CDA) controls three urban renewal properties which can only be developed through a Request for Proposal (RFP) process, one of these sites has recently been awarded for a project. CDA has three existing urban renewal areas (Pine Ridge, Northside Crossing, & Harvest Springs) and CDA could potentially add a fourth urban renewal area in the Urban Village and Yellowstone Corridor area of Chubbuck which would assist with financing for streetscapes and sidewalks. The recent ULI-Idaho Technical Assistance Report analyzed options for the expansion of the Chubbuck Village urban renewal area and reimagining gateways from I-15 and along Yellowstone Avenue. Chubbuck Village and Yellowstone Avenue. The City of Chubbuck has incorporated key design strategies into their Zoning Code through the establishment of the Highway Corridor Zoning District for the parcels along Yellowstone Avenue and the creation of the Village Zoning District for new development in the Chubbuck Village area east of the Highway Corridor zone. The purpose of the Chubbuck Village area is to encourage the development of urban meeting spaces and pedestrian oriented development in the area between Yellowstone Avenue, the railroad, Chubbuck Road, and Interstate 86. Chubbuck's Village standards include design provisions for buildings, streetscapes, site layouts, and landscaping. The code is form -based with a focus on design and the suitability of proposed uses. Table V.1 Employees bv sector EmployersSector Selected Sectorby Chubbuck City Service occupations Portneuf Medical Center 1274 Management, business, science, Idaho Central Credit Union and arts ISU 2658 occupations Production, transportation, and Simplot material moving Amys Kitchen 855 occupations Walmart Sales and office Lowes Pine Ridge Mall 2066 occupations Franklin Building Supply Home Depot Source: 2023 Census Data LUDC/SC Review — Preliminary Draft Chubbuck 2045: Comprehensive Plan 34 B. CHUBBUCK 2045 As the population continues to grow, educational programs and related facilities will be continually reassessed to ensure that the needs of the community are met. Continued communications with the School District and Charter schools are essential to addressing the community's desire for more facilities in proximity to Chubbuck residents. The City of Chubbuck and the CDA have thoughtfully implemented a strategic urban renewal plan and design standards for the Chubbuck Village and Yellowstone Avenue areas, this planning effort continues to evolve with the area's changing needs and opportunities. Some of the recommendations outlined in the 2024 ULI-Idaho Report are notable for their applicability to broader city economic development objectives. These include establishing wayfinding routes, developing a community branding process, reviewing existing codes for the Northgate interchange area, and creating and implementing a redevelopment area for Chubbuck Village, West Village, and Yellowstone Avenue. In order to support existing businesses and encourage local entrepreneurs to support Chubbuck, continued engagement with the Pocatello Chubbuck Chamber of Commerce is encouraged. Participation in Chamber committees will enhance representation of Chubbuck's concerns for civic improvement and economic development. LUDC/SC Review — Preliminary Draft Chubbuck 2045: Comprehensive Plan 35 C. GOAL, OBJECTIVES AND STRATEGIES Economic and Educational Opportunity GOAL: A vibrant community where social and economic needs are met. Objective 5.1: Expand the economic base of Chubbuck to provide increased employment opportunities for new and existing residents. Strategies: 5.1.a Seek grant funding to enhance business opportunities. 5.1.b Continue to coordinate with the Chubbuck Development Authority, Bannock Development Corporation, City of Pocatello, Bannock County, and other groups to support business attraction and retention. 5.1.c Collaborate with other agencies and community partners to identify regional prospects for enhanced economic benefits. Objective 5.2: Provide safe and accessible educational opportunities for every age. Strategies: 5.2.a Engage with the School District to regularly address concerns regarding location and accessibility of their facilities and joint use where appropriate; ensure school sites are walkable and bikeable from neighborhoods through the Conditional Use Permit and other approval processes. 5.2.b Collaborate with Idaho State University and other partners to enhance outreach and programs targeted to Chubbuck residents 5.2.c Reevaluate strategy for allocating educational infrastructure funding based -on need, population and projected growth. LUDC/SC Review — Preliminary Draft Chubbuck 2045: Comprehensive Plan 36 kt VI. ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Chubbuck's proximity to public lands and natural resources has been fundamental to the growth and evolution of Chubbuck. Natural resources and maintaining and improving environmental quality have played a critical part in previous plans for Chubbuck and the Bannock County area including the Bannock County Community Action Plan, Chubbuck's Parks Master Plan, and the 2002 Chubbuck Comprehensive Plan. A. CHUBBUCK NOW Natural Resources While Chubbuck is a predominately urban area, agriculture makes up nearly 35% of the land area of the City. There are approximately 1,513 acres of cropland within the city limits of Chubbuck. Agricultural areas are primarily concentrated east of Interstate 15 and in the northwest areas of the city near Chubbuck's Area of Impact (AOI). Nearly all agricultural areas in the city limits are irrigated or semi -irrigated; spring wheat accounts for over half of Chubbuck's cropland. Figure VI.1 depicts croplands within the AOI. The Portneuf River flows along the eastern edge of the Portneuf Range, through downtown Pocatello and southwest of Chubbuck. Chubbuck and surrounding areas bordered to the east by the Pocatello Range and Forest Service and BLM public lands are located in and adjacent to Bannock County. Water for residential and commercial development is derived primarily from City wells that draw water from the Lower Portneuf Valley Aquifer. Most water for agriculture in the Chubbuck areas is surface water from the Blackfoot River, provided by the Fort Hall Irrigation Project. Typically, farms on the foothills use private well water. Air quality in Chubbuck and surrounding areas is impacted by wintertime inversions. While the Portneuf Valley was designated as a nonattainment area for air quality in 1990, in 2006 the area was designated as "in attainment" when a maintenance plan for the area was adopted and implemented (Idaho Department of Environmental Quality) LUDC/SC Review — Preliminary Draft Chubbuck 2045: Comprehensive Plan 38 Figure VI.1 Cropland (USDA 2023) City of MONA Cnmprowansiwn Plan Up6sto Cropland (USDA 2023) E Mrq Anew of C i I Y Irnpaa wdhm C4 Limits = 7,51;IAC bw Wrlhin Fiosbnq Arw of GNV Impact Imid Ldrtg cify Ymva}=A.9d7AC IN 5 I3,P ■ iar X 9=MUBBUCK 11111 LUDC/SC Review— Preliminary Draft Chubbuck 2045: Comprehensive Plan 39 Hazardous Areas While the City of Chubbuck does not encounter hazards frequently, there are several areas in Chubbuck that have the potential to generate hazards. Bannock County updated their Hazard Mitigation Plan in 2021, and several areas in Chubbuck are identified in the plan. There is the potential for hazardous waste spills related to the railway and Interstates 15 and 86 running through Chubbuck; these hazards are addressed through the County's Hazard Mitigation Plan. It should also be noted that large portions of Chubbuck are located within a Wildland Urban Interface area. The numerous canals crossing through Chubbuck including the Fort Hall Main Canal, the Stuart Lateral, the Church Lateral and the Redman Lateral are potentially hazardous due to their location in urbanized areas with unrestricted access. There is also the potential for flooding within the AOI, associated with severe weather and drought flood cycles. The dry creeks that run west from the foothills may have flooding potential including the Little Pocatello. As referenced in Bannock County's 2021 Mitigation Plan, there are several fault lines that run throughout the Bannock County area and there is a moderate degree of risk of seismic activity in the area. Bannock County is cited in the Hazard Description and Assessment of the plan as having risks of severe weather, drought, flooding, dam failure, earthquakes, landslide / avalanche, and wildfire. B. CHUBBUCK 2045 While management plans have improved air quality and protected natural resources in Chubbuck and surrounding areas, adherence to existing standards and the continual evolution and improvement of these management plans will be critical. The protection of farmland and open space areas and environmentally sensitive areas such as wetlands, streams and rivers, and the Lower Portneuf Valley Aquifer should be prioritized in future plans. Future planning for infrastructure should emphasize using existing surface water for irrigation and prioritize reduction of aquifer usage when tenable. Through the City of Chubbuck's development review and plan approval process, new construction should be required to meet standards that will help to protect water resources by requiring construction practices that reduce stormwater pollution. New construction in Urban Wildfire Interface areas should feature vegetation and building materials that will reduce the risk of wildfire damage. Bannock County's Hazard Mitigation Plan has identified ongoing hazards in and around Chubbuck and mitigation as well as ongoing monitoring, evaluation, and updates for the plan. Continued attention to emergency management, response and recovery, will need to continue at the regional level. LUDC/SC Review — Preliminary Draft Chubbuck 2045: Comprehensive Plan 40 Figure VI.2 Natural Resources & Hazardous Areas City of CRUBDUCK Csmorehenlyp Plan U pd stu Naftrraf Resources & Hazardous Areas Hitrala FVkw V Areas {IDEO 20271 i ilmr d Urinn Inlcdacx2 1% Ann=1 -Chance Floud FIazard �Fr=MAP e311F.{U0 ; FaFff* rJ of Nla4c&ide FnPwLanzr, if irfiDalw hitrrh r&ftiam, itilIiuA&d Curl llrFd � — s� Acca of �il� Impart N . CHUBBLIK 1,,,1 LUDC/SC Review— Preliminary Draft Chubbuck 2045: Comprehensive Plan 41 C. GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND STRATEGIES Environmental Quality GOAL: A natural environment that reflects the community's desire for clean water and open space. Objective 6.1: Protect surface and groundwater supply to serve current and future generations. Strategies: 6.1.a Collaborate with the County to conserve surrounding agricultural areas until such time as city services are available. 6.1.b Evaluate impacts of new development on water quality and ensure that any negative impacts are minimized. 6.1.c Require use of irrigation water instead of groundwater for nonpotable water uses where feasible. 6.1.d Address impacts to natural resources and potential hazards during review of new development. 6.1.e Require that all proposed shallow injection wells be submitted to IDWR for review and approval prior to plan approval. 6.1.f Require and enforce adherence to Portneuf Valley Stormwater Design Manual Standards for all new development 6.1.g Require that all existing retention ponds comply with current DEQ standards upon expansion or change of use for legally nonconforming properties. 6.1.h Collaborate with the City of Pocatello on updating and enforcing Best Management Practices identified in the 2015 Portneuf Valley Stormwater Design Manual. Objective 6.2: Promote community connectivity through establishment of pedestrian pathways along canals Strategies: 6.2.a Continue coordination with Portneuf Greenway Trust on the establishment of easements for pedestrian pathways along canals. 6.2.b Continue to partner with local canal companies to ensure that ditches and canals are safe, while optimizing the irrigation system for walking and biking purposes. 6.2.c Require the creation of pedestrian pathways for all future development adjacent to canals 6.2.d Create a wayfinding and milepost program for pathways adjacent to canals to encourage usage by residents Objective 6.3: Protect the landscape and structures from wildfire through design. Strategies: LUDC/SC Review — Preliminary Draft Chubbuck 2045: Comprehensive Plan 42 6.3.a Establish and enforce standards for the Urban Wildland Interface, particularly for those areas east of the Hiline Canal and into the foothills. 6.3.b Work with Chubbuck's Fire Department to create a City of Chubbuck Urban Wildland Interface application process that will be required for all zoning applications and building permit submittals for properties located in Chubbuck's Urban Wildland Interface area. 6.3.c Work with Chubbuck Parks Department to create an exhibit in a local park showcasing plantings and vegetation that comply with Urban Wildland Interface standards 6.3.d Create a system for monitoring of Urban Wildland Interface areas for compliance at five year intervals and measures for requiring continued compliance with standards LUDC/SC Review — Preliminary Draft Chubbuck 2045: Comprehensive Plan 43 lopi ir-A ! r � ';� , - ►.fir �, h�V VII. COMMUNITY SERVICES AND SAFETY A welcoming, healthy, and connected community with growing opportunities for every age. t4 VII. COMMUNITY SERVICES AND SAFETY Thanks to good leadership and strategic partnerships, the City of Chubbuck has been able to capitalize on their location adjacent to the City of Pocatello to share in the costs and maintenance of some urban services such as wastewater, while developing its own water treatment and distribution systems and its own infrastructure for police, and fire, and EMS. The City also collects impact fees for public safety equipment and vehicles. Figure V11.1 shows public services throughout the City of Chubbuck. A. CHUBBUCK NOW Police Beginning in fiscal year 2025, the City Council approved two new law enforcement officer positions and one crime scene investigator/ ordinance officer. This brings the total number of sworn officers to twenty-three and thirteen other positions in department. In 2024, the department joined the STAR team (Southern Idaho Special Tactics and Response). Fire/EMS The Chubbuck Fire Department is located at 4727 Yellowstone Avenue. The fire department offers several services to the residents of Chubbuck, including fire suppression, emergency medical services (non -transport), hazardous materials response, and casualty response for Idaho Health District Region 6. The volume of calls the fire department receives has been rising, approaching 2,000 calls in 2021 and 2022. On average the fire department runs 1,800 fire, emergency medical services, and other emergency calls throughout the year. Water Existing water rights are sufficient until the city reaches a population of approximately 40,000. Additional facilities will be installed east of 1-15 by builders concurrent with their developments. The Water and Wastewater Department regularly samples and evaluates water from each City well and prepares an Annual Water Quality Report. The City's water quality is excellent and there are no recent or current violations. Sanitation The City of Chubbuck Sanitation Division provides curbside waste services and commercial services to the residents and businesses of Chubbuck. The Sanitation Division offers collecting and hauling of solid waste and recyclables. LUDC/SC Review — Preliminary Draft Chubbuck 2045: Comprehensive Plan 45 City Hall Chubbuck's City Hall was constructed on East Linden Avenue in 2020 to spur the creation of Chubbuck Village. With the Idaho Central Credit Union campus, City Hall helps anchor Chubbuck Village and provides parking and green space for community events and a farmers' market. The interior space supports a variety of administrative offices, as well as ample council chambers and a large multi- purpose community room with full technology for large and small group meetings and events. All streets bordering City Hall have been improved with angled parking available to city personnel, visitors and nearby downtown businesses. Library Portneuf District Library serves the residents of Chubbuck and is located at 5210 Stuart Avenue. The Portneuf Free Library was established through the efforts of a group of parents who wanted to secure library services for all residents of School District 25, outside of the Pocatello City limits. (Portneuf Library. PORTNEUF LIBRARY. (n.d.). https://www.portneuflibrary.org) The library offers books, audiobooks, eBooks, notary services, and children's programs to all those living within the district. Communications Chubbuck does not have a USPS location in city limits. Options for mail service include USPS stations in Pocatello or private enterprises such as FedEx, located in Chubbuck, or UPS, located in Pocatello. Several providers offer broadband services throughout Chubbuck. Direct Communications and Google Fiber offer fiber broadband internet. B. CHUBBUCK 2045 The City, working with a consultant, prepared a capital improvements plan for major facility needs based on different population thresholds. The plan identified needs for the current population, approximately 16,000, and for a future population threshold. The City of Chubbuck has identified where facility expansion is needed in the coming years. Future projects for culinary water include: • Wells • Transmission lines • Booster stations • Storage tanks LUDC/SC Review — Preliminary Draft Chubbuck 2045: Comprehensive Plan 46 The City Council has approved two new law enforcement officer positions and one crime scene investigator for fiscal year 2025. Also moving into 2025, the fire department has prioritized hiring three additional firefighters, bringing the total number of full-time fire fighters to 19. A $50,000 Aerial will be placed into service which was funded through Fire Department impact fees. The department is currently working towards Automatic Aid with Pocatello Fire and Placing an ambulance at Chubbuck Fire Station. The department is also exploring options to acquire a much needed second fire station. Land has been identified along Philbin Road within a large parcel acquired by the city for a future park. Public outreach has shown that Chubbuck residents would like expanded recycling services mainly for glass, and for plastics #3-7 which are not currently recyclable. Current recycling is picked up twice a month for a fee in addition to standard trash collection fees. LUDC/SC Review — Preliminary Draft Chubbuck 2045: Comprehensive Plan 47 Figure V11.1 Public Services City of Chuhhuck Comprehensive Plan Update Public Services /'� water Mains Sewer Mains City Limits Existing Area of City Impact N a 0.5 1 n Miles C JU-B CHUBBUCNC w...o..� ,F. 1 0 n H a LUDC/SC Review — Preliminary Draft Chubbuck 2045: Comprehensive Plan 48 C. GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND STRATEGIES Community Service and Safety GOAL: A safe and healthy city for all. Objective 7.1: Proactively provide upgrades to water and sewer infrastructure and seek sustainable solutions for sanitation demands to keep up with growth. Strategies: 7.1.a Collaborate with the County to conserve surrounding agricultural areas until such time as city services are available. 7.1.b Evaluate impacts of new development on water quality and ensure that any negative impacts are minimized. 7.1.c Require use of irrigation water instead of groundwater in all places available. 7.1.d Continue to collaborate with the Chubbuck Development Authority to prioritize redevelopment areas for increased density to optimize existing water and sewer infrastructure. 7.1.e Collaborate with community service groups to identify options for encouraging residents to reduce, reuse and recycle. 7.1.f Explore future potential for electrical vehicle charging station facilities in strategic locations. Objective 7.2: Ensure that a variety of law enforcement and emergency services are available to support all members of the community. Strategies: 7.2.a Continue to partner with local canal companies to ensure that ditches and canals are safe, while optimizing the irrigation system for walking and biking purposes 7.2.b Address impacts to natural resources and potential hazards during review of new development. 7.2.c Offer additional outreach programs to inform public of law enforcement and emergency service programs. 7.2.d Require lighting plans to address safety, while not amplifying light pollution. 7.2.e Continue to collect development impact fees for police and Fire/EMS to maintain levels of service. LUDC/SC Review — Preliminary Draft Chubbuck 2045: Comprehensive Plan 49 CHUBBUCKI a VIII. GUIDING CHUBBUCK A welcoming, healthy, and connected community with growing opportunities for every age. VIII. GUIDING CHUBBUCK During the planning process the following goals were created for the future of the City of Chubbuck Healthy Connections GOAL: A community with easy access to healthy opportunities and services Livable Spaces GOAL: A built environment that establishes a unique identity for Chubbuck. Economic and Educational Opportunity GOAL: A vibrant community where social and economic needs are met. Environmental Quality GOAL: A natural environment that reflects the community's desire for clean water and open space. Community Service and Safety GOAL: A safe and healthy city for all. Objectives and strategies were created for these goals and were used to help guide the development of the Future Land Use Map. Implementation strategies were created to provide city personnel with the building blocks to achieve the desired goals. Once adopted the city should conduct an annual review of progress and this information should be presented to and evaluated by the City Council and LUCD. This Chapter consists of tables that lists all strategies presented in Chapters 3 through 7, by assigned priorities High Priority — immediate action within the next 1 to 3 years (Table V111.1) Medium Priority — follow up action to high priority items or 3 -to -5 -year target dates (Table V111.2) Low Priority — action items for beyond 5 years (Table V111.3) Continued collaboration — strategies that are on-going (Table V111.4) Each strategy lists a lead City Department or responsible party, as well as potential partners, to accomplish implementation. The strategies requiring continued collaboration for successful implementation are listed under a separate section below. This chapter concludes with a series of scorecards to ensure that measurable progress is made on meeting plan objectives. LUDC/SC Review — Preliminary Draft Chubbuck 2045: Comprehensive Plan 51 Table VIII.1 — High Priority Implementation Strategies Number Strategy Lead/Partners High Priority 3.1.e Conduct a traffic impact study for the whole city Public Works and explore street impact fees so that growth can Director pay for itself 3.1.c Participate in Idaho Transportation planning Public Works efforts to ensure that their facilities are serving Director local as well as statewide travelers. 3.3.a Seek partnerships with other public entities and Community Services private development to identify land and funding Director for community amenities. 3.3.b Improve existing recreational resources and Planning & Parks & amenities to include public event venues (small Recreation Divisions and large), walking and biking paths and recreation centers. 3.3.c Explore options to expand community Community Services educational programs including lifelong learning Director (Parks & resources, information centers. Recreation Division) 3.4.c Explore the potential for a mobile food pantry to Community Services serve Chubbuck residents, in conjunction with Director operating food banks and related programs. 4.1.a, 4.2.a, 4.3.a Implement the Future Land Use Map with Community Services appropriate zoning designations as properties Director (Planning develop. Division) 4.1.b Coordinate with Bannock County to ensure that a Community Services new Area of Impact agreement, policies and the Director (Planning Future Land Use Map are beneficial to existing Division)/Bannock and future Chubbuck residents. County 3.4.c Explore the potential for a mobile food pantry to Community Services serve Chubbuck residents, in conjunction with Director operating food banks and related programs. 4.4.b Enforce local codes regarding property Police Chief (Code maintenance particularly as it pertains to weed Enforcement management, outdoor storage and other unsafe Division) practices. LUDC/SC Review — Preliminary Draft Chubbuck 2045: Comprehensive Plan 52 Number Strategy Lead/Partners Community Services 5.1.b Continue to coordinate with the Chubbuck Development Authority, Bannock Development Director Corporation, city of Pocatello, Bannock County, and other groups to support business attraction and retention. 5.1.c Collaborate with other agencies and community Community Services partners to identify regional prospects for Director enhanced economic benefits. 5.2.c Reevaluate strategy for allocating educational School District #25 infrastructure funding based -on need: population and projected growth. 5.1.a Seek grant funding to enhance business Community Services opportunities. Director / Mayor's Office 7.1.d Continue to collaborate with the Chubbuck Public Works Development Authority to prioritize Director / redevelopment areas for increased density to Community Services optimize existing water and sewer infrastructure. Director 6.1.b, Evaluate impacts of new development on water Public Works 7.1.b quality and ensure that any negative impacts are Director / minimized. Community Services Director 6.1.c, Require use of irrigation water instead of Community Services 7.1.c groundwater in all places available. Director (Development Services Division) 4.1.c Coordinate with Bannock County to ensure that Community Services long-term higher density development Director (Planning opportunities through infill are preserved Division)/Bannock throughout current development in the County at County lower county densities. 4.1.d Coordinate with Bannock County to ensure that Community Services when city utilities are extended to development, Director (Planning the infrastructure is built to city standards if Division)/Bannock expected to annex in the reasonably near future County 6.3.a Establish and enforce standards for the Urban Community Services Wildland Interface, particularly for those areas Director east of the Hiline Canal and into the foothills. LUDC/SC Review — Preliminary Draft Chubbuck 2045: Comprehensive Plan 53 Number Strategy Lead/Partners Community Services 6.3.b Work with Chubbuck's Fire Department to create a City of Chubbuck Urban Wildland Interface Director (Planning application process that will be required for all Division)/Fire Chief zoning applications and building permit submittals for properties located in Chubbuck's Urban Wildland Interface area 6.3.c Work with Chubbuck Parks Department to create Community Services an exhibit in a local park showcasing plantings Director (Planning and vegetation that comply with Urban Wildland Division)/Public Interface standards. Works 6.3.d Create a system for monitoring of Urban Wildland Community Services Interface areas for compliance at five year Director (Planning intervals and measures for requiring continued Division) compliance with standards. LUDC/SC Review — Preliminary Draft Chubbuck 2045: Comprehensive Plan 54 Table VIII.2 — Medium Priority Implementation Strategies Number Strategy Lead/Partners Medium Priority 3.2.b Continue to collaborate with Fort Hall Irrigation Project, Public Works/ Portneuf Greenway Foundation, and other stakeholders to Community Services co -locate multi -modal paths along irrigation facilities. Directors / Fort Hall / Property Owners 3.4.b Coordinate with local non -profits to identify partners, Community Services funding and operations of a community garden. Director/ USDA / U of I Ag Extensions 4.2.b Develop specific area plans for each of the planning nodes Community Services to ensure that housing options are well designed and Director (Planning integrated into these community service destinations. Division) 4.2.c Establish and provide incentives for additional housing Community Services units within Mixed Use and Commercial districts. Director (Planning Division) 4.3.d Identify partners for funding of wayfinding and gateways to Community Services further community recognition of the Chubbuck Village Director (Planning downtown area and other activity centers Division) / Public Works Director 3.4.b Collaborate with local non -profits to identify partners, Community Services funding and operations of a community garden. Director 3.2.c, Engage with the School District to regularly address Community Services 5.2.a concerns regarding location and accessibility of their Director (Planning facilities and joint use where appropriate; ensure school Division) sites are walkable/bikeable from neighborhoods through the CUP and other approval processes. 5.2.b Collaborate with Idaho State University and other partners Community Services to enhance outreach and programs targeted to Chubbuck Director residents. 6.1.d, Continue to partner with local canal companies to ensure Community Services 7 2 a that ditches and canals are safe, while optimizing the Director (Planning & irrigation system for walking and biking purposes. Parks & Rec divisions) 6.1.e, Address impacts to natural resources and potential hazards Community Services 7.2.b during review of new development. Director (Development Services Division) LUDC/SC Review — Preliminary Draft Chubbuck 2045: Comprehensive Plan 55 Number Strategy Lead/Partners 3.1.f Require development and redevelopment projects Community Services construct the necessary sized transportation infrastructure Director (Planning and dedicate appropriate rights-of-way and easements as Division) indicated on this plan's Transportation Plan. 6.2.c Require the creation of pedestrian pathways for all future Community Services development adjacent to canals Director (Planning Division) 6.2.d Create a wayfinding and milepost program for pathways Community Services adjacent to canals to encourage usage by residents Director (Planning Division) 6.1.f Require and enforce adherence to Portneuf Valley Community Services Stormwater Design Manual Standards for all new Director (Planning development Division) 6.1.g Require that all existing retention ponds comply with Community Services current DEQ standards upon expansion or change of use Director (Planning for legally nonconforming properties. Division) 6.1.h Collaborate with the City of Pocatello on updating and Community Services enforcing Best Management Practices identified in the 2015 Director (Planning Portneuf Valley Stormwater Design Manual. Division)/City of Pocatello LUDC/SC Review — Preliminary Draft Chubbuck 2045: Comprehensive Plan 56 Table V111.3 — Low Priority Implementation Strategies Number Strategy Lead/Partners 6.1.a, Collaborate with the County to conserve surrounding Community Services 7.1.a agricultural areas until such time as city services are Director (Planning available. Division) / Bannock County 7.1.e Collaborate with community service groups to identify Public Works options for encouraging residents to reduce, reuse and Director recycle. 