Smith and Hollen’s ferry and the Oregon Short Line Bridge across the Snake River between Heyburn and Burley are seen in this C.R. Savage photograph. In June 1902, the federal government passed the Reclamation Act, which created the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, and eventually brought irrigation water to 17 Western states, including Idaho. The Bureau began the Minidoka Project at Lake Wolcott in 1904 to divert water from the Snake River, creating farms and new towns on both sides of the river. By 1919, the fertile Mini-Cassia soil supported 2,208 farms and a population of 17,000, according to the Bureau’s website. The first town on the irrigation project was called Riverton. It was later renamed Heyburn for U.S. Sen. Weldon Brinton Heyburn, who died in 1912 just months after collapsing on the floor of the Senate while delivering a speech. “The first activity around Heyburn was when O.S.L. (Oregon Short Line Railroad Co. started hauling material from Minidoka (train station) to the river to build the railroad bridge across Snake River at Heyburn in the fall of 1904,” Handy wrote when asked to tell what he remembered about the area’s history. The town started as a twon of 19 tents, home to the bridge workers, he said. Before the railroad bridge was completed, two men by the names of Smith and Hollen put a ferry across the Snake River to transport building materials to the new town of Burley. The O.S.L. Railroad was finished from the Minidoka train station to Heyburn, and the first engine cross the Heyburn Bridge on June 10, 1905.
Decision:In re Relna James DeVries and Kathryn Lee DeVries, Case No. 13-41591-JDP (Bankr. D. Idaho, 28 Apr. 2015) Judge: Honorable Jim D. Pappas, United States Bankruptcy Judge Counsel for Debtors: Paul Ross, Idaho Bankruptcy Law, Paul, Idaho Chapter 13 Trustee: Kathleen A. McCallister, Meridian, Idaho Trustee’s Counsel: Holly Roark, Office of Kathleen A. McCallister, Meridian, Idaho
Background
Relna and Kathryn DeVries filed a Chapter 13 petition on 27 December 2013. Their amended plan, confirmed on 19 May 2014, provided that all allowed tax claims would be paid in full. The IRS timely filed a proof of claim for taxes owed for the 2011 and 2012 tax years. The deadline for governmental units to file proofs of claim was 25 June 2014.
The Debtors filed their 2013 federal income tax returns in April 2014, which showed they owed $1,021 to the IRS for the 2013 tax year. The Idaho Tax Commission filed its own proof of claim for the $84 in state taxes owed for 2013 the day after plan confirmation. The IRS, however, did not file a claim for the 2013 federal taxes, nor did it amend its existing claim to include them. Within 30 days of the 25 June 2014 governmental bar date — as permitted by Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 3004 — the Debtors filed a proof of claim on behalf of the IRS for the $1,021 in 2013 taxes.
The Trustee’s Objection
The Trustee objected to the Debtors’ proof of claim. The Trustee represented that it was allegedly filed at the IRS’s own request, and that the IRS did not wish to have the 2013 tax debt paid through the plan as a § 1305 claim.
The Trustee’s objection rested on 11 U.S.C. § 1305(a)(1), which governs postpetition claims in Chapter 13 cases. That provision permits a proof of claim to be filed by “any entity that holds a claim against the debtor … for taxes that become payable to a governmental unit while the case is pending.” The Trustee argued that the Debtors’ 2013 federal income taxes became payable during the pendency of the bankruptcy case, making them a § 1305 postpetition claim, and that under the plain language of § 1305 only the creditor holding the claim — the IRS — was authorized to file a proof of claim for it. The Debtors’ attempt to file on the IRS’s behalf was therefore improper and the claim should be disallowed in its entirety.
The Debtors’ Response
Debtors filed a response through their counsel arguing that the 2013 tax debt was properly treated as a prepetition claim and that they were authorized to file the proof of claim under § 501(c) and Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 3004.
Debtors did not rely on § 1305 as their filing authority. Instead, they argued that the 2013 tax obligation was a prepetition claim — or should be treated as one — and that the ordinary debtor claim-filing mechanism of § 501(c) and Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 3004 therefore applied. On the question of when the claim arose, Debtors urged the Court to apply the “fair contemplation” or “prepetition relationship” test articulated in In re Dixon, 295 B.R. 226 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2003). Under that approach, a claim arises prepetition if there was a prepetition relationship between the debtor and the creditor such that a possible claim was within the creditor’s fair contemplation at the time of filing. The IRS and the Debtors had precisely such a relationship: the Debtors were taxpayers, the IRS was their taxing authority, and 361 of the 365 days of the 2013 tax year had elapsed before the petition was filed. The IRS’s claim for 2013 taxes was fully within its fair contemplation at the time of filing, Debtors argued, making it a prepetition claim subject to the ordinary rules permitting debtors to file on a creditor’s behalf.
Debtors also invoked 11 U.S.C. § 502(i), which provides that a postpetition claim for taxes entitled to priority under § 507(a)(8) shall be treated as if it had arisen before the petition date. On that theory, even if the 2013 taxes technically arose postpetition, § 502(i) mandated that they be treated as prepetition claims, restoring the Debtors’ authority to file under § 501(c) and Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 3004.
The Trustee’s Reply
The Trustee replied that Ninth Circuit authority resolved the question directly and foreclosed the Michigan court’s “fair contemplation” test. Relying on Joye v. Franchise Tax Bd. (In re Joye), 578 F.3d 1070 (9th Cir. 2009), the Trustee argued that taxes owed for a given tax year do not “become payable” — and therefore do not arise as a § 1305 postpetition claim — until the close of that tax year. Because the DeVries filed their petition before the close of 2013, the 2013 taxes became payable only after the petition date and were a postpetition claim that only the IRS could properly file. The Trustee further noted that allowing the improperly filed claim would prejudice general unsecured creditors, whose pro-rata distributions would be reduced by the addition of a priority tax claim.
The Court’s Ruling
Judge Pappas sustained the Trustee’s objection and disallowed the Debtors’ proof of claim in its entirety.
The Court addressed § 502(i) first and found it dispositive against the Debtors. Section 502(i) applies only to postpetition tax claims entitled to priority under § 507(a)(8)(A)(i), which affords priority to income taxes for which the applicable return was due within three years before the petition date. The DeVries’ 2013 federal income tax return was not due until 15 April 2014 — after their 27 December 2013 petition date. Because the return due date fell outside the three-year lookback period, the 2013 taxes were not entitled to priority under § 507(a)(8)(A)(i), and § 502(i) therefore had no application. The Court drew support from the Ninth Circuit BAP’s analysis in In re Jones, 420 B.R. 506 (9th Cir. BAP 2009), aff’d on other grounds, 657 F.3d 921 (9th Cir. 2011), which explained that a postpetition income tax obligation whose return is due postpetition cannot invoke priority status under § 507(a)(8)(A)(i) and thus falls outside § 502(i)’s reach entirely.
The Court then turned to § 1305(a)(1) and rejected the Debtors’ “fair contemplation” argument. Binding Ninth Circuit precedent, not the Michigan court’s test, controlled the analysis. Under In re Joye, taxes become “payable” for purposes of § 1305(a)(1) when they are “capable of being paid.” The Ninth Circuit further established in In re Pacific-Atlantic Trading Co., 64 F.3d 1292 (9th Cir. 1995), that a tax on income is “incurred” on the last day of the income period. Because federal income taxes are assessed by the calendar year, the DeVries’ 2013 taxes were incurred at midnight on 31 December 2013 — after the petition was filed. Both the incurrence and the payability of the 2013 taxes therefore occurred postpetition, placing them squarely within § 1305(a)(1).
The Court also examined the interplay between § 502(i) and § 1305(a)(1) as analyzed in In re Joye, which drew on Collier on Bankruptcy for the proposition that § 502(i) applies to taxes incurred prepetition that do not come due until after the petition is filed, while taxes incurred postpetition can be treated only as postpetition claims under § 1305. Because the 2013 taxes were incurred postpetition under the Pacific-Atlantic rule, § 502(i) offered the Debtors no relief in any event.
Having concluded that the 2013 taxes were a § 1305(a)(1) postpetition claim, the Court applied the well-established rule that postpetition claims under § 1305 may be offered for inclusion in a Chapter 13 plan only by the creditor that holds the claim. A debtor has no authority to force a postpetition creditor into the plan by filing a proof of claim on its behalf. The Trustee’s objection was sustained and the Debtors’ proof of claim disallowed.
Why This Matters
Section 502(i) does not reach postpetition taxes whose returns are due postpetition. The provision applies only to taxes entitled to priority under § 507(a)(8)(A)(i) — which requires the return to have been due within three years before the petition date. An income tax return due after the petition date falls outside that window entirely. Practitioners should not assume § 502(i) will bridge the gap between a postpetition tax liability and prepetition claim treatment.
The Ninth Circuit’s “capable of being paid” standard governs when taxes become payable in the Ninth Circuit. Under In re Joye, the relevant inquiry for § 1305(a)(1) purposes is when the tax was capable of being paid — and under In re Pacific-Atlantic Trading Co., income taxes are incurred on the last day of the tax year. A tax year that closes after the petition date produces a postpetition claim regardless of how many days of that year preceded the filing.
Only the creditor may file a § 1305 postpetition claim. Section 1305(a) grants the right to file a proof of claim for postpetition taxes exclusively to the entity that holds the claim. A debtor cannot invoke § 501(c) or Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 3004 to file on a creditor’s behalf where the underlying obligation is a § 1305 postpetition claim rather than a prepetition one. The creditor’s silence is the creditor’s choice to make.
The IRS may decline plan treatment of a postpetition tax debt. This case illustrates that § 1305 is entirely creditor-driven. The Trustee’s objection represented that the IRS allegedly sought disallowance of the Debtors’ filing rather than simply declining to participate. A Chapter 13 debtor who owes postpetition taxes has no mechanism to compel inclusion of that debt in the plan over the IRS’s objection.
Debtors who owe taxes for a year that closes after their petition date should address the liability outside the plan. Where postpetition income taxes cannot be included in a confirmed Chapter 13 plan, the debt remains the debtor’s obligation to manage directly with the taxing authority. Counsel should advise clients of this reality at the outset and account for ongoing tax obligations in assessing the feasibility of the plan.
Full Decision: Available on PACER, Case No. 13-41591-JDP, Doc. 57 (Bankr. D. Idaho 28 Apr. 2015)
This is a story that ran in the Idaho State Journal 7 April 2013.
