HomeMy WebLinkAboutRexburg 2020 Comprehensive Plan
City of Rexburg
2020 Comprehensive Plan
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 2
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073)
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073)
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073)
Table of Contents
Chapter 1: Introduction and Community Vision Statement ......................................................... 11
Chapter 2: Population and History ................................................................................................ 19
Chapter 3: Private Property Rights ............................................................................................... 33
Chapter 4: Schools and Transport ................................................................................................. 39
Chapter 5: Economic Development .............................................................................................. 43
Chapter 6: Land Use ..................................................................................................................... 65
Chapter 7: Natural Resources and Hazardous Areas .................................................................... 86
Chapter 8: Transportation ............................................................................................................. 94
Chapter 9: Public Services, Facilities, and Utilities .................................................................... 104
Chapter 10: Parks, Recreation, and Open Space......................................................................... 110
Chapter 11: Housing ................................................................................................................... 120
Chapter 12: Special Areas or Sites.............................................................................................. 134
Chapter 13: Community Design ................................................................................................. 136
Chapter 14: Impact Area ............................................................................................................. 144
Chapter 15: Implementation ....................................................................................................... 148
Maps ............................................................................................................................................ 156
Map 1. Locater Map ................................................................................................................ 156
Map 2. Rexburg Annexation History ...................................................................................... 157
Map 3. Rexburg Subdivision History ..................................................................................... 158
Map 4. BYU-Idaho Campus ................................................................................................... 159
Map 5. Future Land Use (9-3-2008) ....................................................................................... 160
Map 6. Rexburg Zoning Map (5-14-2008) ............................................................................. 161
Map 7. Soil Limitations for Dwellings with Basements ......................................................... 162
Map 8. Soil Limitations for Small Commercial Buildings ..................................................... 163
Map 9. Soil Limitations for Local Roads and Streets ............................................................. 164
Map 10. Future Transportation Plan ....................................................................................... 165
Map 11. Street Map................................................................................................................. 166
Map 12. Future Parks Recreation, and Open Space................................................................ 167
Map 13 Madison Trails ........................................................................................................... 168
Map 14. Impact Areas ............................................................................................................. 169
Appendix A: Planning Term and Concept Glossary................................................................... 170
Appendix B: “Open Space Zoning: What It Is & Why It Works”.............................................. 174
Appendix C: Transfer of Development Rights Program Administration Overview .................. 180
Appendix D: Employment Growth Projections .......................................................................... 186
Appendix E: Nearby Tourist Destinations, Facilities, and Attractions ....................................... 190
Appendix F: Sales Leakage ........................................................................................................ 194
Appendix G: Vocational Educational Opportunities .................................................................. 198
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 6
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073)
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Mayor
Shawn Larsen
City Council
Christopher Mann, Council President
Bart Stevens
Rex Erickson
Randall Schwendiman
Richard Woodland
Adam Stout
Planning Commission
Winston Dyer – Chair
Richie Webb
Randall Porter
Mary Ann Mounts
Thaine Robinson
Charles N. Andersen
Michael Ricks, Impact Area (Appointed by County)
Dan Hanna, Impact Area (Appointed by City & County)
Ted Hill, Impact Area (Appointed by City)
Staff
Gary Leikness, Planning and Zoning Administrator
Elaine McFerrin, Planning and Zoning Coordinator
Craig Rindlisbacher, GIS mapping
Talsan Shultzke, GIS mapping
Consultants
Cooper Roberts Simonsen Associates
Lewis Young Robertson and Burningham
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 8
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073)
PREFACE
The City of Rexburg Council, Planning and Zoning Commission, City staff, and the general public have
dedicated many hours to revising the Comprehensive Plan for the City of Rexburg. Special thanks are
extended to all those who continue to participate in the planning process.
A comprehensive plan is a living document. This plan for the year 2020 updates the plan completed in
1997. With new growth and changing conditions a comprehensive plan should also change. It is never
too late to get involved in the process and ongoing planning participation by the citizens of the
community is encouraged.