7.2.c Offer additional outreach programs to inform public of law Police Chief / Fire enforcement and emergency service programs. Chief 7.1.f Explore future potential for electrical vehicle charging Community Services station facilities in strategic locations. Director (Planning Division) 7.2.d Require lighting plans to address safety, while not Community Services amplifying light pollution. Director (Planning Division) LUDC/SC Review — Preliminary Draft Chubbuck 2045: Comprehensive Plan 57 Table VIII.4 — Continued Collaboration Implementation Strategies Number Strategy Lead/Partners Continued Collaboration 3.4.a, Continue to pursue opportunities in new development for Community Services 4.1.e retail establishments that provide food and services to Director (Planning nearby residential areas. Division) 3.1.d Support & coordinate with Pocatello Regional Transit to Mayor/City Council, ensure stops and routes are consistent with land use Public Works designations. Director PRT, BTPO 3.2.a Prioritize curb, sidewalks and other accessibility measures Public Works as part of Capital Improvement programs. Director 3.1.a Continue to coordinate with Bannock Metropolitan Public Works Planning Organization regional transportation planning Director efforts (plans, committees and activities). 3.1.b Consistently evaluate traffic impacts of new development Public Works to ensure that there are adequate roadways. Director 4.3.b Collaborate with the Chubbuck Development Authority and Community Services property owners to provide options for existing uses to Director (Planning transition to Chubbuck downtown development Division) / Chubbuck appropriate uses, that comply with design and Development development standards. Authority 4.3.c Explore walking, biking and alternative modes of (Planning Division)/ transportation connections between the future Chubbuck BTPO, PRT /M PO Village (downtown) area and other planning areas. 4.4.a Continue to require builders and property developers to Community Services contribute to an aesthetically pleasing community, through Director (Planning design and development standards, including standards Division) specific to multi -family housing. 4.4.c Develop specific design standards for each of the specific Community Services area plan areas, to provide a distinctive yet complementary Director (Planning look and feel for these planning nodes. Division) 7.2.e Continue to collect development impact fees for police and Community Services Fire/EMS to maintain levels of service. Director (Planning Division) 6.2.a Continue coordination with Portneuf Greenway Trust on the Community Services establishment of easements for pedestrian pathways along Director/ Portneuf canals. Gateway Trust LUDC/SC Review — Preliminary Draft Chubbuck 2045: Comprehensive Plan 58 6.2.b Continue to partner with local canal companies to ensure that ditches and canals are safe, while optimizing the irrigation system for walking and biking purposes LUDC/SC Review — Preliminary Draft Chubbuck 2045: Comprehensive Plan Community Services Director/Local Canal Companies M Implementation plans are successful when time is taken to evaluate and see if strategies are working. A scorecard was created for each chapter with measurable items that are specific to that chapter. The scorecards should be utilized to track yearly progress that is to be presented by the Community Service Director to the LUCID every 12 months. Healthy Connections Recreation, Transportation, other health metrics Measurable Items Initiatives Distance from recreation for residents +_ - /10 — 1 Public Transit (distance to stops from residents) Proximity to clinics/ER Capacity/Proximity to Food Banks Capacity/Proximity to Senior Centers Livable Spaces Land Use, Community Design, Housing Measurable Items Initiatives Distance from residential to (convenience commercial and employment centers) Development of/and increase in community art and amenities New standards for design and development (Y/N) Status of public trees and streetscape improvement. Housing condition (sq foot, age) Homeownership Economic and Educational Opportunity Economic Development, Schools & Transportation Measurable Items Initiatives Library card # (patrons) Level of educational attainment Village or other area permit activity increase (Y/N) Access to fiber & broadband Distance to schools Safe routes to schools LUDC/SC Review— Preliminary Draft Chubbuck 2045: Comprehensive Plan 60 Environmental Quality Natural Resources/Agriculture and HozordousAreos Measurable Items Initiatives Air Quality Ground water access (depth of wells?) Water Quality Natural Habitat (acres) Areas served by pressurized irrigation (surface water) Hazardous Events Community Service and Safety Public Services, Facilities, and Utilities Measurable Items Initiatives Crime statistics Response times (police, fire, EMS) Crash rates (bike/ped, vehicle, freight...) Waste metric Emergency Response Plan (Y/N) LUDC/SC Review— Preliminary Draft Chubbuck 2045: Comprehensive Plan 61 IX. SELECTED REFERENCES A welcoming, healthy, and connected community with growing opportunities for every age. IX. SELECTED REFERENCES City of Chubbuck (2002). Our Valley — Our Vision, Chubbuck Comprehensive Plan City of Chubbuck (2018). Parks Master Development Plan 2018 City of Chubbuck (2019). Our CommUNITY: A great place to live, work, & raise a family City of Chubbuck Strategic Plan FY 2019 -2024 City of Chubbuck. Chubbuck Stormwater Manual City of Pocatello (Adopted July 6, 2023). 2040 Pocatello Comprehensive Plan. City of Pocatello. Official Website. https.//pocatello.gov/ Fort Hall Indian Reservation (March 5, 2025). Shoshone -Bannock Tribe. https://www.sbtribes.com/ Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (2024, August 9). Home. Idaho Department of Environmental Quality. https://www.deq.idaho.gov/ Larsen, N. (May 16, 2019). The Division of Fort Hall: Allotment and Land Loss. intermountainhistories. https://www.intermountainhistories.org/items/show/203 Fort Hall Indian Reservation (March 5, 2025). Shoshone -Bannock Tribe. https://www.sbtribes.com/ Portneuf Library (n.d.). https://www.portneuflibrary.org/ Roberts -Wright, B. M. S. (1992). A history of Chubbuck, Bannock County, Idaho. Gateway Printers. MAP REFERENCES Idaho Transportation Department (Functional class in Area of City Impact) Pocatello Regional Transport (bus stops and routes) USDA (cropland & soils) Census Bureau/American Community Survey (Poverty levels) FEMA (flood hazard zones) Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (Nitrate Priority Areas) U.S. Forest Service (Wildland-Urban Interface) LUDC/SC Review — Preliminary Draft Chubbuck 2045: Comprehensive Plan 63 L !J•' MD AP oil Ll f� POO w �'4" Chubbuck Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee Meeting Notes 1 Meeting Notes DATE: Monday, October 30, 2023 TIME: 3:00 p.m. -4:30 p.m. LOCATION: Chubbuck City Hall 1 lWelcome & Introductions Sheri Freemuth (J -U -B Engineers) reviewed the basics of a comprehensive plan. She covered the different components of the plan, why it is important to a community, and how it affects the public and governance of a City. She also reviewed the purpose of the Steering Committee, stating the importance of the diversity of views and experiences. She also noted that the group will meet three times throughout the planning process as well as a final meeting/presentation to the Land Use and Development Council at the conclusion of the process. The Steering Committee was asked to introduce themselves one at a time. Along with their name and organization, they were asked to give three words that they felt describe the future of Chubbuck. Those words were captured and will be used to help create a vision statement for the plan. 2 J Plan Process Sheri reviewed the timeline of the planning process as well as a draft outline for the various plan components. She shared a one-page information sheet that was created for the planning process. The document will be shared with steering committee members electronically Don Matson (City of Chubbuck) briefly revied the plan from 2002 and discussed the current Future Land Use Map (FLUM as well as the downtown plan. He stated that the City is fairly young in age, according to demographics, and expects a jump in population on the next census. He also stated that the Cost of Living in Chubbuck, while just a little bit higher than Pocatello, is fairly lower than surrounding larger cities. The participants were then asked to work on a writing exercise. They were given one of two writing prompts and asked to respond. This information will help support plan components and develop the vision for the plan. 3 JPublic Involvement Andrea Gumm (J -U -B Engineers) discussed the situational assessment, stating that ten community members had been interviewed about the current state and future of Chubbuck. This assessment helped develop the issues list and path forward for Chubbuck Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee Meeting Notes 2 identifying goals and objectives for the plan. Upon City approval, the plan will be sent to the steering committee. Andrea briefly restated the purpose and schedule of the steering committee meetings, highlighting the fact that the committee will be valuable in the development of a public outreach survey as well as public workshop materials and advertising. 4 IlPlanning Activities Andrea reviewed the list of issues with the steering committee. Additional feedback was received and has been incorporated into the list. The final list will be sent to steering committee members for review. Andrea passed out a map of existing land use and asked members to notate important locations, landmarks and ideas for future uses and amenities. The planning team will take this feedback and review it as they develop the plan. 5 INext Steps and Milestones The meeting concluded with a reminder that the committee will receive an email requesting feedback on questions for an upcoming online survey. The next in-person steering committee meeting will take place in early 2024 at Chubbuck City Hall. STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING NOTES Use 3 words to describe how you'd like Chubbuck to be in 10 years... Progressive* Clean* Connectivity* Beautiful Sustainability Family -centric Active** Innovative* Growth*** Caring Accessible*** Caring Supportive Opportunity* Potential Diversity Visionary Kind Energetic Cautious Forward Thinking* Small Town Feel Business -friendly* Family -friendly* Data -driven Public Interest Chubbuck Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee Meeting Notes 1 Meeting Notes DATE: Wednesday, March 13, 2024 LOCATION: Chubbuck City Hall Attendees TIME: 3:00 -4:30 p.m. Steering Committee Project Team Maggie Mann, Southeast Idaho Public Health Don Matson, City of Chubbuck Skyler Beebe, Pocatello Regional Transit Devin Hillam, City of Chubbuck Mark Blanscett, Concordia Development Sue Parsons, City of Chubbuck Melodie Halstead, Idaho Transportation Department Sheri Freemuth, J -U -B Engineers Ric Boyce, Mental Health Specialists Andrea Gumm, The Langdon Group Tristan Borquin, Bannock County Stewart Ward, Dioptra Raelyn Price, Idaho State University Kia Shaw, The Idaho Food Bank Amy Wuest, United Way Wes Bell, Idaho Central Credit Union lWelcome & Introductions a. Sheri Freemuth, J -U -B Engineers, reviewed the current progress to date, including data collection, vision statement ideas, and the public survey. b. The group wordsmithed potential vision statements for the Comprehensive Plan. The example vision statements included words and phrases brainstormed at the last steering committee meeting and words/phrases collected from public feedback. The group narrowed down the selections and voted on their favorites at the conclusion of the meeting. Results from that activity are included in the meeting summary email. 2 10nline Survey a. Andrea Gumm, The Langdon Group, reviewed the public survey promotion and results. A full report of the survey findings can be found here: https://cityofchubbuck.us/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/Survey-Results.pdf b. Sheri discussed Goals, Objectives and Strategies and how they fit into and serve the Comprehensive Plan. The group split up and worked on Goals and Chubbuck Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee Meeting Notes 2 Strategies for different plan elements. Those worksheets will serve as a starting point for drafting the plan. 3 I Future Land Use Map a. Don Matson provided a report on existing conditions and land use. A copy of the population/demographics chapter of the existing conditions report was presented and is included in the meeting summary email. Devin Hillam presented data regarding density, lot size and future growth information. b. The group divided up into small groups and provided feedback on maps relating to land use, parks and special areas, and the Area of City Impact. 4 JUpcoming Public Engagement Activities a. Health Focus Group - in the next month or two, the project team will hold a health focus workshop. The purpose of the health focus workshop is to gather the best and brightest health -minded community representatives to brainstorm ideas and goals to include in the "Community Health" chapter of Chubbuck's comprehensive plan. b. Open House/Public Outreach Event - After the health focus event, the project team will hold a public outreach event to seek feedback on plan goals/objectives/strategies, community health initiatives and the future land use map. 5 INext Steps and Milestones a. Prepare and Distribute Steering Committee meeting notes b. Conduct Health Focus Group meeting c. Coordinate Public Open House (June 2024) d. Calendar next Steering Committee meeting late Summer 2024 Thank you for your participation! STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING NOTES STEERING COMMITTEE MEMBERS WERE ASKED TO VOTE ON THEIR FAVORITE VISION STATEMENT. THE RESULTS ARE AS FOLLOWS: The City of Chubbuck is... A welcoming, connected community with increased opportunities for everyone to grow. 16 votes A safe, caring and healthy community, with ample opportunities for lifetime learning, recreation, and enterprise. 11 votes A healthy, family -friendly, small-town city where residents are connected to exceptional public services, including parks and open space. 2 votes A safe and hospitable town with connections to quality services and regional opportunities 1 vote CHUBBUCI( 1 0 A H 0 CITY OF CHUBBUCK COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMMUNITY SURVEY ............................. ............................. The City of Chubbuck invites you to take a survey to give feedback on City Goals and Objectives for the Comprehensive Plan Update. Your responses will provide the City insight on what you want to see in your community. Scan the code below or visit: cityofchubbuck.us/comp-plan-update 0 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ City of Chubbuck Comprehensive Plan Survey Results Healthy Connecticns (check the top 3 issues that are of greatest concern to you) 400 300 200 100 0 OPM • Develop partnerships with and provide access to community health resources for a growing population (fresh foods, social services, food banks, pharmacies, clinics, etc.). (47.75%) • Encourage new developments to provide amenities supporting recreational activities, community identity, and active transportation (i.e., biking, walking). (64.55%) • Provide more resources for healthy activities and gathering spaces such as public event venues, recreation centers, trails, etc. (67.42%) • Ensure accessible and affordable public transportation options (i.e. bus, van, carpool) to a wide variety of users. (16.39%) • Enhance connection by improving bicycle access and ensuring sidewalks and pathways are more user friendly. (44.47%) • Target opportunities to improve resilience for sensitive groups (i.e. low-income, elderly, disabled, youth). (26.43%) • Other (9.22%) Livable Spaces (check the top 3 issues that are of greatest concern to you) 300 200 100 4 � �ZQ • Balance land use standards and regulations to encourage innovative and appropriate new development. (34.63%) • Address lack of affordable rental housing and first-time home buyer opportunities. (50.61%) • Incentivize housing types/developments that provide a place for every stage and age of life. (29.71%) • Continue to provide community amenities: parks, walk -bike ability/connectivity, social opportunities, recreation, healthcare and gathering spaces. (60.04%) • Create buffers (i.e., green space, community features, etc.) between different development types such as commercial and residential, or low-density and high- density housing. (44.26%) • Encourage the efficient use of resources to create compact, walkable developments. (21.72%) • Collaborate with Bannock County to identify an appropriate Area of City Impact to facilitate future growth decisions. (31.76%) • Other (5.12%) Economic and Educational opportunity (check the top 3 issues that are of greatest... 250 200 150 100 50 1.. _1 �t O • Work with the school district to address school capacity and distance between new development and schools. (40.36%) • Collaborate with Pine Ridge Mall owners to continue development of the property as a vibrant community asset. (50.2%) • Encourage development to fill the need for office space in the Pocatello/Chubbuck area. (9.02%) • Evaluate local costs and tax base to Idaho Falls and Pocatello. (Is it more expensive to operate a business here? What are Incentives and barriers?). (38.93%) • Bring additional basic amenities and services to Chubbuck so residents don't have to travel south of town. (46.11%) • Create spaces and opportunities for different types of workforces, lifetime learning, and job opportunities. (22.54%) • Collaborate with private industry to provide a city-wide broadband fiber infrastructure, enabling multiple service providers to operate throughout the community. (21.11%) • Establish a more cohesive way for local businesses to gather, network and promote each other. (9.43%) Environmental Quality (check the top 3 issues that are of greatest concern to you) 400 300 200 Sao • Identify potential for sustainable practices in city operations (i.e. hybrid vehicle use, xeriscaping, etc.). (22.34%) • Evaluate impacts of new development on water quality. (54.71%) • Revise Area of City Impact boundary with Bannock County to protect and preserve the integrity of the area's water quality and water supply. (57.59%) • Require connection to city water and sewer with annexation. (25.2%) • Consider improvements to waste management and maintaining a clean city. (63.32%) • Identify and take steps to make Chubbuck more resistant to environmental threats such as flooding, wildfires, earthquakes, etc. (36.89%) • Other (4.92%) Community Service and Safety (check the top 3 issues that are of greatest concern to you) 300 200 100 -- -- 41 0 . • Provide more community-based resources and amenities such as public event venues, parks, walk bike ability/connectivity, libraries, recreation centers, lifelong learning resources, and information centers. (61.07%) • Address pedestrian and bicycle safety, to encourage people to make local trips without the need for a vehicle. (27.05%) • Evaluate need for enhanced police patrols in certain areas (identify areas). (22.54%) • Require lighting plans to address safety, while not amplifying light pollution. (26.02%) • Look strategically at community partnerships as Chubbuck grows - healthcare, recreation, hospitality, community services, etc. (44.06%) • Evaluate needs and capacity to enforce city laws that aren't criminal in nature (i.e. removing dilapidated or illegal signs, maintaining landscaping). (32.99%) • Ensure that new development generates tax revenue to sustain our City infrastructure. (38.93%) • Ensure City policies and practices are sustainable across changes to City administration, elected officials, and the economy. (22.34%) • Other (3.48%) o Where do you live? a Chubbuck Near Chubbuck (Tyhee I Pocatello I Fort Hall) 9 Other I farther away a Several times a week Several times a month • Once a month or less Prefer not to answer o Where do you wort/ This includes working from home or spending a... 300 250 200 150 100 Chubbuck Chubbuck and o... Most or all of • Chubbuck (58.61%) • Chubbuck and other places (12.91%) • Most or all of the time outside of Chubbuck (15.37%) • Retired / nor working at present (10.04%) • Other/ prefer not to answer (2.87%) T �- Refired J not.. Other f prefer._. o What is your age? 150 100 61 o Please indicate your gender. * Female Male Prefer not to answer i ° identify as other Public Open House Summary Comprehensive Plan Update Wednesday, June 26 2025 Chubbuck City Hall Public Open House Summary CHUBBUCK Open House Goals and Objectives 1 o A H o The public open house forth Chubbuck Comprehesive Plan Update 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 Chubbuck City Hall on June 26, 2024, from 4-7 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 Chubbuck. The meeting provided an opportunity to build awareness for the planning process and to build relationships between the community and the City of Chubbuck. No formal presentations were scheduled, and the public was invited to attend at any time during the 4-7 p.m. timeframe. Chubbuck City and J -U -B staff were available to answer questions and receive comments. Further outreach will be conducted by the city to reach a wider audience. Activities from the open house will be set posted to the website as surveys to collect further comment from those who were not able to attend in person. Public Open House Summary Advance Stakeholder Outreach J -U -B and city staff used the following methods to notify the public about the open house: • Social media postings • Website postings • City staff emails • Local media press release Open House Participants CHUBBUCK 1 0 R H 0 Twelve 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. 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. Meeting activities and results can be found in Appendix A. Meeting participants moved from a welcome table and through the following activity stations: 1. Land Use Map Commenting: Three proposed Future Land Use Maps 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. 2. Interactive Vision, Goals and Objectives Posters: Participants reviewed preliminary draft vision, goals, objectives statements presented on large flip chart sheets. Attendees were encouraged to place stickers indicating which goals and strategies they agreed with or disagreed with and were able to write their own goals and objectives on sticky notes put directly on a poster. 3. 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: 1. Community Centerpiece Recreation Area 43 coins. 2. Community Garden 28 coins. 3. Mobile Food Pantry 29 coins. 4. Open Comment: There was opportunity for attendees to leave open comments on comment cards. Information Displays The display boards educated residents about the Chubbuck Comprehensive Plan and included: • Welcome board • What is a Comprehensive Plan and Timeline • Demographics • Future Land Use Maps Public Open House Summary • Vision, Goals, and Objectives • Community Health Opportunities (Voting Activity) A copy of the displays, along with feedback from the activities, are included in Appendix B Further Outreach CHUBBUCK 1 0 R H 0 The City released the Open House activities as three short surveys in order to reach residents that were not able to attend in person. Respondents were able to comment on the proposed FLUM, Vision, Goals, and Objectives, and the Community Health Opportunities. For full survey results, refer to Appendix B. For each section of the plan, respondents were asked to vote on their preferred objective. The following are the preferred objectives for each section: Provide save connections through well maintained sidewalks and accessible pathways (77.59%) Ensure that a variety of law enforcement and emergency services are available to support all members of the community. (77.59%) • And the Chubbuck Village to provide amenities associated with a traditional downtown, with walkable streets connecting residential, commercial, civic, and entertainment uses. (57.63%) Public Open House Summary • Expand the economic base of Chubbuck to attract new businesses (83.33%) CHUBBUCK 1 0 A H 0 Protect surface and groundwater supply to ensure plentiful natural resources for future generations. (58.49%) Main ideas from the open comment portion of the survey included: • Too many apartments being built in Chubbuck • A need more affordable housing. • Lack of commercial/shopping/dining options. The three Community Health options received mixed reviews. Community Centerpiece Recreation Area received the most "like very much" responses (51.85%), while Community Garden and Mobile Food Bank and Similar Programs tied for most "Don't like it at all" responses (14.81%). The biggest concern with all three of these options was where the money would come from to support these programs. Many respondents agreed that there were enough parks in Chubbuck, and rather than adding new parks or "centerpieces", focus should be placed on maintaining existing parks. Public Open House Summary Appendix A: Meeting Displays CHUBBUCK 1 0 R H 0 -- Y y- �� �.,. �- - r e.M. ��#� it Zia . ~ .. . . �Yn — .•Krt� - } ns_ .�.rf ��^�i#� T f -'s - _ t + - - i ;+.,+• . _'. - r . ?C-.---•• wL •i �,r'r,.4 T'`' „ - '•ir.•�. r'�....Y r _ ', ., _ r _ M,..r- wR•i.—q"�T�7r �...,� •• .. •--� - - lb .'���..-..-;��� ' —� - __ _ - ��� h ''4 **' '�-4�' a � �� �.� y - ,.tea - ����.. �+'��.� t ����_ ay.' '�5rt.F'•. ' Ingr w` `ice w.4 -r r' - - _ +� Y 'w — ._'.. - - - - .-. T. -.�•�' - . -- -• - --'- - . . --. -, .- . ...�, .. .. .. ., icy,=. -r. - - - _- - - _ -'-I� •-�� � P rte•} �t �4� �LL "- ��. � -' _ - -- ez �` - 7' '���- .rte_ s •4 ;� F __ Y� , 4 J � ... - -f-� ���'� _ _ __ _ �,��.,�a.tf n'�'+H '� r ' ' _ • aq� rr•4 � � �y � � : �i - � IyY � - y � 7 h M 1 -. � r._. - - - . . - f' +,arry�-•_ - t r y,_ - • •� - .'ir _ -" b -- _ - Yom'° _ ~TF 1C. - - -�� - �" Y _...__ �� -~ � , IF - ��� 1, � .rrt ~' 'ki:-r�•l5 _ _ _ .i nh•, ,i _af���•~�• - _ ��•--"�T' __. � _4EI.ter' 757. : - � ��. N•' •��#... ---- �• � -'-_ ':����' � ��� - ^�s,� 'S, _ (r �.�� � .. t � } 'wi F �'{ f. ,yyL�.� "- _. -Wv. dw . � = ..-�+,F '�,.n'� _ , 5 ,�, _ - y ��, --�r'�.. _ � • � _ - r _ � _ - �-- �} .,��, �`.w , ti +�� ter+ y b 51 mor AP60M IL +- �' r" .•�� � �' - - - - - � r. r` ,rte �t C:hubbuck C:omnrehen��ve PIS WHAT IS A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN? The Comprehensive Plan is a 20 -year vision for Chubbuck and its residents. The plan will: 1. Reflect the voice of residents. 2. Comply with Idaho Code Section 07-6508 and consider "previous and existing conditions, trends, desirable goals and objectives." 3. Be the guiding document for shaping the City's future., The geographic extent of the Comprehensive Plan includes all properties within city limits and inside the Area of City Impact. R A *A JUL .� Pla JUL .i 't�at:n.+ Plap 'Valuplion 2023 -OCT 2023 ■ NOV 2023 -JUN 2024 elopment 2023-NOV 2024 Plan Adoption 4 DEC 2024 -FEB 2025 FM LA Educat'i'onal Attainment 7 Graduate Degre 1% Bachelor's Degree 1 Associate's Degree Households Married Families Families Nero Families 0 ') No High School Diploma 4 H o School of Equivalent rc? Some College, no Degree Chubbuck Median Income $20000 $40000 $80000 $100000 Chubbuck Open House Map Activity Open House attendees reviewed a draft Future Land Use Map and placed numbered stickers on the location on which they had comments. The numbered comments below correspond with the numbers on the map. 1. Connect Siphon with walking path - finish!! 2. Dog Park 3. Canal Trail - Bike/walking No dirt bikes (Create dirt bike space?) 4. More/stronger nighttime lighting on Chubbuck/Hawthrone/Philbin/Poleline 5. Indoor rec center - Options for activities in the winter. 6. Canal bike path/ walking trail 7. Require developers to place neighborhood parks. y,v o.................................................................................—.,.a .............. ......................... s i f V 4- � \ MY� �N.yY♦ \ 3 • l. ...�... ......................... ............. F CHU BUCi( ioneo 9Iwn111Nee Mu gNte Future Land Use Open House Concept (�w aomm�.iN rnua �,y`� ♦ � Ni sd,m Ens tl �oru aaN�mrm vrapesen Furore une usa _ � n N9a x �emdw.ex AvsMar�a grnuN ®�xrca-Ny o-.,ery Chubbuck Open House Comments Comment: "Community Garden NO MORE PARKS Mobile Food Pantry Mobile clothes pantry Family = Community Gatherings Hot August Knights Chili Cook Offs Christmas tree of lights (in a park) where people can walk and see beautiful lights Halloween in the park Homeless and vets rehab house where they work, garden, raise animals, take care of facility to give them a chance to be accepted by the community." Comment: "City leagues basketball for boys and girls. Stop stopping good businesses from coming and charging an arm and leg. We need businesses. Stop building apartments in the most ridiculous places. Makes no sense. Stop with the over charging for water, sewer, and garbage. Base pay for bill is now $120 We need more things as a family to do. People are mean, on drugs, parents are depressed as well as teens. Bring back the smile law." Comment: "Chubbuck needs to work on repairing relationships with untrusting developers who have lost faith in the city and feel they are being taken advantage of financially. I think good conversations and disclosures would help with this. Derin says he's working on a "Developing in Chubbuck" pamphlet. That's a good idea. P.S. I appreciate the City's efforts to shorten the building process." Comment: "People on the bible streets would like connectivity. Walking, biking, alternative routes. Chubbuck, Yellowstone are so busy. There is no way to get around them. Trying to cross them is even worse. Card don't look for you. We would like a way to get to the complex (Siphon) is not finished. Hawthorne is busy and side walks end. We would like to see growth in these areas as the area is growing. Also the water bills are pretty high." Community Health Activity Results A Community Health Focus Group made up of Chubbuck residents was assembled to brainstorm ideas to boost the health of the community. Attendees of the Open House were given ten chips to distribute based on their preference of community health activities to implement in Chubbuck. Community Garden We have vulnerable residents (seniors, Community disabled, migrants, etc.) that need Health Issue connections and resources to thrive. —> Proposal! Initiate a Community Garden program that �would begin with one site within city limits and would be affordable, accessible, and welcoming to all. Why? To help foster community and encourage new onnections for residents who may be isolated andlor in need of fresh food Gardening is a recognized stress reliever and a source of exercise. How? • Collaborate with U of I County Extension office, ISU, agencies (with experience in food insecurity), developers, and transit. Identify appropriate site(s). • Identify long-term maintenance labor and funding sources. Community Centerpiece Recreation Area We have residents who have physical Community and mental health issues that would Health Issue be improved by access to engaging outdoor spaces and activities. *>Proposal Integrate a "Community Centerpiece" concept into the development of Miller Park. Conduct an outreach program to identify possible attractions (I'Vark, water feature, concenlevent space, or reading tree) that engage residents and encourage visitors! J why? To serve residents who desire outdoor opportunities Including seasonal events. The City is actively planning new parks at this time, so the prospect of a new attraction that is integrated into Miller Park makes this a do -able project. k How? • Identify partners that would be interested in identifying the project parameters. • Engage the public in design and development. . identify appropriate site(s), phasing, and funding sources. Mobile Food Pantry Chubbuck residents have limited Community access to health resources including Health Issue clinics, food pantries and crisis centers inside city limits. Proposal: Initiate a Mobile Food Pantry that would coordinate with existing food banks and other community service providers. A pilot program would explore potential for other health services to he associated with the food delivery system (blood pressure checks, health referrals). i Why? To serve residents who need assistance with access to healthy food and lack transportation to existing services. * How? • Identify partners that would be interested in engaging the community in launching this program including Idaho Food Bank and United Way. • Identify funding sources. 