Editor’s note: The information for this story comes from an account of pioneer life written by Marlene Christensen, granddaughter of Charles Nuffer, in 1949.
Charles August Nuffer
In the late 1800s, the line between Northern Utah and Southeast Idaho was pretty blurred, but the hardships endured by pioneers knew no state lines.
One of the many immigrants who settled in this harsh frontier was Charles August Nuffer, who came to Logan, Utah, with his German parents in 1880. The family eventually settled in Worm Creek near Preston.
His granddaughter, Marlene Christensen, pieced together diary and verbal accounts of the Nuffer family’s struggles to survive. It paints a story as seen through the young eyes of Charles Nuffer.
“After three weeks, we found a little old log house with one room and dirt roof and plenty of bed bugs to keep us company,” Nuffer recalled. “It was on a vacant lot on the street going to the college just east of the canal.”
The log house with the dirt roof was traded for a home belonging to Jacob Engle within a month, but Nuffer’s father struggled to find work.
“Father would go out wherever he could get some work,” Nuffer said. “He worked on the threshing machines, and I went with him to help, and he got a bushel of wheat a day. Grandma Spring, Regine and I went out in the north field to glean wheat, we would cut the head off and put them in a sack. Father threshed them out with the flail and it made about 16 bushels.” Nuffer said the effort fed the family, and his brothers, John and Fred, earned money to pay the rent.
There were other chores to attend to as well.
“We had to get the wood from the hills nearby,” Nuffer said. “They have brought a team and an old wagon so we went to get some wood. Father told me to drive, as I drove out the gate and over a little ditch, the tongue dropped down and the reach came up and the team ran away. I fell under the horse’s feet and received a broken shoulder, and the horses ran around the block and back in the gate.”
Nuffer was 10 years old when this happened.
The next order of business for the young German American was to master the language.
“I went to school a few month during the winters of 1881 and 1882 and learned to speak English,” Nuffer said. “We lived in Providence from June 1880 until October 1883. So from here we went to Idaho, the place the Lord has chosen for us to build our future home.”
It would take herculean effort and stout horses to pull the families belongings to Worm Creek. Paradise didn’t await the Nuffer family.
“On arriving at Worm Creek (Preston), we found a place with a house on it, a log house about 14 by 16 feet, all one room, with dirt roof, no fence around it and no plowed land, and when it rained the mud would run down the walls, and we had to set pans on the bed to catch the rain,” Nuffer said.
Winter brought even bigger challenges. Nuffer talked about a trip to retrieve straw purchased from farmers in Richmond and Smithfield, Utah.
“The snow was so deep Regine and I filled some big sacks we had brought from the Old Country with straw and tied on the hand sled and pulled it over the crested snow for home,” Nuffer said. “The Miles’ were the only family that were living on the creek besides us on what is now known as the Webster Ranch, and we lived on what is now known as the Fred Wanner Place. The Miles family ran out of feed for their cattle in March and they shoveled a path over the south side of the hills where the wind and sun had taken snow off the grass that had started to grow, and when they drove the cattle thought the path you could not see them because the snow was so deep.”
That was the long winter of 1884.
Undeterred by winter, the family then moved to Cub River and started building a new log home. Lumber was in short supply.
“They had lumber at the sawmill but they would not sell us any for wheat, and the store in Franklin did not pay cash for it,” Nuffer said. “Father had already laid some lings down to put in the floor on so we just had to step over them all winter, but maybe it was a good thing as we got the warmth from the earth as we only had a lumber roof over us 14 feet to the top and just a four-hole cook stove to warm the house and wood to burn, and it was not at all dry.”
The hardships didn’t deter the family’s faith.
“Still we were happy and thanked the Lord for what we had,” Nuffer shared. “Mother would read a chapter from the Bible. We would have prayer and go to bed.”
By Christmas, things grew tougher.
“On Christmas Day 1884, Father sent me over to John’s after 25 pounds of flour,” Nuffer said. “The snow was up to my knees. After that flour was gone we had to grind the wheat in the coffee mill as no one went to the store any more that winter until Father and I each carried a basket of eggs to the store in Franklin on March 2 over 2 feet of frozen snow to buy some groceries. We could not buy much as we had no money.”
To help make ends meet, Nuffer’s mother baked sugar beets in the oven and ground them up to make a sweet sugary substance to put on the family’s “bread and mush.”
The final leg of the winter provided even more trials for the emigrant family.
“Finally the cow went dry so we had no milk for some time and no sugar, but we got thought the winter without any sickness,” Nuffer said. “But we thanked the Heavenly Father for what we had.”
150th Territorial Series
To commemorate the 150th anniversary of Idaho becoming a territory, the Journal will continue historical stories about life in the early frontier each Sunday. A special event will be held July 4 at the Fort Hall Replica in Pocatello to mark its 50th anniversary with additional sesquicentennial recognition.
Lincoln County is closer to me so I get there more often. Shoshone is the Lincoln County seat. Minidoka County was created out of Lincoln County, so many of the Minidoka cities were incorporated in Lincoln County. This includes the cities of Heyburn, Minidoka, Paul, and Rupert. Acequia is the only city incorporated after the creation of Minidoka County.
This photo is from 2023. The Lincoln County Courthouse has been under renovation, so the last time I had court I attended in the old Wells Fargo Bank building. I will have to get an updated picture next time I am in Lincoln County.
Scanning and working through the photos of Dave & Betty Donaldson continues to be a gold mine. While many of the photos are more routine or mundane, once and a while a few pop up that are an insight into the past we did not previously have. Here are some of those photos. I hope there are even more yet to be found.
Dave Donaldson
Likely in southern California, Dave looks like a young teenager. Dave was born in 1928, I guess he is about 12-14 in the photo.
Maxine, Gladys, Dave, Dena and Dora Donaldson
This photo is fun as it shows a glimpse into the young Donaldson family kids. I don’t have many photos of my Grandma Gladys and every extra one gives more reality to her childhood. Dave was born in 1928, I am guessing he is about 7 or 8 here. Even though Dena and Dora are twins, you can tell they are not identical. I still cannot tell them apart though. I love the wallpaper advertisement in the back ground. It looks like the boonies, but close enough to town to have a large sign advertising wallpaper.
“family Long Beach Calif 1932”
What is the Donaldson family doing in Long Beach, Los Angeles, California in 1932? What is the occasion? Who were they visiting? The neighborhood looks nice. They are dressed nice too.
Dave & Betty Donaldson in Jackson, Wyoming
It looks like a fun ride, but Betty also seems to be holding on extra tight.
Young Milo Ross
This photo is a bit of an enigma to me. I believe this is a pre-war Milo Ross. I haven’t seen this photo before. But why would Dave & Betty have it in their possession, how did they get it if it predates my Grandma Gladys? The hat is similar to some other photos I have seen.
Milo Ross planting
Milo Ross with planter
You can see both of these two photos have Grandpa with probably the same hat. The last one, with the horse in the field, probably dates this into the 1930s. I don’t know how to track down that planter and date it. But I am guessing late 1930s, maybe early 1940s.
Here is another with the same gun.
Milo Ross with gun
John Telford, Jan Birch, Richard Michaelson, Milo Ross
This photo was a delight. Another young photo of my Dad with his first cousins. I am guessing he is 6 or 7, so about 1950-1951.
My Great Grandma Berendena Van Leeuwen Donaldson with Eddie, Irene, Mary, and John Telford
Dena Michaelson and Berendena Donaldson at Will Rogers house (that I believe burned down in 2025)
Dena Donaldson and Dena Michaelson at their home in California. Interesting partial reflections in the water on the sidewalk.
David Donaldson and friends in San Francisco.
This photo appears to be a postcard of sorts. Here is the back of it.
The back gives us more information. The date – 11 December 1917. Taken at 225 Market Street, San Francisco, California. Jack and Byron both appear to have signed their names, but the rest of the writing is David’s. David and Jack are from Ogden, Utah. Byron is from Evanston, Wyoming. I don’t know which is Byron and which is Jack. I also cannot tell Jack’s last name and have been unable to locate something that matches. Kielman? Kiefman? Kilfner?
I located Byron Powell, born 21 July 1894 in Winters Quarter, Carbon, Utah and died 12 September 1957 in Ogden. Byron registered for the military draft in Uinta County, Wyoming, which includes Evanston in 1917-1918.
Dena, Dave, Dora, Maxine, David inside vehicle, and Gladys Donaldson on a trip
Again, I don’t know for certain which is Dora and which is Dena. But another fun photo of my Grandma I did not have before.
I don’t know where this photo is from, but I believe it is somewhere in southern Utah. Probably near or in Zions National Park.
I hope some day to find a better copy of this newspaper clipping.
Back (l-r): Ben Van Shaar, Ervin Heslop, Ellis Stewart, Kenneth Taylor, Don Gibson, John Reese; Middle: Frank Hadley, Howard Wayment, Wayne Rose, Ray Charlton; Front: Keith Hodson, Howard Hunt, Wayne Carver, Lyle Thompson, Milo Ross
Presenting the City-County Baseball Champions… Plain City junior diamond athletes romped away with the county title for 1937 and walloped Lewis junior, Ogden city champions, in a title city-county event last week.
Wayne McLean Carver, athletic manager (1923 – 2015)
2-1: INTERNATIONAL CODE COUNCIL AND STATE BUILDING CODES:
2-1-1: CODE ADOPTION
A. The following recognized codes as currently adopted by the State of Idaho are adopted as the official building codes of the City of Minidoka. The adopted versions of these codes shall be effective 1 January 2026. Each code shall be deemed superseded by successive versions of such codes as they are adopted or approved by the State of Idaho effective on the 1st day of January the year following the date any such codes are made effective for the State of Idaho, unless a different date is required by state statute.