It is suggested that you check with City staff or the Planning and Zoning Commission to see what
amendments are currently being contemplated and add your input to the suggestions for possible
inclusion in future updates of the plan
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 10
Introduction and Community Vision Statement
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 11
Chapter 1: Introduction and Community Vision Statement
The Comprehensive plan is the official statement of the City’s legislative body (City Council),
which sets forth its major policies concerning desirable future physical development. The
published comprehensive plan includes a single unified physical design for the community and
it attempts to clarify the relationships between physical development policies and social and
economic goals. It consists of text, maps and other exhibits and includes all of the planning
elements required by Idaho Code Section 67-6508.
The comprehensive plan is specifically implemented through the City Planning and Zoning and
Subdivision Ordinances, as well as through administrative decision making. Therefore it is
critical for public officials to remain well versed in the current plan to assure that day to day
decision making does not in some way disrupt the policies and long term initiatives outlined
herein.
Rexburg is in the middle of substantial changes. As these changes are made, it is important
that they be compatible with the efficient functioning of the rest of the community for the
present and for the future. When a community begins to think about how present decisions
are affecting what their town will become, the planning process has begun.
In order to develop a plan that reflects what citizens want their community to be in the future,
the ideas and desires of its citizens should be collected. The existing conditions should be
inventoried, and then the citizens should decide what opportunities and problems exist. Once
the opportunities and constraints have been identified, goals and policies should be developed
to maximize the opportunities and mitigate the constraints. Finally, a course of action for
implementing the policies is prepared. When the planning process is complete, the finished
product is:
A collection of ideas and desires of the citizens of the community as to what they want
for their community in the future.
A statement adopted by the governing body listing its objectives and policies for future
development that informs property owners, developers, citizens, and the public
agencies of the city’s intentions.
A guide for decision making for the advisory and governing bodies in the city, federal,
and state agencies considering the funding of projects within the city.
Community Vision Statement
Residents of Rexburg have chosen to live here because they enjoy the current
quality of life, aesthetics, recreational opportunities, mix of land uses, and patterns
of development that the City provides. The primary vision of the City of Rexburg
Comprehensive Plan is to ensure that these qualities are maintained, preserved, and
enhanced.
The City of Rexburg is a community that highly values its history of a well-maintained
residential community. The preservation of quality of life is of utmost importance to residents
and business owners. Rexburg views itself as a city where residents, tourists, businesses, and
Introduction and Community Vision Statement
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 12
government come together to create an attractive, safe, and well-maintained community
where people can live, learn, work, and recreate.
The City recognizes the importance of preserving private property rights. All land use
decisions, policies, and procedures should be implemented in such a way that public good and
private rights are equally balanced.
The City of Rexburg sees the vital and central purpose of education in the community.
Opportunities for collaboration among organizations to expand educational opportunities for
the public will be explored and built upon. Leaders of school districts, teachers groups, private
schools, and businesses should all work together to consistently improve the quality of
education found in Rexburg. At the heart of Rexburg is Brigham Young University-Idaho. The
City will seek to increase coordination with BYU-I in order to improve the quality of education
for students of all levels.
The City is interested in improving the function and appearance of City streets, and increasing
the variety of transportation options. The ideal is a transportation system that balances safety,
service, community character, and convenience. Rexburg strives to provide a circulation
network that accommodates all modes of transportation. Alternatives to the automobile will
increase accessibility to those residents and patrons not well served by private vehicles, enrich
the community and its neighborhoods, and contribute to the community's quality of life.
A network of urban trails is a desire of the City and its residents. A trail system would allow
residents, both young and elderly, to easily access the resources of the City without driving.
Public places should be linked to
residential neighborhoods, and
commercial areas by a well-maintained
trail system and landscaped roadways,
so that the community's amenities are
noticeable and convenient for visitors
and residents. Use of public and/or
civic property for trail alignments
should take priority, and trail
alignments should not require removal
of housing units or condemnation of
private property.
The city is economically sustainable
and has vibrant business districts.
Rexburg strives to maintain a
supportive and friendly environment
for these businesses as they help
define a significant part of the city’s
economic base. “Home grown”
businesses have been a staple of the
community for years, but have
difficultly competing against larger retailers. Rexburg values these small, locally owned
businesses and is supportive of helping these businesses become a stronger economic force.