38 votes 11 43 votes 11 29 votes Vision, Goals, Objectives Activity Directions Goals are broad aspirational statements for the next 10-20 years. Objectives are the steps the City will take to achieve its Goals. Attendees read through the goals and objectives and placed stickers to indicate their preference: I Agree I am Neutral I Disagree Chu m lirl lirl Ll rl Ic A is m Iti le Goal: A commun and Objective: Objective: qty w0 ith services easy access to healthy Create options for alternate modes of transportation. opportunities Provide safe connections through well maintained sidewalks and accessible pathways. Objective: Provide updated amenities such as trails, sports complexes, and cultural centers. objective: Continue to maintain and improve the City's transportation systems. Objective: Ensure that everyone has access to healthy food and basic care. 0 A safe and healthy city for a 0 Proactively provide upgrades to water, trash, and sewer infrastructure to keep up with growth. Continue to seek sustainable solutions for sanitation demands trash and recycling. including Ensure that a variety of law enforcement and emergency services are available to support all members of the community. Goal: A built environment that establishes a unique identity for ChubbLick Objective: Encourage a variety of land uses throughout the community to provide access ik to employment centers and a range of commercial and professional services. Obje...tiv.... Diversify the options of housing types within the City, while maintaining existing neighborhoods. Objective: Expand the Chubbuck Village to provide amenities associated with a traditional downtown, with walkable streets connecting residential, commercial, civic and � entertainment uses. Objective: Continue to encourage new developments to contribute to an aesthetically �� pleasing community. Goal: A vibrant commun needs are met. Ob ObjI Objective: Objective i t Y where social and economic Expand the economic base of Chubbuck to attract new businesses. Collaborate with other agencies and community partners to identify regiona 1 prospects for enhanced economic benefits. Provide safe and accessible educational opportunities for every age. • Preserve air and water quality to ensure future economic interest and nvestment. Goal: A natural environment that reflects the comms : � desire for clean water and open space. Objective: 0 Objective: Protect surface and groundwater supply to resources for future generations. ensure plentiful natural Protect and prepare the community for natural and manmade hazards. LCollaborate with the County to conserve surroundin99aricultural until such time as city services are available. areas ,44,e\ Public Open House Summary CHUBBUCK ionxo Appendix B: Survey Summary Resp# Category Current / Future Conditions Comments Resp# Category End of survey Comments 93 Apartments I am really tired of seeing so many apartment building. They are an eyesore. 93 Youth Community places for kids will be great 168 Apartments STOP with the "cookie -cutter" apartments!!! I used to lookout and see fields full of Canadian geese ... now it's 168 General For heaven sake's SAVE what little is left of our town. If we wanted to live in Salt Lake we would one hundred roofs and not a tree insight. Chubbuck has lost its appeal. have bought there. 2 Apartments Too many apartment complexes being built, in the coming years they never look nice and get run down making 2 Welcoming I am disappointed in the look of our city. One of our main corners (Chubbuck Road and our community look cheap. Yellowstone) for example looks awful! The grass at the properties is DEAD! This does not look good to welcome visitors to our area. Many weeds are high along our main roads and is an eyesore. There should be some kind of code enforcement for our business to keep their property green -if they choose not to plant grass, then some alternative landscaping to keep it welcoming and beautiful and code enforcement for weeds. Many businesses on Yellowstone (amain road in our community) have horrible weeds. It seems like the only place in Chubbuck that efforts are being made is at the Chubbuck City Offices and the ICCU properties. The other areas of the city do not look welcoming. 87 Apartments I wish you wouldn't allow all these apartments. Bring in businesses instead of apartments 87 Multiple Need more big businesses and activities for teens to do. Nice fishing pond off Phil on would be nice. No more apartments. Make the businesses on the corner of Yellowstone and Chubbuck road water their grass. What a trashy looking intersection. 146 Apartments Chubbuck is filling the streets with multifamily properties rapidly. 146 N/A None 23 Apartments I am Concerned about the large apartment buildings. They are huge and the amount of traffic that will cause on 23 N/A None Hawthorne. 159 Apartments I feel bad that the corner of Knudsen and Hawthorne is now apartments. I feel like that property would have 159 N/A None been so much more of an asset to our community if it were commercial property. 109 Apartments I wish that the city would quit forcing medium to high density housing into single family residential 109 N/A None neighborhoods. 161 Apartments I wish there were less apartments and more open space. 161 N/A None 136 Apartments If the market is pushing our developers to build more apartments and 4-plexes, we ought to have some higher 136 N/A None standards. Some have large parking lots/asphalt without trees, most have inadequate playgrounds/activity areas to match the residents' needs. They should also fit in better with neighboring properties, like landscaping around the perimeter. 141 Apartments Less apartments and more family housing 141 N/A None 103 Apartments Less multilevel housing. 103 N/A None 44 Apartments Quit building more apartment complexes. Enough (or too many) is enough. 44 N/A None 5 Apartments Stop building so many apartments 5 N/A None 121 Apartments To many apartments/ town homes. 121 N/A None 17 Apartments Too many apartments and condos. Some lower cost housing is needed, but please deny some of this lower 17 N/A None cost housing. 88 Apartments Too many apartments. Need better paying jobs. 88 N/A None Page 1 Resp# Category Current / Future Conditions Comments Resp# Category End of survey Comments 51 Apartments There are too many apartments going in. 51 Apartments There are too many apartments being built. There needs to be more residential, single family homes built in various affordability ranges. 19 Apartments New city offices should have been on Chubbuck road and apartments placed behind To many apartments! 19 N/A None 49 Beautificaton I appreciate the thoughtfulness approach Chubbuck leaders take when advancing growth in our city. 49 N/A None Forethought is evident in the designs of new development and infrastructure upgrades. This is a breath of fresh air after looking at the complete and utter shitshow of our neighbors to the south. 60 Beautificaton I like that Chubbuck is taking beautification seriously. I am tired of driving through towns with overgrown weeds 60 N/A None and little care for visual appeal. 129 Beautificaton I think that you should quit growing and take care of what you have. The city looks like crap. Weeds need pulled 129 N/A None or taken care of along all the major roadways. All the parks need work on them, and you are asking for volunteers, that's not going to happen, most people don't take care of their own place. 166 Beautificaton I don't care for all the water retention areas that are called parks. They are not parks and they are not 166 N/A None maintained well. I understand their needs but would like them constructed differently so they actually retain water. I have several around my home and the water stays on the roads and does not find it's way into the retention ponds. 58 Beautificaton It would be nice if the city took better care of the open green areas in town. They are very nice open spaces, but 58 N/A None they don't look nice or inviting when the grass is too long or dying, weeds are filling in everywhere and just not maintained to a high enough standard. When construction work messes up someone's yard, the city should do more to help them fix it up. Example... the Google fiber project added a new underground box to our front yard and digging also had to be done on the street in front of us and nowwe have dead grass and rocks in our lawn. The rocks are all over the place. And all of that work and having a box added to our yard was never ran by us. We won't even use Google fiber but now we have a giant box for it in our front yard. It would also be nice to see more restaurants and shops in Chubbuck. Bring Target here!!! 76 Beautificaton The butification plans and makingthe new areas look great! 76 N/A None 75 Beautificaton For the most part I like living in Chubbuck, but, what is with all the weeds everywhere? I also feel like the parks 75 Beautification Please do better with the weeds and dead trees all over. They are an eye sore. need more water on the lawns and some weed killer would really help. Also, can we dig up the dead trees. They really are an eye sore for the landscape. 111 Commercial It feels like all the commercial areas are clumped together. Very busy and feels hectic. I'd love to see more 111 N/A None trees planted along sidewalks. 137 Commercial It is inconvenient to not have any commercial development in the north of the city and that all new additions 137 N/A None seem to be apartment complexes or houses, rather than services or businesses for current residents. 101 Commercial More commercial 101 N/A None Page 2 Resp# Category Current / Future Conditions Comments Resp# Category End of survey Comments 86 Commercial Please stop allowing commercial/industrial use land right in the middle of neighborhoods! Residential use 86 N/A None areas need to remain residential to keep the value of our homes and the safety of our families! Please!!!! 119 Commercial I would like to see better shopping selections. More than one grocery store. Maybe a dry cleaner. Somewhere 119 General Chubbuck is growing, which is nice. Let's keep it clean and pretty. And afordable. to go buy flowers besides Smiths. Maybe a ice cream store, such as 39 flavors. We have enough fast food. Maybe somewhere to go buy a dress or suit. I also think our water bill is high enough. I think our taxes are high enough. I would also like to seethe city enforce homeowners to keep their property cleaned up. Example, the house on the corner of Chubbuck Road and Teton. 37 Commercial Additional retail and dining places would be beneficial 37 N/A None 12 Commercial I would like to see more shopping and dining options... most of the time I travel to other cities to shop because 12 N/A None there is not much available in the Chubbuck area. 30 Econ Dev Entice businesses to come to Chubbuck and have the proper infrastructure in our town to support the growth. 30 General Be methodical in your growth. Entice businesses that will enrich our community, promote We have plenty of parks and do not need anymore. Tax revenue is what you need for sustainable future excellent paying jobs, and increase tax revenue. Need 2 more fire stations. On the northwest growth. area and another on the east side of the railroad tracks. 135 Econ Dev Would be nice to have a shopping mall in our area 135 N/A None 98 Econ Dev Need more jobs, less houses. Way too much emphasis on green grass and other non-productive activities. 98 Multiple Too much emphasis on environmental concerns. More focus needed on economic development. 56 Econ Dev Do we have any larger companies looking to come into the industrial areas? 56 Recreation Would love to see some connecting walking paths, I know they have been discussed 74 General The "vacant" space on the north west should be a mix of park and residential 74 General A brief description/details of land use designations would be helpful on the map for people leaving comments not familiar with the process. 89 General I like that, while Chubbuck is growing, it still maintains the "small town" feel and friendliness and comradery. 89 N/A None 33 General I like the current progress that the city is making. 33 N/A None 29 General I really love Chubbuck 29 N/A None 102 General Keep the Northgate area open. Maybe put in a park. 102 N/A None 140 General Let the land owners decide what theywant to do with their property 140 N/A None 54 General Map needs updated. For example, at the intersection of Knudsen and Hawthorne there are 3 giant apartments 54 N/A None buildings but the area is marked vacant. 9 Infrastructure Create a plan for a wast water treatment plant before Pocatello takes over Chubbuck 9 Multiple Support corporations that will bring good jobs to Chubbuck. Stop multiple family home subdivisions. 147 Multiple Is our population growing enough to maintain all the apartment complexes springing up on every empty lot. 147 N/A None We are becoming a residential high density housing. How does that affect law enforcement abilities 22 Multiple STOP ALLOWING SO MANY APARTMENT COMPLEXES! THEY MAKE FORAN UNSTABLE CITIZENRY. PLEASE 22 N/A None ENCOURAGE SOME AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR SALE NOT RENT! WHYARE WE NOT SEEING ANY DEVELOPMENT IN THE NORTHGATE/NEW DAY PKWY AREA? THERE SHOULD BE SOME BUSINESSES COMING IN... PERHAPS A BROULIMS GROCERY STORE AND A GAS STATION/CONVENIENCE STORE BY THE INTERSTATE. ALL THESE APARTMENT BUILDINGS ARE NOT GOOD PROGRESS! Page 3 Resp# Category Current / Future Conditions Comments Resp# Category 61 Multiple No more apartment complexes right up against residential home complexes... make more areas for kids to be 61 Multiple kids swings sand boxes merry go rounds & a bmx course for kids to ride there motor bikes around 27 Multiple I like the growth, and that Chubbuck is growing in size. I would like to see Chubbuck annex more to the 27 Multiple northwest. I would like to seethe City build and run a water park. Something better than Pocatello and Lava. A park that will attract people from allover the Southeastern Idaho. 133 Multiple I wish there were more schools, elementary, middle, and high schools in the Chubbuck area. We definitely 133 N/A have a need for them. I wish the parks were better maintained. It seems to be the bare minimum is done as far as the upkeep on the parks staying functional, with almost nothing done as far as improvements made. I wish there were less apartments and townhomes being built, and instead neighborhoods with smaller more affordable homes 41 Multiple The city needs more family recreation areas and if any more housing developments are built they needs to be 41 N/A single family residences not apartments or duplexes. There have been far too many multi -family residences built in the last fewyears. 15 Multiple What's going well - focus on commercial development - easy to commute/ get around town - location of 15 N/A parks What could be better - understanding of basic needs for developing areas away from city center (side walks, weed control) - management of the Philbin / Chubbuck intersection area 8 Multiple As we grow, which is a marvelous thing, I feel we should be more welcoming. What do I mean by that? When 8 N/A you come into chubbuck, it's not welcoming at all. One side, is new when you come off the freeway, the otherside is gross. A torn down town that looks filthy. As in filthy I mean, like the poorest of the poor. A careless creation that looks like buildings were dumped by a tornado. I have no clue why anyone decided to put your beautiful building hidden away on an abandoned street. It should be shown to all as being proud of your little town but instead, that wondrous building hides for no one to see. A shame and dump part on whomever idea that was. That was your one chance to do something that could have been so beautiful o show some kind welcoming to this side of town. When you lookup the mall, rundown and all, it says Pocarltello mall. Claim it. It's not Pocatello. Stop with the parks, we have enough. If you feel like there are so many children that need a park, then how about considering a hospital to keep them health and safe? Or schools so the older generation could go to schools closer? If big companies want to come in, give them an opportunity so that it seems like a welcoming town, not one that is greedy. We need that. How about we not send the seatbelt ticket money ro Boise and keep the money in our towns? Stop raising the amount of water trash and sewage. It's reduclous, plain bullshit. Page 4 End of survey Comments We need to keep the small town feel in Chubbuck & whoever thought the round abouts were a good idea needs there head examined they only add confusion . Please think before you make some of these decisions about how it effects everyone not just a few or lines someone's pocket ... how're all these new homes going to be sustainable long term with water sewer electric ...plus the residential housing lots are so close to each other I don't want to be brushing my teeth and looking out the window to see my neighbor making breakfast in there kitchen... it's ridiculous! I grateful for the city and the work they do. I drive the roads daily and also drive in Pocatello and I can tell you I am much happier driving in our city. I would like to see our city to have an ambulance service. Bannock County is wrong for trying to put one in Mccammon. The need is in City of Chubbuck. Please help our first responders. They need more officers. None None None None Resp# Category Current / Future Conditions Comments Resp# Category End of survey Comments 143 N/A I have no comments 143 Commercial A target, trader Joe would be absolutely amazing!!!! A super target would be great! 48 N/A I have no comments 48 Transportation Bike lanes and cyclist safety are a concern. The drivers in the area are ignorant in their knowledge of bicycle laws. Would be amazing to have bike lanes again and them swept for our safety and the children using them to do so safely. 106 N/A I have no comments 106 Transportation Hoping that Chubbuck road from interchange project to Yellowstone Ave gets refinished without patches and with better traffic lanes aligned 100 N/A I have no comments 100 Aging I wish we could have a senior citizen center in Chubbuck. Goingto Pocatello is a hardship. 114 N/A I have no comments 114 Apartments It seems that all of these plans change every time an out of state investor proposes building a cheap apartment complex. It's also sad how little green space they have. Apartment complexes, especially low quality that are NOTfamily friendly, lower the value of homes. Everyone I know is really disgusted with the current development. 79 N/A I have no comments 79 General Remember the little people. 82 N/A I have no comments 82 General We should work on our own water treatment plant before a rec center. 131 N/A I have no comments 131 Political Would love to see my taxes lowered!! 85 Park Chubbuck does a great job at thinking about parks, and occasionally follows through and builds it, then forget 85 Political Equal weighting on importance of areas would be grand. Stop the pissing match with Pocatello and it exists and does what appears to be absolutely nothing to maintain said park. They then developed this focus on what benefits Chubbuck, not trying to "beat" Pocatello on everything. "adopt a park" program trying to pass the buck back to the citizens who paid for and are paying to maintain the park to come in and maintain the park. 134 Park I love the continued effort to maintain city parks. They all look beautiful. I would love to seethe city develop 134 General Looking forward to Chubbuck Days. Thank you for providing this experience. the 1-15 at New Day Parkway area. We need a fueling opportunity there, as well as grocery options... I would also love to see Chubbuck add a Middle and High School. 117 Park Building a park on the land by Angela and Phillbin 117 N/A None 64 Park Chubbuck needs more developed, built-out parks with amenities instead of small, relatively unusable 0.5 acre 64 N/A None or less parcels. I would like to see the city have fluid, connecting sidewalks or trails that the public can safely use. 139 Park From the map it looks like we could use more parks. We would also love to see more'big chain' varieties in 139 N/A None commercial spaces. 104 Park Get rid of the smaller parks that can't be used for sporting events (ie baseball, softball, softball, soccer etc) 104 N/A None 125 Park I like the neighborhoods and parks. The green spaces could be better taken care of. 125 N/A None 53 Park I love that every subdivision has a park. I wish there were more walking paths put in as subdivisions are 53 N/A None growing. It's nice to go for walks and bike rides without being on the road. 55 Park I wish they would put the park in on Angela and Philbin that has been talked about for years. 55 N/A None 138 Park I would like the city to invest its parks and rec budget into maintaining what is already built. When that is 138 N/A None accomplished, then more parks can be built. Many pathways need to be repaved, and there are lots of weeding and tree trimming that needs to be done. 99 Park I would like to see the little park in the brookstone development to actually be given playground equipment, 99 N/A None and the big parkyou promised built Page 5 Resp# Category Current / Future Conditions Comments Resp# Category End of survey Comments 1 Park I would like to see the'park' that was started on MaCay to be completed and not just taken over by weeds and 1 N/A None duplexes. 63 Park Public Parks should be top priority. Still waiting for Miller Park on Philbin and Angela to be funded and 63 N/A None developed. Need to slow down the development of large apartment and townhomes. 113 Park We need a dog park. 113 N/A None 42 Park We need to maintain our parks better. We have a great park in our neighborhood but do not have much grass. It 42 N/A None is full of weeds. We should look to fertilizer and do weed control. 96 Park What happened to the Miller Park plans? I want to see something for our kids to do on that piece of property. It 96 N/A None doesn't necessarily need to be a park, but it needs to be something for our children. There are a ton of children around that live around here and it would be nice for them to have something close to do. What about Chubbuck's own Rec Center? 160 Park There is a great deal of science supporting having green space in cities. It helps people stay connected to the 160 General Thank you for seeking input from citizens. earth, as well as to each other. As importantly, very recently it was shown to be an important buffer to extreme heat. While Chubbuck is still small and we all live in the middle of such great beauty and wildness, I think it would be wise to build in some parks for urban dwellers now, as you expand. You are actually developing the future, as you know. 97 Political I want Chubbuck and Pocatello to become 1 city!! 1 police, i fire department, i mayor or city manager! 97 Political I city 4 Political City Hall is over built. 4 N/A None 11 Recreation We don't have anything to do in chubbuck, we have to go to Pocatello for everything. They have a community 11 Recreation List one thing to do recreation wise in chubbuck besides walk around a park. We do have a tennis center, Pickleball courts, disc golf, bands, playgrounds, swimming pools. There is nothing in chubbuck. I don't court thats basically only for the schools to use (they use it constantly and hard for others to use) think we even have any parks with playgrounds. It's very sad. and baseball fields for little kids. We don't have anything here. 43 Recreation Community rec center with indoor pool, track, and field would be amazing. 43 N/A None 94 Recreation Golf course needed. We are the only major city from Pocatello to rexburg without one. 94 N/A None 157 Recreation I would like more access to indoor entertainment/recreation for children in town. 157 N/A None 7 Recreation We desperately need an indoor play place for children. With the mall closing & the Discovery Museum moving, 7 N/A None there is only Geronimo's, which is expensive & caters to oldest kids. We need some place to take grade schoolers & younger to plat indoors for the 5 months of the year parks are too cold. 46 Recreation I would like to see more bike paths developed and more maintenance of the ones we currently have. Especially 46 Beautification Please require businesses to update and maintain their store fronts. The Yellowstone corridor looks along busy thoroughfares of Hiline, Chubbuck, Hawthorne. I think we need a rec center in Chubbuck, with an so run down and outdated. Consider planting more landscaping in the area to match the aquatic center to accommodate local swim groups. landscaping in the New Day parkway freeway on/off ramps. Maintain those plantings throughout the summer so they aren't weed filled. 83 Transportation I wish you would make the sidewalks wider. 83 N/A None Page 6 Resp# Category Current / Future Conditions Comments 118 Transportation We need more 5 -lane roads such as Hawthorne Rd. from Quinn Rd. to Siphon Rd., W. Chubbuck Rd. to Philbin Rd., Siphon Rd. from Yellowstone to Philbin (cover the canal!), and Hiline Rd. to New Day Pkwy. Replace the canal bridge on Hawthorne/James with a wider deck. Enforce property maintenance codes. Make people mow AND water their lawns and remove junk cars from the street. Widen 186 overpass at Hawthorne Rd. to allow 5 - lanes. 151 Transportation Chubbuck road is wayyyyytoo packed. 170 Transportation It would be nice if access points were better thought out. Walmart access is terrible. Also, many older neighborhood street layouts seem to not have much thought put into them. Especially the Independence/Freedom, Eve/Eden and Bonanza/Sawtooth areas. It would also be nice if we had more bike/ped friendly options. Page 7 Resp# Category 118 N/A 151 N/A 170 N/A End of survey Comments None None None Rsp # JGoal A: A community with easy access to healthy opportunities and services 2 Prioritize needs. Walking paths are nice but roads are mandatory Fire and Police. Water Sewer and Garbage. More dam parks with more maintenance is not a need it's a want Maintain a healthy presence of first responders to our community. Make sure those responders have up to date equipment to do their job right, so they can go home to their families each night or after their shift end. 10 AFFORDABLE HOUSING, NO MORE APARTMENTS. GROCERY STORE AND A GAS/CONVENIENCE STORE OFF NEW DAY PARKWAY-NORTHGATE PARKWAY. HAVE BUSINESSES, ESP ON Y'STONE, CLEAN UP THEIR STOREFRONTS SO THE CITY LOOKS NICER. 25 Don't build apartments by single housing developments. Don't take away all the farms. 30 The mayor has failed us miserably It's sad the city of Chubbuck hates, discriminates so harshly against the elderly and disabled 34 Bring more companies in so we don't have to drive 100 plus miles to shop, It keeps the money in are town by providing jobs to are local community. 37 Build the park on the corner of Angela and Philbin! 40 Watching senior citizens walk through snow covered sidewalks is not safe. I saw it several times in 2023 when it had been a few days since it snowed. Also we have called several times asking the city to enforce their code about cars parking on sidewalks. Young children are forced to ride in the road instead of on sidewalks. For example Angela & Jasmine Drive. 47 We need more restaurants, drive thru for all the moms and a target. Would also love healthy grocery options as well as healthy places to eat as well 60 For heaven's sake...... leave some "green" areas. The amount of cookie cutter apartments being developed is ridiculous. Let's see what they look like in five years. Progress is great but when's enough? Chubbuck has lost its neighborhood charm. Rsp # I Goal B: A safe and healthy city for all 10 WE WHO LIVE IN CHUBBUCK DO NOT REALIZE THAT IT TAKES AN AMBULANCE AN AVERAGE OF 8 TO 10 MINUTES TO ARRIVE HERE AND SOMETIMES UP TO 15 MINUTES. OUR EMTs GET THERE QUICKLY BUT ARE LIMITED IN WHAT THEY CAN DO. WHY DON'T WE HAVE AN AMBULANCE STATIONED HERE IN CHUBBUCK? IF CHUBBUCK CAN'T AFFORD ITS OWN WHY CAN'T ONE OF THE BANNOCK COUNTY AMBULANCES BE STATIONED AT OUR FIREHOUSE? WE ARE ALSO UNDER REPRESENTED IN LAW ENFORCEMENT NUMBERS ACCORDING TO THE AVERAGE NUMBER OF OFFICERS TO POPULATION GUIDELINES. 25 Keep community safe and keep neighborhoods clean and updated. 30 1 just hope you can achieve these unachievable goals. I thank you for the great laugh I'm getting 39 We need our own ambulance services. Rsp # I Goal C: A built environment that establishes a unique identity for Chubbuck 10 STOP WITH ALL THE APARTMENTS! WE NEED AFFORDABLE HOUSING AS BUYING A HOME SHOWS STABLE INTEREST IN A COMMUNITY WHEREAS APARTMENT RENTERS HAVE NONE. 20 "Diversify housing" seems like code for Apartment buildings and government housing. We need more affordable housing, but please be cautious about going too far the other way by building eyesores that distract and increase population density to the point where crime rates increase. 25 Really think before you build and keep HOA's working for better neighborhoods. 28 We would love to see some better upkeep from those residents located along main roads such as Chubbuck Road. I'm not sure if this is enforceable in any way, but it would be nice to have our main roads more aesthetically pleasing. 37 no more apartments! 40 Stop allowing apartments to be built! Our city looks cheap. Even though the apartments are nice, we are cluttered with apartments! 50 I think that zoning should be used and be based on the infrastructure that is available so that we don't strain our existing resources. 56 There are too many townhouses/apartments being built in Chubbuck, particularly in single home neighborhoods. Rsp # I GOAL D: A vibrant community where social and economic needs are met 2 Can you give us an example of what we get from Bannock Planning. Have they brought in a business to Chubbuck? Make them produce or stop paying them 37 More parks, better schools. 30 The city council, in it's entirety needs to be replaced Rsp # I Goal E: A natural environment that reflects the community's desire for clean water and open I space 37 Fix the potholes in the streets! 30 Wtf Big Ideas for Community Health Summer 2024 - Survey 3 Q1 What are your thoughts about a Community Garden in Chubbuck? It is not implied that the City will pick up the bill for any of these ideas and funding sources have yet to be identified. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Answered: 48 Skipped:9 RESPONSES DATE I think it's a great idea, you would need it to be big enough for many people to have their own 8/26/2024 2:36 PM plot Sounds good. Who will maintain it? 8/26/2024 2:26 PM We used a community garden years ago when we lived in Germany, they are good for people 8/26/2024 2:17 PM who don't have space for a garden. Don't let it become an eye sore. Unfortunately, I think many people will want the benefits, but 8/26/2024 10:50 AM will not be willing to put in the work. So, it will just become weed infested. In theory I like the idea, but how will you keep others from taking food that isn't theirs? 