B. For purposes of enforcement and administration of this code, the appointed Minidoka County Building Official will also be appointed and act as the Building Official for the City. (Ord. 2026-3, 3 Mar 2026)
2-1-2: PERMIT FEES:
Applicants shall pay permit and plan review fees in amounts to be determined by Resolution of Minidoka County. All permits required under city code require fees to be paid prior to a permit being issued, unless specified otherwise. (Ord. 2026-3, 3 Mar 2026)
2-1-3: EXEMPTIONS:
Agricultural buildings, as defined by the International Building Code, are exempt from the building codes adopted herein but shall remain subject to placement requirements and permits established by zoning regulations. (Ord. 2026-3, 3 Mar 2026)
2-1-4: SEVERABILITY:
This chapter is declared to be severable. Should any portion of this code be declared invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions shall continue in full force and effect and shall be read to carry out the purpose(s) of the ordinance before the declaration of partial invalidity. (Ord. 2026-3, 3 Mar 2026)
2-1-5: COPIES AVAILABLE:
A copy of each of the codes shall be held for use and examination by the public in the Office of the Clerk. (Ord. 2026-3, 3 Mar 2026)
2-1-6: VIOLATIONS:
Any violation of the following subsections shall constitute a misdemeanor, and any person, upon conviction of such violation, shall be punished accordingly. (Ord. 2026-3, 3 Mar 2026)
ARTICLE I – INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE (IBC):
2-1-7: PURPOSE:
The purpose of the IBC is to establish minimum requirements to safeguard the public safety, health and general welfare through affordability, structural strength, means of egress facilities, stability, sanitation, light and ventilation, energy conservation and safety to life and property from fire and other hazards attributed to the built environment and to provide safety to firefighters and emergency responders during emergency operations. (Ord. 2026-3, 3 Mar 2026)
2-1-8: IBC ADOPTED:
All the rules, regulations, and ordinances relating and applying to the regulation of the erection, construction, enlargement, alteration, repair, moving, removal, conversion, demolition, occupancy, equipment, use, height, area, and maintenance of buildings or structures established by the IBC including Appendixes C, E, G, H, I, and J, published under the authority of the International Code Council, Inc., is hereby adopted as the Building Code, and except to the extent that those rules and regulations are hereby changed, altered, or amended by this code, shall be the rules, regulations, and ordinances governing the erection, construction, enlargement, alteration, repair, moving, removal, conversion, demolition, occupancy, equipment, use, height, area, and maintenance of buildings or structures at and within the City. It shall be unlawful to erect, construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, remove, convert, demolish, or maintain buildings or structures in violation of, or without complying with the rules, regulations, and ordinances set forth by the Building Code as adopted and as may be changed, altered, or amended by the Building Code. (Ord. 2026-3, 3 Mar 2026)
Snow Load
Wind Speed (mph)
Frost Depth
Seismic – Site Class D
20 (4800)
Risk Category
I
II
III
IV
18”
Risk Category
I & II
III
IV
95
100
105
110
C
C
D
2-1-9: IBC AMENDMENTS:
A. The IBC 2018 Edition, and Appendices C, E, G, H, I, and J, published by the International Code Council; are amended as follows:
1. Section 101.1 inserting “City of Minidoka” in place of [name of jurisdiction].
2. Section 1612.3 inserting “City of Minidoka” in place of [name of jurisdiction] and “September 6, 1977” in place of [date of issuance].
3. 3113.1 General. The provisions of this Section shall apply to relocatable buildings. Relocatable buildings manufactured after the effective date of this code shall comply with the applicable provisions of this code; Title 39, Chapter 43, of Idaho Code; and IDAPA 24.39.31. Exemption: This section shall not apply to manufactured housing used as dwellings. (Ord. 2026-3, 3 Mar 2026)
ARTICLE II – INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODE (IRC):
2-1-10: PURPOSE
The purpose of the IRC is to provide certain minimum standards and requirements to safeguard life or limb, health, property, and the public welfare by regulating and controlling the design, construction, erection, alteration, moving, demolition, quality of materials, use, occupancy, location, and maintenance of all buildings and structures, where not regulated by the Building Code or the Existing Building Code, in the City. (Ord. 2026-3, 3 Mar 2026)
2-1-11: IRC ADOPTED:
All the rules, regulations, and ordinances relating and applying to the regulation of the erection, construction, enlargement, alteration, repair, moving, removal, conversion, demolition, occupancy, equipment, use, height, area, and maintenance of one-and-two-family dwelling buildings or structures, and their accessory buildings or structures, established by the IRC parts I through IV and IX, including Appendix Q (Tiny Houses) and Appendix S, (Strawbale Construction) published under the authority of the International Code Council, Inc., is hereby adopted as the One-And-Two-Family Dwelling Building Code for the City as amended, and except to the extent that those rules and regulations are hereby changed, altered, or amended by this code, shall be the rules, regulations, and ordinances governing the erection, construction, enlargement, alteration, repair, moving, removal, conversion, demolition, occupancy, equipment, use, height, area, and maintenance of one-and-two-family dwelling buildings or structures, and their accessory buildings or structures, at and within the City. It shall be unlawful to erect, construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, remove, convert, demolish, or maintain buildings or structures in violation of, or without complying with the rules, regulations, and ordinances set forth by the One-And-Two-Family Dwelling Building Code as adopted and as may be changed, altered, or amended by the One-And-Two-Family Dwelling Building Code. (Ord. 2026-3, 3 Mar 2026)
Table 301.2(1) Climatic and Geographic Design Criteria as follows:
Ground Snow Loado
Wind Design
Seismic Design Categoryf
Subject to Damage From
Winter Design Tempe
Ice Barrier Underlayment Requiredh
Flood Hazardg
Air Freezing Indexi
Mean Annual Tempj
Speedd (mph)
Topographic effectsk
Special Wind Regionl
Wind-borne derbis zonem
Weatheringa
Frost line depthb
Termitec
20(4800)
90
NO
NO
NO
B
Severe
24”
Slight/Moderate
5
NO
1977FIRM160201B
1261
48.1 F
MANUAL J DESIGN CRITERIAn
Elevation
Latitude
WinterHeating
SummerCooling
AltitudeCorrectionFactor
IndoorDesignTemperature
DesignTemperatureCooling
Heating Temperaturedifference
4150
42
2
90
.87
70
75
68
CoolingTemperature Difference
WindVelocityHeating
WindVelocityCooling
CoincidentWet Bulb
DailyRange
WinterHumidity
SummerHumidity
_____
15
15
7.5
62
H
50%
50%
______
2-1-12: IRC AMENDMENTS:
A. The IRC 2018 Edition, parts I through IV and IX, including Appendix Q and S, published by the International Code Council; are amended as follows:
1. Delete Tables R403 403.4 Minimum Depth (D) and Width (W) of Crushed Stone Footings (inches), R403.1(1) Minimum Width and Thickness for Concrete Footings for Light-Frame Construction (inches), R403.1(2) Minimum Width and Thickness for Concrete Footings for Light-Frame Construction and Brick Veneer (inches), and R403.1(3) Minimum Width and Thickness for Concrete Footings with Cast-In-Place or Fully Grouted Masonry Wall Construction (inches). (3-20-20)T. (Ord. 2026-3, 3 Mar 2026)
ARTICLE III – INTERNATIONAL ENERGY CONSERVATION CODE (IECC)
2-1-13: PURPOSE:
The purpose of the IECC is to establish minimum regulations for energy-efficient buildings using prescriptive, performance-based, or energy rating index compliance alternative provisions. The provisions of this code shall regulate the design and construction of building envelopes for adequate thermal resistance and low air leakage, including the design and selection of mechanical systems, service water-heating systems, pools and spas, electrical equipment, power, and lighting systems in order to enhance the efficient use and conservation of energy in new and existing building construction. (Ord. 2026-3, 3 Mar 2026)
2-1-14: IECC ADOPTED:
All the rules, regulations, and ordinances relating and applying to the design, construction, quality of materials, erection, installation, alteration, repair, location, relocation, replacement, addition to, use or maintenance of the building envelope, building mechanical systems, service water-heating systems, pools and spas, electrical equipment, power, and lighting systems, established by the IECC, published under the authority of the International Code Council, Inc., is adopted as the Energy Conservation Code as amended, and except to the extent that those said rules and regulations are hereby changed, altered, or amended by this code. (Ord. 2026-3, 3 Mar 2026)
ARTICLE IV – INTERNATIONAL EXISTING BUILDING CODE (IEBC)
2-1-15: PURPOSE:
The purpose of the IEBC is to establish regulations to allow for the use of alternative methods from those contained in the Building Code and the One-And-Two-Family Dwelling Building Code in order to comply with and conform to those minimum requirements necessary to safeguard the health, safety, property, and public welfare insofar as they are affected by the repair, alteration, change of occupancy, addition, or relocation of existing buildings. (Ord. 2026-3, 3 Mar 2026)
2-1-16: IEBC ADOPTED:
All rules, regulations, and ordinances relating to the design, construction, quality of materials, erection, installation, alteration, repair, location, relocation, replacement, addition to, use, change of occupancy, or maintenance of existing buildings, established by the IEBC, published under the authority of the International Code Council, Inc., is adopted as the Existing Building Code as amended, and except to the extent that those rules and regulations are hereby changed, altered, or amended by this code. (Ord. 2026-3, 3 Mar 2026)
ARTICLE V – INTERNATIONAL FUEL GAS CODE (IFGC)
2-1-17: PURPOSE:
The purpose of the IFGC is to establish minimum requirements for fuel gas systems and gas-fired appliances using prescriptive and performance-related provisions. It is founded on broad-based principles that make possible the use of new materials and new fuel gas systems and appliance design. (Ord. 2026-3, 3 Mar 2026)
2-1-18: IFGC ADOPTED:
All rules, regulations, and ordinances relating and applying to the design, construction, quality of materials, erection, installation, alteration, repair, location, relocation, replacement, addition to, use or maintenance building fuel gas systems and appliances. It shall be unlawful to erect, construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, remove, convert, demolish, or maintain buildings or structures in violation of, or without complying with the rules, regulations, and ordinances set forth by the IFGC as adopted and as may be changed, altered, or amended by the IFGC. (Ord. 2026-3, 3 Mar 2026)
ARTICLE VI: INTERNATIONAL MECHANICAL CODE (IMC)
2-1-19: PURPOSE:
The purpose of the IMC is to establish the minimum acceptable level of safety and to protect life and property from the potential dangers associated with the installation and operation of mechanical systems. The code also protects the personnel that install, maintain, service and replace the systems and appliances addressed by this code. (Ord. 2026-3, 3 Mar 2026)
2-1-20: IMC ADOPTED:
All rules, regulations and ordinances relating and applying to the design and installation of mechanical systems, appliances, appliance venting, duct and ventilation systems, combustion air provisions, hydronic systems and solar systems. (Ord. 2026-3, 3 Mar 2026)
ARTICLE VII: IDAHO FIRE CODE (IFC)
2-1-21: PURPOSE:
The purpose of the IFC is to establish minimum regulations for fire prevention and fire protection systems using prescriptive and performance-related provisions. (Ord. 2026-3, 3 Mar 2026)
2-1-22: IFC ADOPTED:
All rules, regulations, and ordinances relating to the safeguarding of life and property from fire and explosion hazards arising from the storage, handling and use of hazardous substances, materials and devices, and from conditions hazardous to life or property in the occupancy of buildings and premises as herein provided. (Ord. 2026-3, 3 Mar 2026)
ARTICLE VIII: ABATEMENT OF DANGEROUS BUILDINGS CODE (ADBC):
2-1-23: PURPOSE:
It is the purpose of this code to provide a just, equitable and practicable method, to be cumulative with and in addition to any other remedy provided by the Building Code, Housing Code or otherwise available by law, whereby buildings or structures which from any cause endanger the life, limb, health, morals, property, safety or welfare of the general public or their occupants may be required to be repaired, vacated or demolished. (Ord. 2026-3, 3 Mar 2026)
2-1-24: ADBC ADOPTED:
The provisions of this code shall apply to all dangerous buildings, as herein defined, which are now in existence or which may hereafter become dangerous in this jurisdiction. (Ord. 2026-3, 3 Mar 2026)
ARTICLE IX: INTERNATIONAL PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE (IPMC):
2-1-25: PURPOSE:
The purpose of the IPMC is to regulate the minimum maintenance requirements for existing buildings. (Ord. 2026-3, 3 Mar 2026)
2-1-26: IMPC ADOPTED:
All rules, regulations, and ordinances regulating and applying to the minimum maintenance standards for basic equipment, light, ventilation, heating, sanitation and fire safety. (Ord. 2026-3, 3 Mar 2026)
ARTICLE X: IDAHO PLUMBING CODE (IPC):
2-1-27: PURPOSE:
The purpose of the ISPC is to establish the minimum acceptable level of safety to protect life and property from the potential dangers associated with supplying potable water to plumbing fixtures and outlets and the conveyance of bacteria-laden wastewater from fixtures. (Ord. 2026-3, 3 Mar 2026)
2-1-28: IPC ADOPTED:
All rules, regulations, and ordinances regulating the design and installation of plumbing systems including the plumbing fixtures in all types of buildings except for detached one and two-family dwellings and townhouses that are not more than three stories above grade in height. The regulations for plumbing systems in one- and two-family dwellings and townhouses are covered by IRC. The ISPC addresses general plumbing regulations, fixture requirements, water heater installations and systems for water distribution, sanitary drainage, special wastes, venting, storm drainage and medical gases. The ISPC does not address fuel gas piping systems as those systems are covered by the IFGC. The ISPC also does not regulate swimming pool piping systems, process piping systems, or utility-owned piping and systems. (Ord. 2026-3, 3 Mar 2026)
ARTICLE XI: ELECTRICAL CODE (EC):
2-1-29: PURPOSE:
The purpose of this code is the practical safeguarding of persons and property from hazards arising from the use of electricity. (Ord. 2026-3, 3 Mar 2026)
2-1-30: EC ADOPTED:
All rules, regulations, and ordinances relating to the design, construction, operation, quality of materials, installation, alteration, and repair of electrical systems and use of electricity. (Ord. 2026-3, 3 Mar 2026)
2-2: ELECTRICAL CODE:
2-2-1: SCOPE OF CODE:
The regulations of this code shall apply to all electrical wiring and equipment installed within the city electrical service area, except wiring and equipment which is used for the generation, control, distribution or communication system of a utility and which is installed by or for, and owned and maintained by an electric or communication utility operating under due authority granted by the city. (Ord. 2026-3, 3 Mar 2026)
2-2-2: MINIMUM SAFETY STANDARDS:
Except as herein provided all installments of wires and equipment to convey electric current and apparatus to be operated by such current, made after the effective date of this code, shall be in accord with the national electrical code, published by the National Fire Protection Association, state of Idaho statutes, rules and regulations of the Idaho department of labor and industrial services electrical safety bureau, relating to such work so far as the same covers both fire and personal injury hazards. (Ord. 2026-3, 3 Mar 2026)
2-2-3: SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS:
All public commercial and industrial buildings, all apartment buildings with more than three (3) dwelling units and all buildings, of any kind, located within the city, shall be wired to conform to any of the following designated articles of the national electrical code:
Article 346, Rigid Metal Conduit; article 348, Electrical Metallic Tubing; article 350, Flexible Metal Conduit; article 352, Surface Metal Raceway; article 362, Wireways; article 364, Busways; article 354, Underfloor Raceways; article 356, Cellular Metal Floor Raceways; article 358, Cellular Concrete Floor Raceways; article 330, Mineral Insulated Cable; article 331, Aluminum Sheath Cable; article 347, Rigid Nonmetallic Conduit, may be used only where installed underground, embedded in concrete, or in indoor locations where subject to severe corrosive influences; article 353, Multioutlet Assemblies; article 363, Flat Cable Assemblies; article 365, Cablebus; article 366, Electrical Floor Assemblies. (Ord. 2026-3, 3 Mar 2026)
2-2-4: ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING WIRING:
When extensions and/or alterations are made to any electrical circuit in or on any building or structure, coming under the provisions of this code, which said circuit was not originally installed in a manner complying with the provisions of this code and/or the ordinances of the city, the electrical circuit, in its entirety, shall be made to conform to such provisions of this code as are particularly applicable thereto. (Ord. 2026-3, 3 Mar 2026)
2-2-5: ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR: The mayor is hereby authorized with the consent of the city council, to enter into an agreement with the state of Idaho department of labor and industrial services electrical safety bureau, to furnish electrical inspection service to the city, as authorized by section 54-1001C of the Idaho Code. Electrical inspections made under such agreement shall be in accordance with this code by a duly appointed state electrical inspector acting as electrical inspector for the city. (Ord. 2026-3, 3 Mar 2026)
2-2-6: JURISDICTION OF ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR:
Except as herein provided the installation of electrical wiring or equipment in or on any building or structure within the city electrical service area shall be done at all times subject to inspection by the electrical inspector. (Ord. 2026-3, 3 Mar 2026)
2-2-7: AUTHORITY TO DISCONNECT:
If any electrical installation made after the effective date of this code is found to be defective or defectively installed, or otherwise not in conformity with this code, the electrical inspector may order such installation disconnected from the source of supply until the necessary corrections have been made, provided that the owner of the premises, the tenant, if any, and the power supply company shall be notified in writing. (Ord. 2026-3, 3 Mar 2026)
2-2-8: ELECTRICAL INSPECTION TAG:
A. It shall be unlawful for any person to install or cause to be installed, any electric wiring, or equipment coming under the provisions of this code unless an electrical inspection tag, as authorized by section 54-1005 of the Idaho Code, or application for such electrical tag, properly completed, has been mailed to the Electrical Safety Bureau, State House, Boise, Idaho. Electrical contractors shall use the standard electrical contractor’s inspection tag issued to all licensed electrical contractors by the electrical safety bureau. Owners installing electrical wiring or equipment on their own property shall use the standard application for owner’s electrical inspection tag which applications shall be made available at the office of the clerk and at the local offices of the power suppliers.
B. The city shall not connect to or energize an electrical installation coming under the provisions of this code unless the city has in possession, an electrical inspection tag, issued by the electrical safety bureau, covering the installation to be energized. (Ord. 2026-3, 3 Mar 2026)
2-2-9: STATE LICENSE REQUIRED:
A. Journeyman Electrician: Except as herein provided it shall be unlawful for any person to perform or supervise the actual physical work of installing electric wiring or equipment to convey electric current unless such person holds a valid journeyman electrician’s license, issued by the state of Idaho department of labor and industrial services electrical safety bureau.
B. Electrical Contractor: Except as herein provided it shall be unlawful for any person, partnership, or corporation to engage in the business of installing electrical wires or equipment to convey electric current or to enter into agreements to install such wires or equipment without a valid electrical contractor’s license issued by the state of Idaho department of labor and industrial services electrical safety bureau.
C. Exemptions: The licensing provisions of this section shall not apply to persons making electrical installations on their own property, to apprentice electricians working under the direct, on the job supervision of licensed journeyman electricians nor to persons regularly employed to do electrical maintenance work on their employer’s premises. (Ord. 2026-3, 3 Mar 2026)
2-2-10: LIABILITY OF CITY:
This code is not to be construed to relieve from or lessen responsibility or liability of any party owning, operating, controlling, or installing any electrical wiring or equipment, for damages to person or property caused by any defects therein, nor shall the city be held as assuming any such liability by reason of the inspection required herein. (Ord. 2026-3, 3 Mar 2026)
2-2-11: REQUIREMENTS FOR NEW METER INSTALLATION:
A. Definition Of New Installation: It shall be deemed to be a “new installation” when service entrance facilities are placed in new buildings, or when electrical wiring is replaced in existing buildings, or when installation of new services are placed in existing buildings, and shall include any remodeling or rewiring, either on the interior or the exterior on any existing building.
B. Meters: Only socket type meters shall be used, and the meters shall be located on the outside of the buildings served with electricity; the meter bases shall be mounted five feet six inches (5’6″) to the center from the ground or walkway level.
C. Wiring: Wiring from service wires to the meter must be in conduit and the conduit from the service wires to the meter must be exposed. No materials such as water or gas pipe fittings shall be acceptable as a substitute for electrical conduit. An entrance cap shall be used on the upper end of the conduit extending above the meter base and must not be more than one foot (1′) from the point of attachment of the service wires. There shall be at least two feet (2′) separation between any service wires and any exposed wiring on the load side of the meter.
D. Safety Measures: All meters on a single residence shall be ahead of all fuses, switches, and/or other protective or disconnecting devices, and no wiring shall be exposed between the meter base and main switch. The main switch or disconnecting device shall be enclosed and shall contain suitable fuse or circuit breaker protection. No circuit shall be taken off between the base and the main switch except pump circuits and such pump circuits must have raintight or waterproof switches for said water pumps, and the main disconnecting device shall be situated on the outside of the building adjacent to the meter base, with a weatherproof enclosure for the fuse or breaker disconnect.