As the gateway to the Yellowstone and Grand Teton area, Rexburg welcomes visitors and
tourists and is uniquely situated to build upon tourism as a contributor to its economic base.
The City strives to attract businesses that will serve the needs of the residents and tourists,
promote the attractive image and appearance of the community, support and increase the
general income and prosperity of the City, and complement the City’s character as a gateway
to this naturally beautiful area
The City is interested in ensuring a harmony of land uses, and maintaining existing densities
and land use patterns. Residents take pride in their homes and strive to maintain them
Rexburg residents take pride in their neighborhoods and
landmarks such as shown in the above image.
Introduction and Community Vision Statement
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 13
appropriately. In residential areas, the City desires to increase access to parks and open
space, and provide convenient recreational facilities. In commercial areas, the City desires
well-maintained, attractive streetscapes with lighting and landscaping, attractive and enduring
architecture, restrained use of signs, and landscaped parking areas. Residents and business-
owners make individual investments to the community by beautifying their environment
through well-maintained homes and businesses. The City is working alongside these
stakeholders by beautifying the City and enhancing the City image, especially in gateway
areas and activity centers.
The City has expressed an interest in creating more permanent open spaces and parks; and
protecting those that already exist. Citizens value the variety of recreational opportunities
available. Both formal programs and informal recreational opportunities exist, which can be
enjoyed by both the very young and the elderly. Parks and playgrounds are scattered
throughout the City, and surrounding areas provide a variety of outdoor recreational
opportunities.
Developing attractive, efficient, and affordable housing is always one of Rexburg’s central
concerns. Planning for future housing needs, while maintaining a reasonable level of
affordability, will help the City develop a vibrant and sustainable economy - allowing families
to enjoy the many amenities of the surrounding region.
Overall Goals of this Comprehensive Planning Effort
1. To improve the physical environment of the community as a setting for human
activities-to make it more functional, beautiful, decent, healthful, interesting, and
efficient.
2. To promote the public interest, the interest of the community at large, rather than the
interests of individuals or special groups within the community.
3. To facilitate the democratic determination and implementation of community policies
on the physical development.
4. To effect the political and technical coordination in community development.
5. To inject long-range considerations into the determination of short-range actions.
6. To bring professional and technical knowledge to bear on the making of political
decisions concerning the physical development of the community.
7. To maintain high levels of interaction with the public for planning and decision-making.
Encourage citizen input when considering code modifications.
Planning Area Included
The Rexburg Comprehensive Plan shall guide land use decisions affecting all the lands within
the incorporated boundary of the City, as well as all lands outside of the incorporated
boundary of the City but within the designated City of Rexburg Impact Area.
Purpose and Authority
This comprehensive plan is a policy document. It is to be used as a guide by public officials in
the:
Preparation of specific project plans,
Prioritization of public facility improvements,
Adoption of land use and transportation related ordinances, and
Review of development proposals.
Comprehensive Plan Purpose and Authority
Idaho state law requires that each city and county prepare and adopt a comprehensive, long-
range plan to identify and plan for present and future needs of the community as well as
address growth and development of land within the community.
Introduction and Community Vision Statement
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 14
Idaho Code §67-6508 authorizes local governments to prepare comprehensive plans for their
communities. According to the statute, the plan should consider previous and existing
conditions, trends, desirable goals and objectives, or desirable future situations for each
planning component. The plan should include the following components, unless the plan
specifies reasons why a particular component is unneeded.
Property Rights
Population
School Facilities and Transportation
Economic Development
Land Use
Natural Resources
Hazardous Areas
Public Services, Facilities, and Utilities
Transportation
Recreation
Special Areas or Sites
Housing
Community Design
Implementation
National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors
This plan is organized around these chapters, with a few modifications. Natural Resources and
Hazardous areas have been combined into a single chapter. Additionally, the National Interest
Electric Transmission Corridors chapter has been omitted, as it is not applicable to Madison
County. Finally, a new section on Impact Areas has been added.