8/26/2024 9:50 AM Without a larger police force to patrol it often at night and weekends, it'll get vandalized and will 8/26/2024 8:05 AM not work. Sounds like a good idea, although I have no other ideas on how to fund it. 8/25/2024 8:44 PM Nice idea, not needed. So many grow gardens in their own yards. 8/25/2024 4:34 PM In favor 8/25/2024 5:23 AM If you get enough interest, sure. 8/23/2024 6:27 PM It seems to be do -able. Who would care for the garden each day ?? A schedule to sign up for 8/23/2024 4:40 PM Idea has merit, would like to know funding sources when identified. 8/23/2024 3:19 PM No. It will just turn in to a weed patch. The city should not be involved as parks are not able to 8/23/2024 2:58 PM be maintained as needs. Great idea! 8/23/2024 11:19 AM I think it is a great idea and have always liked the community garden concept 8/23/2024 10:39 AM Good idea. 8/23/2024 10:13 AM Save the money and use for more police to patrol residential streets to nail these speeders in 8/23/2024 10:11 AM Chubbuck. Really, not an idea this senior would ever be in favor of. I can see the bickering now! It's a great idea 8/22/2024 8:41 PM Good idea 8/22/2024 8:28 PM No 8/22/2024 5:52 PM Most are weed patches that get any produce stollen, never seen one last 8/22/2024 4:54 PM I don't believe I would use it, but I know community gardens have been successful in other 8/22/2024 2:28 PM places. I garden in my backyard and find it very satisfying. I'd support a community garden. 8/22/2024 2:26 PM I would encourage community churches to create community gardens rather than any 8/22/2024 2:25 PM government involvment I think it could be a good thing, but from experience these things tend to go South, with people 8/22/2024 2:23 PM 1/2 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 Big Ideas for Community Health Summer 2024 - Survey 3 stealing other people's produce, other people not caring for their plot, etc Great idea as long as it is maintained, perhaps in part, by those who it benefits 8/22/2024 2:03 PM I think that this is a great idea! I would love to see the community come together around 8/22/2024 1:57 PM community gardens. Just, let's limit the amount of zucchini allowed, OK. I think this would be a good Idea as long as people want to support it. 8/22/2024 1:28 PM It's a nice idea. Who will maintain it and who will benefit from it? 8/22/2024 12:45 PM No 8/22/2024 12:02 PM No strong opinion. We would not personally use it and I am skeptical whether those who are 8/22/2024 12:00 PM most vulnerable would use it, but it's a neat idea to try. I think it is a great idea. 8/22/2024 11:46 AM I like the idea. I have lived in other ides that have this and it was a great opportunity to have 8/22/2024 11:24 AM fresh food that I was not able to grow in my own residence. I loved helping out there also Great 8/22/2024 11:17 AM Waste of time and money regardless of where it comes from. 8/22/2024 11:17 AM I love it! I see so many families in need of food for a few days before they get paid again. This 8/22/2024 11:16 AM would also be a great opportunity for those who need the services, to also work/volunteer to care fir the garden. I think this is an excellent and highly necessary idea 8/22/2024 10:53 AM Not a fan of this. 8/22/2024 10:30 AM Approved 8/22/2024 10:24 AM In my experience these do not work. There will be those that start strong but ending up 8/22/2024 10:21 AM neglecting their part. Others will work hard just to have their produce stolen. These type of ideas start off great but usually only benefit a very small number of people. The resources and funding would be better going somewhere that more members of the community are willing to take a part of. Love the idea 8/22/2024 10:19 AM I don't see these being maintained as they should be and would likely become an eyesore. 8/22/2024 10:17 AM Awesome if it's maintained and doesn't become another eyesore 8/22/2024 10:16 AM none 8/22/2024 10:13 AM This is kind of stupid. Who's going to maintain? Oversee? Pay for? 8/22/2024 9:31 AM I love the idea of a community garden. It does need to accessable for those with walkers and 8/22/2024 9:29 AM other walking devices. Maybe have some that are planters off the ground. I love gardening but as I age I find it harder to get down and then up off the ground. If ran correctly I think it's a great idea but it's gotta be ran an supervised 8/22/2024 9:01 AM Waste of resources and time. Spend more on the green spaces we have now. 8/22/2024 8:38 AM 2/2 Big Ideas for Community Health Summer 2024 - Survey 3 Q2 What are your thoughts about a Community Centerpiece Recreation Area?It is not implied that the City will pick up the bill for any of these ideas and funding sources have yet to be identified. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Answered: 46 Skipped: 11 RESPONSES DATE Where is Miller Park? I've live here for 8 years and never heard of it. The current parks we 8/26/2024 2:37 PM have are not very well kept up so maybe we don't need another one? Maybe just revamp the ones we have? Great! 8/26/2024 2:27 PM Please make sure there is plenty if parking! 8/26/2024 2:18 PM This is not it. Sorry, but I do not like this plan. I know some people will like it, but it is NOT for 8/26/2024 10:51 AM me. I love this, but there are already so many parks. To put more money into a "centerpiece" you 8/26/2024 8:12 AM need to go big or not do it at all. It needs to be different Yes, outdoor spaces are always great. 8/25/2024 4:35 PM Not in favor. Wasted resources. 8/25/2024 5:24 AM Absolutely love it. 8/23/2024 6:28 PM It looks great so far. 8/23/2024 4:42 PM Like it 8/23/2024 3:20 PM Community Centers / Recreation centers should be left to private buisness. Because to 8/23/2024 3:00 PM maintain the area would coast as much as priviate sector would charge. We don't need it to turn into poor maintance like wellness center. Always a great idea. 8/23/2024 11:19 AM Parks are always great for a community. The more different things in that park that can engage 8/23/2024 10:42 AM folks the better. Just a waste of money, still favor hiring more LE to patrol the residential streets. And before 8/23/2024 10:14 AM starting any large projects, why not finish some this city has started and never finished.... such as Siphon road from the RR tracks to Yellowstone, west bound? And may pave the remainder of siphon from where the chip seal stopped to yellowstone to possibly fill in the chuck holes. Meh. 8/23/2024 10:13 AM Great idea 8/22/2024 8:42 PM Good idea 8/22/2024 8:29 PM Yes 8/22/2024 5:52 PM Pickleball courts would be an awesome addition to a park in Chubbuck. We have plenty of 8/22/2024 5:41 PM splash pads, which only serve the children. Pickleball courts would be used by all ages. Maintenance and upkeep needs to be considered, 8/22/2024 4:56 PM Are you ready to increase your maintenance crews? So many of our parks are in need of 8/22/2024 2:32 PM weeding. I get very upset at parents who let their children damage trees at the Capell ballpark area. We need something for these bored siblings to do at Capell other than tear up trees. It's a great idea. I wish it would include a swimming pool. 8/22/2024 2:31 PM I think this park could be cool, but the location of Miller Park sucks. When my kids were tiny, 1 8/22/2024 2:26 PM 1/2 Big Ideas for Community Health Summer 2024 - Survey 3 2/2 wouldn't have felt comfortable taking them to a park abutting the freeway. There are nicer park locations already that would benefit from this. 24 Don't care for this idea. 8/22/2024 2:06 PM 25 1 love the idea of a fit park. A decent amphitheater area would be nice as well, as well as a dog 8/22/2024 1:59 PM park. 26 1 like that idea, but an indoor swiming pool would go a long towards community health. Many of 8/22/2024 1:32 PM our elderly and diabled are unable to do regula activites , but water activites are easier for them to participate. 27 This would be an amazing idea 8/22/2024 1:31 PM 28 1 like the idea. Where is Miller park. Can most people walk to it? 8/22/2024 12:46 PM 29 absolutely 8/22/2024 12:01 PM 30 Sounds great! Beautiful outdoor spaces are an asset to the community. 8/22/2024 12:00 PM 31 1 think it's a great idea. 8/22/2024 11:46 AM 32 Great idea for me.. I have grandkids that would love more places to play 8/22/2024 11:25 AM 33 Where's Miller Park? Fine, but no new taxes to implement 8/22/2024 11:19 AM 34 1 love this idea. Pocatello/Chubbuck is the first city I've lived in that does not have exercise 8/22/2024 11:19 AM equipment for kids to play on. Having now a family member who was recently paralyzed makes me more aware that there needs to be more parks that are inclusive for wheelchairs! 35 Waste of time and money. 8/22/2024 11:18 AM 36 1 this would be cool. I've seen community exercise parks for adults and such online. It would 8/22/2024 10:54 AM be amazing to have a gathering space besides ok ward 37 1 feel the city should look into a water park that is better than Pocatello and Lava 8/22/2024 10:31 AM 38 Approved 8/22/2024 10:24 AM 39 It's a good idea but what is needed to prevent vandalism? We have various amazing recreation 8/22/2024 10:24 AM areas in our valley that are constantly being vandalized, causing burdens on tax payers. 40 really needed! 8/22/2024 10:19 AM 41 Yes 8/22/2024 10:19 AM 42 This could be a very worthwhile project. 8/22/2024 10:18 AM 43 Would be great and beneficial 8/22/2024 10:13 AM 44 No! Work on other parks first. Cotant Park ballfields need repair. Lights on scoreboard don't 8/22/2024 9:34 AM work, infields are uneven and full of holes. Fix that stuff first. You all can hardly keep up with mowing and trimming on your other properties, so let's not add anything else. 45 1 agree this would be good. BUT, as I have been at OK Ward park many times there has been 8/22/2024 9:32 AM vandalism. If the city is to do this appropriate funding needs to be awarded to upkeeps and security. 46 No I think our parks are sufficient 8/22/2024 9:01 AM 2/2 Big Ideas for Community Health Summer 2024 - Survey 3 Q3 What are your thoughts about a Mobile Food Pantry and similar mobile services for Chubbuck?It is not implied that the City will pick up the bill for any of these ideas and funding sources have yet to be identified. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Answered: 46 Skipped: 11 RESPONSES DATE Sounds like a good idea, interested to see how it would be implemented 8/26/2024 2:38 PM Could be beneficial to some. 8/26/2024 2:27 PM I think it would be nice to have. 8/26/2024 2:20 PM This may be good, but I don't want it to raise my taxes or my city utility bill which is ALREADY 8/26/2024 10:52 AM way too expensive. Horrible idea! Hate this! 8/26/2024 8:12 AM Depends on the cost. 8/25/2024 4:35 PM Not in favor. Not a city function. 8/25/2024 5:25 AM Not necessary. Pocatello has resources close enough. 8/23/2024 6:30 PM Sounds a good way to connect with the seniors who are in need of food and no way to mobilize 8/23/2024 4:45 PM themselves to acquire what is needed. Pocatello has these. Would be nice to see something on this side of the valley. 8/23/2024 3:20 PM Great Idea for a non profit. Not for the city to be running. The city should support a non profit to 8/23/2024 3:01 PM do this. Helpful for those in need who cannot get to food sources. 8/23/2024 11:20 AM I like the idea but am concerned about cost. If this thing is going to be continually driving 8/23/2024 10:44 AM around the community that could get expensive, I can see this being taken advantage of. How about spending the taxes on what they are 8/23/2024 10:16 AM intended to be spent on and not taking my taxes to feed other people. With the inflation causng cost of living to go up, many of us on fixed incomes would rather see taxes reduced then spent on other people, since in a sense we are all in need of something. I would rather have stationary locations. 8/23/2024 10:14 AM Good idea 8/23/2024 4:05 AM This is needed by many especially if they don't have transaction. Amazing idea 8/22/2024 8:43 PM No 8/22/2024 5:53 PM I like the idea, but feel like those that need it may already be getting help from the food stamps 8/22/2024 5:42 PM program and WIC. Let those who do food banks do what they do and keep the city out of it. 8/22/2024 4:58 PM It sounds like a good idea 8/22/2024 2:54 PM It is a long way to the foodbank. 8/22/2024 2:33 PM I would encourage churches and businesses to create and provide these services and not a 8/22/2024 2:27 PM government entity Gate City Christian Church already offers a food pantry. Maybe look into partnering with them? 8/22/2024 2:27 PM Don't like this idea, resources already available through food bank, churches, etc. 8/22/2024 2:11 PM 1/2 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 Me 41 42 43 44 45 46 Big Ideas for Community Health Summer 2024 - Survey 3 I have no comments on this one. 8/22/2024 1:59 PM Is this in partnership with meals on wheels. 8/22/2024 1:34 PM How will you ensure the stock on hand and who will maintain the integrity of the food? 8/22/2024 12:47 PM This seems like it would meet the needs of vulnerable residents better than a community 8/22/2024 12:02 PM garden. yes 8/22/2024 12:01 PM I think it's a good idea. 8/22/2024 11:47 AM With proper screening and making sure the food is given to people in true need I think a great 8/22/2024 11:26 AM idea. Maybe there should be a focus on increasing resources at the current food pantry at Gate City 8/22/2024 11:24 AM Christan Church. I would bet the Church of Jesus Christ would continue to support as they do currently, and maybe provide increased resources. How needed is this? Seems like the lineup for free lunches during the summer indicates people 8/22/2024 11:22 AM take advantage of these type of services I love this idea. I would make sure with doing health checks that it is benefiting the 8/22/2024 11:20 AM community- similar to WIC. Maybe have some incentives too with quit smoking =more food. Participate in community events = more food. Yes please. This is really necessary. I think I have neighbors who would use it. It would be 8/22/2024 10:55 AM helpful for senior citizens and disabled individuals I am not sure on this either 8/22/2024 10:32 AM Helpful concept but would be difficult to manage and maintain as it would require a high level of 8/22/2024 10:28 AM organization and expectations. Integrate self help classes into this and it's a great idea. Many people take advantage of these 8/22/2024 10:26 AM types of services with no plans of improving their situation. Outside resources can only help so much. Many people need to take the initiative to help themselves. Who decides just who needs and gets help. I see the school free lunch program being abused 8/22/2024 10:20 AM all the time and this likely would follow suit. This would be so vital to our community! 8/22/2024 10:19 AM Yes 8/22/2024 10:19 AM would be a great resource 8/22/2024 10:13 AM Same question... whose funding this? Plenty of other programs around. 8/22/2024 9:35 AM Not as enthusiastic about this since there are resources in our area, but the moble idea is 8/22/2024 9:33 AM good. If ran correctly yes 8/22/2024 9:02 AM 2/2 Big Ideas for Community Health Summer 2024 - Survey 3 Q4 Which one(s) do you feel may have the most impact in the Community?It is not implied that the City will pick up the bill for any of these and funding sources have yet to be identified.lf you have any difficulty viewing the Big Idea images, please send an email to OurFuture@CityofChubbuck.us . Answered: 54 Skipped:3 1/3 Which one(s) do you feet may have the most impact in the Co... Answered: 54 Skipped:3 Community Garden Community Centerpiece Recreation Area Mobile Food Bank and Similar... 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Like very m... It's ok Neutral Not convin-. Don't like it... Big Ideas for Community Health Summer 2024 - Survey 3 Y (0) Community Garden Community Centerpiece Recreation Area Mobile Food Bank and Similar... Big Ideas for Community Health Summer 2024 - Survey 3 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Like very m... It's ok Neutral Not convinc... Don't like it... 2/3 Big Ideas for Community Health Summer 2024 - Survey 3 3/3 LIKE VERY IT'S NEUTRAL NOT DON'T LIKE IT TOTAL WEIGHTED MUCH OK CONVINCED AT ALL AVERAGE Community Garden 38.89% 24.07% 5.56% 16.67% 14.81% 21 13 3 9 8 54 3.56 Community Centerpiece 51.85% 18.52% 5.56% 14.81% 9.26% Recreation Area 28 10 3 8 5 54 3.89 Mobile Food Bank and Similar 25.93% 14.81% 18.52% 25.93% 14.81% Programs 14 8 10 14 8 54 3.11 3/3 Comment (optional) Start taking care of what we already have, instead of adding to it. Lot's of properties need maintenance. Quit ignoring the rest of the city, we don't care about the "new city hall" appeal, we care about our entire city. People don't need entertainment provided or proctored by government. The food pantry idea has virtue in itself. I already made comments under each idea why ask again? All great community ideas that benefit health and welfare. Encouraging being outside and eating quality food with access to those things makes a great city! maintaing current parks would befit more than first 3 options. I believe all three are great ideas if implamented right. I just fear for the garden it'll not work without a police force large enough to patrol it. THe Centerpiece rec area is just another park if not done bigger and better than what it already around. Otherwise its just another simple park that will draw no more people than anyother park. As for the mobile food bank, everyone needs to work on eating healther foods. So to have this option for the poor or disable it just inabaling peopel to not work, be lazy, and inable a bigger issue at hand. DO NOT LIKE THIS!!!!!!! Although there are not food pantry resources directly in Chubbuck, there are many in Pocatello that serve both communities. I don't think the community garden would thrive. It might start strong in the spring, and be popular to pick from in the fall, but the year- long effort is unlikely to be successful unless there are individuals responsible for consistent maintenence. y r ,.. Wr- 10 mow 4UL i 17-17 b� AV Office of the Attorney General Idaho Regulatory Takings Act Guidelines JANUARY 2023 RAL R. LABRADOR Attorney General 700 West Jefferson Street Boise, ID 83720-0010 www.ag.idaho.gov State of Idaho Office of Attorney General Raul 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 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. RAUL R. LABRADOR Attorney General 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 PROCESS ................................. 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 ANALYSIS.................................................................B-1 APPENDIX C: REGULATORY TAKINGS CHECKLIST.......... C-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 parry 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 1, 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.] Idaho Regulatory Takings Act Guidelines 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 (1) 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 Idaho Regulatory Takings Act Guidelines 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 (2) 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 (1) 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. (a) 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. Idaho Regulatory Takings Act Guidelines 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 (1) 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 (1) 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.] 4 Idaho Regulatory Takings Act Guidelines 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). Idaho Regulatory Takings Act Guidelines 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: (1) when a government action causes physical occupancy of property, (2) when a government action causes physical invasion of property, and (3) 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. Idaho Regulatory Takings Act Guidelines 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 Idaho Regulatory Takings Act Guidelines 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 Idaho Regulatory Takings Act Guidelines 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 Com., 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 Idaho Regulatory Takings Act Guidelines 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 10 Idaho Regulatory Takings Act Guidelines 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. 11 Idaho Regulatory Takings Act Guidelines 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. Dgp'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. 12 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 Com, 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: (1) the state regulation in effect merged the two lots; (2) the physical characteristics, location, and relationship between the two lots made the lots significantly more valuable together than when considered separately; and (3) 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 A-1 Idaho Regulatory Takings Act Guidelines Appendix A: Significant Federal and State Cases 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 Mumt. 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. A-2 Idaho Regulatory Takings Act Guidelines Appendix A: Significant Federal and State Cases 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: 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 A-3 Idaho Regulatory Takings Act Guidelines Appendix A: Significant Federal and State Cases 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 at. 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 A-4 Idaho Regulatory Takings Act Guidelines Appendix A: Significant Federal and State Cases 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. A-5 Idaho Regulatory Takings Act Guidelines Appendix A: Significant Federal and State Cases 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. Irvine, 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. A-6 Idaho Regulatory Takings Act Guidelines Appendix A: Significant Federal and State Cases 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 A-7 Idaho Regulatory Takings Act Guidelines Appendix A: Significant Federal and State Cases 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). A-8 Idaho Regulatory Takings Act Guidelines Appendix A: Significant Federal and State Cases 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 A-9 Idaho Regulatory Takings Act Guidelines Appendix A: Significant Federal and State Cases 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. A-10 Idaho Regulatory Takings Act Guidelines Appendix A: Significant Federal and State Cases 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. A-11 Idaho Regulatory Takings Act Guidelines Appendix A: Significant Federal and State Cases 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. McCuskev v. Canyon County Commis, 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 plaintiffs 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 plaintiffs property from $3.3 million to A-12 Idaho Regulatory Takings Act Guidelines Appendix A: Significant Federal and State Cases $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. A-13 Idaho Regulatory Takings Act Guidelines Appendix A: Significant Federal and State Cases 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 Auencv 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." A-14 Idaho Regulatory Takings Act Guidelines Appendix A: Significant Federal and State Cases 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. A-15 Idaho Regulatory Takings Act Guidelines Appendix A: Significant Federal and State Cases 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. A-16 Idaho Regulatory Takings Act Guidelines APPENDIX B: REQUEST FOR REGULATORY TAKING ANALYSIS Name: Address: City: County: Recommended Form for: REQUEST FOR TAKING ANALYSIS Zip Code: 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: B-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 (a) Does the Regulation or Action Require a Property Owner to Either Dedicate a Portion of Property or to Grant an Easement? (b) 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). C-1 -�•- '.� t - - , jLIF _ f 0 :tion • :onteb - Contents Section Geography and Neighborhoods 1 Population and Demographics 2 Social Determinants of Health > Prevention, — Vulnerability, Resilience, Support 3 -- City Services and Public Safety > Fire / EMS, 1- - Police, Sanitation, Streets, Water, Wastewater 4 - -- - ., Healthy Environment > Water Quality, Groundwater, Air Quality 5 — Land and Building > Land Uses, Residential and Commercial Permits 6 Access to Necessities > Medical Care, Food, Activities 7 Economics > About Chubbuck Employers, Employment, Income, Poverty 8 • This data is used directly in preparation of th Comprehensive Plan and helps measure our progres- Transportation Safety > 9 toward the established goals and objectives. Automobile, Transit, Bicycle, Pedestrian ■ The report is also an appendix to the Plan - information will be updated from time to time and remain available on the City of Chubbuck website. Contents > Page i -7 ZZ km 7V ;10 @Is 0 0 0 Area of Impact Boundary Urban Services Boundary 7 Chubbuck City Limits Power County Geography ) City, Urban Services, Area of Impact Fort Hall Reservation -1 A Chubbuck Area j?f.!Tpv 1�1��ry ... �t.f!zz' ...................... ...... ........ ................................... ............... L Urban Serwc" Uou,ndqry r C4 City umits r: Urban Services Boundary ........... Chabback Area of Fniport Boundary r 4 Source ) US Census, City of Chubbuck Urban Services Boundary Areas where city services are provided or available within 1/2 mile, more or Less. City LkWts Pocatello ,4 Geography and Neighborhoods ) Page 1-2 M Geography) Zip Code 83202 LEGEND Fort Noll Reservation �. 83202 D i 532UI- ZI p Code Zip Code Boundary .............. Chubbuck Area of Impact Boundary ` Chubbuck City Limits - 832023 4 tV Zip Code 83202 ' 6: Zip Code 83204 L (Power County) r .............1.�rl. >- 4 ChubbuckAreo ct Boundary'' 83202 Per the 2022 ACS the City of Chubbuck made up nearly 70% of the zip code papulation and the Area of Impact (dashed brawn outline) made up nearly 80%. 83202 �J Zip Code 83202 includes Chubbuck, Tyhee, Fort Hall, and a portion of northwest Pocatello. Source > USPS, City of Chubbuck Geography and Neighborhoods > Page 1-3 U Geographv) Tracts and Bl ChubbucI- includes all or Fort Hall servaliorp part of 6 Census Tracts Pbsw.rcounty Tract 5 6 i, f Tract 5 Mostly Tyhee, also rural areas to the NW, and NE section of City4 2 Tract 4 I I Most of population within the City B 21 Tract 4 Gz SG 3 Tact 3.01 8G ? BG r * Tract 3 Tracts 3.01 and 3.02 created for the 2020 Census by splitting the former Tract 3 RG r LEGEND Tract (3.01) Boundaries Bi ack Group (SQ RouMad es D Chu bbuck City Limits Tract Tract 2 UG No population in + City boundary Tract 3.02* BG 2 Tra 12 Tract 1 I U6 �� 7 rapt Block Groups are formed within Tracts — some Census Tract data is available for Block Groups Tract 11.03 8G 2 Tract 1.04 Tract 14 A small portion within the City — all commercial properties, no residential Source) US Census Geography and Neighborhoods > Page 1-4 ke eot7raphy )Nei*9 hborhoods Mcanliglr�Wallfn - Tads TraM - _ - r - �Ir�tlp�try _ Harvest r _ ��r� � '�J +- pflil gs SORT W%Lt Od HE.LYr13f�i T#�rd s — ^fir; — _ O Sid Traci i i - UW �f"`-""- - 3C21i#@i1T11�1 Cray g _ Park - Buffalo Creek " - I ----="f Briseae - i Homestead Adarns I• - - free Valley Tray :1& - Paris - -- - :' + rMa Paris c 1'.-6 iJNi, cape , Arnstrn a9 Stuart Toad Park - Rawlarid, „.,..�„•,•�,,,, .;-. Cumberfand- Brookstane- Heritage Park-- Pak a. Park - ►_ PromisePark Grovezracra 7. , 1J+; CP¢�tr,• -• -- _z .--..- •.'rr . r: aNsi�rara�a�$rrcr - - � ..-. Knudsen ,•• � Park Mary's Park � Y� yy7 _ __Paris P ... -s Blvd Cfiubbuck- �1>► - Meads Village _ a �,J� • iAr A �• ; • � Tra[t 3.01,, _ _ - TIM - . i - i lit � _ South.a�►:�;.