E. Service Entrances: Weatherproofed wire shall not be used in conduits for a service entrance, and any service wires shall have a clearance of ten feet (10′) above the ground; provided, however, that where a service entrance position is to be used by public vehicles, the clearance shall not be less than eighteen feet (18′) above the ground. The service entrance shall be placed on such side of a building or structure to which service is most readily available from existing power lines. All service drop wires must be connected to a mast (subsection H of this section), which extends through the roof of the building. Masts terminating below the eaves of a roof will not be permitted.
F. Wire Connections: The neutral wire (white) of 3-wire systems or the grounded wire (white) of a 2-wire system shall be connected to the ground terminal of the meter base.
G. Alternative Meters: In any case where the estimated load may exceed one hundred (100) amperes per phase for continuous periods at an individual meter installation, the City may require other than self-contained metering. (1982 Code)
H. Masts: The service entrance mast shall not be smaller than one and one- half inch (11/2“) ID rigid galvanized conduit for one hundred (100) amp services, two inch (2”) ID rigid galvanized conduit for two hundred (200) amp services. Type IMC may be used if approved by the Public Works Department.
I. Multiple Meter Installation: In the event multiple meter installations are made, all of the above requirements shall apply to such installation, except that requirement that refers specifically to the service of a single residence, and, in addition thereto, the following requirements shall be met:
1. Electrical service shall be supplied at only one point on each individual building, and the service wires shall be 3-wire 120-240-volt. For single-phase or 4-wire combinations, 120/240-volt 3-phase, and 480-volt 3-phase. (Ord. 332, 3-27-1991)
2. The meters shall be arranged in a horizontal position at five feet six inches (5’6″) from center of meter to ground or walkway level and shall be as close together as practical.
3. Enclosed disconnect devices shall be provided on the load side of each meter and such devices must be classed as main switches as in other requirements, and must have suitable means for sealing. Any and all devices such as gutters, etc., installed on the line side of the meters must be of such a type that they can be sealed with standard meter seals. Permission to install gutters, splice boxes, etc., ahead of meters shall be obtained from the City before construction is started. (Ord. 2026-3, 3 Mar 2026)
2-3: BUILDINGS CONSTRUCTED OUTSIDE OF CITY:
2-3-1: APPLICABILITY OF CODES:
All buildings previously constructed outside the City limits for which a building permit would have to have been issued had the construction been within the City originally, which buildings are to be moved within City limits of the City must meet the requirements of the existing City codes applicable to buildings, including the codes set forth in chapter 1 of this title. (Ord. 2026-3, 3 Mar 2026)
2-3-2: BUILDING PERMITS AND INSPECTIONS:
Further, the owner of such a building, prior to moving the same into or within the City, must obtain a building permit and submit the structure to inspection so that it can be determined that the building meets the requirements of said codes as applicable. Any travel expenses necessary for an official of the City to conduct such inspection or, in the discretion of the City (should the City determine to hire an inspector in the locality of the building), such expense for such inspector shall be borne by the person bringing the building into the City or moving it within the City. In the case of buildings that are subject to the standards of the Building Code, as defined in section 2-1-1 of this title, the inspection will be conducted by an official certified by the International Conference of Building Officials. In the case of manufactured homes, as defined in this Code, the inspection will be conducted by a licensed engineer, who shall certify in writing that the manufactured home meets the requirements of a manufactured home Class A or manufactured home Class B, as defined in this Code. Such certification shall also expressly certify the structural integrity of any modification to the manufactured home made since its original manufacture. However, homes which meet the specifications of manufactured home Class A and which are of the current year’s manufacture or have never been sold and used as a dwelling since new from the factory are exempt from this requirement. Also, manufactured home Class B which has received a certificate of compliance within the last ninety (90) days by the Administrator of the Division of Building Safety that the home complies with the requirements of Idaho Code section 44-2503 is also exempt from this requirement, as long as such home has not been modified since issuance of the certificate. (Ord. 2026-3, 3 Mar 2026)
2-3-3: BOND IN LIEU OF COMPLIANCE:
In the event that the building does not comply with any portion of the codes above referred to, such building must be modified, altered, repaired or otherwise changed to comply with such codes; or, in the sole discretion of the City, the City may determine the expense necessary for such modification and the person wishing to bring the building into the City or move it within the City may post a cash bond for the amount of funds reasonably anticipated to hire a contractor to make such changes and/or remove the building and any foundation; or, to post a bond in the same amount with a surety to the City. A bond in the amount of five thousand dollars ($5,000.00) for manufactured homes or a bond in the sum of ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00) for all other types of single-family dwellings shall be presumed to be reasonable minimum amounts. For all other buildings, the amount shall be set by the Community Development Director. The owner of the building may appeal the decision of the Minidoka County Building Official to the City Council if the owner believes the bond amount to be excessive. Such appeal shall be in writing, delivered to the City Clerk. (Ord. 2026-3, 3 Mar 2026)
2-3-4: BOND FORFEITURE:
In the event that the owner of the building posts such a bond and fails within one hundred eighty (180) days to make the corrections, changes, repairs or improvements as required, such bond shall be forfeited to the City. (Ord. 2026-3, 3 Mar 2026)
2-3-5: CITY’S REMEDIES:
Bond forfeiture does not prevent the City from taking such other legal action as is necessary to abate any private or public nuisance or otherwise require removal of the structure from the City at the expense of the owner or person bringing the structure within the City. (Ord. 2026-3, 3 Mar 2026)
2-4: ELECTRICAL SAFETY CODE:
2-4-1: ADOPTION OF NATIONAL ELECTRICAL SAFETY CODE:
To provide for the safeguarding of persons and property from the hazards arising from the installation, operation, or maintenance of: a) conductors and equipment in electric supply stations, and b) overhead and underground electric supply and communication lines, the City hereby adopts the 2002 edition of the National Electrical Safety Code as promulgated by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc., and the American National Standards Institute. (Ord. 2026-3, 3 Mar 2026)
2-4-2: CLERK TO MAINTAIN A COPY:
As provided by Idaho law, the City Clerk shall maintain one copy of said code. (Ord. 2026-3, 3 Mar 2026)
2-4-3: ENFORCEMENT, REMEDIES, AND PENALTIES:
The Minidoka County Building Official and/or his designee(s) shall be and are empowered to conduct inspections and to seek and obtain enforcement of the provision of this chapter as it may be applicable. The City reserves all rights at law and equity for the enforcement of this chapter, including the seeking of damages and/or injunction or both. Any violation of the provisions of this chapter shall constitute a misdemeanor. (Ord. 2026-3, 3 Mar 2026)
2-5: REGULATIONS FOR USE OF PUBLIC EASEMENT:
2-5-1: PURPOSE AND INTENT:
The purpose of this Chapter is to regulate and control the use of public easement within applicable laws to:
A. Establish a policy concerning the use of public easement by providers or other persons.
B. Establish clear local guidelines, standards, and time frames for the exercise of local authority with respect to the regulation of providers or other persons;
C. Promote competition;
D. Encourage the provision of advanced and competitive services on the widest basis to the businesses, institutions, and residents;
E. Permit and manage reasonable access to the public easements of the city for telecommunications or other purposes on a competitively neutral basis;
F. Assure that all providers or other persons constructing, repairing, or maintaining facilities within the easements comply with ordinances, rules, and regulations; and
G. Assure the City can continue to fairly and responsibly protect the public health, safety, and welfare. (Ord. 2026-3, 3 Mar 2026)
2-5-2: DEFINITIONS:
For the purpose of this Chapter, the interpretation and enforcement thereof, the following words and phrases shall have the following meanings, unless the context of the sentence in which they are used shall indicate otherwise. When not inconsistent, words in present tense include future, words in plural include singular, singular include plural. Words not defined shall be given their common and ordinary meaning:
APPLICANT: Any person or entity that applies for any permit pursuant to this Chapter.
CITY: The City of Minidoka, Minidoka County, Idaho or its authorized designees.
CITY PROPERTY: All real property owned by the City or dedicated for a specific purpose, other than public ways and utility easements as those are defined herein. City property shall include, for example, all City-owned poles, buildings and antenna support structures and infrastructure outside of the public ways, provided that additional Agreements, Pole Attachment Agreements or Leases with the City shall be required for their use.
EASEMENT: As used in this chapter and in title 9 of this Code, shall mean an easement granted to or reserved by the City for municipal or public purposes, including, but not limited to: access to City property; use of land for access by the City to utilities, or use of land to place City utilities upon; or access to utilities or use of land by franchisees or use by other authorized third party utility providers, as provided in Idaho Code section 50-329A, or by other providers or persons, or otherwise provided by law.
ENCROACHMENT: Any impermissible or unlawful use of an easement. It includes any unauthorized use of an easement, including, but not limited to: construction of unauthorized structures upon an easement; unauthorized blocking of any easement or unauthorized restriction of access or use of same; an expansion of use beyond the grant of use; use of the easement for purposes not granted or reserved by the City; or any other improper use or any misuse of the easement as defined by law.
PERMIT: The authorization in whatever form whereby the City may grant permission for construction to a provider or other person to enter and use the specified public ways for the purpose of installing, maintaining, operating, repairing, or removing facilities.
PERSON: Includes any natural person, sole proprietorship, joint venture, corporations, associations, partnerships, limited liability companies, and any other form of entity. Person shall not include the City.
PROVIDERS: Include all broadband, telecommunications, video service, telephone, gas, electric, and other utility service and infrastructure providers.
STATE: State of Idaho
TELECOMMUNICATIONS PROVIDER: A telecommunications service provider or infrastructure provider, or both, as applicable.
TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICE: As defined in 47 U.S.C. 153(53). (Ord. 2026-3, 3 Mar 2026)
2-5-3: CONTROL AND USE OF EASEMENTS:
A. Exclusive Control. All City easements are and at all times hereafter remain under the exclusive control of the City, unless otherwise herein provided. The City’s consent or other permission to use an easement does not negate the City’s continuing right of control or supervision of the easement and its use.
B. Use. No structure use restriction of any kind is permitted upon a City easement except as herein provided. Access over a City easement shall be only as permitted by the City as herein provided or as established by policy of the City.
C. Sheds, doghouses, and other structures not requiring a building permit. Sheds, doghouses, and other similar structures (like fences, etc.), which do not require a building permit, may be placed on a City easement upon the following conditions:
1. Such sheds or doghouses, etc., must be placed on skids or are otherwise not permanently affixed or anchored to the ground or to concrete or other permanent foundation.
2. Any fence constructed on an easement must, in the opinion of the City, not be burdensome for the City to negotiate around to use or access the easement and also, must have an unlocked access gate or doorway to the easement of the size and type approved by the City.