A Comprehensive Plan sets out to capture and articulate a common vision for residents,
businesses, property owners, and city and County staff and officials for future growth and
development of the community. It is a guiding document adopted by the community to help
decision-makers evaluate development proposals and implement a desired future for the
community. According to The Practice of Local Government Planning,
First, it is a physical plan. Although reflection of social and economic values,
the plan is fundamentally a guide to the physical development of the
community. It translates values into a scheme that describes how, why, when,
and where to build, rebuild, or preserve the community.
A second characteristic of the comprehensive plan is that it is long-range,
covering a time period greater than one year, usually five years or more.
A third characteristic of the comprehensive plan is that it is comprehensive. It
covers the entire city geographically – not merely one or more section. It also
encompasses all the functions that make a community work, such as
transportation, housing, land use, utility systems, and recreation. Moreover,
the plan considers the interrelationships of functions.
Finally, a comprehensive plan is a guide to decision-making by the Planning
Commission and City Council, mayor, and/or manager.
A comprehensive plan typically has a life of around five years, but looks forward at least
twenty years to anticipate how the community will accommodate changes in population,
demographic, economic, and social trends. Developing the City of Rexburg Comprehensive
Plan is an opportunity to consider the community as it is today, determine what is working
well, and what needs to change to make it better. The Comprehensive plan also gives Madison
County an opportunity to plan for anticipated changes in community priorities, transportation
Introduction and Community Vision Statement
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 15
options, and changing demands for various land uses such as housing, commerce, and open
space.
Planning Process
The Rexburg Comprehensive Plan Update process
began with a kickoff meeting with the City Council
and Planning Commission. At this meeting a
schedule for updating the plan was established and
a preliminary list of issues and ideas was compiled.
The City Council and Planning Commission met
monthly throughout the process to provide
feedback on the plan direction.
Since the purpose of a comprehensive plan is to
define a vision for the future of a community and
develop a guiding framework to implement that
vision, public participation is a critical component
of the planning process. To solicit public input,
three public workshops were held in Rexburg. At
the workshops, members of the public were broken
into small groups to facilitate greater discussion. A
rotating team of facilitators moved through the groups, each soliciting input on a particular
category of issues. The topics, identified by the City Council and Planning Commission as the
biggest concerns for the City were: Growth Management and Development Patterns, Land Use
and Open Space, Economic Development, and Infrastructure (transportation, utilities, and
services). Comments from the public were recorded on large flip charts and were later used to
guide the development of the Comprehensive Plan’s goals and objectives.
In addition, a survey was circulated in addition to the formal workshop exercise to give
members of the public additional opportunities to comment. The respo nse number for the
survey was small, but the feedback and comments were valuable and reinforced the
comments heard at the public meetings.
The ideas and comments gathered from the public and the County staff and officials, were
used to develop a community vision statement for the County, a set of goals and objectives
for the comprehensive plan, and a draft future land use map. These plan components were
refined and updated through the planning process as planning concepts were explored.
A public hearing was held on July 17, 2008 before the Rexburg Planning and Zoning
Commission. The Commission considered public comments and made a recommendation to
the City Council that the Draft Rexburg Comprehensive Plan be adopted. The City Council
hosted a public hearing on August 6, 2008 to receive comments on the draft Plan. The City
Council tabled the adoption of the plan, and scheduled a joint work session with the Planning
Commission to discuss modifications to the Draft Plan. The work session was held on August
25, 2008 and several modifications were made to both the Comprehensive Plan text and map.
The City Council reconvened on September 3, 20008 and the Comprehensive Plan Map was
adopted. The Comprehensive Plan text was further revised, and adopted by the City Council
on November 19, 2008.
Using and Updating the Comprehensive Plan
A Comprehensive Plan is typically revisited and revised every few years in response to
changing community priorities, technologies, market demands, or other unforeseen
circumstances. This should be a living document, one that it used on a regular basis and
updated as needed. The City should review the plan goals and policies annually, and minor
revisions to the land use plan map are allowed every 6 months by Idaho Code §67-6509.
Determining today’s needs and tomorrow’s opportunity is
vital in developing the future look and feel of Rexburg.