�iti.zx Ira d.0i _ � a _ _ Yelloaystone, J 12 �' 4 r A 4 it S -- -- _�. ti i. - a r [ - /-'� f • > The neighborhoods shown above were created for informational purposes, using established Census Tracts and Block Groups. > Wherever possible, data for neighborhoods is preferred over other geographies. Source > US Census Bureau, City of Chubbuck Geography and Neighborhoods > Page 1-5 Population Data and Demographics > Wherever possible, this report provides "close- up" data for neighborhoods > Population Characteristics » City of Chubbuck » Census Tracts » Tyhee » Area of City Impact » Neighborhoods » Census block groups > Population Projections » Chubbuck » Ratio/comparison to • Pocatello • Portneuf Valley • Bannock County Population and Demographics Population and Demographics) Page 2-1 0 cteristor- With Census Tracts, Tyhee (Census Designated Place), and Area of City Impact POPULATION DECENNIAL CENSUS Population (2020 Census) Population in city limits % Population in city limits Population (2010 Census) Net change 2010-2020 % Change 2010-2020 RACE AND HISPANIC ORIGIN (2020 Census) White (alone) Black or African American (alone) American Indian and Alaska Native (alone) Asian (alone) Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander (alone) Two or More Races Hispanic or Latino (all races) White (alone), not Hispanic or Latino AGE AND SEX (2020 Census) Persons under 5 years (percent) Persons 5 to 9 years (percent) Persons 10 to 14 years (percent) Persons 15 to 20 years (percent) Persons 20 to 24 years (percent) Persons 25 to 34 years (percent) Persons 35 to 44 years (percent) Persons 45 to 54 (percent) Persons 55 to 64 (percent) Female Persons 65 to 74 years (percent) Male Persons 65 to 74 years (percent) Female Persons 75 years and over (percent) Male Persons 75 years and over (percent) Median Age - Females Median Age - Males Source) US Census TRACT 2 4,274 5,159 6,796 1,980 1,130 TRACT 3.01 TRACT 3.02 TRACT 4 TRACT 5 (PART) 8 - 15,570 100.0% Cts 15,570 4,274 5,159 6,796 1,980 1,130 1849 15,570 4,267 5,092 6,203 8 - 15,570 100.0% 99.8% 98.7% 91.3% 0.4% - 85.5% 13,922 3,860 5,192 5,510 1,857 1,1 D8 16,419 1,648 414 (33) 1,286 123 22 1,790 11.8% 10.7% -0.6% 23.3% 6.6% 2.0% 10.9% 84.9% - 79.5% 84.4% 88.9% 89.6% 89.2% 85.5% 0.5% 0.4% 0.5% 0.5% 0.1% D.2% D.4% 2.6% 5.4% 2.0% 1.0% 1.8% 1.9% 2.4% 1.1% 1.1% 1.4% 0.8% 0.3% D.4% 1.0% 0.3% 0.6% 0.2% 0.3% 0.1% 0.2% 0.3% 7.7% 9.1% 8.5% 6.1% 5.5% 5.6% 7.4% 9.7% 12.3% 10.2% 7.6% 4.7% 6.1% 9.1% 81.7% 75.7% 81.4% 85.9% 88.7% 88.1% 82.5% 7.8% 8.1% 7.0% 8.3% 4.6% 4.0% 7.5% 8.7% - 7.3% 7.7% 10.2% 6.7% 7.3% 8.4% 9.2% 7.8% 9.3% 9.6% 8.2% 7.5% 9.0% 7.8% 7.1% 8.2% 7.9% 8.3% 8.3% 7.9% 5.9% 8.2% 6.0% 4.3% 4.9% 5.1% 5.7% 13,6% 16.8% 12.2% 12.5% 6.2% 6.2% 12.7% 13.9% - 11.8% 14.0% 15.0% 13.2% 13.8% 13.8% 9.9% 8.4% 11.1% 9.9% 12.6% 13.5% 1D.2% 9.3% 9.2% 9.9% 9.4% 15.1% 16.2% 10.1% 4.6% 4.8% 5.0% 4.3% 6.3% 4.2% 4.8% 3.8% 3.1% 4.3% 4.0% 8.3% 8.5% 4.3% 3.3% - 4.8% 3.1% 2.5% 3.0% 3.4% 3.2% 2.3% 2.6% 2.3% 2.2% 2.6% 1.9% 2.4% 31.6 33.4 35.9 33.1 43.7 43.6 NIA 34 29.2 34 33 42.6 42.8 NIA Population and Demographics > Page 2-2 � 78Characteristir- ity, Tracts With Census Tracts, Tyhee (Census Designated Place), and Area of City Impact DISABILITY STATUS (2022 ACS est.) for the Civilian Non institutionalized Poplulation Total with a Disability % of Population with a Disability Under 18 years with a Disability 18 to 64 years with a Disability 65 years and over with a Disability VETERANS (2022 ACS est.) Total Veterans in Civilian Population Female 18 to 34 years 35 to 54 years 55 to 64 years 65 to 74 years 75 years and over Male 18 to 34 years 35 to 54 years 55 to 64 years 65 to 74 years 75 years and over FOREIGN BORN (2022 ACS est.) Esimated Number of Foreign Born Persons Naturalized U.S. Citizens (percent) Not a U.S. Citizen (percent) Source) US Census TRACT 2 730 675 572 199 174 TRACT 3.01 TRACT 3.02 TRACT 4 TRACT 5 (PART) 12.4% 8.5% 10.1% 13.0% N/A AREA OF TYHEE CITY IMPACT 1,931 730 675 572 199 174 2176 12.4% 18.9% 12.4% 8.5% 10.1% 13.0% N/A 108 - 16 24 68 9 117 930 - 386 255 303 66 105 1010 893 - 328 396 201 124 69 1049 813 206 279 328 154 59 967 61 2 10 49 21 5 82 40 0 0 40 0 0 40 a - 0 0 a a a a 9 0 0 9 5 0 14 a 0 0 0 16 5 16 12 2 10 0 0 0 12 752 204 269 279 133 54 885 129 0 60 69 0 0 129 Tab 42 32 34 16 5 124 191 76 22 93 48 29 239 121 30 44 47 40 14 161 203 - 56 111 36 29 6 232 543 - 214 182 147 6 6 549 44.9% - 7.9% 50.0% 92.5% 100% 100% 45.5% 55.1% - 92.1% 50.0% 7.5% - - 54.5% Population and Demographics > Page 2-3 cteristir- With Census Tracts, Tyhee (Census Designated Place), and Area of City Impact LANGUAGE SPOKEN AT HOME (ACS 2022 est.) Population 5 to 17 years Speak only English (percent) Speak Spanish (percent) Speak English "well" or "very well" (percent) Speak another language at home Population 18 to 64 years Speak only English (percent) Speak Spanish (percent) Speak English "well" or "very well" (percent) Speak other languages Speak English "well" or "very well" (percent) Population 65 years and alder Speak only English (percent) Speak Spanish (percent) Speak English "well" or "very well" (percent) Speak other languages Speak English "well" or "very well" (percent) EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT (2022 est.) (for persons aged 25 years and older) No High School Diploma (percent) High School or Equivalent (percent) Some College, no degree (percent) Associate's Degree (percent) Bachelor's Degree (percent) Graduate or Professional Degree (percent) Source) US Census TRACT 2 834 1,288 1,644 496 429 TRACT 3.01 TRACT 3.02 TRACT 4 TRACT 5 (PART) 98.4% 98.1% 96.0% 4.4% Cts 3,723 834 1,288 1,644 496 429 4,262 95.6% 89.8% 98.4% 96.5% 98.4% 98.1% 96.0% 4.4% 10.2% 1.6% 3.5% 1.6% 1.9% 4.0% 94.5% 100.0% 100.0% 84.5% 100.0% 100.0% 94.8% 8,817 2,318 2,890 3,842 1,011 747 10,061 89.6% 84.9% 86.1% 95.3% 98.4% 90.1% 90.2% 7.3% 5.2% 13.9% 3.7% 1.6% 9.9% 7.2% 87.0% 100.0% 100.0% 91.5% 100.0% 100.0% 88.4% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 100.0% 100.0% - 84.6% - 100.0% 2,203 - 643 871 754 383 643 2,651 96.0% 100.0% 96.1% 92.8% 98.4% 100,0% 96.5% 1.3% 2.1% 1.3% 1.6% 1.3% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 2.7% 1.8% 5.8% - 2.3% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% - 100.0% 9,890 2,629 3,591 3,941 1,213 821 11,374 385 56 190 160 88 51 494 2.5% 1.3% 3.7% 2.4% 4.4% 4.5% 2.7% 2,390 836 790 844 272 166 2,742 15.4% 19.6% 15.3% 12.4% 13.7% 14.7% 15.1% 3110 637 1287 1266 379 256 3,569 20.0% 14.9% 24.9% 18.6% 19.1% 22.7% 19.6% 1153 359 336 467 145 100 1307 7.4% 8.4% 6.5% 6.9% 7.3% 8.8% 7.2% 2122 549 653 990 198 147 2390 13.6% 12.8% 12.7% 14.6% 10.D% 13.0% 13.1°Io 730 192 335 214 131 101 872 4.7% 4.5% 6.5% 3.1% 6.6% 8.9% 4.8% Population and Demographics > Page 2-4 Characteristir- With Census Tracts, Tyhee (Census Designated Place), and Area of City Impact 94 POPULATION ENROLLED IN SCHOOL (2022 ACS estimate) Enrolled in Grades 1-4 Enrolled in Grades 5-8 Enrolled in Grades 9-12 'ity, Tracts TRACT 2 541 191 Number of Households 5,671 - 1,685 TRACT 3.01 TRACT 3.02 TRACT 4TRACT 5 {PART} 857 Average Family Household Size 3.37 3.3 1,176 118 971 62 902 116 FAMILIES AND HOUSEHOLDS 2 (ACS 2022 est.) 541 191 Number of Households 5,671 - 1,685 Average Household Size 2.75 2.28 Family Households 4,007 857 Average Family Household Size 3.37 3.3 Non -family Households 1,664 828 Average Nonfamily Household Size 1.22 1.22 RESIDENCE 1 YEAR AGO (2021) (ACS 2022 est.) 2.88 3.17 (Population 1 year and over) 1,427 1,830 Same house 13,732 3,165 Different house in Bannock County 827 5C8 Another Idaho County 298 155 Another state 510 44 Abroad 67 - ' Tyhee includes part of Tract 5 and a small portion of Tract 3.02 1.14 NIA 2 Additional information on housing, households, and families can be found in other chapters of the Existing Conditions Report. Source) US Census AREA OF TYHEE 1 CITY IMPACT 367 541 191 172 1,217 317 483 146 122 1,008 313 421 199 181 1,049 1,887 2,258 687 463 6,517 2.9 2.96 2.88 3.17 N/A 1,427 1,830 542 367 4,656 3.41 3.36 3.29 3.67 N/A 460 428 145 96 1,861 1.2 1.19 1.13 1.14 NIA 5,036 5,890 1,772 1,271 15,863 148 171 134 110 961 130 35 NIA NIA 320 127 339 30 23 540 - 67 8 a 75 Population and Demographics > Page 2-5 Neighborhoods > Tract 3.01 INFORMATION FOR BLOCK GROUPS AND NEIGHBORHOODS POPULATION (Census) 2020 Census Persons within city limits % Population inside city limits 2010 Census Net Change 2010-2020 % Change 2010-2020 RACE AND HISPANIC ORIGIN (2020 Census) White (alone) Black or African American (alone) American Indian and Alaska Native (alone) Asian (alone) Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander (alone) Two or More Races Hispanic or Latino (all races) White (alone), not Hispanic or Latino AGE AND SEX (2022 ACS est.) Persons under 5 years (percent) Persons 5 to 17 years (percent) Persons 65 years and over (percent) Female persons 65 years and over (percent) Male persons 65 years and over (percent) Median Age (2020 Census) VETERANS (2022 ACS est,) Source) US Census BLOCK GROUP 1 8 GROUP 2 BLOCK GROUP 3 Chubbuck South Knudsen Subtotal Briscoe RoadStuart Park I Capell Park Subtotal Village Yellowstone Boulevard 98 839 336 1,273 1,311 1,245 445 1;690 98 839 336 1,273 1,311 1,245 438 1,683 100.0°lo- 100.0% 100.0%a 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%a 98.4% 99.6°/c 109 457 335 901 1,248 1,268 443 1,711 (11) 382 1 372 63 (23) 2 (21) -11.2% 45.5% 0.3°/C 29.2% 4.8% -1.8% 0.4% -1.2% 61.2% 80.8% 76.5% 78.2% 83.1% 82.7% 63.6% 77.6% - 0.6%0 0.3% 0.5%a 0.4% 0.3% 0.4% 0.4%0 1.0% 6.8% 8.3% 6.8% 3.6% 3.5% 12.4% 5.9% 2.0% 2.4% 1.2% 2.0% 0.5% 1.1% 0.2% 0.9% - 0.6% 0.3% 0.5%a 0.4% 0.6% 1.6% 0.8% 29.6% 7.3% 7.4% 9.0% 8.2% 7.5% 16.6% 9.9% 28.6% 8.5% 12.8% 11.2% 12.4% 11.8% 16.4% 13.0% 53.1% 78,1% 74.7% 75.3% 78.7% 78.3% 60.4% 73.6% 11.2% 5.4% 5.7% 5.9% 9.4% 7.1% 13.7% 8.9% 27.6% 9.4% 25.9% 15.2% 21.6% 19.2% 26.5% 21.1% 16.3% 27.7% 8.6% 21.8% 9.5% 17.7% 6.7% 14.8% 11.2% 19.8% 5.4% 15.3% 5.5% 10.1%4 4.0% 85% 5.1% 7.9% 3.3% 6.4% 4.0% 7.6% 2.7% 6.3% - - - 50.1 29.0 - - 41.2 - - - 37 133 - 36 Population and Demographics > Page 2-6 = Nei*ghborhoods > Tract INFORMATION FOR BLOCK GROUPS BLOCK GROUP r B GROUP 2 BLOCK GROUP 3 10 AND NEIGHBORHOODS Chubbuck South Knudsen Village Yellowstone Boulevard Subtotal Briscoe Road Stuart Park Capell Park Subtotal EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT (for persons 25+) (2022 ACS estimate - percent) No High School Diploma - - - 1.5% - 5.9% High School or Equivalent - - - 42.5°1% 31.1% - 20.9% Some College, no degree - - - 30.6% 17.3% - - 27.2% Associate's Degree - - - 1.2% 17.2% - - 22.3% Bachelor's Degree - - - 5.6% 32.8% - 20.5% Graduate or Professional Degree 18.6% 1.6% - - 3.1% POPULATION ENROLLED IN SCHOOL (2022 ACS estimate) Enrolled in grade 1 to grade 4 24 174 - 70 Enrolled in grade 5 to grade 8 - 31 161 - NIA Enrolled in grade 9 to grade 12 - 38 112 - 40 PUBLIC SCHOOL ATTENDANCE ZONES' Chubbuck Public Elementary School Zone(s) Syringa Wilcox Wilcox Ellis Ellis Chubbuck Ellis Public Middle School Zone Alameda Hawthorne Hawthorne Hawthorne Hawthorne Alameda Public High School Zone Highland Highland Highland Highland Highland Highland ' Several Charter, Private, and Alternative Schools also serve the Portneuf Valley. Alpine Middle School, Connor Academy, Gem Prep, and PV --TEC are located in Chubbuck- The hubbuckThe Portneuf Valley Technical Education Center Campus is a regional career technical education center owned and operated by the Pocatello-Chubbuck Schooid District 25. Source > US Census, Pocatello-Chubbuck School District, City of Chubbuck Population and Demographics > Page 2-7 Nei,*ahb 00 INFORMATION FOR BLOCK GROUPS AND NEIGHBORHOODS POPULATION (Census) 2020 Census Persons within city limits % Population inside city limits 2010 Census Net Change 2010-2020 % Change 2010-2020 RACE AND HISPANIC ORIGIN (2020 Census) White (alone) Black or African American (alone) American Indian and Alaska Native (alone) Asian (alone) Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander (alone) Two or More Races Hispanic or Latino (all races) White (alone), not Hispanic or Latino AGE AND SEX (2022 ACS est.) Persons under 5 years (percent) Persons 5 to 17 years (percent) Persons 65 years and over (percent) Female persons 65 years and over (percent) Male persons 65 years and over (percent) Median Age (2020 Census) VETERANS (2022 ACS est.) Source) US Census ds BLOCK GROUP 1 Industry Way7NC0r ide Whitaker Road Pleasant View Mary's Park Subtotal ng 25 1,031 574 1,215 2,845 15 1,031 545 1,215 2,806 WA 60.0% 100.0% 94.9% 100.0% 98.6% 4 861 625 1,283 2,773 - 21 170 (51) (58) 72 - 84.0% 165% -89% -56% 2.5% ct 3.02 B GROUP 2 B GROUP 3 Bicentennial 6riarwood Park Park 1,085 1,229 1,061 1,225 97.8% 99.7% 1,062 1,357 23 (128) 2 1% -10.4% 52.0% 89.3% 87.8% 86.3% 87.4°/c 82.2% 79.4% - 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3°/c 0.7% 0.7% 8.0% 0.8% 0.3% 1.1% 0.9% 2.9% 3.7% 4.0% 0.5% 1.0% 0.2% 0.5% 1.5% 3.5% - 0.3% 0.0% 0.2% 0.2% 0.3% 0.0% - 36.0% 7.5% 8.7% 9.3% 8.8% 8.9% 7.6% 4.0% 8.1% 6.1% 8.7% 7.9% 11.4% 14.2% 52.0% 86.8% 86.4% 83.4% 85.0% 79.2% 75.0% - - - - - 6.6% 19.4% 0.0% - - - - 23.5% 21.2% 26.2% - - - - 18.2% 13.6% 8.7% - 10.1% 7.2% 4.1% - - - - 8.7% 4.1% 4.6% - 41.1 31.0 35.4 235 44 0 Population and Demographics > Page 2-8 Neighborhoods > Tract 3.02 00 INFORMATION FOR BLOCK GROUPS AND NEIGHBORHOODS EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT (for persons 25+) (2022 ACS estimate - percent) No High School Diploma 5.8% High School or Equivalent - 19.6% Some College, no degree 34.6% Associate's Degree 9.2% Bachelor's Degree _ _ _ _ _ 19.2% Graduate or Professional Degree 11.6°% POPULATION ENROLLED IN SCHOOL (2022 ACS estimate) Enrolled in grade 1 to grade 4 279 Enrolled in grade 5 to grade 8 208 Enrolled in grade 9 to grade 12 260 PUBLIC SCHOOL ATTENDANCE ZONES' Public Elementary School Zone(s) WA Ellis Ellis Ellis Syringa Public Middle School Zone NA Alameda Alameda Alameda Alameda Public High School Zone NIA Highland Highland Highland Highland ° Several Charter, Private, and Alternative Schools also serve the Portneuf Valley. Alpine Middle School, Connor Academy, Gem Prep, and PV -TEC are located in Chubbuck. The Portneuf Valley Technical Education Center Campus is a regional career technical education center owned and operated by the Pocatello-Chubbuck Schoold District 25. Source > US Census, Pocatello-Chubbuck School District, City of Chubbuck 8 GROUP 2 Bicentennial Park 2.7°% 8.8% 43.9% 11.7% 26.8% 6.1% 72 56 18 Tyhee Hawthorne Highland B GROUP 3 Briarwood Park 5.0% 41.3% 35.0% 8.5% 78 2.4°% Syringa Alameda Highland Population and Demographics > Page 2-9 16 53 35 461 INFORMATION FOR BLOCK GROUPS AND NEIGHBORHOODS OO POPULATION (Census) 2020 Census Persons within city limits % Population inside city limits 2010 Census Net Change 2010-2020 % Change 2010-2020 RACE AND HISPANIC ORIGIN (2020 Census) White (alone) Black or African American (alone) American Indian and Alaska Native (alone) Asian (alone) Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander (alone) Two or More Races Hispanic or Latino (all races) White (alone), not Hispanic or Latino AGE AND SEX (2022 ACS est.) Persons under 5 years (percent) Persons 5 to 17 years (percent) Persons 65 years and over (percent) Female persons 65 years and over (percent) Male persons 65 years and over (percent) Median Age VETERANS (2022 ACS est.) Source) US Census Ne*ghba:::, BLOCK GROUP 1 Cumberland/ Brookstone! Homestead Subtotal Promise Grove Park 547 906 982 2,435 - 876 982 1,858 0.01/0 96.7% 100.0% 76.3% BLOCK GROUP 2 Heritage Park Armstrong Subtotal Park 1,250 1,142 2,392 1,234 1,142 2,376 98.7% 100.0% 99.3% if BLOCK GROUP 3 277 Park Meadows Cotant Subtotal Park 1,104 869 1,100 1,969 869 1,100 1,969 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 483 277 583 1,343 1,176 1,104 2,280 736 1,151 1;887 64 629 399 1,092 74 38 112 133 (51) 82 11.7% 69.4% 40.6% 44.8% 5.9% 3.3% 4.7% 15.3% -4.60% 4.2% 89.6% 92.7% 89.8% 90.8% 90.0% 84.5% 87.4% 86,5% 89.7% 88.3% 0.4% - 0.7% 0.4% 0.3% 0.5% 0.4% 0.7% 0.5% 0.6% - 0.3% 0.7% 0.4% 0.6% 3.3% 1.9% 1.5% 0.1% 0.7% 0.4% 0.2% 0.3% 0.3% 1.3% 1.2% 1.3% 0.7% 1.0% 0.9% 0.2% 0.4% 0.2% 0.6% 0.3% 0.5% 0.2% 0.1% 0.2% 6.0% 4.0% 6.2% 5.3% 5.3% 7.9% 6.5% 5.9% 7.2% 6.6% 7.5% 6.3% 8.1% 7.3% 7.3% 7.4% 7.4% 10.2% 6.5% 8.1% 86.8% 90.1% 86.7% 88.0% 86.5% 82.2% 84.4% 83.1% 86.8% 85.2% 10.0% 3.2% 8.7% 23.4% 17.6% 33.9% 11.8% 12.3% 9.6% - 7.1% 5.5% 5.3% 4.7% 6.8% 4.3% 29.2 38.0 32.2 61 168 Population and Demographics > Page 2-10 99 Ne * hborho ids > Tract 4 INFORMATION FOR BLOCK GROUPS BLOCK GROUP 1 BLOCK GROUP 2 BLOCK GROUP 3 NEIGHBORHOODS Cumberland) Brookstonel Homestead Armstrong Cola ItAND Subtotal Heritage Park Subtotal Park Meadows Subtotal Promise Grove Park park park EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT (for persons 25+) (2022 ACS estimate - percent) No High School Diploma - 4.2% 6.8% 0.0% High School or Equivalent - 27.4% 17.8% 21.3% Some College, no degree - 25.1% - 38.3% - 29.5% Associate's Degree - 5.4% 6.3% 25.3% Bachelor's Degree - 26.8% 27.8% 19.9% Graduate or Professional Degree - 11.1% 2.9% 4.0% POPULATION ENROLLED IN SCHOOL (2022 ACS estimate) Enrolled in grade 1 to grade 4 - 41 206 294 Enrolled in grade 5 to grade 8 - 140 120 223 Enrolled in grade 9 to grade 12 - 153 147 121 PUBLIC SCHOOL ATTENDANCE ZONES' Chubbuck Chubbuck Public Elementary School Zone(s) Ellis Ellis Chubbuck Chubbuck Chubbuck Wilcox Wilcox Public Middle School Zone Irving Irving Hawthorne Hawthorne Hawthorne Hawthorne Hawthorne Public High School Zone Pocatello Pocatello Pocatello Pocatello Pocatello Pocatello Pocatello Several Charter, Private, and Artemanve Schools also serve the Ponneur valley. Alpine Middle school, ConnorAcademy, Giem Prep, and PV -TEC are located in Chubbuck. The Portneuf Valley Technical Education Center Campus is a regional career technical education center owned and operated by the Pocatello-Chubbuck Schoold District 25. Source > US Census, Pocatello-Chubbuck School District, City of Chubbuck Population and Demographics > Page 2-11 ," irNei*ghborhoods CENSUS TRACTS 2 AND 5 P�PULATI�N AND DEMOGRAPHICS INFORMATION FOR BLOCK GROUPS TRACT 2 (PART) AND NEIGHBORHOODS Buffalo Creek POPULATION (Census) 2020 Census 215 614 21 1,130 1,980 Persons within city limits - - 8 - 8 % Population inside city limits 0.0% 0.0% 38.1% 0.0% 0.0% 2010 Census 164 585 N/A 1,108 1,857 Net Change 2010-2020 51 29 NIA 22 102 % Change 2010-2020 23.7% 4.7% N/A 1.9% 5.2% RACE AND HISPANIC ORIGIN (2020 Census) White (alone) 94.0% 93.2% 61.9% 87.3% 89.6% Black or African American (alone) - 0.2% 0.1% American Indian and Alaska Native (alone) - - 2.0% 9.5% 1.9% 1.8% Asian (alone) - 0.5% 0.4% 0.3% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander (alone) - 0.2% 0.1% Two or More Races 4.7% 4.7% 28.6% 5.6% 5.5% Hispanic or Latino (all races) - 4.2% 2.4% 9.5% 5.9% 4.7% White (alone), not Hispanic or Latino 92.6% 92.7% 61.9% 86.3% 88.7% AGE AND SEX (2022 ACS est.) Persons under 5 years (percent) - 5.7% 4.5% Persons 5 to 17 years (percent) - 29.2% 25.1% Persons 65 years and over (percent) - - - 14.3% 19.3% Female persons 65 years and over (percent) - - - 8.D% 9.2% Male persons 65 years and over (percent) - 6.3% 10.1% Median Age - - 34.7 37.9 VETERANS (2022 ACS est.) _ _ 59 154 Source) US Census Population and Demographics > Page 2-12 Al Neighborhoods > Tracts 2 INFORMATION FOR BLOCK GROUPS AND NEIGHBORHOODS EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT (for persons 25+) (2022 ACS estimate - percent) No High School Diploma High School or Equivalent Same College, no degree Associate's Degree Bachelor's Degree Graduate or Professional Degree POPULATION ENROLLED IN SCHOOL (2022 ACS estimate) Enrolled in grade 1 to grade 4 Enrolled in grade 5 to grade 8 Enrolled in grade 9 to grade 12 PUBLIC SCHOOL ATTENDANCE ZONES' Public Elementary School Zone(s) Public Middle School Zone Public High School Zone TRACT 2 (PAR7) Buffalo Creek TRACT 5 - BLOCK GROUP 1 Moonlight/ Wallin Equestrian! Harvest Springs Tyhee' TOTAL Lacey - 6.2% 7.3% - 20.2% 22.4% - 31.2% 31.2% - 12.2% 12.0% 17.9% 16.3% - 12.3% 10.8% - 172 191 122 146 181 199 Gate City Tyree Tyhee Ellis Tyhee Irving Irving Hawthorne Franklin Hawtharne Hawthorne Alameda Alameda Highland Highland Highland Highland Highland 1 Tyhee includes part of Tract 5 and a small portion of Tract 3.02. 2 Several Charter, Private, and Alternative Schools also serve the Portneuf Valley. Alpine Middle School, Connor Academy, Gem Prep, and PV -TEC are located in Chubbuck. The Portneuf Valley Technical Education Center Campus is a regional career technical education center owned and operated by the Pocatello-Chubbuck Schoold District 25. Source > US Census, Pocatello-Chubbuck School District, City of Chubbuck Population and Demographics > Page 2-13 1W A - ■ -At-0 - A- - 0 - -At-0 - l I With Annual Growth Rates and Comparison Forecasts *Sum of Census Tracts in the Portneuf Valley - comparable to population figures for 8TPO planningarea Source > US Census, Bannock Transportation Organization Population and Demographics > Page 2-14 Average Annual DECENNIAL CENSUS 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Growth Rate Chubbuck 13,922 15,570 1.125% ChubbuckA01 16,419 18,185 1.027% Pocatello 54,255 56,320 0.374% PortneufValley* 72,050 76,021 0.538% Ba nnock Cou my 82,839 87,018 0.493% GROWTH & RATIO - DECENNIAL CENSUS Average Annual Change in Ratio Chubbuck%of Portneuf Valley 19.3% 20.5% 0.584% %of Bannock County 16.8% 17.9% 0.629% ChubbuckA01 %of Portneuf Valley 22.8% 23.9% 0.486% %of Bannock County 19.8% 20.9% 0.531% Average Annual ANNUAL ACS ESTIMATES 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Growth Rate Chubbuck 13,036 13,425 13,773 13,982 14,117 14,224 14,326 14,470 14,728 14,995 15,301 15,445 15,638 16,362 1.763°/a ChubbuckA01 15,728 15,947 16,269 16,519 16,636 16,652 16,716 16,779 17,059 17,399 17,728 17,861 18,010 N/A 1.135% Pocatello 53,258 53,755 54,145 54,355 54,466 54,549 54,592 54,658 55,162 55,525 56,016 55,865 56,582 58,064 0.667% PortneufValley* 72,280 73,347 74,330 74,974 75,156 75,149 75,200 75,401 75,995 76,558 77,058 77,114 77,642 NIA 0.598% Bannock County 63,020 83,641 83,755 83,455 83,536 84,184 84,676 85,482 86,674 87,808 86,742 86,362 87,434 90,400 0.6571/o GROWTH & RATIO - ACS ESTIMATES Average Annual Change in Ratio Chubbuck%of Portneuf Valley 18.04% 18.30% 18.53% 18.65% 18.78% 16.93% 19.05% 19.19% 19.38% 19.59% 19.86% 20.03% 20.14% N/A 0.924°/a %of Bannock County 15.70% 16.05% 16.44% 16.75% 16.90% 16.90% 16.92% 16.93% 16.99% 17.08% 17.64% 17.88% 17.89% 18.100A 1.0991/0 ChubbuckA01 %of PortneufValley 21.76% 21.74% 21.890/a 22.03% 22.14% 22.16% 22.23% 22.25% 22.45% 22.73% 23.01% 23.16% 23.20% N/A 0.534% %of BannockCounty 18.94% 19.07% 19.42% 19.79% 19.91% 19.78% 19.74% 19.63% 19.68% 19.81% 20.44% 20.68% 20.60% N/A 0.700% *Sum of Census Tracts in the Portneuf Valley - comparable to population figures for 8TPO planningarea Source > US Census, Bannock Transportation Organization Population and Demographics > Page 2-14 Population ) Projection :TY OF CHUBBUCK - POPULATION , ith Annual Growth Rates and Comparison Forecasts PO METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 WOODS & POOLE Bannock County Forecast 90,727 93,126 95,292 97,151 98,869 100,613 Chubbuck Forecast (in relation to Bannock County) City2020 Census (17.89% ratio) 16,231 16,660 17,048 17,380 17,688 18,000 CityACS2023 (18.10% ratio) 16,422 16,856 17,248 17,584 17,895 18,211 Forecast: Mean of two projections above 16,326 16,758 17,1A8 17,482 17,791 18,105 Area of Impact Forecast (in relation to Bannock County) AOI -2020 Census (20.90% ratio) 18,962 19,463 19,516 20,305 20,664 21,078 AOI -ACS 2022(20.60% ratio) 18,690 19,184 19,630 20,013 20,367 20,726 Forecast: Mean of two projections above 18,826 19,324 19,773 20,159 20,515 20,877 CITY AND AOI EXTRAPOLATIONS Base Yr. 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 For information only City of Chubbuck 2010-2020 Census (1.125% per year) -- 2020 15,570 16,466 17,413 18,415 19,474 20,595 21,779 2010-2023 ACS (1.763% per year) -- 2023 16,362 16,944 18,491 20,180 22,022 24,033 26,228 Changing City Growth: County Growth -- 2020 15,660 17,034 18,209 19,374 20,509 21,641 22,806 Average increase is 0.1109%, Census/ACS 18.00% 18.77% 19.55% 20.33% 21.11% 21.89% 22.67% Area of City Impact 2010-2020Census (1.0279% per year) --2020 18,209 19,138 20,141 21,196 22,307 23,476 24,707 2010-2022 ACS (1.13540 per year) -- 2022 18,010 18,421 19,491 20,623 21,821 23,088 24,429 Changing AOI Growth : County Growth -- 2020 18,055 19,403 20,510 21,594 22,635 23,666 24,725 Average increase is 0.1441%, Census/ACS 20.75% 21.39% 22.02% 22.66% 23.30% 23.94% 24.57% WORLD POPULATION REVIEW * 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Forintormation only Bannock County 91,950 92,725 City of Chubbuck 16,916 17,167 City of Pocatello 59,675 60,324 *haps://world popula tionreview. com/us-countieslid/bannock-county-population Source, US Census, BTPO/Woods & Poole, World Population Review 93,500 94,275 95,050 17,417 17,668 17,918 60,972 61,621 62,269 Population and Demographics > Page 2-15 rminants :)f Health Health and Prevention > Government and non-profit agencies have focused in on characteristics that help determine the future of citizens' health. These are known as the Social Determinants of Health > Research presented in this section sheds light on » 7 Social Determinants » Social Vulnerability » Community Resilience » Economic Measures » Education Measures » Environmental Measures » Healthcare Measures » Housing Measures » Neighborhood Measures » Transportation Measures » Health Outcomes Social Determinants of Health > Page 3-1 Social Determinants of Health > Social determinants of health (SDOH) are the conditions in which people are born, grow, live, work and age that shape health. > Efforts to improve health in the U.S. have traditionally looked to the health care system as the key driver of health and health outcomes. > Several of these Social Determinants can be addressed by the City, directly or indirectly, including through the Comprehensive Plan. > Measuring outcomes indicates whether City policies are succeeding Social Determinants of F I F . Social Determinants of Health Ecdnvmic Heighhorhvvd „�_ � -.-� antl Physical E��catian • • Employment P, lnccme Expenses h Debt ledical hilts Support Housing Transportation Safety Parks Playgrounds Walkability Zip code i geography Literacy Language Early childhood education Vocational training Higher education Hunger Access to healthy options Health Community and Social Context Social integration Support systems Community engagement Discrimination Stress Health Care System Health coverage Prcvider availability Provider Iinguistic and cultural competency Quality of care IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIr Health Outcomes Mortality, Morbidity, Life Expectancy, Health Care Expenditures, Health Status, Functional Limitations KFF Source > KFF, US Dept of Health and Human Services Social Determinants of Health > Page 3-2 4 r� Health Social CDC PLACES: Local Data for Better Health Data source ACS 2017-2021- Survey data has a margin of error. Data available for states and tracts only Aged 65 Years or Older No Broadband Internet Subscription Crowding Occupied housing units with 1.01 to 1.50 and 1.51 or more occupants per room Housing Cost Burden Households with annual income less than $75,000 that spend 30% or more of their household income on housing No High School Diploma Among adults aged ? 25 years Poverty Percentage of persons living below 150% of the proverty level Racial or Ethnic Minority Status Single -parent Households tlth children of the householder under 18 years, and no spouselpartner present Unemployment Percentage of unemployment among people 16 years and older in the labor force Source) CDC Determinants TRACT 3.01 TRACT 3.02 TRACT 4 TRACT 5 16.4`ro 13.1% 11.6% 18.8% 29.3% 5.6% 5.1% 13.5% 3.1% 0.0% 1.9% 0.9% 34.2% 18.1% 12.9% 18.3% IP CODE8320 14.1% 14.6% 2.1% 21.4% 2.5% 5.3% 5.1% 5.9% 6.8% 32.7% 12.6% 12.5% 18.4% 21.0% 28.6% 10.1% 13.8% 12.3% 22.7% 9.2% 1.2% 1.7% 12.9% 5.6% 0.1% 7.3% 1.0% 8.39' 4.6% Social Determinants of Health > Page 3-3 Vulnerabi*11* VULNERABILITY AND RESILIENCE CDC's SOCIAL VULNARIBILITY INDEX (SVI) CDCIATSDR A A:.. A A kA- A A J .. IVIII I 0.0: Max I.V - Uucrease :Is pie tG.Ied Overall Index - 2018 Overall Index - 2020 Socioeconomic Status 2020 Household Characteristics 2020. Racial and Ethnic Minority Status 2020 Housing Type and Transportation 2020 COMMUNITY RESILIENCE ESTIMATES (GRE) The CREgroups population estimates into three categories: zero, one or two, and three or more components of social vulnerability (SV) The CRE also has an Equity Componenent with data from the decennial Census, American Community Survey, and the Census Planning Database for race and ethnicity in nearly every measure, and by Census Tract. The Census has released an expefirnental product as part of the Equity Componenet specifically in the cor:text of vulnerability to Extrement Neat exposure. It is also organized to group the population into three categories as above. ) Resilience TRACT 3.01 TRACT 3.02 TRACT 4 TRACT 5 BANNOCK COUNTY TRACT 3' 0.6809 0.1288 0.1726 0.6977 0.8166 0.2882 0.1147 0.3397 0.5814 0.607 0.4866 0.1569 0.4537 0.3256 0.6265 0.1046 0.2556 0.7152 0.4884 0.5076 0.2296 0.2593 0.1952 0.5814 0.9875 0.3606 0.1423 0.1428 0.907 Population with 0 Components 935 2,514 3,180 785 Rate for tract population (%) 21.21 47.37 45.66 39.09 Population with 1 to 2 Components 2,285 2,191 2,950 865 Rate for tract population (%) 51.84 41.29 42.35 43.08 Population with 3 or more Components 1,188 602 835 358 Rate for tract population (%) 26.95 11.34 11.99 17.83 0 Components TRACT 3' Rate for tract population (%) 1 to 2 CoMnnnantc TRACT 3 .... ......r.....,..... Rate for tract population (%) 3 or more Components TRACT 3' Rate for tract population (%) I Although Tract 3 was spiltinto Tracts 3.01 and 3.02 with the 2020 Census, data is onlyavairable for the older, combined Tract 3 boundary. Source > CDC, US Census 4,347 2,235 647 45.18 388 33.23 nA3 9 q.11 7Rn 32.04 51.22 40.06 2,192 575 520 22.78 9.98 26.71 Social Determinants of Health > Page 3-4 Health Measures) Tre %W01'A . Get Healthy Idaho - ID Department of Health and Welfare GH1 Community Measures GHI INDEX - COMBINED SCORE (range 33-81) Score Percentile - Higher % indicates healthier conditions TRACT 3' TRACT 4 TRACT 5 53.8 62.5 62.4 32.0% 76.0% 76.0% IQAHD MEQIAN 57.1 GHI ECONOMIC DOMAIN - % above poverty, % employed 48.2 60.7 67.0 53.4 and income, with persentile. Higher percentile indicates healthier conditions 63.0% 75.0% 79.0% ` Above poverty (income 200% above poverty level - ACS 2019) 59.5% 74.4% 83.3% 64.0% Children (E18) in HH, income below poverty (ACS 2019) 21.6% 8.8%Q 2.2% 15.9% Employed - persons aged 25-64 (ACS 2019) 70.2% 79.5"10 79.4% 13.9% Living in poverty 65+, income below poverty level (ACS 2019) 13.9% 0.0% 8.0% 7,8% Severe Renter cost burden {750% of income, incl utils - HUD -CHAS 2018) 25.8% 3.6`10 20.0% 15.8% Home value median (range $78,800 to $868.200 - ACS 2019) $166,300 $193,640 $241,100 $188,800 2 Per capita income (range $12,159 - $74,678 - ACS 2019) $23,374 $25,213 $29,640 $25,849 Median HH income (range $23,179 - $125,387 ACS 2019) $52,702 $71,724 $87,039 $54,162 GINI index • income inequality 0 to 1, 1 highest (2019 ACS) 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4 Retail gobs per acre 3.2 0.2 0 0.8 GHI EDUCATION DOMAIN - % pre k enrolled, % high school 57.5 50.7 49.8 52.5 enrolled, and % with college degree - with percentile 72.0% 65,0%o 64.0% 2 College Degree - 25+ years, bachelor's or higher (ACS 2019) 25.6% 26.2% 24.3% 23.6% Enrolled in high school 15-17 age trange b4.(%-100%, ALS 2U19) 100,0% 96.6% 100.0% 100.0% Enrolled in preschool 3-4 age (range 0%-100%, ACS 2019) 39.2% 27.6%a 18.2% 33,2% Non-English speaking population at home (age 5+ ACS) 14.6% 3.8% 1.8% 8.5%0 3 Teens not working or attending school 5.2% 0.0% 0.0% 2.7% Source > Get Healthy Idaho Social Determinants of Health > Page 3-5 IF Health Measurev Tracts CITY OF CHUBBUCK - HEALTH AND PREVENTION Get Healthy Idaho - ID Department of Health and Welfare GHI Community Measures GHI CLEAN ENVIRONMENT DOMAIN - diesel, ozone and PM2.5 - with percentile 2 Diesel Particulate Matter (tons/year, from on and off road sources; range .01 to .5, National Air Toxics Assessment 2014) 2 Nitrate Priority Area (NPA) Risk Score (elevated levels in ground water, DEO) 2 Ozone concentration ppb 2021 (range 41.1 min - 54.1 max; 44.3 median - Climate and EJ screening tools) 2 PM 2.5 - annual mean concentration (range 4.5 to 12.4, median 7.6) Tree Canopy - proportion of tree canopy per tract (CDPH I HCI 1 National Land Cover Database, Min 0.0%, Max 59.1%) GHI HEALTHCARE ACCESS DOMAIN - health insurance key factor - it contributes to life expectancy - with percentile 2 Health Insurance - % adults 19-64 with health insurance (2019 ACS) Life Expectancy at Birth (IDHW 2022) GHI HOUSING DOMAIN -ownership, owner cost burden, renter cost burden, uncrowded housing, complete kitchen/plumbing -with percentile 2 Home ownership (range up to 93.7%) Houses built 1940 or earlier (range 0% to 57,3%, ACS 2019) 2 Houses with complete kitchen and plumbing (range 93%-100%, ACS 2021) Living in mobile home (range 0%-40.7%, AGS 2019) 2 Living in uncrowded housing (range 81%t-100%, ACS 2019) 2 Severe Home owner cost burden (>50% of income, Ind utils) HUD -CHAS 2018 2 Severe Renter cost burden (>50% of income, incl utils) HUD -CHAS 2018 Monthly rent (ACS 2019) Source > Get Healthy Idaho TRACT 31 TR 68.6 54.6 69.0°.' 0.17 12.5 50.1 6.4 3.00% 79.5 88.0% 79.5% 78.4 58.0 72.0% 60.3% 1.6% 97.0% 14.2% 97.0% 7.D% 25.8% $855 ACT 4 TRACT 5 IDAHO MEDIAN 55.6 57.9 66.3 70.0% 72.0% 0.15 0.12 0.11 12.5 12.5 0 50.1 50 44.3 6.4 6.4 7.6 1.70% 0.00% 10.80% 86.4 83.7 68.6 92.0% 91.0% 92.6% 91.2% 68.6% 80.1 80.3 79.3 59.7 70.4 56.1 90.0% 82.0% 92.8% 81.8% 72.9% 0.0% 5.9% 6.4% 100.0% 100.0% 99.2% 0.4% 4.8% 7,6% 98.0% 98.5% 97.7% 6.3% 2.4% 6.2% 3.6% 20.0% 15.8% $729 $718 $796 Social Determinants of Health > Page 3-6 Get Healthy Idaho - ID Department of Health and Welfare GHI Community Measures GHI NEIGHBORHOOD DOMAIN -jobs. -acre, park accessibility, tree canopy access to supermarket - with percentile Diversity Index0 to 1 -1 has the most diversity (ACS) 1 ❑orL- �nrnc nor 1 r)nO nnni ilatinn fr COra oni;z ?kiukirl❑ - co© Innal rlahu holnti ) I u� i• -- V_, uv puyuiuuu„ �v I I - i u , 1- T- I .,vim I-- -Q W-WTV 4 Park acres per 1,000 population (City of Chubbuck Data, 2024) 2 Tree Canopy - % of tree canopy per tract (CDPH ? HCl/ National Land Cover Database) 2 Retail den sityJobsiaGres (USEPA 2021 Smart Location Database) 2 Supermarket - % of urban or small town population residing within 1?2 mile from a grocery store; and % of rural population within 1 mile (USDA Food Access research atlas) 'Alcohol Off Sale - Rate of number of alcohol outlets in the census tract per 10; 000 persons (Drug Overdose Prevention Program 2022 - with lDHVV and Idaho Hospital Assoc) Access to a Computer (ACS 2019) Broadband internetaccess (RCS 2019) Recently moved (% of occupied units moved into since 2015 - ACS 2019) GHI TRANSPORTATION DOMAIN - % w!auto access, % commute by walkibikeitransit - with profile 'Automobile Access - % households with access to an automobile (ACS 2019) z Insurance - % adults 19-64 with insurance (2019 ACS) Commute - % of workers 16 and older commuting by walking/cycling./transit (2020 ACS) TRACT 3 TRACT 4 TRACT 5 51.0 65.0% 0.33 JA .j,•t 4.3 3.00% 7 3.2 72 0% IM 59.7 74.0% 0.24 0 A J.4 6.8 1.70% 0.2 96.2% 01 60.0 74,0% 0.17 U.l 0.0 0.00% 0 100.0% 0 IDAHO MEDIAN 0.27 G A J..f 8.3 90.3% 96.0% 97.8% 92.2% 83.6% 90.4% 93.6% 82.3% 368% 22.b% 24.4% 25.7% 33.2 54.5 xx 49.2 480% 65.C% 64.0% 88.4% 99.3% 97,2% 96.8% 891% 92.6% 91,2% 83.5% 4,7% 1.3% 3.4% 3.8% Although Tract 3 was spilt into Tracts 3.01 and 3.02 with the 2020 Census, data is only available for the older, combined Tract 3boundary. 