3. The owner of the encroaching structure must sign an acknowledgement with the City, in a form approved by the City, that provides for a hold harmless covenant in favor of the City in the event that the City, in its discretion, decides that the shed or structure must be moved or destroyed in order to make use of the easement. Such agreement shall cover the items in or with the structure as well. The agreement will also provide for the removal of the structure by the City will occur at the cost of the owner and in case of emergency, could occur without prior notice.
4. The structure must be used for a lawful purpose and may not constitute a private or public nuisance.
5. The structure cannot store hazardous or toxic substances or any other substance if the intentional or inadvertent release of such would violate any environmental protection laws.
6. The structure cannot be used for human occupancy.
7. Consent to allow a structure to be placed on an easement lies in the sole discretion of the City and can be revoked at any time.
D. Structures Requiring a Building Permit. Unless otherwise herein permitted, a structure which requires a building permit to be built or which is placed on or attached to a foundation or otherwise anchored to the ground or any other encroaching structures not described in subsection C of this section may not be placed on a City easement. If the encroaching structure is not removed voluntarily by the landowner, then the City may undertake legal proceedings to have it removed, unless an emergency occurs which, in the City’s opinion, requires its immediate removal, at which point the City will accomplish the removal without notice and at the expense of the owner of the structure.
E. Public Utility Structures:
1. Access. Public utilities or other utility providers, as contemplated in Idaho Code 50-329A or other persons, are granted access to City’s easements as herein provided.
2. Multiple uses. Easements can, as the City permits, be used for multiple utility uses, such as for access and also to provide for more than one buried or overhead utilities services or other facilities. In the case of multiple uses, consent for uses will generally be on a “first come, first served” basis, unless determined otherwise by the City, in its sole discretion, as to the needs of the City. Multiple users of utility easements are expected to use the facilities cooperatively and with due consideration to other uses and to make accommodations as needed to permit multiple uses of an easement.
3. City is sole arbiter. The City is the sole arbiter of use of the easement and also as to questions of joint use between lawful users.
F. No prescriptive rights. No party may gain prescriptive rights as to the use or occupancy of an easement nor any change or use or expansion of use.
G. Consent not implied. Consent to use or encroach upon an easement shall not be implied. All use of an easement must be by consent or other permission or grant of use and must be made in writing from the City.
H. Agreement for use. Other than use of an easement by the City itself, use of an easement must be by written agreement approved by the City. Abandonment of use of an easement for more than two (2) years shall require a new written agreement to establish use.
I. Consent to permit encroachments. On occasion the City, in its sole discretion, may consent to an encroachment on an easement. The following minimum considerations will apply:
1. The structure must have been in continuous use for at least the last ten (10) years.
2. The structure must be in good repair and not otherwise abandoned.
3. If the structure is either destroyed or becomes dilapidated, it must be removed and a replacement structure cannot be erected in its place unless the replacement structure is qualified for use under this section.
4. At the end of the useful life of the structure, no replacement structure may be erected in its place.
J. Lawful uses. Lawful uses of easements for public utility, video telecommunications or broadband purposes shall be deemed to be uses consented to by the City and no new written application is required; however, a permit is required and must be paid for by the provider. (Ord. 2026-3, 3 Mar 2026)
2-5-4: FEE AND COST REIMBURSEMENT
A. A person or entity seeking a permit, franchise, or agreement for the use of City Easement or other property for facilities shall:
1. Reimburse the City for fees, costs, and expenses incurred by the City for application reviews, plan reviews, review and administration of applicable permits, testing, and inspection within the City. This includes, by way of illustration and not limitation, concrete plant mix; pavement placement; sidewalk replacement; landscaping repair including sod, irrigation lines, sprinklers, shrubs, and trees; traffic control set up; street restoration; graffiti removal; clean-up; public safety.
2. Pay to the City a non-refundable fee to cover the cost of all direct and indirect administrative expenses and staff efforts devoted to developing, drafting, negotiating, and finalizing a franchise or agreement for the use of City Easement or other property for its facilities;
3. Reimburse the City for all out-of-pocket processing costs, including but not limited to the cost of publication of notices related to the franchise or agreement for the use of City Easement or other property for their facilities;
4. Reimburse the City for the City’s reasonable outside attorney fees, consultant fees, and expenses incurred in developing, drafting, negotiating, and finalizing the franchise or other agreement for use of City Easement or other property for their facilities; and
5. Pay all franchise fees, other fees, and taxes as permitted by Federal and State Law.
B. The fees, taxes, and costs paid shall not be offset against any franchise fees or other amounts payable to the City during the term of the franchise or agreement. All payments are due within thirty (30) days of written notice from the City. (Ord. 2026-3, 3 Mar 2026)
2-5-5: BUSINESS LICENSE:
A City business license is required for all providers, unless specifically waived by the City. (Ord. 2026-3, 3 Mar 2026)
2-5-6: PERMIT REQUESTS:
Requests for permits to install, maintain, operate, repair, and remove facilities shall be submitted to the City upon forms to be provided by the City and shall be accompanied by drawings, plans, and specifications in sufficient detail to demonstrate:
A. The installation, maintenance, operation, repair, or removal of facilities will be in accordance with all applicable codes, rules, and regulations;
B. Preliminary engineering plans, specifications, and a map showing where the facilities are to be located within the City, all in sufficient detail to identify:
1. Location and route requested for the proposed facilities.
2. Location of the overhead and underground lines and equipment in the public ways along the proposed route.
3. Specific trees, structures, improvements, facilities, lines, equipment, and obstructions, if any, that the applicant proposes to temporarily or permanently remove or relocate and a landscape plan for protecting, trimming, removing, replacing, and restoring any trees or areas to be disturbed during construction.
C. If a provider is proposing underground installation with new ducts or conduits to be constructed within the public ways, the following shall be provided;
1. Location proposed for new ducts or conduits;
2. Evidence that there is sufficient capacity within the public ways for the proposed facilities.
D. Construction methods to be employed for protection of existing structures, fixtures, lines, and other facilities within or adjacent to the public ways or easements.
E. Proposed construction schedule and work hours which may be limited by the City for public health, safety, and welfare related issues. (Ord. 2026-3, 3 Mar 2026)
2-5-7: TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN:
Any permit which involves work on, in, under, across, or along any public way shall be accompanied by a traffic control plan demonstrating the protective measures and devices that will be employed, consistent with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, to prevent injury or damage to persons or property and to minimize disruptions to efficient pedestrian and vehicular traffic. The traffic control plan must be approved prior to approval of the permit. (Ord. 2026-3, 3 Mar 2026)
2-5-8: ROAD CLOSURE:
A permittee must coordinate with the City Administrator, Engineer, and Police Chief forty-eight (48) hours before any lane, sidewalk, or road closure and obtain reasonable permission for the closure. (Ord. 2026-3, 3 Mar 2026)
2-5-9: TERMS AND CONDITIONS:
A. All work being performed within City Easement is subject to inspection whether by City or by its representative. Providers shall notify adjacent residents and businesses of proposed work and make accommodations to maintain access to properties affected by construction activity.
B. Open trenches are protected to prevent accidental ingress by people, animals, or vehicles.
C. Contractor will provide City with compaction reports for all backfill activities.
D. Unless stated in the permit, the permit is granted for one hundred eighty (180) calendar days and all work must be completed in that time. Applicant or permittee may apply for an extension. Any work, repairs, or remediation not completed in time shall be subject to a $100 weekly inspection fee until work has been completed to the satisfaction of City.
E. Failure to abide by the terms and conditions of a permit or of any associated agreement is considered due cause for revoking a permit.
F. Permittee shall file, at least quarterly, a statement of system construction and build-out to date, and as-built maps of underground and aerial build-out and per linear foot distances and locations in a GIS format acceptable to the City.
G. Providers are limited to three (3) open permits in process at one time. Where the maximum number of approved permits are open, the City will not approve a new permit until complete restoration of the Easement, sidewalks, curbs, gutters, roads, and to the extent applicable, work done on affected private property, occurs.
H. As practicable and economically feasible, the construction and location of facilities shall be of minimal impact to private property including, but not limited to, yards and fences. All construction and maintenance of any and all facilities on private property shall be and remain the responsibility of the providers or other persons. Prior to beginning any construction, notice shall be provided at least five (5) days before commencing work by door hanger or other appropriate written notice to all private property owners. Gates shall not be left open, yards in disarray, or fences hopped.
I. When any opening is made in a yard on private property or fences are disturbed, such shall be promptly restored to as good or better condition than that existing before the work commenced. If the permittee or provider fails to complete the work referred to within the time prescribed and to the City’s satisfaction, the City may cause such work to be done and bill the cost of the work to the provider. Payment shall be remitted to the City within thirty (30) days of receipt of an itemized list of costs. All work shall be done in compliance with all laws, regulations, and ordinances of the City and State.