Introduction and Community Vision Statement
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 16
There are no restrictions on how frequently the text may be amended. When considering an
amendment to the plan, decision-makers should ask themselves, “Have conditions changed so
that the plan does not reflect the City’s preferred development patterns or its current goals?”
If this question cannot be answered affirmatively, any amendment should be considered with
caution.
Trends, Conditions and Needs
The City of Rexburg has a long history of strong public investment into safety, education,
recreation, and culture. The City of Rexburg has a strong tradition of safeguarding family
values. The community has a vibrant population of young people and much of the emphasis of
the community has been providing opportunities for youth to grow up and develop in a healthy
family oriented atmosphere.
The community has placed special emphasis on maintaining an environment of public safety
and has invested in a strong local police force to maintain that environment.
Education in Rexburg is first rate. Starting in the excellent elementary schools and extending
through to high school, students learn from well prepared and disciplined teachers. Education
has a long tradition of fine graduates and teachers are known for their dedication to the
mission of educating their students. Rexburg has strong educational and vocational programs
for persons with disabilities and special needs.
Rexburg has traditionally supported strong recreation programs. These programs involve
many sectors of the youth population and have provided an atmosphere of responsibility and
growth for our residents.
Rexburg has a very diverse population as
students from 60 countries and most all 50
states attend the University. These students
make up approximately half the current
population of the City. Rexburg is also the Host
City for the Idaho International Folk Dance
Festival. Dance teams from all over the world
share their talents and culture each year
during this annual event.
Brigham Young University – Idaho
The transition of Ricks College into a four-year
University, Brigham Young University-Idaho,
will continue to have major impact on the
community over next several decades. The
change has brought many new students to the area, and the University is working to increase
its capacity and ability to educate more students.
Thousands of new multi-family dwellings have been constructed and apartments have
continued to spring up in the multi-family zones. A perceived housing shortage has now
mushroomed into what is at present a perceived overbuild. Time and continued growth will
obviously balance this ratio.
BYU-Idaho continues to have a major impact on the
dynamics of the City.
Introduction and Community Vision Statement
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 17
Cultural Expectations
Cultural expectations in Rexburg are an interesting study in history and hope for the future.
Many in Rexburg feel that the community has always had a strong sense of expectation and
hope for the long-term growth of the community. Many of the design and layout criteria
included in the original plat reflect the vision of the pioneers who settled this region.
The community has been laid out to provide almost endless expansion capability. Road
systems which include conformance to a “grid” layout make it easier and cost-effective when
extending the road system and utilities into new growth areas.
The residents of Rexburg want to maintain the basic design layout of the community. It allows
residents to enjoy a summer sky and gives a sense of place and openness to the community.
These things are important to maintaining these historic roots and not become an “anywhere
USA” generic community.
Transition and Change
Several major components in the City of Rexburg are in the middle of dramatic change.
Transportation systems that have in the past been at high levels of service have declined. The
City and County recently cooperated in providing funding and data to support a new
transportation plan which has been incorporated into this plan by reference and also directly.
Population increase has made it possible for new commercial development to spring up and for
several local businesses to expand. Commercial developments are anticipated to continue to
expand.
New development has made it necessary to annex various areas into the City of
Rexburg. The City has annexed more land in the past few years than the total
combination of annexations during the entire history of the City.
As a result of the pressures of growth, many single-family neighborhoods have
begun transitioning to areas of multi-family, including dormitory housing. A positive
consequence, largely as a result of this neighborhood transition, has been the
formation of neighborhood associations that have organized and are now becoming
involved with City government in assessing and making recommendations on issues that
impact their areas.
There has also been a renewed interest in the community in investing in the revitalization of
the downtown area. This goal is being strongly supported by the City in the form of
development of a downtown blueprint or revitalization plan. This effort supports the desires of
the community to maintain a nucleated or centristic community where the downtown functions
as the core from which the rest of the community radiates. Success of this effort is the critical
grassroots desire of the business and property owners in the downtown rallying to the support
of this initiative to bring rapid public and private investment to bear.
Community Needs
Some of the needs identified by the citizens of Rexburg through the public hearing and
planning processes are as follows:
Downtown Rexburg will be an inviting place to shop, visit, and spend time.