2 These measures are the key indicators for the respective lndexDomain ' Mata comes from differontsource than above 4 Park acres per 1,004 city data does notinclude the Future Miller Parkin Census Tract 4. For tracts 3.01 and 3-02, the ratio is 5.4 and 3.43 acres per 1,000, respectively. For Chubbuck overall, the ratio is 5.3 per 1,000, and 4.5 for the ACi. Source > Get Healthy Idaho Social Determinants of Health > Page 3-7 A. Source > CDC ealth Social Determinants CDC PLACES: Local Data for Better Health DISABILITIES AND HEALTH STATUS (2021 CDC est.)' For persons aged 1S years and older 12.8% Fair or Poor Self -rated health status (among adults) 14.8% Mental Healtlh not good for 14 or more days 16.9% Physical Health not good for 14 or more days in the past year 11.5% Any Disability (among adults) 29.6% Hearing Disability 7.4% Vision Disability 4.5% Cognitive Disability 14.8% Mobility Disability 12.3% Self-care Disability 3.4% Independent Living Disability 7.7% HEALTH RISK BEHAVIORS (2021 CDC est.)' Forpersonsaged 18years andolder For persons aged 18 years and older 6.4% Binge drinking 14.6% Current smoking 16.5% No leisure -time physical activity 21.2% Sleeping less than 7 hours 33.6% PREVENTION (2021 CDC est.)' 4.7% For persons aged 18 years and older 13.3% Visits to doctor for a routine checkup in the last year 72.0% Visits to dentist or dental clinic 66.9% Cholesterol screening 79.7% Taking medicine for high blood pressure control ` 54.0% (among adults with high blood pressure) 11.9% Far persons aged 18 to 75 years 2.8% Current lack of health insurance (adults aged 18-64 years) 9.2% Fecal occult blood test, sigmoidoscopy, or colonoscopy NIA (adults aged 50-75 years) 6.4% Colorectal cancer screening (adults aged 50-75 years) 65.8% TRACT 32 12.8% 14.1% 16.2% TRACT 4 TRACT 5 (3.01 + 3.02) 16.1% 15.0% POGATELLp COUNTY AN N C USA 15.7% 12.8% 14.1% 16.2% 15.2% 15.2% 17.8% 16.1% 15.0% 17.5% 16.7% 15.2% 12.1% 10.4% 11.5% 12.2% 11.6% 10.3% 31.3% 26.4% 27.8% 31.4% 30.2% 26.8% 7.7% 6.4% 7.4% 7.8% 7.6% 6.1% 4.9% 3.6% 3.9% 5.2% 4.6% 4.7% 15.9% 13.3% 12.8% 16.0% 14.9% 12.6% 13.0% 10.3% 12.2% 13.2% 12.5% 11.9% 3.7% 2.8% 3.2% 3.9% 3.5% 3.6% 8.4% 6.4% 6.6% 8.6% 7.7% 7.1% 14.4% 15.8%a 14.3% 14.0% 14.3% 16.7% 17.0% 15.4% 15.7% 17.9% 16.7% 13.8% 22.2% 19.1% 20.1% 22.9% 22.0% 23.0% 33.9% 33.4% 33.0% 34.2% 33.5% 33.3% 71.8% 71.2% 73.7% 72.2% 72.1% 71.8% 64.9% 69.4% 70.5% 64.1% 64.9% 64.5% 78.2% 80.5% 83.8% 78.4% 79.4% 84.3% 3 70.4% 68.7% 73.0% 55.2% 54.4% 58.9% 3 9.8% 8.1% 7.3% 10.0% 9.7% 11.3% 64.9% 67.6% 67.1% NIA N/A N?A 65.0% 64.8% 70,6% 3 Social Determinants of Health > Page 3-8 OMI Health Social Determinants CDC PLACES: Local Data for Better Health PREVENTION (continued) For women aged 18 years and older Mammography use (women aged 50-74 years) 4 Cervical cancer screening (women aged 21-65 years) Forpersons aged 65 years and alder, up to date on a core set olclinical preventive services: For women: Flu shot past year, PPV shot ever, colorectal cancer screening, mammogram past 2 years For men: Flu shot past year, PPV shot ever, colorectal cancer screening HEALTH OUTCOMES (2021 CDC est.)' For persons aged 18 years and alder Arthritis Current asthma Cancer (excluding skin cancer) Chronic kidney disease Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease Coronary heart disease Diagnosed diabetes Obesity Stroke Depression High blood pressure - ever diagnosed High cholesterol, screened in the past 5 years Forpersons aged 65 years and older All teeth lost ' Data is age-adjusted. The CDC PLACES program includes data from a variety of sources, and.provides the data by county, place, census tract, and zip code tabulation area, but not by state. Source) CDC TRACT 3 2 20.7% 24. 10.6% 10.9% TRACT 4 TRACT 5 (3.01 + 3.02) 6.0% 7. POCATELLO BANNOCK COUNTYUSA 63.7% 67.9% 68.1% 68.6% 63.3% 63.3'%0 77.8% 3 81.8°! 80.2% 83.0% 83.2% 80.8% 81.2% 83.7% 38.7% 36.1% 41.7% 41.4% 38.4% 38.1% 37.4% 38.0% 36.4% 40.0% 38.4% 37.0% 36.7% 44.0% 3 22.4% 22.5% 20.7% 24. 10.6% 10.9% 10.1% 10. 6.5% 6.4% 6.0% 7. 2.8% 2.9%b 2.5% 2. 6.3% 6.7% 5.4% 6. 5.3% 5.5% 4.6% 5. 9.0% 9.3% 8.0% 9. 37.3% 37.6% 36.2% 37. 2.8% 2.9% 2.3% 2. 24.1% 24.8% 23.5% 22. 29.6% 29.8% 27.5% 32. 29.1% 31.5% 30.6% 34. 15.0% 16.0% 12.5% 12. 2 Although Tract 3 was spilit into Tracts 3.07 ` Note t and 3.02 with the 2020 Census, data is Tract da onlyavailable for the older Tract 3 boundary. but the f 3 Results/reporting for these differ from Chubbuck by4% or more. 6% 22.9% 22.3% 22.2% 0% 10.7% 10.4% 9.7% 1% 6.5% 6.4% 6.0% 8% 2.9% 2.8% 2.7% 4% 6.8% 6.3% 5.7% 6% 5.7% 5.6% 5.2% 6%a 9.7%a 9.5% 9.9% 1% 38.5% 38.0% 33.0% 3 8% 2.9% 2.8% 2.8% 4%a 24.3% 23.5% 19.8% 3 1%a 30.8% 30.3% 29.6% 6% 29.4% 29.2% 31.0% 3% 12.3% 13.4% 13.9% here are anomolies between the tracts and other data. to wasn Y adiusted for aae relevance like the others, figures appear outside expected results. Social Determinants of Health > Page 3-9 M here are anomolies between the tracts and other data. to wasn Y adiusted for aae relevance like the others, figures appear outside expected results. Social Determinants of Health > Page 3-9 M SDOH) Social Capital f:�n OPPORTUNITY TUNITY among INSIGHTS Social capital --the strength of aur relationships and communities - has been shown to play an important role in outcomes ranging from income to health. Using privacy -protected data on 21 billion friendships from Facebook, we measure three types of socia! capital in each neighborhood, high school, and college in the United States. Use this tool to explore social capital in your community and how it connects to children's chances of rising out of poverty. Cohesiveness The degree to vvh ich social networks are fragmented into cliques ES Economic Connectedness The degree to which loin -income and high- income people are friends with each other 1�1 Civic Engagement Rates of volu nteering and participation in community organizations Social Determinants of Health > Page 3-10 SDOH) Social Capital lM11:7D71►Cd•]d,lE ',C•I 3LTT' Determinants as they relate to Upward Income Mobility Children from low-income families in Zip Code Average Income Classification National Percentile National Range - Low to High who grow up to earn $31,200 each year, on average $31.2K Law 31st $16.9K $63.21K ':CONOMIC CONNECTEDNESSFriends wl High Income Classification National Percentile National Range - Low to High % of the friends of low-income people have high incomes, based on current income 41.7% Low 43rd 17.2% 78.7% Exposure Exposure Rate Classification National Percentile National Range - Low to High % of the people whom low-income people meet have high incomes 47.2% Low 40th 17.1% 811% Friending Bias Bias Classification National Percentile National Range - Low to High % oflow-income people who are less likely to friend high-income people whom they meet 9.8% High 25th 38.7% 11.5% j,AEt91'1E►1Eaf.' GLISTERIA0 I Cluster of Friends Classification National Percentile National Range - Low to High The rate which 2 friends of a given person are in turn friends with each other 9.3% Low 28th 6.4% 21.3% ;r IC ERGAGEikEAT—TOLIATEEIRIAG i4_TES Participation Rate Classification National Percentile National Range - Low to High % of people who participate in volunteering groups 11.0% High 86th 0.8% 29.3% Source: Social Capital Atlas - Opportunity Insights Social Determinants of Health > Page 3-11 SDOH Mobility Outcomes ' The Opportunity Atlas inciudes data for ditierent incomes of parents, and race, ethnicity and gender of children: the data here is for all races and hath genders combined. Some data is not available for all groups and there are margins of error for ail estimates. Sea the Neighborhood Mobility Outcomes on ooportuntyatlas.org v The Mobility OWCOMPS are for children who grew up in the 3 tracts, and all of Bannock County, and were in their ri+id-30s in 201,1_ s Although Tract was split inta Tracts 3.01 and 3.02 with the 2020 Census, data is only avallable for the older Tract 3 boundary. ° Infcation from 2014 to 2024 was 32.9%. The data provided here if for Information only. 5 Per the 2010 Census Gazereer Source) Opportunity Insights -Mobility Outcomes <opportunityatlas.org> Social Determinants of Health > Page 3-12 CITY OF ■: OUTCOMES Opportunity Atlas' Luta not current. but illustrates the gap between children raised in TRACT 33TRACT 4 TRACT 5 BANNOCK COUNTY low-income house holds and children raised with any income level LOW INCOME ALL INCOMES LOW INCOME ALL INCOMES LOW INCOME ALL INCOMES LOW INCOME ALL INCOMES CHILDREN'S OUTCOMES IN ADULTHOOD Population in theb mrd -30 s120141, Dynergobornooa Where cheygrewup Household Income $36k $47k $39k $48k $41k $48k $35K $46k Individual income (female) $16k $20k $18k $19k $13k $17k $17k NIA Individual income (male) $28k $37k $31k $38k $29k $36k $261k NIA Fraction marred 50% 60% 58% 65% 60% 68% 49% 60% Incarceration Rate (children who grew up in the area, in Jail on certain date) 2.1% 11% 0% 0% {1% 0% 1.4% 0% Employment rate (have positive wage eamings) 759l0 783'0 75% 75'A 733'0 72% 74°10 77% H ours work ad per week - - - - 29 32 Fraction in top 20% based on household income 9.8% 19% 13% 18% 13% 20% 15.0% 27% Fraction in top 20°% based on individual income 11.0% 19% 14% 18% 7.5% 18% 2056 30% Percent staying in Bannock County (same "commuting zone') 66.0% 59% 68% 58% 61°x4 58% 73% 72% Household Income for those slaying in Bannock Co. - - $36k $471; INFLATION ADJUSTED INCOME" Household Income - inflation adjusted $47.Sk $62.5k $51.9k $63.8k $54.5k $63.8k $46.5k $61.1k Individual income (Female - inflation adjusted) $29.2k $38.5k $31.9k $38.5k $27.9k $35.9k $37.2k $45.2k Indmdual income (male-;nfiaU'on adjusted) $43.9k $46.5k $39.9k $43.9k $42,5k $45.2k $50.5h $59.8k NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTERISTICS Data describes the ne ghbortwods (lracts) and residents per the 2016 AGS Poverty Rale 13.0% 12.0°10 6.3% 18.0'10 Foreign Born (percent of residents bom outside the U.S.) 5,8% 3.3% 0,0% 4.01la Single -parent households with children (percent) 18.0% 19.0% 20.0°10 28.0°10 Percent of workers with short work commutes (<15 minutes) 59.0% 46.0% 25.0% 55.0% ' The Opportunity Atlas inciudes data for ditierent incomes of parents, and race, ethnicity and gender of children: the data here is for all races and hath genders combined. Some data is not available for all groups and there are margins of error for ail estimates. Sea the Neighborhood Mobility Outcomes on ooportuntyatlas.org v The Mobility OWCOMPS are for children who grew up in the 3 tracts, and all of Bannock County, and were in their ri+id-30s in 201,1_ s Although Tract was split inta Tracts 3.01 and 3.02 with the 2020 Census, data is only avallable for the older Tract 3 boundary. ° Infcation from 2014 to 2024 was 32.9%. The data provided here if for Information only. 5 Per the 2010 Census Gazereer Source) Opportunity Insights -Mobility Outcomes <opportunityatlas.org> Social Determinants of Health > Page 3-12 Vital Services City Services and Public Safety > Chubbuck provides essential services to residents' and visitors' safety and quality of life > This section provides information on such services » Fire and EMS » Police » Sanitation » Streets » Wate r » Wastewater » Culinary water is also discussed in the Healthy Environment Section Public Safe CALL VOLUME Fire/EMS The volume of calls has been rising, approaching 2,000 calls in 2021 and 2022. On average the fire department runs 1,800 fire, emergency medical services, and other emergency calls throughout the year. The number of overlapping calls has varied for the past several years, but there doesn't appear to he an upward trend. See Call Volume illustration and Response Map an following pages. SERVICES Fire Suppression Emergency Medical Services (Basic Life Support) non -transport Hazardous materials (operations level) response Rescue (auto -extraction) Casualty response for Idaho Heath district Region fi Prevention 1 Inspection I Investigation Issue burn permits Fire and Life Safety presentations PRIORITIES FOR FY2025 Hire 3 additional firefighters (Council approved in FY2025 budget) bringing total of full time fire figters to 18 Promote 3 firefighters to \Bbatallion Chief positions (funding approved in FY2025 budget) Will place new Aerial into service: $50,000 funded through Fire Dept impact fees Working toward Automatic Aid with Pocatello Fire and Placing an ambulance at Chubbuck Fire Station Apply for new ISO rating for the City - lower from a 4 to a 3 SECOND FIRE STATION The department is exploring options to acquire a much needed second fire station. Land has been identified along Philbin Rd within a large parcel acquired by the city for a future park. See Fire Service Area map, attached. City Services and Public Safety > Page 4-2 Public Safe Source) City of Chubbuck Fire/EMS 0 0.375 0.75 1.5 Miles City Services and Public Safety > Page 4-3 ire Service Area Current City Limits Recent Annexations Future Roads Fire Station Locations ■ Existing Station ® Future Philbin Station oAlb Future New Day Station ■ Future Rio Vista Station 1.5 Mile Service Area Existing Service Area Philbin Service Area New Day Service Area Source) City of Chubbuck Fire/EMS 0 0.375 0.75 1.5 Miles City Services and Public Safety > Page 4-3 Public SaLetv > Police Responses of all Nature(s) 7.54K STAFFING AND COORDINATION Starting in FY2025 fhe City Council approved 2 new law enforcement offifcer positions and 1 crime scene investigator I ordinance officer to keep up with demand, bringing total number of swam officers to 23, Source > Idaho State Police, 13 other positions in department. City of C h u b b uc k In FY2024 the department joined the STAR team (Southeast Idaho Special Tactics and Response) 7.42K City Services and Public Safety > Page 4-4 CHUBBUCK REPORTED CRIMES - 2021-2023 2020 2021 2022 Source: FBI Crime Data Explorer VIOLENT CRIMES 49 54 41 Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter - - 1 Rape 4 9 4 Robbery 2 5 4 Aggravated Assault 43 40 32 PROPERTY CRIMES 471 412 405 Tota! Offenses - 5 year trend Arson 3 1 Burglary 55 63 40 1,594 1.660 1,510 I arcepy-theft 3g2 321 34R1,258 1423 Motor vehicle theft 24 28 17 HATE CRIMES - TARGETED GROUPS} lois zozo zozl 2o22 zozs RacelEthnicitylAncestry 1 1 1 Religion - - 1 Sexual Orientation 1 - - Total arrests - 5 Year trend POLICE RESPONSES BY TYPE - 2021-2023 671 sob Apr 2021 - Apr 2022 Apr 2022 -Apr 2023 50e 528 443 Child Protection 105 125 Crashes 451 469 11101 Welfare Check 805 845 Civil Dispute 1 Standby 472 481 2019 zozo 2021 2022 zozs Suspicion 475 448 Accident 451 469 Disturbance 444 389 Theft 300 351 Juvenile 229 212 Harassment 193 207 Responses of all Nature(s) 7.54K STAFFING AND COORDINATION Starting in FY2025 fhe City Council approved 2 new law enforcement offifcer positions and 1 crime scene investigator I ordinance officer to keep up with demand, bringing total number of swam officers to 23, Source > Idaho State Police, 13 other positions in department. City of C h u b b uc k In FY2024 the department joined the STAR team (Southeast Idaho Special Tactics and Response) 7.42K City Services and Public Safety > Page 4-4 Public Safe Offense Overview • Offense iota 1 1,423 • % change from 2022 13.12% • # of cleared offenses 494 • Percent cleared 34.72% • Group "A" crime rate per 8,665.21 100,000 population 3 0 Summary -based reporting 3,452.69 crime rate per 100,000 7 0 populated is calculated for 175 5 other state crime 2251 5 comparisons only 1 Arrest Overview • Arrest total 529 • % change from 2022 19.41% • Adult arrest total 473 ■ Juvenile arrest total 56 • Arrest rate per 100,000 3,221.29 population 3 0 Source > Idaho State Police, City of Chubbuck Police Arrests Group "B" Arrests Adult Juvenile CurfewlLoitering1vagrancy Violations 0 0 Disorderly Conduct 3 0 DUI 35 0 Family Offenses, Nonviolent 3 0 Liquor Law Violations 2 0 Trespass of Real Property 7 0 All Other Offenses 175 5 Total Group "B" 2251 5 Source > Idaho State Police, City of Chubbuck Police City Services and Public Safety > Page 4-5 = Offenses Arrests Group "A" Offenses # Reported #Cleared Adult Juvenile Murder 0 0 0 0 Negligent Manslaughter 0 0 0 0 Rape 5 1 1 1 Sodomy 3 2 0 0 Sexual Assault w1Obj 4 3 1 0 Fondling 6 3 1 0 Aggravated Assault 39 30 11 3 Simple Assault 229 125 34 20 Intimidation 37 4 2 0 Kidnapping 1 1 0 0 Incest 0 0 0 0 Statutory Rape 0 0 0 0 Human Trafficking, Commercial 0 0 0 0 Sex Acts Human Trafficking, Involuntary 0 0 0 0 Servitude Robbery 3 2 3 0 BurglarylBreaking and Entering 42 12 3 0 Larceny/Theft Offenses 464 149 142 14 Motor Vehicle Theft 14 4 0 1 Arson 0 0 0 0 Destruction Of Property 51 20 3 5 Counterfeiting/Forgery 13 0 0 0 Fraud Offenses 197 32 12 0 Embezzlement 53 8 3 0 Extortion/Blackmail 14 0 0 0 Bribery 0 0 0 0 Stolen Property Offenses 4 3 2 2 Drug/Narcotic Violations 99 40 19 2 Drug Equipment Violations 74 46 9 0 Gambling Offenses 0 0 0 0 Pornography/Obscene Material 4 1 0 2 Prostitution Offenses 1 0 0 0 Weapons Law Violations 59 6 1 1 Animal Cruelty 7 2 1 0 Total Group "A" 1 1,4231 49411 2481 51 City Services and Public Safety > Page 4-5 = ervices > Streets/Sanitation 94 HIGHWAYS, STREETS AND ROADS Strategic Plan Priorities and Goals (July 12, 2024) • Pavement management 5 -year plan (largest single component, now in 2nd year) • Finish railroad crossings at New Day Parkway and Chubbuck Rd • Improvements on New Day Parkway to prevent damage from storm water • Storm drain project crossing Eagle Rd • Install additional flashing beacons at pedestrian crossings • Updating Snow and Ice Removal Policy Staffing to help meet increasing demand: • Road Maintenance Worker position added with FY2024 budget SANITATION DEPARTMENT Strategic Plan Priorities and Goals (July 12, 2024) • Consultant conducting rate study for better planning into the future • Also studying potential yard waste program • Frequently updating needs projections to accommodate growth, including • sanitation trucks • residential and recycling carts • commercial dumpsters • repair supplies Staffing to help meet increasing demand: • Sanitation Driver position added with FY2024 budget FLEET MAINTENANCE DEPARTMENT Fleet maintenance is critical to the streets, sanitation, water, and wastewater departments' operations, keeping vehicles in good repair and frequently updates maintenance and other projections. Source) City of Chubbuck City Services and Public Safety > Page 4-6 1 services > Water/Wastewater 00 WATER SUPPLY - CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN Working with a consultant, the City prepared a capital improvements plan (CIP) for major facility needs based on different population thresholds. Needs are identified for the current population, approximately 16,000, for the near future population of 17,000-20,000, and farther into the future with a population of 15,000, for the near future population of 17,006-20,006, and farther into the future with a population of 26,000. Projects include: wells • transmission lines • booster stations, and • storage tanks. Existing water rights are sufficient until the city reaches a population of approximately 40,040. Add itionai facilities will be installed east of 1-15 by builders concurrent with their developments. See illustration on the following page. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN Main focus on implementing capital improvements plan lean..__. nd _.__I.._:1_ _._1:..- -..-L-.__ /--- • creanrrry arra anaryuny enure sysrenr kUU11L1dU1U1 - nranr-year PraJerrr) • planning for 2 lift stations - replace 1 and improve 1 • transmission lines Staff keeping system maintained and operating property with routine maintenane and improvements. STAFFING One new position approved in FY23 budget, shared between Water and Waste Water departments added to address demand from developments. City Services and Public Safety > Page 4-7 hhNhh.., ces > Water/Wastewater Existing water nghis are sufficient until a population of -44,040 u'nles !per capita water use cv11n{Ie5 Tyhee Rd 'to increase. - Clry Sh4uId'ntinue practice of robtaining additional rig`nts with ltion'al annexations. A Wa� �r. URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARY 1� 1._.,._r+a ;S�Mlphol Rid 3) L j r � 4f �7- rN 4 4.25 0.5 1 Miles Source) City of Chubbuck, Keller Engineers x N I���usna Mwllin 41 dw, Y 3 L L> _ Ov aelapemeTnwatnkC o nmg'preve!W{T 41 dw, rCh'iBPSTIn, vementS �xmni6,WWeft iransmmsion� m P.17 U :000) [� Emeng Pop i>enn 14,om a v 1 Npuxim 17,i70S�PcoJatvn V mom. f1 ' 2Q000 L Cie rn _ >: rWiaiuiruu �Fop66'lCm 2G,IIGH PoP�i-m� 28.00J :t752 Ec-lin9 8Y•1m1 Y 1° � I����nM. r�u� Bnosler Stations--_ ■�•�✓''L4'�rg1�E2GTi LnM � � basErg 7 �. i'OpWtiai 17.LOp � C .— Storage Tanis_ U E-iairq �. X i Pop�Wm ».ow �SQNC! �yyn'�V1' s {}3lIRF N0. City Services and Public Safety > Page 4-8 Healthy Environment ■rT �^ Iii `w '" " -�' " " 1 9_ ` N r-' `3a�t . V. III ii f it k I T�`. ! 7,1's ' 1 Effects on Our Health Several natural and man-made conditions IIIM �4e_ a ar I I /F� , impact our health. :-Al'.1 ' i fff ul .6• , �1 \ 1161 I•Vi + t > Dust, smoke, excessive pollen, and fuel 1 1 � 1 / �. I FrF..id 'Al 1 L £SIRVATlO' �n iAl `------ -+a ..— •— -�°3 '1_ emissions impact our air quality. b4.J1 1 LFg�}5�1j�7O. __V� + 5{! , 9 r r r._ L .l:_ _ w r y' -r. J/+ 4 QI 1 I' 11•I'ln 1Jf ,•5...-..,. p',1 1' _ J, an i dt' .'.�� -' > Water quality is affected by man-made f•`S)►lf, It l" V 1 k aR27C I.,_ - 1 14 � rF� �~ � om 1 toxins in the soil and from natural �- - s- ..� RQy occurring minerals and elements around F 1V ti f -tlr ' 'b ? [ xA +I Y!. n 2 �pc O , I. •1s u S. f Qal, �r l•� 341 { °1= LP I �` i t ' } » The Cit wells are checked regularly Y g Y R.Q; ..:::�: -;. 1�- _ ��� '. -max l'^�4.. :: __ _ -: - - —__ �. �.�_ , s._ u z: X\: •'• `•":--$/PHON :....4�i'-• �gpAprr y� W ��T--- ; for various contaminants. Private wells `7 `A i` '� are also tested voluntarily. RIiC !: 1 . __� - i _ _ •1r . 1 � it -'A 1 f 1 i V Kf A specific concern for Chubbuck and ?�. r=''°^-� surrounding areas is nitrates in the Yc�._{ a,n=;R � ,�_ =.�� 1 rAL; %•• 7r�-1 ! X191 r�, Y1 �il .'` °_�--- i groundwater, caused b septic g Y p ��v� systems and other sources. . -7�,--ry\ -.f� : > There are individual behaviors and risks 1 ,wU V �I�.Ts�vC ,$ r'� ���Ys� + �: � '` L j 111p�"os 1. ; t • ' \•.�, G that affect our personal environment but ) � „afilF- •' 'y[n�' V , La4-: ,' f" -. ► ,� W.f - they cannot be directly addressed in a _I: �'�_7s f 1i'1 - - Comprehensive Plan. P.;I�k I�a'R��' � `�:'��'�YYi�'l N.�.�'V;I f 14 �d3°�4 � .e:.BCJ n However, the plan can offer some , 'moi solutions for citizens, such as access to 91 iRaow���"_ L 1 _ \tl lil 1 L7d L} A'�"Tisun :✓.F�+F healthy food and active transportation .: � A kA%31N r '•:,R 111`' (bicycling and walking) P" •I i. � ! S.. -Ir" 1. .._' .•:' ;�•� .�' If .. .Y Vhf 6`"I �3";` 17 41 �• elm - S 1� J'I 'tom Healthy Environment) Page 5-1 MCLG: Maximum Contaminant Level Croat: The level of a contaminant in drinking water below which there is no known cc expected risk so health. MCLGs allow for a margin of safety. MCL: Maximum Contaminant Level; The highest level of a contaminant that is allowed in drinking water. MCLS are set as close to the MCLGs as fea- sible using the best available treatment technology. TT: Treatment Technique: A required process in- tended to reduce the level of a contaminant in drinking water. AL: Action Level: The concentration of a contami- nant which, if exceeded, triggers treatment or other requirements which a water system must foWw. Varlamcei and Exeriptioss: State or EPA permis- sica nct to meet an MCL or a treatment technique under certain conditions. MRDLG: Maximum residual disinfection level goal_ The level ofa drinking water disinfectant below which there is no known or expected risk to health. MRDLGs do not reflect the benefits of die use of disinfectants to control microbial contami- nants. MRDL: Maximum residual disinfectant level. The highest level of a disinfectant allowed in drinking water. There is convincing evidence that addition of a disinfectant is necessary for control of micro- bial contaminants. MNR: Monitored Not Regulated MPL: State Assigned Maximum Permissible Level Healthy Environment Water Quality Water Quality Testing > Below are the results of City water sampling in 2023. > No violations were found Regulated Contaminant MCLG MCL Your Range of Detection Year Violation Typical Source Water Sampled Y/N Arsenic (ppb) 0 10 3 2-4 2022 N Erosion of natural deposits Barium (ppm) 2 2 .087 0.008 -.0.165 2022 N Erosion of natural deposits Chromium (ppb) 100 100 16 14-18 2022 N Erosion of natural deposits Fluoride (ppm) 4 4 .150 .100 - .200 2022 N Naturally occurring Nitrate (ppm) 10 10 4.05 2.810 - 5.090 2023 N Run off from fertilizer Selenium (ppb) 5o 50 1 ND - 1 2022 N Erosion of natural deposits Alpha Emitters (pCi/L) 0 1s 0 N/D – 0 2422 N Erosion of natural deposits Uranium (ppb) 0 30 2.050 1.740-2.360 2022 N Erosion of natural deposits Radium 226 and 228 corn- 0 5 .736 .736 2020 N Erosion of natural deposits bined (pci/L) continued on following page Source > City of Chubbuck https://forms.cityofchubbuck.us/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=937551&dbid=0&repo=Chubbuck&cr=1 Healthy Environment) Page 5-2� Health Environment Water Quality Regulated Contaminant MCLG MCL Your Range of Detection Year Violation Typical Source Water Sampled YIN Volatile Organic Contaminants Tetrachloroethylene (ppb) 0 5 1.070 ND - 1.070 2023 N Discharge from factories and dry cleaners Lead (ppb) 0 AL- 5 5 2022 N Erosion of natural deposits & 901h percentile result 15 Corrosive home plumbing Copper (ppm) 1.3 AL= .416 .416 2022 N Erosion of natural deposits & 90"' percentile result 1.3 Corrosive home plumbing TTHMs Total Trihalome- N/A s0 6.515 1.730 - 11.540 2023 N By-product of drinking water thanes (ppb) disinfection Haloacetic Acids (ppb) N/A 60 1.608 ND - 2.540 2023 N By-product of drinking water disinfection Chlor ne (ppm) MRDLG MRDL= .34 .30-40 .40 2023 N Water additive used to control 4 4 microbes Source > City of Chubbuck https://forms.cityofchubbuck.us/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=937551&dbid=0&repo=Chubbuck&cr=1 MCLG: Maximum Contaminant Level Coal: The level of a contaminant in drinking water below which there is no known cc expected risk to health. MCLGs allow for a margin of safety. MCL: Maximum Contaminant Level; The highest level of a cardaminant that is allowed in drinking water. MCLS are set as close to the MCLGs as fea- sible using the best available treatment technology, TT: Treatment Technique: A required process in- tcndcd to reduce the level of a contaminant in drinking water. AL: Action Level: The concentration of a contami- nant which, if exceeded, triggers treatment or other requirements which a water system must follow. Variamces and Exemiptiom: State or EPA permis- sicn not &D meet an MCL tc a treatment technique under certain conditions. MRDLG: Maximum residual disinfection level goal. The level of a drinking water disinfectant below which there is no known cc expected risk 4o health. MRDLGs do not reflect the bcnefim of the use of disinfectants to control microbial contami- nants. MRDL: Maximum residual disinfectant level. The highest level of a disinfectant allowed in drinking water. There is convincing evidence that addition of a disinfectant is necessary for control of micro- bial contaminants. MNR: Monitored Not Regulated 1VfPL: State Assigned Maximum Permissible Level mt Healthy Environment) Page 5-3 i W ar41 ; Sprjn$jield& 0 y, or Health Environment Groundwater � � a x s t Fa+M - -- ---- - • { 3 1 ! 5 W &pp*rr» ad � J1� liQ l7an RJ 0 Fahy c 41 �y I I I gyp � Q.