J. The transmission and distribution system, lines, wires, and appurtenances of the provider shall be located, installed, and maintained so as not to endanger or interfere with the lives of persons or to unnecessarily hinder or obstruct the free use of private property, City or other easements, or other public property. (Ord. 2026-3, 3 Mar 2026)
2-5-10: FRANCHISE OR OTHER AGREEMENT REQUIRED:
In addition to obtaining any and all requisite permits from the City, a provider desiring to place its facilities in easements or public ways must first obtain a Franchise or other Agreement from the City, unless a specific exception is clearly provided by Federal or State law. (Ord. 2026-3, 3 Mar 2026)
2-5-11: LEASE OR OTHER AGREEMENT REQUIRED:
In addition to obtaining any and all requisite permits from the City, providers desiring to place their facilities on City property (other than public easements) must first obtain a Lease or other Agreement from the City. (Ord. 2026-3, 3 Mar 2026)
2-5-12: RELIEF:
The City may seek legal or equitable relief to enjoin any acts or practices and abate any condition which constitutes or will constitute a violation of the applicable provisions of this Chapter. Violation of the terms of this Chapter may also result in the revocation of any permit or franchise or other agreement granted hereunder. (Ord. 2026-3, 3 Mar 2026)
2-5-13: FEES AND COMPENSATION NOT A TAX:
The franchise fees and charges provided for or any compensation charged and provided for herein, whether monetary or in-kind (to the extent permitted by law), are separate from, and additional to, any and all Federal, State, local, and City taxes as may be lawfully levied, imposed or be due from a provider, its customers, or subscribers, or on account of the sale, delivery, or transmission of service. (Ord. 2026-3, 3 Mar 2026)
2-5-14: NONEXCLUSIVE GRANT:
No permit issued hereunder shall confer any exclusive right or privilege to occupy or use the public way or easement for delivery of services or any other purposes. (Ord. 2026-3, 3 Mar 2026)
2-5-15: POLICE POWER:
In accepting any permits issued hereunder, the provider acknowledges that its rights thereunder are subject to the legitimate rights of the police power of the City to adopt and enforce general ordinances necessary to protect the safety, health, and welfare of the public, it being understood that such exercise must be done in accordance with applicable law and be related to use and management of public ways or easements. (Ord. 2026-3, 3 Mar 2026)
2-5-16: REGULATION BY THE CITY:
In addition to the inherent powers of the City to regulate and control any permit it issues, and those powers expressly reserved by the City, or agreed to and provided in any permit, the right and power is hereby reserved by the City to adopt such additional regulations as it may find necessary in the exercise of its lawful powers to manage the public ways or easements. (Ord. 2026-3, 3 Mar 2026)
2-5-17: CODES:
Construction of facilities shall be done in accordance with all applicable Federal, State, and local laws, codes, rules, and regulations. (Ord. 2026-3, 3 Mar 2026)
2-5-18: COMPLIANCE WITH ONE-NUMBER LOCATOR SERVICE:
All providers or other persons shall, before commencing any construction in the public way or easement, comply with Idaho DIGLINE (“Idaho 811”). Underground utilities must be located and marked prior to any trenching or boring work. (Ord. 2026-3, 3 Mar 2026)
2-5-19: NOTICE OF WORK EMERGENCIES:
In the event of an unexpected repair or emergency, a provider may commence such repair and emergency response work as required under the circumstances, provided the provider shall notify the City as promptly as possible, including on-call, before such repair or emergency work commences or as soon thereafter as possible, if advance notice is not practicable. Further, the provider shall apply for a permit and pay all associated fees as soon as the emergency is abated. (Ord. 2026-3, 3 Mar 2026)
2-5-20: MOVING A BUILDING:
Whenever any Person shall have obtained permission from the City to use any public easement for the purpose of moving any building, a provider upon seven (7) days written notice from the City shall raise or remove, at the expense of the Person desiring to move the building, any of the provider’s facilities which may obstruct the moving or removal of such building; provided, that the Person desiring to move the building shall comply with all requirements of the City of the movement of buildings and remit the applicable cost of raising or removing the facilities prior to the commencement of such work. (Ord. 2026-3, 3 Mar 2026)
2-5-21: CITY DAMAGE TO FACILITIES:
Unless directly or proximately caused by the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the City, City shall not be liable for any damage to any facilities within the public easement as a result of or in connection with any public works, public improvements, construction, excavation, grading, filling, or work of any kind within the public easement by or on behalf of the City. (Ord. 2026-3, 3 Mar 2026)
2-5-22: RESTORATION:
A. When a provider or other Person does any work in or affecting any public easement, it shall, at its own expense, promptly remove any obstructions therefrom and restore such public easement to the condition as existed before the work was undertaken.
B. If weather or other conditions do not permit the complete restoration required by this subsection, the provider shall temporarily restore the affected public easement. Such temporary restoration shall be at the provider’s sole expense and the provider shall promptly undertake and complete the required permanent restoration when the weather or other conditions no longer prevent such permanent restoration.
C. A provider or other person acting on its behalf shall use suitable barricades, flags, flaggers, lights, flares, and other measures as required for the safety of all members of the general public and to prevent injury or damage to any Person, vehicle, or property by reason of such work in or affecting such public ways.
D. The City Public Works and Community Development Departments shall be responsible for inspection and final approval of the condition of the public easement following any construction and restoration activities.
E. Whenever a provider intends to discontinue using any facility within an easement, it shall submit for approval a complete description of the facility and the date on which it intends to discontinue using the facility. The provider may remove the facility or request the City permit it to remain in place. Notwithstanding a request that any such facility remain in place, the City may require removal of the facility from the easement or modify the facility to protect the public health, welfare, safety, or convenience, or otherwise serve the public interest at no cost to the City. The City may require a combination of modification and removal of the facility. The provider shall complete such removal or modification in accordance with a schedule as set by the City. Until such time as removal or modification of the facility occurs as directed by the City, or until the rights to and responsibility for the facility are accepted by another person having authority to construct and maintain such facility, the provider shall be responsible for all necessary repairs and relocations of the facility, as well as maintenance of the easement, in the same manner and degree as if the facility were in active use, and shall retain all liability for such facility. If the provider abandons its facilities, the City may choose to use such facilities for any purpose whatsoever.
F. If the provider fails to complete any required work to the satisfaction of the City, the City may cause the work to be done, and the provider shall reimburse the City for the reasonable costs and expenses incurred within thirty (30) days after receipt of an itemized list of the City’s expenses and costs, or the City may recover its expenses and costs from the bonds or pursue any other judicial remedies for the collection thereof. Any expenses incurred in the collection by the City of such obligation shall be included in the monies due the City including reasonable attorney fees, court costs, and expenses for work conducted by City staff or its agents. (Ord. 2026-3, 3 Mar 2026)
2-5-23: FIBER CAPACITY:
A telecommunication provider shall have the right, without prior City approval, to offer or provide fiber capacity or bandwidth to other carriers, resellers, customers, or subscribers consistent with such permit; provided, however, that the telecommunication provider shall remain responsible for the compliance with this Chapter and such permit, and provided that the other carrier or reseller must obtain any necessary Franchise or other Agreement required by the City. (Ord. 2026-3, 3 Mar 2026)
2-5-24: INSURANCE:
A. Each provider shall secure and maintain the following insurance policies insuring both the provider and the City against claims for death or injuries to Persons or damage to property which may arise from or in connection with the acts, omissions, or exercise of the rights, privileges, and authority granted to the provider:
1. Comprehensive general liability insurance, written on an occurrence basis, with limits not less than: a) three million dollars ($3,000,000) for bodily injury or death to each Person; and b) three million dollars ($3,000,000) for property damage resulting from any one accident;
2. Automobile liability insurance for owned, non-owned, and hired vehicles with a combined single limit of three million dollars ($3,000,000) for each accident;
3. Worker’s compensation within statutory limits and employer liability insurance with limits of not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000);
4. Excess umbrella liability with limits of no less than five million dollars ($5,000,000) per occurrence and in the aggregate.
B. Insurance shall be placed with insurers licensed to do business in the State with an A.M. Best rating of A VII or better. The liability insurance policies required by this subsection shall be maintained by the provider throughout the term of the permit, and such other period of time during which the provider has facilities in the public easement or is engaged in the removal of its facilities. Failure to maintain such insurance shall be grounds for cancellation of the permit, Franchise, or Agreement. The provider shall furnish acceptable certificate(s) of insurance, together with the endorsement naming the City to the City prior to the commandment of any work or installation of any facilities pursuant to any permit.
C. The provider’s insurance shall be primary and noncontributory insurance as respects the City. Any insurance maintained by the City shall be in excess of the provider’s insurance and shall not contribute with it. Maintenance of insurance shall not be construed to limit the liability of the provider to the coverage provided by such insurance or otherwise limit the City’s recourse to any remedy available at law or in equity.
D. In addition to the coverage requirements set forth in this subsection, the provider must notify the City in writing of any cancellation or reduction in coverage at least forty-five (45) days in advance. At least fifteen (15) days prior to cancellation or reduction in coverage, the provider shall obtain and furnish to the City replacement insurance and certificate(s) of insurance meeting the requirements of this section.
E. All insurance policies shall contain a waiver of subrogation against the City for any claims arising out of the provider’s work or service. The provider shall be responsible for all deductibles under the policies. (Ord. 2026-3, 3 Mar 2026)
2-5-25: INDEMNIFICATION:
A. A provider shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless the City from any and all actions, causes of action, suits, claims, costs, damages, expenses, attorney fees, judgments, settlements, awards, or liability to any Person or entity arising from injury, sickness, or death of any Person or damage to property arising out of the acts or omissions of the provider, its contractors of any tier, agents, servants, officers, or employees with regard to a permit, Franchise, Agreement, or operations.
B. Inspection or acceptance by the City of any work performed by the provider at the time of completion of construction shall not be grounds for avoidance of any of these covenants of indemnification. Provided, that the provider must be given written notice by the City of any such claim, and said indemnification obligations shall also extend to claims which are not reduced to a suit and any claims which may be compromised prior to the culmination of any litigation or the initiation of any litigation. The City has the right to defend or participate in the defense of any such claim and has the right to approve any settlement or other compromise of any such claim.
C. In the event that the provider refuses the tender of defense in any suit or claim, said tender having been made pursuant to this subsection, and said refusal is subsequently determined by a court having jurisdiction (or such other tribunal that the parties agree to decide the matter), to have been a wrongful refusal on the part of the provider, then the provider shall pay all of the City’s costs for defense of the action, including all expert witness fees, attorney fees, and expenses.