The community will be informed and involved.
Rexburg should have excellent police, fire, and emergency services.
Maintain a positive community identity.
Introduction and Community Vision Statement
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 18
Develop a comprehensive economic development strategy and create a climate that
facilitates business expansion and retention, as well as attraction of new businesses.
Rexburg will continue to develop a variety of multi-use recreational activities and
facilities for all residents.
Rexburg should implement a trail system throughout the community, with emphasis
on the greenway along the river corridor.
The citizens of Rexburg would like to see more sit down restaurants.
Rexburg needs more clothing shops.
Rexburg needs to expand new school facilities to meet growing needs.
The library facility is being expanded to meet growing needs.
There is a demand for expanded County/City recreation facilities
Community needs will be further addressed in the individual sections of the comprehensive
plan and will be identified as goals and objectives. Action steps toward accomplishing these
goals will be listed as policies needed to obtain these listed goals.
Population and History
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 19
Chapter 2: Population and History
History
The first inhabitants of the Madison County area were Bannock, Snake, Lemhi, Blackfoot and
Crow Indians, who lived there for short periods of time, hunting and resting en route to
trading rendezvous. The first white men to pass through the area were members of Andrew
Henry's party of trappers, who spent the winter of 1810 a short distance from what is now St.
Anthony.
For the next seventy years, trappers harvested pelts from all over the Upper Snake River
Valley. "Beaver Dick", Richard Leigh, was the most famous, He lived with his first wife, Jenny,
an Eastern Shoshone, and his six children on the Snake River five miles from Rexburg. In
1876, a smallpox epidemic took the lives of his family. He married another Indian woman,
Susan Tadpole, and they had three children. Leigh knew the area well and once guided
Theodore Roosevelt on a hunting trip. A County park monument and a picnic area west of
Rexburg are named after him.
In 1882, President John Taylor of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS) called
Thomas E. Ricks to be Bishop of the Bannock L.D.S. Ward, which included all of eastern Idaho.
Ricks set out immediately to select "a central point for religious, educational and commercial
enterprises, and to prepare the way for rapid colonization of the country." A site was selected
and when word of the settlement got back to Utah, people were eager to come. Surveyor
Andrew S. Anderson, Ricks and William B Preston set up survey lines for a new town March
11, 1883 and named it Ricksburg (This was later changed to Rexburg in conformity with Ricks'
German stem name). Mormon Church members were called by their leaders to settle many
areas, but this wasn't true of the Upper Snake River Valley. Volunteers arrived to settle the
country as fast as the land could handle them, despite poor wagon roads, treacherous river
crossings and a very difficult journey from Utah. By the end of 1883, there were 815 members
on the Bannock Ward records and by the end of 1884, there were 1,420. Many large counties
were carved up in Idaho's history before the present boundaries were established" Madison
County area was within Oneida County from 1864 to 1885; within Bingham County from 1885
to 1893 and within Fremont County from 1893 to 1913. There had been some contention
between St. Anthony and Rexburg over which city should be the County seat, and finally
Rexburg's leading citizens started a drive to divide the County. After much political haggling
and a public election, Madison County was created November 8, 1913.
(This narrative was based on information collected and contributed by Louis S. Clements,
Harold S. Forbush and Debra Holm)
Population
The City of Rexburg is located in Madison County in the southeastern part of Idaho,
surrounded by Bonneville, Jefferson, Teton and Fremont counties. In geographic size, Madison
County is the second smallest county in the region, with approximately 473 square miles, and
is only slightly larger than Teton County. However, the County has the second-largest
population in the regional area, primarily as a result of the substantial student population at
BYU-Idaho.
Population and History
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 20
Rexburg is the county seat of Madison County and the largest city within the County. Rexburg
has an estimated year 2007 population of over 27,000 residents (including students). Sugar
City, the second-largest city, had an estimated population of over 1,500 persons in 2007.
The educational system in Rexburg
offers many employment opportunities
and brings people from across the
nation to the city. BYU-Idaho was
converted from a two-year college,
formerly known as Rick’s College from
1923-2000, to a four-year college on
August 10, 2001. BYU-Idaho is the
largest employer in Madison County and
attracts students from all 50 states and
more than 30 foreign countries.