° � 14 nda wn `c u a - 5 r � Source > Get Healthy Idaho, with data from IDWR, IDEA, ISDA, and private well owners Groundwater Testing- Nitrate > This map shows locations of testing Laboratories (green star) and wells (dots) that were tested for nitrates and other contaminants at various times throughout the last 20 years. > Each of the wells with red dots (except one) exceeded standards for nitrate. Healthy Environment) Page 5-4 Health Nitrate Priority Area > In the early 2000s the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality published a ranking of 25 Nitrate Priority Areas (NPAs) in the state. > Since that time more data was gathered, and additional areas were identified with nitrate pollution. > From the data IDEQ developed a statewide priority list created through this process will be used to prioritize the implementation of protective management strategies or corrective action measures within the NPAs. Environment Groundwater L ,e Naliork rid Reservation Rd Z W Reservalion Rd def J 15 - - beerr�� ,,Ij 2 W MIC Rd W ryrrt Rd :v rynee f2a 3 } rr z N Siphon Rd W Y � I � U W L ~ 1 f P 0r Ir t � m i a ' t l M xr 4r Source > Idaho Division of Water Resources and Idaho Department of Environmental Quality Fb>i na Lif Violkqeqi Csm�lvr i lil�hlond papa+olio Orae{ i 15� ti - a Pocalello �r Healthy Environment) Page 5-5 1 Nitrate Vulnerability %-ery hl:gr h 19h Moderw*e kOw Li roan wY��F Not dinsIfiied Health Source > Idaho Division of Water Resources and Idaho Department of Environmental Quality Environment Groundwater }F L 5 , I� I - Healthy Environment) Page 5-6 Particulate Matter with a Diameter of 10 Micrometers or Less - PM10 > The Portneuf Valley, which includes Chubbuck and Pocatello, was designated as nonattainment for PM10 in 1990. > The area is prone to wintertime inversions that trap pollutants near the ground. > Road dust, industrial sources, and residentialwood heating are the primary emissions sources. > Since 1990, significant improvements have been made, and, in 2002, EPA determined the area met the national standards. > In 2006 the Valley was designated as in attainment with a maintenance plan. fealthy Environment Air Quality Source > Idaho Dept of Environmental Quality Healthy Environment > Page 5-7 D 7."m I ro F.Mro 0 0 @lisle "MR -1 'b T .04 t Awl& - 4r 7 .W-mp b1i —low IF wok.4�- A r imp- Land Uses Current and Futurp- Neighhorhood Current Land Use % Future Land use South Yellowstone Civic (and utilities) 10.5% Mixed Use 11.2% Commercial 68.511/0 Commercial 88.81,:6 Residential 21_0Ma Knudsen Blvd Agriculture 1.6% Mixed Use 6.1% Civic (and utilities) 2.1% Medium Density 4.6% Commercial 24.2% Commercial 89.3% Industrial 5.2% Residential 36.6°/0 Vacant, approved for developmen 30.3010 Chudbuck Vitlage Civic (and utilities) 2.3% Mixed Use 0.1010 Commercial 74.9% Medium Density 0.2% Industrial 5.7% Commercial 31.4% Residential 17.1% Highway 18.4% Village 50.0% Briarwood Park Residential 81.2% Mixed Use 31.3°1% Commercial 14.1% Medium Density 68.7% Civic (and utilities) 2.6% Village 0.0010 Industrial 1.2% Vacant, approved for developmen 0.9% Mary's Park Residential 85.0% Mixed Use 26.8% Civic (and utilities) 11.0% Employment 1.5% Industrial 1.5% Low Density 71.7°1% Agriculture 0.0% Vacant, approved for developmen 2.4% Source > City of Chubbuck - Current % as of June 2024, Future % based on vintage Comprehensive Plan. Land and Building > Page 6-2= Land Use Fut Neighborhood Current Land Use °/Q Future Land Use % Cotant Park Civic viand utilities) 18.4% Mixed Use 38.6% Residential 81.6% Low Density 81.4°/0 Commercial 0.0°/n Park Meadows Civic (and utilities) 21.0% Mixed Use 93.3°/0 Industrial 2.411/6 Low Density 6.7% Agriculture 17.8% Residential 56.0°Ic. Vacant, approved for developmen 2.70Io Heritage Park Civic (and utilities) 3.1% Mixed Use 36.2% Residential 79.9% Low Density 22.8% Industrial 5.80/0 Medium density 40.9% Agriculture 11.1% Vacant, approved for developmen 0.0% Armstrong Park Civic (and utilities) 9.9% Mixed Use 38.6% Residential 83.6% Low Density 10.8% Commercial 3.40/n Medium Density 48.60'/D Vacant, approved for developmen 3.10/0 High Densfty 4.00/0 Briscoe/Adams CIVIC (and Utilities) 7.3% Mixed Use 36.0% Residential 85.9% Medium Density 54.4% Commercial 1.10/0 Commercial 8.90/0 Industrial 1.4010 Agriculture 3.5010 vacant, approved for develop men 0.8% Source > City of Chubbuck - Current % as of June 2024, Future % based on vintage Comprehensive Plan. Land and Building) Page 6-3= Land Uses Curre f., and Future Neighborhood Current Land Use Ok Future Land Use % Stuart Park Civic [and utilities] 2.6°Io- Mixed Use 21.7°1% Residential 77.6% Medium Density 35.6°1% Commercial 19.4% Commercial 42.7% Vacant, approved for developmen 0.4% Capell Park Residential 18.3% Mixed Use 0.1°/n Commercial 23.1% Employment 51.011/0 Civic (and utilities) 14.7% Medium Density 0.0°/n Industrial 21.9% High Density 8.4110 Vacant, approved for developmen 21.9% Commercial 40.4% Highway 0.0% Village 0.11/0 Rowland Pail< r_c nn/. nn; r Ise h� Inc f 6,31 ur LIGI Civic (and utilities) u.1.dl[] 15.7°/n e. I"ll U UJL" Low Density Z- Z--/1j 24.40/n Industrial 2.8% Medium Density 48.4% Agriculture 12.70/0 Vacant, approved fordevctopmen 2.2% Commercial 1.2% Tree Valley Park Civic (and utilities) 0.6% Mixed Use 26.2% Residential 37.4% Low Density 37.611/0 Agriculture 55.1% Medium Density 0.5% Vacant, approved for developmen 6.9% Commercial 35.7% Homestead Park Civic (and utilities) 4.6% Mixed Use 44.5% Residential 92.0% Low Density 55.5% Vacant, approved for developmen 2.2% Agriculture 1.1% Source > City of Chubbuck - Current % as of June 2024, Future % based on vintage Comprehensive Plan. Land and Building) Page 6-4 Land Uses Curre *end Future Neighborhood Current Land Use % Future Land Use % Brookstone/Grove Residential 75.2% Mixed Use 44.7% Civic (and utilities) 2.2% Employment 6.8% Agriculture 0.2% Medium Density 48.5% Vacant, approved for developmen 22.4% Buffalo Creek Residential 0.0% Mixed Use 81.7% Agriculture 100.0% Commercial 18.3% Harvest Springs Residential 19.7% Mixed Use 12.7% Civic (and utilities) 0.8% Medium Density 77.2% Agriculture 59.1% Commercial 10.1°/0 Vacant, approved for developmen 20.4% Northside Crossing Residential 10.8% Mixed Use 24.311/n Civic (and utilities) 0.9% Employment 43.4% Agriculture 80.5% Medium Density 32.3% Vacant, approved for developmen 6.9% Commercial 0.8°Io Industria(Way Residential 1.3010 Mixed Use 0.0% Civic (and utilities) 0.0% Employment 99.911/1, Industrial 28.4% Commercial 0.0010 Agriculture 66.2% Vacant, approved for developmen 4.1% Bicentennial Park Civic (and utilities) 9.9% Mixed Use 30.3% Agriculture 0.8% Law Density 56.7% Residential 89.3% Commercial 13.0% Source > City of Chubbuck - Current % as of June 2024, Future % based on vintage Comprehensive Plan. Land and Building) Page 6-5 No current i Neighborhood Current Land Use % Future Land Use % Cumberland Promise Residential 72.1% Mixed Use 27.1% Civic (and utilities) 0.8% Low Density 16,6% Agriculture 27.1% Medium Density 26.2% Commercial 30.0% Equestrian 1 Lacey Residential 26.5% Mixed Use Civic (and utilities) 0.0% Low Density Agriculture 72.4% Medium Density Industrial 0.2% Commercial Vacant 0.9% Moonlight 1 Walllin Residential 17.0% Mixed Use NIA Civic (and utilities) 0.0% Low Density NIA Agriculture 70.1% Medium Density NIA Commercial 0.1% Industrial 1.1% Commercial NIA Vacant 11.7% ryhee Residential 59.6% Mixed Use NIA Civic (and utilities) 0.8% Law Density NIA Agriculture 22.0% Medium Density NIA Commercial 2.40 NIA Industrial 6.5% Commercial Vacant 9.2% Source > City of Chubbuck — Current % as of June 2024, Future % based on vintage Comprehensive Plan. Land and Building) Page 6-6 Bui*ldi*n Permits Residential and Commercial Source > City of Chubbuck Land and Building) Page 6-7 A AIFW SIAI(:I P FAMII v wIII nmr. PPPMITC Bui"Idi"n-a Permits,> Single -Family Source > City of Chubbuck Total/Year 105 86 130 42 88 47 4 16 Land and Building) Page 6-8 A LU IV LULU ZUZ I LULL LUL.S ZUZ4 Y I U _ lill I 11:-11 \/ 1 4 LL M 1 1 1 l February 5 2 7 3 0 12 1\/I 111 A Anel 119 1 104 h 1 maIYIGy r 1 i1 I V < V -/-/ LL -/ L 1 Iw V i I V Ii iina d, R 25 3 7 3 July 1 6 $ 1 L 4 AIunust g 21 6 1 0 2 September 10 22 7 1 13 i Irrnnor VVWVVI -/ L -/ L x V A T IL November 7 4 1 1 35 uc�.ci 1 iuc� c 1 �r 1 c Source > City of Chubbuck Total/Year 105 86 130 42 88 47 4 16 Land and Building) Page 6-8 A NEW SINGLE FAMILY VALUATION nnAn nnnn nnnl nnnn nnnn )hYA \/Y`r1 January 6,661,641 508.850 $ 884.667 1n? 7RR (Z I v . 553.748 $ 1.730.080 S 11 977 7A11 II,V11,I TV $ 557.929 r_L_--_�- I-ehruanl T w rAn A9r -iln uln th w nnn nnr ,,s \.A.1-1 T a nnn n9n -nli eh a A9n AAA u1i inu 1h w _ T i. n A- n11 i Int n11 March 3 013 111 1 01- 411 1 85- 7-3 2 414 655 - 1 1-7 637 April 1,354,568 A) 109,712 1,722,06-1 1,151,518 192,664 439,164 Mnv t 1 n97 d05 t qAQ Al 7 nhl MA 4Q7 AN It -1 79Q n11 1; 2 n42 AAA June $ 447,623 $ 827,216 $ 2,571,823 $ 643,311 $ 889,952 $ 471,237 L.1-- .1111\/ T T n nnn %Ll nnM T T nn nnn ')M nl IM T T nr A Q sn h 7 LL . � T T \y Jnn Ins SQA . V vV T T \y AAA nnn LL 1 1 SMT z . vv tr w W -7 rn u 1/ 'Sn v . v< AII(7I1St S -:i5_-14 Yi 1.887!-115 K 1.1Fi8_044 Yi 27-_210 li - Yi 282060 �o ntom nor VVL.Wlllyyl N w Xhti 1.170X vvv,vIv w 1 Q.i9 II IXQ I,vvv,vvv X w 1 X117 1 f%X I,VVI,VLV '^ w %%h 1117 "LV, IVI V^. w 1 %tiff 199 { L,LVV,VVV (l(--tnher M 7R2 $ 34A n27 q 1 75Q d24 t RQ9 7R2 t 2 nna 714 1�Iumer, bee IYVYGIIIVGI .L y7 7a1 M112 IV I,vVv \L y7 AIw1 1C.- `ry 1, 1 1j .L y7 121 !ZQ7 Lv I,vu1 \1 y1 1LSI II on.. IVV,LJV .L iZ A01 '1A 7 v,`rvL,\JY/ r)orromhor 1)x,1 RRA 190 Ain 79;R ARA (Z 11;7 RnF (k U9 AM Intal/Year 1U,1bb,314 6,661,641 1b,146,24b 6,dU9,Ub4 $ 14,b3b,13U � 8,2yb,b4U Valuation nor I Ini+ (Z QR 717 v u.\.. �.. \.v.I I I W 1n? 7RR (Z I v . 1?1 1dn G . ?nQ 7an G 1RR Air, (z 17R Fn1 �. A-,- Int71 V-i lrGl lIVVIGI�V IV1G1 VGIGGlIV11 ALV X w 11 977 7A11 II,V11,I TV Source ) City of Chubbuck Land and Building) Page 6-9 Housing Options Building Permits Multi -Family > As Chubbuck develops, market trends have influenced all aspects of development and housing costs. > In recent years this has meant some higher density development in several parts of Chubbuck. MEW RAM Ti CARAii 4 Diiii rliwii_ rCDRfiiTC 4; i,C iiMiTQ 17LY•IIIVL I I-1 AIr11L1 L7VILV117\7 r L111111 V -TT VI Willi IV 2n1g 2n2n 2n21 2n22 2n23 2n24 YTn January 36 8 Febrivan, 28 March 16 36 68 unrii i n May 48 II IIID I VN114 1 V V ju! of nuua� Uqy Qv vu Serptember October 8 48 hYO Vember 44 December rliin ii i�t±nr 5 -year Average (2019-2023) Source > City of Chubbuck 48 iw wn nn Ti irin i i 100 Land and Building) Page 6-10 NEW MULTI -FAMILY VALUATION Building Permits,> Multi -Family Ullf-I�R90=11111=i�AWVRLl1�'w(il��iAi�i=i1�i1111�I1111si V/q 1..-1:-.- r ..11._:1 & nA AOS A` rr nnn A` An, nn, fr An1 n11 A` Ann AIn m \/ it 1 1 1 it 1 1 1 111 f lF.l 111111 A n4 I n/ A 1'l 1 11 11 1 T 11 01 4 T au, 1/ M T /nnn n n\ m F�_vdar uVdrnnd \%'�11 I'�TI1�11 f10t' 11llIT 1411.1 M_/11% SI `A \.ILl S%M r \.I .... L.y. ...1 .1..111 r. ..111. VU 1- Z.. ) w „-r,w, . Source > City of Chubbuck 4 16 Land and Building > Page 6-11 A •in!n /111 7070 /11/11 nrp4. 4114 1 rfn77 41144 7nno rinnA VTn /114.1 4V41+ 1 II/ January $ 3,870,000 $ 961,536 r�L_.. �._. February r, ,p I Inn QA o,cuapw March $ 880,000 $ 3,600,000 6,800,000 Affil T ;p 880,000 vA AV -7 d� nnn nnn June . ii iiv r nni i Iii n i O� VV Auaust $ 9;500,000 wp,,wl 1 1ww1 Qctnher $ R119; SRO $ 7 000 000 November $ 4,595,580 December 7,nnn,nnn Ullf-I�R90=11111=i�AWVRLl1�'w(il��iAi�i=i1�i1111�I1111si V/q 1..-1:-.- r ..11._:1 & nA AOS A` rr nnn A` An, nn, fr An1 n11 A` Ann AIn m \/ it 1 1 1 it 1 1 1 111 f lF.l 111111 A n4 I n/ A 1'l 1 11 11 1 T 11 01 4 T au, 1/ M T /nnn n n\ m F�_vdar uVdrnnd \%'�11 I'�TI1�11 f10t' 11llIT 1411.1 M_/11% SI `A \.ILl S%M r \.I .... L.y. ...1 .1..111 r. ..111. VU 1- Z.. ) w „-r,w, . Source > City of Chubbuck 4 16 Land and Building > Page 6-11 A D ff IF AOF I Aso " ov DAVS Aw 0#,e !PCIQl FWF— NEW COMMERCIAL PERMITS 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 YTD New Consruction 10 6 8 15 12 3 Tenant Improvements 12 9 16 4 3 Additions 1 2 3 1 Total/Year 22 15 26 15 19 7 NEW COMMERCIAL VALUATION 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 YTD New Consruction $ 15,065,000 $ 1,310,000 $ 2,851,000 $ 17,388,306 $ 8,095,962 $ 8,200,000 Tenant Improvements $ 1,022,000 $ 671,220 $ 31748,940 $ 557,750 $ 192,000 Additions $ 90,006 $ 580,000 $ 702,000 $ 1,720,000 $ 7,140,000 Total/Year Source > City of Chubbuck $ 16,177,000 $ 2,561,220 $ 7,301,940 $ 17.388,306 $ 10,373,712 $ 15,492,000 Land and Building) Page 6-12 Access to Necessities Access, or Lack of Access, is a Determinant for Your Health Several necessities for good health are addressed in this section or other sections of the document, but more should be evaluated and planned for in the future. Not all can be directly influenced by the Comprehensive Plan. > Parks and Playgrounds > Active Transportation — Paths / Trails > Food / Healthy Food > Child Care / Preschool > Medical Providers » Chiropractors » Dentists » Mental Health Providers » Pharmacies » Physical / Massage Therapists » Physicians » Urgent Care > Transit/ Paratransit > Health Clubs / Dance Studio / Fitness ■ > Schools Access to Necessities > Page 7-1 Access > Services Vith Census Tracts, Tyhee (Census Designated Place), and Area of City Impact TRACT 2 89 12 LICENSED ESSENTIAL BUSINESSES TRACT 3.61 TRACT 3.02 TRACT 4 TRACT 5 (PART) 3 TOTAL ALL DAYCARE 16 12 ALL HOME OCCUPATIONS 89 12 LICENSED ESSENTIAL BUSINESSES Commercial Daycare Center 9 9 Home Daycare/Preschool 7 3 TOTAL ALL DAYCARE 16 12 Full Grocery' Store 2 2 Some Grocery Items 4 4 Limited Grocery items (Convvenience Stores, etc.) 6 5 TOTAL ALL GROCERY RESOURCES 12 11 Medical and dental offices 13 9 Mental health providers 8 - 8 Physical and massage therapists 11 - 5 Chiropractors 3 - 2 TOTAL ALL MEDICALiTHERAPY PROVIDERS 35 - 24 PHARMACIES 6 _ 5 ASSISTED LIVING 4 - 3 HEALTH CLUB/DANCE STUDIOIFITNESS 10 _ 9 ° As a general ru'e Groceries includes a vaiet of nutritious foods, some of which would not stay fresh on a shelf for approx. 3 weeks. Source > 1 Outside city limits - no city business licemses. City of Ch u bbuck s The Harvest Springs neighborhood is beginning to develop and there are currently no licenses businesses. 33 2 2 1 1 4 2 1 7 1 1 44 2 2 4 4 - 1 - Access to Necessities > Page 7-2 Access > Services BLOCK GROUP 1 8 GROUP 2 BLOCK GROUP 3 Chubbuck South Knudsen Blk Group Briscoe I Blk Group Blk Group village Yellowstone Boulevard Total Adams Total Stuart Park Capell Park Total ALL HOME OCCUPATIONS - 5 LICENSED ESSENTIAL BUSINESSES Commercial Daycare Center 1 Home DaycareiPreschool TOTAL ALL DAYCARE 1 ruu urocery afore - 1 Some Grocery Items 1 2 Limited Grocery items (Convvenience Stores, etc.) 2 1 TOTAL ALL GROCERY RESOURCES 3 4 Medical and dental offices 1 5 2 Mental health providers 2 - 4 Physical and massage therapists 1 1 1 Chiropractors - 1 TOTAL ALL MEOICALITHERAPY PROVIDERS 4 6 8 PHARMACIES 3 ASSISTED LIVING 1 _ HEALTH CLUB/DANCE STUDIOIFITNESS 1 1 ' As a general rule Groceries includes a variet of nutritious foods, some of which would not stay fresh on a shelf for approx. 3 weeks Source > City of Chubbuck 5 2 2 5 5 1 3 3 3 2 5 1 1 2 2 1 4 4 5 2 7 3 1 1 3 1 1 2 7 3 1 4 8 1 1 6 1 1 1 1 3 18 1 1 3 2 5 3 - 1 1 2 1 - 1 1 2 2 - 7 7 Access to Necessities > Page 7-3 Access > Services BLOCK GROUP i Northside Tree Valley Slack Group Industry Way Crossing Rowland Park Park 1. Mary's Park Total ALL HOME UCCUPATIONS t l LICENSED ESSENTIAL BUSINESSES Commercial Daycare Center Home Daycare/Preschcol TOTAL ALL DAYCARE FuJI Grocery' Store Some Grocery Items Limited Grocery items (Convvenience Stores, etc.1 TOTAL ALL GROCERY RESOURCES Medical and dental offices 1 I Mental health providers Physical and massage therapists 1 Chiropractors 1 TOTAL ALL MEDICALITHERAPY PROVIDERS 1 3 PHARMACIES ASSISTED LIVING - 1 HEALTH CLUBMANCE STUDICIFITNESS 'As a general rule Groceries i wJvdea a varlet of rrutadous foods, some of which would not stay fresh on a shelf for approx. 3 weeks Source ) City of Chubbuck BLOCK GROUP 2 BLOCK GROUP 3 Bicentennial Block Group Briarwood Block Group Park Total Park Total 23 6 6 4 Access to Necessities > Page 7-4 I - 1 - 4 s 3 • - - 1 I 1 Access to Necessities > Page 7-4 I Access > Services BLOCK GROUP i BLOCK GROUP 2 BLOCK GROUP 3 Cumberlandl Brookstonel Homestead block Group Armstrong Heritage PaPark Meadows Block Group Cotant Block Group rk PromiseGrave Park Total Park Totaf Park Total ALL HOME OCCUPATIONS t: s is ja 17 LICENSED ESSENTIAL BUSINESSES Commercial Daycare Center Home DaycarelPreschool 2 TOTAL ALL DAYCARE _ 2 Full Grocery' Store Some Grocery Iterns Limited Grocery items (Cvnvvenience Stores, etc,) TOTAL ALL GROCERY RESOURCES - Medical and dental offices - Mental health providers - Physical and massage therapists 1 - 1 I 3 Chiropractors - - TOTAL ALL MEDICALITHERAPY PROVIDERS - 1 1 i 2 3 PHARMACIES _ _ _ - ASSISTED LIVING HEALTH CLUBIDANCE STUDIDIFITNESS 1 - I - - 'As a gei�eraf rule Groceries inelt<des a vanet ofnutritiaus foods, some of Which could not stay fresh no a shelf for app=- 3 Weeks- � Outside city limps - rie City business iieernses. Source > City of Chubbuck s 1 13 Access to Necessities > Page 7-5 I ALL HOME OCCUPATIONS Commercial Daycare Center Home Daycare/Preschool TOTAL ALL DAYCARE Full Grocery' Store Some Grocery Items Limited Grocery items (Convenience Stores, etc.) TOTAL ALL GROCERY RESOURCES Medical and dental offices Mental health providers Physical and massage therapists Chiropractors TOTAL ALL MEDICALiTHERAPY PROVIDERS PHARMACIES ASSISTED LIVING HEALTH CLUBIDANCE STUDIOIFITNESS Access > Services TRACT 2 (PART) Buffalo Creek' TRACT 5 - BLOCK GROUP 1 Moonlight! Equestrian/2 Walling Lacey2 Harvest Springs Tyhee TOTAL ' As a general rule Groceries includes a variet of nutritious foods, some of which would not stay fresh on a shelf for approx. 3 weeks. 2 Outside city limits - no city business licemses. The Harvest Springs neighborhood is beginning to develop and there are currently no licenses businesses. Source > City of Chubbuck Access to Necessities > Page 7-6 Idl of JA "� _ rwi ,�- f .�� +- - �S• ,ter �+.�i+e 14 Ak '' k}� f" S" T LF - n J i Source > City of Chubbuck Access to Necessities > Page 7-7 Access > Recreat*ri With Census Tracts, Tyhee (Census Designated Place), and Area of City Impact & I PARKS WITHIN CITY I CENSUS TRACTS 30 Parks with playgrounds 22 Parks with walking paths 16 Miles of walking paths within parks 5.39 Park acreage in city I census tracts I AOI 99.0 Park acreage per 1,000 people 0.64 VICINITY TO A PARK WITH A PLAYGROUND Approx. # of households within 114 mile / walkable 4:309 Approx. percent of households within 114 mile 1 walkable 76 0% VICINITY TO A PATHWAY OR ANY PARK Approx. # of households within 114 mile (walkable) 4.657 Approx. percent of households within 114 mile I walkable 82.1% MULTI -USE PATHWAYS Miles of multi -use pathways in or bordering tract 2.79 Pathways and current lengths Alpine Drive Pathway - 0.20 miles 0.2 Harvest Springs Boulevard Pathway - .21 miles 0.21 Hiline Canal Trail - 0.15 miles 0.15 Hiline Road Pathway- 1R f11R - ----..-.-, .._ New Day Parkway Multi -Use Pathway North Side {industry to Whitaker) - 0.34 miles 0.34 South Side (Industry to east of 1-15) - 9.53 miles 1.53 Northside Crossing Trails System - .20 miles 0.2 TOTAL MILES OF STREETS WITH BIKE LANES 4.77 Miles with lanes on both sides, in/bordering neighborhood 3.00 TOTAL MILES OF STREETS WITHOUT SIDEWALKS a 8,59 Arterials (mi) 4,74 Collector Streets (mi) 0.70 Source > Streets Department in process 2024-2025 installing flashing beacons at several pedestrian crossings. City of Chubbuck TRACT 2 TYHEE AREA OF 5 (part of Tract 5) CITY IMPACT 1 - 30 - 22 1 1 53 16 0.18 1.87 5 0.51 0.21 3,00 99.0 0.26 - 0.55 25 11 4,379 3.8% 2.9% 68.0% 49 16 4,750 7.4% 4.3% 73.7% TRACT 2 TRACT 3.01 TRACT 3.02 TRACT 4 TRACT (PART] 0.15 0.15 fl 1 F 031 031 031 5 2 2 0.86 23.51 5.50 826 47.0% 1,D61 60.3% 11 8 6 1 80 31 91 6,22 1,688 91.0% 1,710 92.2% 0.15 1.77 n 1F 0.15 0.19 0.15 1.07 2.35 2.13 2.65 1.47 0.46 3.33 1.28 4.37 2.92 0.24 13 12 7 2 55 43,11 1,B40 84.9% 1,930 89.1% 0.20 0.36 0.00 2.79 0.20 0.20 0.21 0.21 0.15 0.15 fl 1 F 0 34 1 53 0.20 020 1.87 0.21 4,77 0.78 0.21 3,00 2.55 1.00 8.59 1.33 1.00 5 1 Access to Necessities > Page 7-8 �. ■ % i With Census Tracts, Tyhee (Census Designated Place), and Area of City Impact TRACT 2 TRACT 3.01 TRACT 3.02 TRACT 4 TRACT 5 (PART) "UVIBER OF BUS 29VT 21 8 110 - CITY i TRACT DEMOGRAPHICS Population (Census 2020) 15,570 4,274 5,134 6,796 1,956 Households (Census 2020) 5,757 1,759 1,855 2,166 661 STAFFING, FUNDING, VOLUNTEERING Adopt -a -Park program launched in 2023 - 5 parks adopted to -date. A new position of Recreation Coordinator I Community Program Specialist I Recreation Coordinator was created in the FY2024 budget. TYHEE (part of Tract 5) 1,146 373 Grant received to fund a 10-12 ft wide trail along Church Canal between Philbin and Hawthorne roads. Park maintenance staffing remains at 4 FT employees, temporary employees in summer assist in summer months. Beginning with the FY2025 an additional temporary worker position was added. Park Impact Fees currently funding first projects of improvements at Long Park, Hiram Park, and Brookstone Park. With assistance from t he Blue Cross if Idaho Foundation for Health, improved parcel west of City Hall as a park to draw people to downtown during the day. A one-time allocation of $414,000 was approved in the FY2025 budget for park maintenance and equipment. ' Playgrounds, pathways, and open fields at public schools are included Playfields at charter schools, churches and other private properties are not included, z Multi -use pathways are included in the bike lane figures if they are adjacent the street. 3 Multi -use pathways are included in the figures for sidewalks if they are adjacent to the street. Figures do not include any private streets or county roads. AREA OF CITY IMPACT Source > City of Chubbuck Access to Necessities > Page 7-9 29 18,160 6,441 No PARKS WITHIN NEIGHBORHOOD Warks with playgrounds * Parks with walking paths " Miles of walking paths within parks Number of off-street pedestrian connections to parks Park acreage in neighborhood VICINITY TO A PARK WITH A PLAYGROUND Approx. # of households within 1i4 mile i walkable Approx. percent of households within 1/4 mile I walkable VICINITY TO A PATHWAY OR ANY PARK Approx. # of hauseholds within 1;4 mile (walkable) Approx. percent of households within 114 mile/ walkable MULTI -USE PATHWAYS IN OR BORDERING THE NEIGHBORHOOD Miles of multi -use pathways TOTAL MILES OF STREETS WITH BIKE LANES Miles with laces on both sides, inlbardering neighborhood Source > City of Chubbuck zs > Recreati*k,, BLOCK GROUP 1 B GROUP 2 BLOCK GROUP 3 Chubbuck South I Knudsen Elk Group Briscoe I Blk Group Blk Group Village Yellowstone Boulevard Total Adams Total Stuart Park Capell Park Total City Hall Dalton* 2 Sample" 1 Stuart" Capell " 2 1 1 - - 2 0.40 0.46 4.86 0.34 0.50 0.84 0.73 0.73 4.60 17.34 21.94 - 43 43 369 369 363 51 414 - 40.2% 6.9% 73.4% 73.4% 76.1% 33.1% 65.6% 43 43 458 458 421 139 560 - 40.2% 6.9% 91.1% 91.1% 88.3% 90,3% 88.7% - - New Day - Pkwy (N&S) - - 0.15 - 0.46 1.33 1.79 041 - 0.41 0.37 1.2 1.57 0.41 - 0.41 Access to Necessities > Page 7-10 A A i • go TOTAL MILES OF STREETS WITHOUT SIDEWALKS 2 Arterials (mi) Collector Streets (mi) NUMBER OF BUS STOPS SERVING NEIGHBORHOOD NEIGHBORHOOD DEMOGRAPHICS Population (Census 2020) Persons under 5 years (%) Persons 5 to 9 years (%) Persons 10 to 14 years (%) Persons 65 years and over (%) Households (Census 2020) 3 PARK ACREAGE PER 1,000 PEOPLE BLOCK GROUP 1 B GROUP 2 BLOCK GROUP 3 Chubbuck South I Knudsen Blk Group Briscoe I Blk Group Blk Group Village Yellowstone Boulevard Total Adams Total Stuart Park Capell Park Total 'Multi -use pathways are included in the bike vane figures if they are adjacent the street. 2 Multi -use pathways are included in the figures for sidewalks if they are adjacent to the street. Figures do not include any private streets or county roads that may have sidewalks. a There are some anomalies in the 2420 Census for households in Capell Park, Chubbuck Viliage, and Knudsen Blvd - locai housing counts replace Census data for these neighborhoods. Since 2020, Chubbuck Village has seen a net increase of 21 dwelling units - an 84% increase, and in Knudsen Boulevard 44 apartment units have been completed and 200 are under construction. Source > City of Chubbuck Access to Necessities > Page 7-11 = 0.24 0.03 0.27 1.40 1.40 0.2 0.77 0.97 0.18 - 0.18 0.82 0.82 - 046 0.46 - - - 0.38 0.38 - 0.08 0.08 2 7 3 12 6 6 6 4 10 98 839 336 1,273 1,311 1,311 1,245 445 1,690 11.2% 5.4% 5.7% 5.9% 9.4% 9.4% 7.1% 13.7% 8.9% 10.2% 4.6% 7.7% 5.9% 8.9% 8.9% 5.9% 10.6% 7.1% 10.2% 3.2% 12.8% 6.3% 7.8% 7.8% 8.6% 10.1% 9.0% 16.3% 27.7% 8.6% 21.8% 9.5% 9.5% 17.7% 6.7% 14.8% 43 475 107 625 503 503 477 154 631 3.47 0.00 1.49 0.66 0.56 0.56 3.69 38.97 12.98 'Multi -use pathways are included in the bike vane figures if they are adjacent the street. 2 Multi -use pathways are included in the figures for sidewalks if they are adjacent to the street. Figures do not include any private streets or county roads that may have sidewalks. a There are some anomalies in the 2420 Census for households in Capell Park, Chubbuck Viliage, and Knudsen Blvd - locai housing counts replace Census data for these neighborhoods. Since 2020, Chubbuck Village has seen a net increase of 21 dwelling units - an 84% increase, and in Knudsen Boulevard 44 apartment units have been completed and 200 are under construction. Source > City of Chubbuck Access to Necessities > Page 7-11 = PARKS WITHIN NEIGHBORHOOD Parks with playgrounds ' Parks with walking paths ^ Miles of walking paths within parks Number of off-street pedestrian connections to parks Park acreage in neighborhood VICINITY TOA PARK WITH PUBLIC PLAYGROUND Approx. 9 of households within 114 mile 1 walkabie Approx. percent of households within 114 mile 1 walkable VICINITY TO A PARK OR PATHWAY Approx. # of households wilhin 114 mile (walkable) Approx. percent of households within 114 mile 1 walkable MULTI -USE PATHWAYS IN OR BORDERING THE NEIGHBORHOOD Miles of multi -use pathways TOTAL MILES OF STREETS WITH BIKE LANES' Mlles with lanes on bath sides, in/bordering neighborhood Source > City of Chubbuck ALLU380 - I � Recre�t� BLOCK GROUP 7 Industry Way Northside Rowiand Park Tree Valley Mary's Park Block Group Crossing ' Park Total BLOCK GROUP 2 RLOCK GROUP 3 Bicentennial Block Group Briarwovd Block Group Park Total park Total WA Northside Xing Ellis Elein.'" Tree Valley' Bisdine ' 8 Bicentennlai " 2 Bdanvo'd '^ I Long Heartland 5 Tyhee Eterm'" Rowland '^ Mary's Park '" 3 0-12 0.40 0.45 0.97 0.60 a.sa 0.23 0.23 1 5 - 1 7 2 2 1.22 11.27 0.82 6-96 20.27 10.54 '0.54 Loo 1.00 25 197 193 402 817 335 335 536 536 53.2% 61.9°% 94.6% 100.0% 84.1% 96.3°% 95.3% 100.0% 100.0% 35 197 193 402 827 335 335 536 536 74.5% 61-9% 94-536 100.0% 85.2% 96.3% 96.3% 100.011% 100,0% New flay New Day (N) New Day (5) New Day - - Pkwy (N) NSX System Hiline Rd Pkwy (B) 0.115 0.39 0.55 0.68 - 1.77 - - 015 0-19 1-36 1-06 0-94 3.33 0.54 0.54 0.15 0.19 0.19 0.1d0 0.94 1.28 0.54 0.54 Access to Necessities > Page 7-12 TOTAL MILES OF STREETS WITHOUT SIDEWALKS ' BLOCK GROUP I Industry Way Northside Rowland Park Tree Valley Mary's Park $lock Group Crossing Park 1 otal i. i9 1.08 081 0.90 0.32 3.55 Recreat* - -� BLOCK GROUP 2 BLOCK GROUP 3 Bicentennial Block Group Briarwood Block Groins Park Total Park Total 1,38 1.38 - Arterials (mi) 0,71 1.00 11.81 0.81 2.52 0,96 0.96 Collector Streets (mi) 0.24 - 9.24 - NUMBER OF BUS STOPS SERVING NEIGHBORHOOD - - - 1 3 3 3 3 2 2 NEIGHBORHOOD DEMOGRAPHICS Population (Census 2020) NIA 1,031 574 1,215 2,820 1,085 1,085 1,229 1,229 Persons under 5 years {°I°) - NIA 6.0% 43% 5,2% 5.3% 9.6% 9.69 8.450 8.4% Persons 5 to 9 years (%) - NIA 9.2% 4,6% 9,0% 81% 6.9% 6.9% 6.9% 6.9% Persons 10 to 14 years {96] - N!A 12.6% 8.2% 10.9% 10.9% 8.2% 8.29'0 5.3% 63% Persons 65 years and over {%} - NIA 15.1% 20.0% 16,8916 16.9% 14,0% 14,0'1/0 10.206 10.2% Households (Census 2020) - 47 318 204 402 971 348 348 536 536 PARK ACREAGE PER 1,000 PEOPLE - NIA 1D.93 1.43 5.73 7A9 9.81 9.61 0.81 0.81 ° Playgrounds, pathways, and open Melds at public schaois are Mduded. `Multi -use pathways are included in the bike lane FVviva if they are adjacent the street. Mull -use pathways are included in the 9gures for sidewalks if they are adjacent to the sliver. Figures do not include any privafe woofs or county reads that may have sidewalks. ' Since the 2020 Census nearly 4 doyen homes have been hunt in Northside Crossing, afong with liens and a park. Data is current as of Spring 2024 Source > City of Chubbuck .P Access to Necessities > Page 7-13 A PARKS WITHIN NEIGHBORHOOD Parks with playgrounds * Parks with walking paths A Miles of walking paths within parks Number of off-street pedestrian connections to parks Park acreage in neighborhood VICINITY TO A PARK WITH PUBLIC PLAYGROUND Approx. # of households within 114 mile 1 walkable Approx. percent of households within 114 mile / walkable VICINITY TO A PATHWAY OR ANY PARK Approx. # of households within 114 mile (walkable) Approx. percent of households within 114 mile / walkable MULTI -USE PATHWAYS IN OR BORDERING THE NEIGHBORHOOD Miles of multi -use pathways TOTAL MILES OF STREETS WITH BIKE LANES Miles with lanes on both sides, in/bordering neighborhood Source > City of Chubbuck Access > Recreation Access to Necessities > Page 7-14 BLOCK GROUP 1 BLOCK GROUP 2 BLOCK GROUP 3 Cumberlandl Brookstone! Homestead Block Group Armstrong Block Group Cotant Block Group Heritage Park Park Meadows Promise Grove Park Total Park Total park Total Brookstone Espie' 4 Heritage'" Armstrong 5 Park Mead. *A Chase * 4 Sunset West * Homestead *" 3 Hiram *^ Chbk Elm.*^ 5 Cotant *A 4 1 Harker 3 Miller '" 3 - 0.17 0.17 0.24 0.24 1.16 0.98 2.14 3 - 3.00 4 4.00 17 3 20.00 1.73 3.60 5.33 4.60 200 6.60 5.91 25.27 31.1 B 13 125 275 413 406 415 821 269 337 606.0 6.4% 47.7% 100.0% 55.9% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 20 208 275 503 406 415 821 269 337 606 9.9% 79.4% 100.0% 68.1% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% - - - - - Alpine Drive - 1 Pathway - - - - 0.20 0.20 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.37 0.38 0.75 0.59 0.80 1.39 - - - 0.22 0.27 0.49 0.22 0.56 0.713 Access to Necessities > Page 7-14 TOTAL MILES OF STREETS WITHOUT SIDEWALKS Arterials (mi) Collector Streets (mi) NUMBER OF BUS STOPS SERVING NEIGHBORHOOD NEIGHBORHOOD DEMOGRAPHICS Population (Census 2020) Persons under 5 years (%) Persons 5 to 9 years (%) Persons 10 to 14 years (%) Persons 65 years and over (%) Households (Census 2020) PARK ACREAGE PER 1,000 PEOPLE Access > Recreation Playgrounds, pathways, and open fields at public schools are included. 1 Multi -use pathways are included in the bike lane figures if they are adjacent the street. s Multi -use pathways are included in the figures for sidewalks if they are adjacent to the street. Figures do not include any private streets or county roads that may have sidewalks. Source > City of Chubbuck Access to Necessities > Page 7-15 BLOCK GROUP 1 BLOCK GROUP 2 BLOCK GROUP 3 -Colant Cumberland) Brookstone! Homestead Block Group Armstrong Block Group Block Group Heritage Park Park Meadows Promise Grove Park Total park Total park Total 0.21 0.34 0.78 1.33 0.23 1.22 1.45 0.32 0.32 0.21 0.34 0.78 1.33 0.23 - 0.23 0.32 0.32 1 2 3 2 6 8 3 3 6 547 906 982 2,435 1,250 1,142 2,392 869 1,100 1,969 7.5% 10.4°% 7.9% 9.8% 6.5% 7.6% 7.0% 8.2% 7.80A 8.0% 8.2% 9.50/0 13.0°% 11.6% 11.0% 7.2% 9.2°% 8.7% 10.40A 9.6% 5.7% 9.7°% 10.8°% 10.2% 9.7% 7.4% 8.6% 11.0% 9.5°% 10.2% 17.2% 4.6% 11.6% 10.7% 14.2°x6 14.4% 14.3% 13.7% 14.5% 14.2% 202 262 275 739 406 415 821 269 337 606 1.91 3.67 2.19 3.68 1.75 2.76 6.80 22.97 16 Playgrounds, pathways, and open fields at public schools are included. 1 Multi -use pathways are included in the bike lane figures if they are adjacent the street. s Multi -use pathways are included in the figures for sidewalks if they are adjacent to the street. Figures do not include any private streets or county roads that may have sidewalks. Source > City of Chubbuck Access to Necessities > Page 7-15 PARKS WITHIN NEIGHBORHOOD' Parks with playgrounds F Parks with walking paths " Miles of walking paths within parks Number of off-street pedestrian connections to parks Park acreage in neighborhood VICINITY TO A PARK WITH A PLAYGROUND Approx. # of households within 1 /4 mile/ walkable Approx. percent of households within 1/4 mile/ walkable VICINITY TO A PATHWAY OR ANY PARK Approx. # of households within 1'4 mile (walkable) Approx. percent of households within 114 mile; walkable MULTIUSE PATHWAYS IN OR BORDERING THE NEIGHBORHOOD Miles of multi -use pathways TOTAL MILES OF STREETS WITH BIKE LANES Miles with lanes on both sides, in,`bardering neighborhood Source > City of Chubbuck Access > Recreal TRACT 2 (PART) Buffalo Creek New Day Pkwy (S) 0,30 0.30 TRACT 5 - BLOCK GROUP 1 Moonlight/ Wallin Equestrian! Harvest Springs Tyhee TOTAL Lacey - Harvest Springs" 1 1 1 0.1$ 0.18 0.51 0.51 13 1 11 25 - 6.b% 4.8% 2.9% 4% 13 2C 16 49 6.5l0 95.2% 4.3% 7% - Hiline Canal Harvest Spg Blvd 0.36 - 0.36 OA 0,21 0.21 0.21 0.21 Access to Necessities > Page 7-16 Ai TOTAL MILES OF STREETS WITHOUT SIDEWALKS' Arteriais (ml) Collector Streets (mi) NUMBER OF BUS STOPS SERVING NEIGHBORHOOD NEIGHBORHOOD DEMOGRAPHICS Population (Census 2020) Persons under 5 years (%) Persons 5 to 9 years (%) Persons 10 to 14 years (%) Persons 65 years and over (%) Households (Census 2020) 4 PARK ACREAGE PER 1,000 PEOPLE Access > RecreatL`% TRACT 2 (PART} Buffalo Creek TRACT 5 - BLOCK GROUP 1 Moonlight) Wallin Equestrian/ Harvest Springs Tyhee TOTAL Lacey 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 215 614 21 1,106 1,956 - 11.2% 3.4% 0,0% 4.0% 4.0% - 2.3% 7.5% 0.0% 7.2% 7.2% - 12.1% 7.8% 14,3% 7.6% 7.6% - 27.0% 22.5% 0.0% 18.0% 18.0% _ 66 201 21 373 661 - - 24.29 - 0.26 . The Reflection Ridge subdivision in Harvest Springs has a small private park maintained by the HOA. 2 Multi -use pathways are included in the bike lane figures if they are adjacent the street 3 Multi -use pathways are included in the figures for sidewalks if they are adjacent to the street. Figures do not include any private streets or county roads that may have sidewalks, k As of spring, 2024, the number of dwellings in Harvest Springs has grown from 9 to more than 20. Source > City of Chubbuck Access to Necessities > Page 7-17= ,t� L A�.— y� y' rr f 0.J :-sem '� " `• _ _ ,`' _. . A —,p ai0 1M J Eca.1%noMICS Economics > Page 8-1 Zip Code 83202 Economics > Employers and Employees BUSINESS SECTOR All Number of Employees US Census: County Business Patterns, 2022 establishments* Less than 5 5 to 9 10 to 19 20 to 49 50 to 99 100 to 249 Total for all sectors 533 275 106 67 59 16 7 Construction 79 45 24 7 3 Manufacturing 10 6 Wholesale trade 18 10 4 3 Retail trade 97 29 22 18 18 5 4 Transportation and warehousing 16 8 3 4 Information 9 3 4 Finance and insurance 33 20 4 5 Real estate and rental and leasing 38 35 Professional, scientific, and technical services 34 24 5 3 Administrative and support and waste management and remediation services 29 21 7 Educational services 7 4 Health care and social assistance 74 35 16 10 7 5 Arts, entertainment, and recreation 9 5 Accommodation and food services 40 7 4 5 18 4 Other services (except public administration) 36 20 10 4 Source > US Census Economics > Page 8-2 conomics > Businesses, Jobs _B�`Ir1A�lPr an�f R�F1y £I I—Duck 100 a weal of 424 businesses. in e==3. the teadi g industries Ica 11 i Chubbuckwere P6 -6I, Banking. Finance and 11 lain al ce, I Ieatth Care al ld S"eiat Sel vices, and nu:ui i n � IGuauui i an." rwu xl Huta. What are the top industries byjobs? I Retail 2 Banking. Finance and Insurance ■ G7A 22 le�hr _ JVVa E—ta Men— Estabtilshl fm e�Iam OWN I T 70xn 2621 3 Health Care and SocialServices w W+7 341 - Jobs How many employees do businesses in Chubbuck have? Source > Gem State Prospector 63 Estabiishments 2022 2023 202a 4 Accommodation and Food Services ■ 3M 29 Jobs Establishment -n Fmnlr"PpS 6-4nTn% = j -y ri i g7iG'y'cis"a 20-2 °a e 10-ig Employees x.73% cu-py SIMOiu'y'-�!ey . 