D. The obligations of the provider under the indemnification provisions of this subsection shall apply regardless of whether liability for damages arising out of bodily injury or death to Persons or damages to property were caused or contributed to by the negligence of the City, its officers, agents, employees or contractors. The court shall apportion liability accordingly. (Ord. 2026-3, 3 Mar 2026)
2-5-26: LIMITATION OF DAMAGES:
In no event shall the City be liable for any indirect, incidental, special, consequential, exemplary, or punitive damages, including by way of example and not limitation lost profits, lost revenue, loss of goodwill, or loss of business opportunity in connection with the City’s performance or failure to perform. The provider releases and waives any and all such claims against the City. (Ord. 2026-3, 3 Mar 2026)
2-5-27: CONSTRUCTION BOND:
Providers performing work in the public ways must also provide a construction bond acceptable to the City equal to at least one hundred fifty percent (150%) of the estimated cost of each phase of construction and restoring the public ways to their pre-construction condition. (Ord. 2026-3, 3 Mar 2026)
2-5-28: COORDINATION OF CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES:
All providers are required to cooperate with the City and with each other in coordination of construction activities. The City Public Works and Community Development Departments shall coordinate all construction locations, activities, and schedules to minimize public inconvenience, disruption, or damage to public easement. (Ord. 2026-3, 3 Mar 2026)
2-5-29: ASSIGNMENT OR TRANSFER:
Ownership or change in control of a permit, Franchise, or Agreement granted hereunder may not occur, directly or indirectly, or be transferred, assigned or disposed of by sale, merger, consolidation, or other act of a provider, without the prior written consent of the City, which shall not be unreasonably withheld. (Ord. 2026-3, 3 Mar 2026)
2-5-30: ADDITIONAL DUCTS OR CONDUITS:
City may require a provider that is constructing, relocating, or placing ducts or conduits in the public easement provide the City with additional ducts or conduits and related structures necessary to access the same. The terms and conditions under which such additional ducts and conduits shall be provided are subject to the mutual written agreement of the provider and City. (Ord. 2026-3, 3 Mar 2026)
2-5-31: CITY APPROVAL:
Upon completion of any construction, installation, maintenance, repair or replacement work, the permittee shall, to the satisfaction of the City, promptly repair and restore any and all public ways, City property and private property including improvements, fixtures, structures, and other facilities in the public easement, to as nearly as practicable their condition before the start of such work. All providers shall warrant such work for a period of at least one (1) year. (Ord. 2026-3, 3 Mar 2026)
2-5-32: ABOVE-GROUND FACILITIES:
Installation in the public easement of above-ground wires and facilities by providers may create safety hazards and adverse visual effects. Consequently, the City is authorized to impose reasonable conditions in order to mitigate those potential adverse effects. (Ord. 2026-3, 3 Mar 2026)
2-5-33: UNDERGROUND CONSTRUCTION AND BORING TECHNIQUES:
All underground construction and boring techniques are subject to the pre-approval of the City Engineer. In the event of non-compliance by a provider, the City Engineer shall give written notice and the provider shall have ten (10) days to cure the deficiency. If the deficiency is not cured to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, a written stop work order will be sent to the provider and no new permits will be issued until the deficiency or default is cured to the satisfaction of the City. (Ord. 2026-3, 3 Mar 2026)
2-5-34: CONFLICT:
In the event of a conflict between the regulations in this Chapter and any other provision of City Code, the regulations in this Chapter shall prevail. (Ord. 2026-3, 3 Mar 2026)
2-5-35: SEVERABILITY:
If any section, subsection, clause, or phrase of this Chapter, or its application to any Person or circumstance, is, for any reason, declared invalid, in whole or in part by any court or agency of competent jurisdiction, said decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions. (Ord. 2026-3, 3 Mar 2026)
Decision:In re Jarred A. Sprague and Elizabeth J. Sprague, Case No. 12-41099-JDP (Bankr. D. Idaho, 18 December 2013) Judge: Honorable Jim D. Pappas, United States Bankruptcy Judge Counsel for Debtors: Paul Ross, Idaho Bankruptcy Law, Paul, Idaho Chapter 13 Trustee: Kathleen A. McCallister, Meridian, Idaho Trustee’s Counsel: Alexandra O. Caval, Meridian, Idaho
Background
Jarred and Elizabeth Sprague filed a Chapter 13 petition on 2 August 2012. Their plan was confirmed on 12 October 2012, and the bar date for non-governmental creditors to file proofs of claim passed on 3 December 2012. Under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure (“FRBP”) 3004, the Debtors or Trustee had an additional 30 days — until 2 January 2013 — to file a proof of claim on behalf of any creditor that failed to do so.
The debt at issue arose in May 2009, when U.S. Bank closed Ms. Sprague’s bank account after a scam check deposited into the account bounced. Neither U.S. Bank nor its collection assignee, National Law Group (“NLG”), reported the resulting deficiency to any credit reporting agency, and neither contacted Ms. Sprague after the account was closed. When the Debtors compiled their bankruptcy schedules, they relied heavily on their credit reports — which showed no debt to U.S. Bank — and the obligation was omitted entirely from their filings.
In August 2013 — more than a year after the bar date — NLG contacted Ms. Sprague’s employer seeking to collect. Upon learning of the omitted debt, the Debtors promptly amended Schedule F to list U.S. Bank and NLG as creditors, served them with notice of the bankruptcy, and filed a motion to enlarge the time to file a proof of claim on their behalf under FRBP 3004 and FRBP 9006(b)(1).
The Trustee’s Objection
Trustee objected on several grounds. First, she argued the Debtors had not met the “excusable neglect” standard required under FRBP 9006(b)(1) to justify enlarging the FRBP 3004 deadline after its expiration. Relying on In re Schuster, 428 B.R. 833 (Bankr. E.D. Wis. 2010) — the only reported decision she could locate addressing this precise issue — the Trustee argued that the Debtors’ reason for delay was insufficient, as the account closure in 2009 should have put Ms. Sprague on notice that a claim might exist.
Second, the Trustee argued that granting the motion would prejudice the existing pool of unsecured creditors, who held approximately $37,894 in claims and whose pro-rata distributions would be reduced by the addition of a new creditor more than a year into the plan. She further contended that the omitted creditor itself would be prejudiced because its debt would be discharged upon plan completion — a result she argued was impermissible under 11 U.S.C. §§ 1328(a)(2) and 523(a)(3), which exclude from Chapter 13 discharge debts that are neither listed nor scheduled in time to permit a timely proof of claim.
The Debtors’ Brief
Debtors filed a detailed brief through their counsel addressing each of the Trustee’s arguments.
On the procedural question, Debtors’ counsel confirmed that FRBP 3004’s deadline, unlike FRBP 3002(c)’s creditor bar date, is not enumerated in FRBP 9006(b)(3)’s list of deadlines that can only be extended under their own specific conditions. FRBP 9006(b)(1) therefore applies, and the Court may enlarge the FRBP 3004 deadline upon a showing of excusable neglect.
On excusable neglect, Debtors distinguished Schuster on its facts. In Schuster, the debtor had purchased appliances on credit — physical items that provided tangible, ongoing reminders of an unpaid debt — yet still claimed to have forgotten the obligation. Here, by contrast, the Debtors had no collateral, no invoices, no collection contacts, and no credit report entry to put them on notice. Ms. Sprague did not merely forget a debt she knew existed — she was genuinely unaware that any debt was owed. Upon learning of it, she and her husband acted immediately. Debtors’ counsel also identified three unreported decisions from the District of Utah in which courts had granted similar enlargements under comparable circumstances.
On the Trustee’s standing to seek a non-dischargeability determination, Debtors argued that the Trustee lacked both constitutional and prudential standing to raise a dischargeability objection on behalf of a specific creditor. Dischargeability is a particularized right belonging to the individual creditor, not a general estate matter the Trustee may assert.
On dischargeability itself, Debtors argued that § 523(a)(3) would not apply if the Court granted the enlargement. If the time to file a proof of claim on behalf of NLG were enlarged under FRBP 9006(b)(1), the claim would be deemed timely filed under FRBP 3004, included in the plan’s pro-rata distribution to general unsecured creditors, and “provided for” under the plan within the meaning of § 1328(a). The harm § 523(a)(3) is designed to prevent — a creditor being denied both payment and discharge — would not exist.
The Court’s Ruling
Judge Pappas granted the Debtors’ motion in its entirety. Applying the four-factor equitable test from Pioneer Investment Services Co. v. Brunswick Associates Ltd. Partnership, 507 U.S. 380 (1993), the Court found that each factor weighed in the Debtors’ favor.
On prejudice, the Court found the impact on other unsecured creditors to be minimal. The omitted claim was approximately $1,500 in a pool of roughly $37,894 in unsecured debt — a modest reduction in pro-rata distributions that no creditor had objected to. As for the omitted creditor itself, the Court found it would actually benefit from having its claim filed and paid, rather than being left entirely outside the plan.
On the length and reason for delay, the Court found the delay understandable and outside the Debtors’ reasonable control. The creditor had made no contact for over four years, reported nothing to credit agencies, and provided no basis for the Debtors to know the debt existed. Upon learning of it, the Debtors acted promptly.
On good faith, the Court found no basis to question it — a conclusion the Trustee herself did not dispute.
The Court also expressly disagreed with the Trustee’s dischargeability argument, declining to follow Schuster on that point. Because the Court was enlarging the time to file a proof of claim under 11 U.S.C. § 501(c) and FRBP 3004 and 9006(b)(1), the creditor’s claim would be treated as timely filed. The Court doubted that §§ 1328(a)(2) and 523(a)(3)(A) compelled a contrary result under those circumstances, though it declined to rule definitively on the discharge issue as it was not formally before it.
The Order gave the Debtors fourteen days from 18 December 2013 to file the proof of claim for U.S. Bank.
Why This Matters
1. FRBP 9006(b)(1) can enlarge the FRBP 3004 deadline. Unlike the creditor bar date under FRBP 3002(c) — which is expressly restricted from enlargement except under its own terms by FRBP 9006(b)(3) — FRBP 3004’s debtor/trustee claim-filing window is not enumerated in FRBP 9006(b)(3). Courts therefore retain discretion to enlarge it upon a showing of excusable neglect. This is a critical distinction practitioners must understand when an omitted creditor surfaces mid-case.
2. Excusable neglect is highly fact-specific. The contrast between this case and Schuster illustrates how much the reason for delay matters in the excusable neglect analysis under Pioneer. A debtor who genuinely lacked knowledge of a debt — with no collateral, no billing, and no credit report entry — is in a materially different position than one who simply forgot about a known obligation.
3. Acting promptly upon discovery is essential. The Debtors’ immediate response — amending their schedules, serving the creditor, and filing the motion — was central to the Court’s good faith finding. Delay after discovery would have significantly weakened the equitable case for enlargement.
4. The Trustee lacks standing to raise dischargeability on behalf of a single creditor. A Chapter 13 trustee does not have constitutional or prudential standing to seek a dischargeability determination on behalf of a specific creditor. That creditor’s own silence — it filed no objection — reinforced the point.
5. Timely filing cures the § 523(a)(3) problem. Where a court enlarges the FRBP 3004 deadline and the debtor files a proof of claim on the omitted creditor’s behalf, that claim becomes timely for plan purposes. The debt is then “provided for” under § 1328(a), resolving the non-dischargeability concern under § 523(a)(3). Inclusion in the plan is the better outcome for all parties.
Full Decision: Available on PACER, Case No. 12-41099-JDP, Doc. 54 (Bankr. D. Idaho 18 December 2013) Order Granting Motion: Doc. 55 (Bankr. D. Idaho 18 December 2013)
Sagacity 