Population and Growth
Historically, until 2002, population
growth in Rexburg had been relatively
slow. Since 2002, following the
announcement of the expansion of BYU-
Idaho, population growth has been
extremely rapid. From 1980 to 1990, the City’s population increased from 11,559 to 14,302
persons – an average annual rate of 2.2 percent. Rexburg’s population increased from 14,302
residents in 1990 to 17,257 residents in 2000, reflecting an average annual growth rate of 1.9
percent.
POPULATION OF
REGIONAL AREA
COUNTY
POPULATION
2007
SQUARE
MILES
Bonneville 96,740 1,901
Fremont 12,468 1,896
Jefferson 22,917 1,106
Madison 37,722 473
Teton 8,171 451
Source: U.S. Census Data 2006,
LYRB
Population and History
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 21
-5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
Rexburg Sugar City Madison Co
POPULATION GROWTH
1990 2000
TOTAL
GROWTH
GROWTH
RATE
PERCENT
GROWTH
Rexburg
14,302
17,257
2,955 2% 20.66%
Sugar City
1,275
1,242
(33) 0% -2.59%
Madison
Co.
23,674
27,467
3,793 1% 16.02%
Source: Census Data 1990, 2000; LYRB
The bar graph represents the growth that occurred between 1990 and 2000 in Rexburg, Sugar
City and Madison County. Rexburg has consistently represented more than half of the County’s
population over that time period.
Madison County grew from a population of 19,480 in 1980 to 23,674 in 1990, and then
increased to 27,467 in 2000. The growth rate in Madison County from 1990 to 2000 is similar
to the growth in Bonneville and Jefferson counties over the same time period, and nearly
double the rate experienced in Fremont County. However, Teton County grew at a significantly
faster rate from 1990 to 2000. Teton County experienced exceptionally rapid growth due to
significant growth in the Grand Targhee Resort area, including second homes and overflow
building from Jackson Hole Resort.
Population and History
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 22
COUNTY GROWTH COMPARISON
1990 2000 TOTAL GROWTH PERCENT GROWTH
Bonneville 72,207 82,522 10,315 1.3%
Fremont 10,937 11,819 882 0.8%
Jefferson 16,543 19,155 2,612 1.5%
Madison 23,674 27,467 3,793 1.5%
Teton 3,439 5,999 2,560 5.7%
Source: Census Data, LYRB
More recently, from 2000 to 2006, Rexburg and Madison County have experienced extremely
rapid growth, with Rexburg increasing by an estimated 9,375 residents and an average annual
growth rate of 7.7 percent. As a result of the expansion of the university, peak periods of
growth in the City occurred in 2003 and 2004, with growth rates reaching over 16 percent and
12 percent respectively. As of 2006, Rexburg’s population was approximately 27,000.
CITY OF REXBURG POPULATION GROWTH
CENSUS 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Rexburg, ID 17,257 17,677 17,750 18,847 22,014 24,721 26,265 26,992
Average Annual Growth
Rate 0.4% 6.2% 16.8% 12.3% 6.2% 2.8%
Source: City of Rexburg; 2007 data is not yet available from the City.
Future growth projections for Rexburg and Madison County are shown in the following table.
The population projections are based on the growth rates provided by the Idaho Department
of Commerce and Labor, beginning with updated year 2006 population figures as reflected by
the building permit data obtained from Rexburg, Sugar City and Madison County.
POPULATION PROJECTIONS
2006 2010 2015 2020
Rexburg 26,992 29,452 32,696 35,805
Sugar City 1,505 1,642 1,823 1,996
Other Madison County 9,225 10,066 11,174 12,237
TOTAL - Madison
County 37,722 41,159 45,693 50,038
Sensitivity:*
Madison County -- +1
percent 37,722 42,794 49,880 57,358
*Sensitivity analysis was used to explore the impacts of higher growth rates than those
projected by the Idaho Department of Commerce and Labor.