50-99 Employees 1.65% ioo+ Employees o,71W,, Economics > Page 8-3 Economics > Employers and Employees Zip Code 83202 TOTAL FOR ALL SECTORS US Census: County Business Patterns, 2022 Annual payroll ($1,000) First-quarter payroll ($1,000) Number of employees $ 285,469 $ 69.637 7,520 4v of Chubbuck - 2017 DETAILS FOR SELECT SECTORS U5 Census: Annual Business Survey 2017 Retail trade Finance and insurance (662) management and remediation services Accommodation and food services Source > US Census Number of employer firms 70 21 26 22 Sales, value of shipments, or revenue of employer firms ($1,000) $ 320,801 $ 251,742 $ 4,121 $ 25,156 Number of employees 1370 1420 150 638 Annual Payroll ($1,000) $ 32,863 $ 58,905 $ 1,396 $ 8,015 Economics > Page 8-4 Economics > Labor Force labor force of 8.145 people. 8,145 Labor Force What are the largest job counts by occupation? sates office and Executive. Food Preparation, Business and Administrative Managers. and Serving Financial support Administrators Operations 0 18,64°r 61a da a 7-377- 'qNIW 13-39-- 1..55% 241 6.11% 438 378 loci Total Employees The work distribution of totat employees in Chubbuck is; 3,299 1 32% 6 r. RInFf�nilAr White Collar Total Establishments O 424 N O m Source > s Gem State Prospector Economics > Page 8-5 Economics > Employment and Commuting ACS 2022: Dataset ACSDP5Y2422 INDUSTRY Civilian employed population 16 years and over 7,271 Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining 62 0.90% Construction 321 4.40% Manufacturing 553 7.60% Wholesale trade 219 3.00% Retail trade 508 7.00% Transportation and warehousing, and utilities 473 6-50% Information 206 2.80% Finance and insurance, and real estate and rental and leasing 643 8.80% Professional, scientific, and management, and administrative and waste management services 540 7.40% Educational services, and health care and social assistance 1,862 25.60% Arts, entertainment, and recreation, and accommodation and food services 643 8.80% Other services, except public administration 676 9.30% Public administration 565 7.80% CLASS OF WORKER Civilian employed population 16 years and over 7,271 Private wage and salary workers 5,604 77.10% Government workers 1,283 17.60% Sellf-employed in own not incorporated business workers 384 5.30% Unpaid family workers - 0.00% Source > US Census Economics > Page 8-6 Economi*csEmloP men ACS 2022: D9tasetACSDP5Y2022 CITY OF CHUBBUCK - EMPLOYMENT Aand C EMPLOYMENT STATUS Population 16 years and over In the labor force Civilian labor force Employed Unemployed Armed Forces Not in labor force Civilian laborforce Unemployment Rate Females 16 years and over In the labor force Civilian labor force Employed COMMUTING TO WORK Workers 16 years and over Car, truck, or van - drove alone Car, truck, or van - carpooled Public transportation (excluding taxicab) Walked Other means Worked from home Mean travel time to work (minutes) OCCUPATION Civilian employed population 16 years and over Management, business, science, and arts occupations Service occupations Sales and office occupations Natural resources, construction, and maintenance occupations Production, transportation, and material moving occupations Estimate 11,749 7,604 7,570 7,271 299 34 4.145 7.570 6,032 3,541 3,541 3,381 7,200 5,537 810 60 19 112 662 16.9 minutes 7,271 2,891 1,196 1,720 659 805 Percent 64.70% 64.40% 61.90% 2.50% 0.30% 35.30% L� 3.90% 58.70% 58.70% 56.10% 76.90% 11.30% 0.80% 0.30% 1.60% 9.20% 39.80% 16.40% 23.70% 9.10% 11.10% kP 1 Source > US Census Economics > Page 8-7 Economics > Income/Spending Income and Spending Households in Chubbuck earn a median yearly income of $72.952. 33.65% of the households earn more than the national average each year. Household expenditures average $68.453 per year. The majority of earnings get spent on Shelter. Transportation, Food and Beverages. Health Care, and Utilities. How do people spend most of their money? PER HOUSEHOLD Source > Gem State Prospector x72,952 Median Household Income 11% more than the county 3% less than the state 8% less than the nation Income Distribution c $10 K 0 160 $10-20 K - 369 $20-30 K - 419 $30-40 K - 364 $40-50 K $500 K 474 $60-75 K $75-100 K >$100K Shelter Transportation Food and Beverages s14,377 $12,568 0 $10,070 Health Care 0 $5,812 x68,453 Median Household Expenditure 628 599 876 Utilities 0 $5,012 1,972 Economics > Page 8-8 Economi*cs> Poverty With Census Tracts, Tyhee (Census Designated Place), and Area cf City Impact 00 HOUSEHOLDS (2022 AGS est.) POVERTY STATUS BY HOUSEHOLD AND AGE Households w/ 12 month income below poverty level Households wl 12 month income below poverty level - % Family Households Married -couple family Householder under 25 years Householder 25 to 44 years Householder 45 to 64 years Householder 65 years and over Other family Male householder, no spouse present: Householder under 25 years Householder 25 to 44 years Householder 45 to 64 years Householder 65 years and over Female householder, no spouse present: Householder under 25 years Householder 25 to 44 years Householder 45 to 64 years Householder 65 years and over TRACT 2 TRACT 3.01 TRACT 3.02 TRACT 4 TRACT 5 (PART) 553 8.0% 11.3% 7.5% 5,671 1,685 1,887 2,167 687 TYHEE* AREA OF 141 CITY IMPACT 463 6,426 455 191 141 140 81 58 553 8.0% 11.3% 7.5% 6.511/b 11.8% 12.5°/0 8.6% 150 21 61 68 54 42 204 118 14 61 43 12 130 91 61 30 7 98 14 14 14 13 13 5 18 32 7 25 42 42 74 32 7 25 42 42 74 29 7 22 37 37 66 3 3 3 5 5 5 0` Source > US Census Economics > Page 8-9� Economi*cs> Poverty With Census Tracts, Tyhee (Census Designated Place), and Area of City Impact TRACT 2 305 170 80 72 27 TRACT 3.01 TRACT 3.02 TRACT 4 TRACT 5 (PART) 20 Householder under 25 years 40 40 Nontamily households: 305 170 80 72 27 Male householder: 175 84 42 49 20 Householder under 25 years 40 40 Householder 25 to 44 years - - Householder 45 to 64 years 126 35 42 49 8 Householder 65 years and over 9 9 12 Female householder: 130 86 38 23 7 Householder under 25 years 19 13 6 Householder 25 to 44 years - Householder 45 to 64 years 37 17 20 7 Householder 65 years and over 74 56 18 17 ` Tyhee includes part of Census Tract 5 and a small portion of Tract 3.42 Source > US Census TYHEE* AREA OF CITY IMPACT 16 349 16 195 40 8 134 8 21 154 19 44 91 Economics > Page 8-10= 10 INFORMATION FOR BLOCK GROUPS AND NEIGHBORHOODS HOUSEHOLDS (2422 ACS est.) POVERTY STATUS BY HOUSEHOLD AND AGE Households w112 month income below poverty level Households wl 12 month income below poverty level - % Family Households wl 12 month income below poverty level Married -couple family Householder under 25 years Householder 25 to 44 years Householder 45 to 64 years Householder 65 years and over Other family households Male householder, no spouse present: Householder under 25 years Householder 25 to 44 years Householder 45 to 64 years Householder 65 years and over Female householder, no spouse present: Householder under 25 years Householder 25 to 44 years Householder 45 to 64 years Householder 65 years and over Source > US Census Economi*cs> Poverty TRACT3.01' BLOCK BLOCK BLOCK GROUP1 GROUP2 GROUP3 562 794 419 136 0 55 24.2% 9.0% 13.1% - - 21 14 14 7 - - 7 7 TRACT 3.02 ' BLOCK BLOCK BLOCK GROUP1 GROUP2 GROUP3 1,228 254 445 99 - 42 8.1% 0.0% 10.4% 61 - 61 - 61 - - d. Economics > Page 8-11 INFORMATION FOR BLOCK GROUPS AND NEIGHBORHOODS Economi*cs> Poverty TRACT 3.01 BLOCK BLOCK BLOCK GROUP1 I GROUP2 GROUPS TRACT 3.02 ° BLOCK BLOCK BLOCK GROUPI I GROUP2 GROUP3 Nonfamily households wl 12 month income below poverty level 136 - 34 38 - 42 Male householder: 50 - 34 - 42 Householder under 25 years 40 - - - - Householder 25 to 44 years - - - - - Householder45 to 64 years 10 - 25 - 42 Householder 65 years and over - - 9 - - Female householder: 86 - - 38 - - Householder under 25 years 13 - - - - - Householder 25 to 44 years - - - - - Householder45 to 64 years 17 - - 20 - - Householder 65 years and over 56 - - 18 - - Tract 3.01, Block Group 1 comprises the Chubbuck Village, South Yellowstone, and Knudsen Boulevard neighborhoods. The South Yellowstone Neighborhood includes a small portion of Tract 14 -it isa business neighborhoorhood without any residents. Tract 3. 01, Block Group 2 comprises the Briscoe Road neighborhood. Tract 3.01, Block Group 3 comprises the Stuart Park and Capel[ Park neighborhoods. Tract 3.02, Block Group 1 comprises the Industry Way, Northside Crossing, Whitaker Road, Pleasant View, and Mary's Park neighborhoods. Tract 3.02, Block Group 2 comprises the Bicentennial Park neighborhood. Tract 3.02, Block Group 3 comprises the Briarwood Park neighborhood. Source > US Census Economics > Page 8-12 Economi*cs> Poverty INFORMATION FOR BLOCK GROUPS TRACT2ago 1 AND NEIGHBORHOODS (pa rt) HOUSEHOLDS (2022 ACS est.) _ POVERTY STATUS BY HOUSEHOLD AND AGE Households w112 month income below poverty level - Households w112 month income below poverty level - % - Family Households w112 month income below poverty level - Married -couple family - Householder under 25 years - Householder 25 to 44 years - Householder 45 to 64 years - Householder 65 years and over - Other family households - Male householder, no spouse present, - Householder under 25 years - Householder 25 to 44 years - Householder 45 to 64 years - Householder 65 years and over - Female householder, no spouse present: - Householder under 25 years - Householder 25 to 44 years - Householder 45 to 64 years - Householder 65 years and over - Source > US Census TRACT4 BLOCK BLOCK BLOCK GROUPI GROUP2 GROUP3 b6b 1,037 24 103 4.2% 9.9% 565 13 2.3% TRACT 51 BLOCK GROUP 1 681 7 48 13 54 - 30 13 12 - 30 - 7 - - 13 5 7 18 - 42 7 18 - 42 7 15 - 37' 3 - 5 Economics > Page 8-13� Economics > Poverty INFORMATION FCR BLOCK GROUPS TRACT2' AND NEIGHBORHOODS (part) Nonfamily households w/ 12 month income below poverty level - Male householder: - Householder under 25 years - Householder 25 to 44 years - Householder 45 to 64 years - Householder 65 years and over - Female householder: - Householder under 25 years - Householder 25 to 44 years - HVUJeholder 45 to 64 years Householder 65 years and over - TRACT4 ' BLOCK BLOCK BLOCK GROUP 1 GROUP 2 GROUP 3 17 17 17 55 49 49 6 6 The portion of tract within the City limits, the Buffalo Creek Neighborhood, is farmland and uninhabited. Tract 4, Block Group 1 comprises the Cumberland/Promise, Brookstone/Grove and Homestead Park neighborhoods. Tract 4, Block Group 2 comprises the Heritage Park and Armstrong Park neighborhoods. Tract 4, Block Group 3 comprises the Park Meadows and Cotant Park neighborhoods. Tract 5, Block Group 1 comprises the Moonlight/Wallin, Equestrian/Lacey, and Harvest Springs neighborhoods, as well as Tyhee. Source > US Census TRACT 5' BLO'K GROUP11 27 20 8 12 7 Economics > Page 8-14 Transportation — Good and Bad for Our Health Active transportation, bicycle riding and walking, are both very good for most people. However, sometimes our infrastructure isn't inviting to a pedestrian or bicyclist if a sidewalk is missing or in disrepair, or a bike lane is too narrow. Other issues are caused by private citizens, from aggressive drivers to others who can't shovel snow from their sidewalk. Aggressive drivers and adverse conditions are also a threat to motorists and passengers alike. These affect the health of our community. Transportation Safety Transportation Safety > Page 9-1 W La«fRd SaLetv Chu bbuck Crashes, 2419-2423 /TD Highway Safety Crash Repots Frrl Source > Idaho Transportation Dept Crashes Transportation Safety > Page 9-2 V Siphon Rd Q W Siphon Rd M c� 0 9- 3 6 } Frrl Source > Idaho Transportation Dept Crashes Transportation Safety > Page 9-2 SaLetv > Al! Crashes Source: ITD Highway Safely Crash Reports' CHUBBUCK CRASH HISTORY 2021-2023 2021 2022 2023 Fatal Crashes 0 0 2 Injury Crashes 56 34 65 Total All Crashes 169 148 218 Number of people killed 0 0 2 - Number of people injured 83 42 88 Fatal and injury crash rate per 1,000 population 3.5 21 4.1 2 Mean crash rate for all cities 15,000 - 39, 000 2-8 2-6 2-6 Source > Idaho Transportation Dept CRASH ATTRIBUTES 2023 joftcn >1 attribute per crash) Aggressive driving related Distracted driver related Impaired driver related Motorcycle related Bicycle related Pedestrian related Unbelted related Crashes near schools STREETS WITH THE MOST CRASHES 2019-2023 Yellowstone Ave Chubbuck Rd Hawthorne Rd Siphon Rd 1 New Day Parkway 1 Data includes both interstate highways and other streets1highways Hiline Rd 2 Chubbuck had the highest rate of fatal and injury crashes of the 9 cities in the group for 2023 s Injury crashes are classified as suspected serious injury, suspected minorlvisible injury, possible injury/complaint Fatal Serious Minor Possible Property crash injury" injury Injury damage 2 6 24 nla 118 1 0 7 nla 17 2 4 3 nla 3 0 2 0 nla 1 0 0 1 nla 0 1 0 0 nla 0 3 2 10 nla 6 0 1 2 8 31 Additional Areas of Concern: 1-15 and 1-86 travel lanes 1-15 and 1-86 On and Off Ramps Breneman St Transportation Safety > Page 9-3� Source > Pocatello Regional Transit, BTPO Sae > Transit System Public Transportation Safety BTPO suppofLt the PRT Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan and safety targets. PRT approved thL Public Trar%porUtlon• Agency Safety Plan in February.2021 The plan aims To alsly transit agenc�es in managing safety risks by developing and Implementing a proactive system l4 address potcnI�aI hazards and create a safety culture within each agency. roneporlar�on Safrty Yrrfevmaur and Tcegrn 11002111Wsk 2020 2021 2022 Average Fatalities (total) 0 0 0 0.00 _Tarpt 0.00 Fatalities (per IWK Vehide Revenue Miles) 0 o a 4.04 0.017 Injuries (Wal) 5 2 1 7..67 2.67 Injuries (Iter IOCK Vehicle Revenue Miles) 1.35 0 ss 0.28 0.74 a.74 SafetyEvents (tota1) 9 7 s 7.00 7. DO Safety Eveftts (per SOOK VeNcie Revenue Miles) 2.48 1.93 1 3E. 1.93 1.93 System Reliability Iper 10010 Vehicle Revenue Miles 1 - 7 - 1 a 1 -- 1 die - 1 drl - Annual Vehicle'_ Revenue Miles .137.163 325.956 3 .: '. 363,224 Fixed Route 2x20 2021 2022 Averap Target Fatalities (total) 0 0 0 0.00 2.00 Fataliitim (per 1OOK Vehicle Revenue Miles) 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 Injuries (total) 3 1 1 1.67 1.47 Injuries (per 144K Vehicle Revenue Mi hes) 1.07 0..35 0.36 4.64 0.50 Safety Events (Gaal) 9 13 4 8.67 8.67 Safety Events (per TOOK Ve?Ode Revenue Miles) 3.21 4-64 1.43 309 3 09 System ReliatWlity (per lOCW Vehicle Aeverroue Miles} ` 5q 4.67 d.67 Annual Vehicle Revenue Miles 296.667 284.454 258.832 379.984 Mote_ Pocatellin Regional TMASA Se#s the tarp h 8t. the previous thret-year average - Transportation Safety > Page 9-4 Bicycle/Pedestrian > Crashes Concrete Fatalities (bike) 3 Crashes by Traffic Control Traffic Signal - 1 Stop signs, cross street only 3 - Stop signs, all directions 1 - Yield 1 - None - 1 Crashes by Vehicle Type Car 3 2 SUV 1 Crossover 2 - Tractor Trailer - 1 Source > Idaho Transportation Dept Transportation Safety > Page 9-5 CITY OF CHUBBUCK - BICYCLE ANDPEDESTRIAN SAFETY Source,- IFD Highway Safety Crash Reports BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN RELATED CRASH DATA (2019-2023) BICYCLE PEDESTRIAN Light conditions Daylight 3 2 Dark, no streetlights 1 lights off 1 1 Clark, with streetlights on 1 - Road Conditions Dry 5 3 Weather Conditions Clear 5 3 Cloudy 1 1 Crashes by Locations On Roadway 5 2 Roadside or Sidewalk - 1 Crashes by Functional Classification Interstate - 1 Principal Arterial 4 - Minor Arterial - 1 Local Street 1 1 Crashes by Speed Limit 20 - 29 MPH 1 - 30 - 39 MPH 4 2 80 - 89 MPH - 1 Crashes by Road Surface Paved/Asphalt 4 3 Concrete Fatalities (bike) 3 Crashes by Traffic Control Traffic Signal - 1 Stop signs, cross street only 3 - Stop signs, all directions 1 - Yield 1 - None - 1 Crashes by Vehicle Type Car 3 2 SUV 1 Crossover 2 - Tractor Trailer - 1 Source > Idaho Transportation Dept Transportation Safety > Page 9-5 W Sq.h.t, v g IN c 2 cans: It a Her.ghpm kc Catt a Are @�, 7vnsvn se 30 Source > Idaho Transportation Dept W E:drpppe Rd ,v Alameda Rd cd r rr�ri sv s U9 Bicycle Safety AW Crash Corridors Bicyclist Crash Corridors > In areas with a high Social Vulnerability Index (high is >=0.8) > Similar to pedestrian crash corridor information Census Tract 3.01 > Only tract in Chubbuck with a Social Vulnerability index that is 9�h$, also on a crash corridor qP > Most crashes in 3.01 along Yellowstone corridor. M 'A A Transportation Safety > Page 9-6 Bicycle Safety :rash Countermeasures Countermeasures > Below are appropriate countermeasures for different types of bicycle crashes statewide, from 2012-2021. 1. Sideswipes at intersection275 Wider and mare retrorefIective pavement markings, bike lanes, bike boxes, education, safe passing laws Source > Idaho Transportation Dept 286 Reduced corner radii, protected bike lanes, traffic calming roadway configuration 237 Education, enforcement, signage (directed at bicyclists) 389 Back-up warning devices in vehicles 493 Education, enforcement, signage (larger, double, or retroreflective stop siggns) 216 Facilities intended to increase conspicuity (high visibility crosswalks, rectangular rapid -flashing beacons, etc.) 236 Education, enforcement, signage (directed at bicyclists) 226 Education, enforcement, signage (directed at bicyclists), legislation to prohibit sidewalk riding 214 Education, raised medians, signage (directed at bicyclists) 167 Education, enforcement Transportation Safety > Page 9-7 W ■ � ST f � aA Source > Idaho Transportation Dept 9unc 5: e' 59 destri*an Safety Crash Corridors Pedestrian Crash Corridors > In areas with a high Social Vulnerability Index (high is >=0.8) > Similar to bicycle crash corridor Census Tract 3.01 > Only tract in Chubbuck with a Social Vulnerability index that is also on a crash corridor > Crashes in 3.01 on Yellowstone Ave and on Chubbuck Rd. A Transportation Safety > Page 9-8 m Countermeasures Pedestrian Safety ON "rash Countermeasures > Below are appropriate countermeasures for different types of pedestrian crashes that occurred statewide, from 2012-2021. edest ri an fai led t o obey st■ ■ sign o r signa 1 345 Education, enforcement, signage (directed at pedestrians), facilities intended to accommodate pedestrians (leading pedestrian intervals, protected intersections, etc.) Source > Idaho Transportation Dept 224 Signage to increase awareness of potential conflict points, clearly marked pedestrian walkways, speed humps, raised crossings, lighting 178 Education, enforcement, facilities intended to accommodate pedestrians [leading pedestrian intervals, protected intersections, etc.) 421 Education, enforcement, facilities intended to accommodate pedestrians Heading pedestrian intervals, protected intersections, etc.) 368 Facilities that encourage proper crossing (offset crossings, raised crosswalks, refuge islands, etc.) 164 Back-up warning devices in vehicles 100 Grade -separated paths, enforcement 238 Reduced corner radii, traffic calming roadway configuration, advance warning signs at crosswalks 128 Education, enforcement, signage (larger, double, or retroreflective stop signs) 47 Traffic calming roadway configuration, advance warning signs at crosswalks, signage to increase awareness of potential conflict points Transportation Safety > Page 9-9 -4 COMPREHENSVE PLAN UPDATE COMMU N ITY aJRVEY 2025 - DRAFT POLICIESAN D PRIORITIES yy��1 I—TI -.J I '130 -4t% - Committee started with many ideas - first job to find those with greatest potential 61,1 Ir K R i.FVVL rrda_ v !1 N= mons rc�.a! �r"'K. f1fM61 "r..r q�y�tc vsJtiour+ c. - '-- n to rAV (� + } Z'' t dui xF a,`' rw s,�cnL`r 1:FF an i � �^ �� IY..i.l° � f1(l��,f 4'� f r' , � � .��. °L -•- � sir. oar. - Yl y M Committee confirmed policies and other items for public survey .. , ,: � Sha. +fI'° +,•n�L. .n.l- , row, ,ems 9e•Yi.jN .F�� LO°k L I�r=R ;i Ito—, 1.7 �- FnM xur WNI"fY� J � c'P,p'iF !l>•Y,h^� h+• m,.6 �..�iw �� � �.n t6i1°� "�� . • �a.r�r yror my 0.4 Public identified their top 3 po I i ci es in each cat ego r y BRINGING MANY PO LI C I ESAN D PRIORITIES INTO FOCUS FO RTH E CO MPREH EN SVE PLAN 5 POLICY SECTIONS HEALTHY CONNECTIONS LIVABLE 914CES ECONOMICAND BDUCATION OPPORTUNITY BVVIRONMEN TAL QUALITY COMMUNITY SER\/ICEAN D SAFEFY low � HEALTHY CO N N ECTIO N S • Improve existing recreational resources and amenities to include • public event venues (small and I ar ge) walking and biking paths recreation centers 131 Responses 65.17% • Prioritize as part of Capital Impro sidewalks curb, other accessibility measures 102 Responses 50.75% vement programs LIVABLE MNCES Continue to require builders and property developers to contribute to an aesthetically pleasing community, through design standards development standards 108 Responses 53.73% Close 2nd choice was about walking, biking, and other modes of transportation. loft ✓✓ �', - - /� 'i - _ it _ _ i- - - � I _ �I - - - _ - _ `� ECONOMICAND UCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY Continue to support business attraction and retention by coordinating with Chubbuck Development Authority Bannock Development Corporation other groups 104 Responses 51.74% Ivry dose 2nd and 3rd chaos - Seek grant funding to enhance business opportunities - Fnevaluate strategy for allocating educational infrastructure funding based on need population and prgected growth. EN VI RON MENTAL QUALITY Continue to partner with local canal companies to ensure that ditches and canals are safe optimize the irrigation system for walking and biking purposes 125 Responses 62.19% Evaluate impacts of new development on water quality and ensure that any negative impacts are minimized. 119 Responses 59.2% COMMUNITY SERVICEAND S4FE-FY Require lighting plans to address suety, while not amplifying light pollution. 99 Responses 49.25% Close 2nd 3rd and 4t" choices — they were fairly even across the board, so no standouts 3rd char was "Offer additional outreach programs to inform public of law enforcement and emergency service prcgrams1' low ADDITIONALTORCS COLLABORATION EFFORTS BEAUTIFICATION OFYELLOWSTONECORRIDOR GATEWAYAMBV ITIES FUTURE OFPHILBIN / 3PHON AREA CHUBBUCKVILLAGE/ DOWNTOWN LAND USS DIVERGING DIAMOND AVOIDANCE OTHEIRTOPIC$ PRIORITIES PRO.ECT5 PROGRAMS i CONTINUA COLLABORATION Three items each received over 100 responses to continue: Pursue opportunities in new development for retaili establishments that provide food and services to nearby residential areas. Evaluate traffic impacts of new development to ensure that there are adequate roadways • Fnforce local codes regarding property maintenance particularly as it pertains to weed management, outdoor storage and other unsafe practices BEAUTIFICATION E1+OR-FSON YELLOW SFO N E CO RRI D 0 R Two items each received over 100 responses: • Improved sidewalks to encourage walking along the corridor. • Increased landscaping within or near the right of wad - - - r - --- - - - , GATB/VAYAMEN ITIES For main roads/ highways into Chubbuck, and in the ChubbuckVillage area — #1 choice by far was landscaping (1135 responses) PHILBIN / 9R-iON AREA Future land uses near the Phi I bi n / 3phon intersection — # 1 choice was Civic Uses (112 responses) School Firdpdice station Library LAND UIN LARGER CHUBBUCKVILLAGE Future land uses desired near City Hall and an expanded ChubbuckVillage area (acrossYellowstone, etc.) #1 choice by far was Restaurants, theatres and other entertainment related uses (149 responses) f 1-86 / YB-LOW SFO N E INTERCHANGE Do you take alternate routes to avoid the interchange? * 128 responders said yes (63 said no) • What routes do you take? Hawthorne Hiline 07ubbuck Pcl OTHERTORCS; ANY PRO ECTS 0 R CONCURN5PRORTIES? PROGRAMSTO STARE? Responders were asked to add any topics, concerns or priorities that were unaddressed. Traffic -N- • Pr i ces (ci t y fees) • No high density Responders were asked if there were any projects or programs the city should undertake in the next 5 to 10 years. 0.11 Rec Center Landscape improvements Parks Chubbuck schools THAN K YOU WHAT AREYOUR QUESTION S? loft ✓✓ �', - - /� 'i - _ it _ _ i- - - � I _ �I - - - _ - _ `� HEALTHY CONNECTIONS Improve existing recreational resources and amenities to include public event venues (small and large), walking and biking paths and recreation centers. 131 Responses 65.17% Prioritize sidewalks, curb, and other accessibility measures as part of Capital Improvement programs. 102 Responses 50.75% Seek partnerships with other public entities and private development to identify land and funding for community amenities. 90 Responses 44.78% LIVABLE MNCES Continue to require builders and property developers to contribute to an aesthetically pleasing community, through design and development standards. 108 Responses 53.73% Explore walking, biking and alternative modes of transportation connections between the future Chubbuck Vi I lage (downtown) area and other planning 91 Responses 42.27% Coordinate with Bannock County to ensure that anew Area of Impact agreement, policies and the Future Land Use Map are beneficial to existing and future Chubbuck residents. 77 Responses 38.81 % low ECONOMICAND UCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY Continue to coordinate with the Chubbuck Development Authority, Bannock Development Corporation, and other groups to support business attraction and retention. 104 Responses 51.74% Seek grant funding to enhance business opportunities. 97 Responses 48.26% Reevaluate strategy for allocating educational infrastructure funding based on need: population and projected growth. 96 Responses 47.76% EN VI RON MENTAL QUALITY Continue to partner with local canal companies to ensure that ditches and canals are she, while optimizing the irrigation system for walking and biking purposes. 125 Responses 62.19% Evaluate impacts of new development on water quality and ensure that any negative impacts are minimized. 119 Responses 59.2% Collaborate with the County to conserve surrounding agricultural areas until such time as city services are avai I abl e. 91 Responses 45.27% COMMUNITY SERVICEAND S4FE-FY Require lighting plans to address safety, while not amplifying light pollution. 99 Responses 49.25% Continue to collaborate with the Chubbuck Development Authority to prioritize redevelopment areas for increased density to optimize existing water and sewer infrastructure. 91 Responses 45.27% Offer additional outreach programs to inform public of law enforcement and emergency service programs. 71 Responses 35.32% Collaborate with community service groups to identify options for encouraging residents to reduce, reuse and recycle. 70 Responses 34.83% City of Chuhhuck Comprehensive Plan Update Proposed Future Land Use -Public Comment Results - City Limits r- I Existing Area of City Impact L - - Proposed Future Land Use: Commercial - Mixed Use - Village Employment Highway Residential - Low Density Residential - Medium Density Residential - High Density Public Comment Results: Do you agree with this land use designation? • No * Yes 0 0.5 Miles CJ -U ® LIMYPOM NCPMMO CHUBBUCK No Answers Number Comment If no, do you have any suggested changes? Other questions or observations? 5 No Comment What is the current land use here? I think medium density would be better. 18 The field area North of Circle in should match the please make the area north of Circle inn rest of the neighborhood around it, to encourage medium density medium density single family home infill. 20 No Comment I propose we use this area for walking paths, recreation, parks, pond etc. 22 Should be used open space. Agriculture Should be used as intended 70 years ago, or more. 28 remove ""highway"" and designate this as part of the village"" designation. 29 the mixed-use zone needs refinement, not refine mixed-use to properties facing appropriate to designate these neighborhoods as Chubbuck Rd. mixed-use, but is appropriate for properties that front Chubbuck Rd. 32 Build a Rec center with a nice indoor pool area, rec center pickleball courts, weight room, basketball, etc 33 No Comment Give this area to Chubbuck Elementary. Let There is already enough high traffic flow in them extend their staff and visitor parking, this area, adding more residential homes or busing area, and most importantly, add on to apartments will only increase that. There this school. will be additional dangers to children walking home or current residents trying to pull off of streets like Chastain Dr., Stuart Ave., or Canal St. 35 1 don't love the gas station being right there by all Only the gas station, no more businesses The round about and gas station have the homes please made it very busy 36 This area seems pretty industrial, not very much Too many run down buildings and empty Is this where main Chubbuck is supposed like a city's main area buildings to be? Or over by the city hall? 37 The city hall is unnecessarily large and took up a Could have been put to better use for location It doesn't seem like there's any room to lot of land in that area of new library expand by city hall? 40 seconded with nearby comment Yes Answers Number Comment Other questions or observations? 7 No Comment 11 No Comment 12 No Comment Would need to consolidate - maybe have a plan with neighborhood? 14 No Comment 15 No Comment 16 No Comment 17 would love to see this develop into a small shopping area closer to new development out there. 19 No Comment 21 We need businesses that will stimulate more jobs at this location The Burnside Motels are trashy and an embarrassment to the city. We need a nice Hotel in this area. 23 Some positives for the city are the New City Hall and the ICCU complex. 24 The sidewalks need fixed in this area The sidewalks need fixed in this area 25 I want to see more sidewalk and bike access, with trees to keep it cool when walking Have a safe place to walk and bike so vehicles don't harm them by accident. 26 Have trees to keep temperatures cool when walking and barriers to keep pedestrians safe from vehicles 27 village should be your highest density in the city, and mixed-use 30 This area overlaps with City of Pocatello Future Land Use Map, designation of industrial matches "employment" 31 why split the neighborhood leaving a tiny residential designation? refine mixed-use to properties facing major corridors 34 Provide turn lanes to keep traffic flowing. 38 a great place to move away from single family homes I disagree with the other comment nearby. AG in the middle of town is nonsensical 39 would love to see this put to commercial use any use is better than none 41 agree with trashiness. My very selfish request is to see a Target store here. 42 not sure what is going to happen to the farms though 43 finishing some of these road connections would be great. VVI Summer Surveys Concept Map Jul3 Aug 14 Obj ectives August i — 21 Big Ideas August 14-28 Analyze Results of Survey Prepare preliminary draft plan September - October Steefing Committee Examine preliminary draft and provide input October (tentative) Community Survey of Preliminary Draft Pudic review. key elements of plan and provide feedback November Prepare Final D raft Plan Revise preliminary draft with feedback received December - January (tentative) Issue Draft Plan for Adoption Present final draft for adaption Land Use and Development Commission for recommen- dation City Council for adoption