Growth rates provided by the Idaho Department of Commerce and Labor are as follows: 2.2
percent from 2006 to 2010; 2.1 percent from 2010 to 2015; and 1.8 percent from 2015 to
2020. At this pace, Madison County will reach a population over 50,000 by 2020. While the
County has recently experienced a far more rapid growth rate, it will be difficult to sustain
such rapid rates in the future – especially due to the fact that a large portion of this increase
came from the one-time announcement of the expansion of BYU-Idaho. A comparison of the
revised projections (i.e., projections based on updated 2006 population data) with those of the
Idaho Department of Commerce and Labor are shown in the following table. Both methods use
the same future growth rates – the difference is in the 2006 data. The revised estimate
updates the Department of Commerce and Labor figures with building permit data provided by
Rexburg, Madison County and Sugar City.
Population and History
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 23
REVISED POPULATION PROJECTIONS
Madison County
2006 2010 2015 2020
Revised 37,722 41,159 45,693 50,038
Idaho Commerce and Labor
Comparison 31,970 34,860 38,700 42,380
BYU-Idaho Enrollment
The ceiling at BYU-Idaho is for the equivalent of 12,500 full-time students.1 Any increase in
the ceiling would result in accompanying population growth for faculty and support staff at the
university, as well as the increased need for goods and services locally which would have the
multiplier effect of generating additional jobs in the community. Based on the data provided
by BYU-Idaho, there is no reason to assume any significant growth in enrollment in the near
term.
BYU-IDAHO ENROLLMENT DATA
TERM ENROLLMENT
Fall 2006 14,116
Winter 2007 13,778
Summer 2007 9,011
Fall 2007 12,842
Summer 2008 Anticipates equal enrollment with Fall and Winter
semesters
Source: BYU-Idaho
BYU-IDAHO HISTORICAL ENROLLMENT DATA
YEAR ENROLLMENT YEAR ENROLLMENT
1984-85 6,318 1997-98 8,277
1985-86 6,880 1998-99 8,551
1986-87 6,931 1999-2000 8,628
1987-88 7,374 2000-01 8,949
1988-89 7,694 2001-02 9,200
1989-90 7,784 2002-03 10,703
1990-91 7,795 2003-04 11,137
1991-92 7,968 2004-05 11,555
1992-93 7,943 2005-06 12,303
1993-94 8,217 2006-07 13,523
1994-95 7,989 2007-08 13,155
1995-96 7,956 2008-09 12,760
1996-97 7,755 2009-10 12,760
Source: BYU-Idaho
Educational Attainment
Of the population over 25 years of age in Rexburg, 23.1 percent have attended some college
and 16.2 percent have obtained a Bachelor’s degree. The County has a slightly higher rate of
1 Actual head count may exceed 12,500 students, due to part-time enrollment.
Population and History
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 24
college attendees (27.2 percent), but a somewhat lower percentage with college degrees
(14.4 percent). Statewide, 27.3 percent have attended some college, with only 14.8 percent
receiving a degree.
EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT
REXBURG
MADISON
COUNTY IDAHO
Attended some
college, no
degree
23.1% 27.2% 27.3%
Bachelor’s
degree 16.2% 14.4% 14.8%
Source: United States Census 2000
Age Distribution
Population trends by age group drive future housing
and community development needs, as well as
potential opportunities for economic development.
The median age of Rexburg residents increased
from 19 in 1990 to 20.3 in 2000. This is much lower
than the median age of the State of Idaho, which
was at 33.2 years in 2000, and the nationwide
median age of 35.3 years. The significantly lower
median age in Rexburg reflects the large number of
college students in residence in Rexburg.
The fastest-growing age groups in Rexburg from
1990 to 2000 were the 20 to 24 year-old group, (56
percent increase); and those aged over 75 (37
percent increase). The age groups that lost
population were residents aged 5 to 9 years, with an
18 percent decrease; and residents aged 25 to 34
years, with a four percent decrease.
Madison County experienced similar trends to those
in Rexburg, where the median age increased from
19 in 1990 to 20.7 in 2000. The fastest-growing age
groups in Madison County were residents between
the ages of 20 to 24 years old (a 50 percent
increase), and residents in the 45 to 64-year old
range (a 42 percent increase in population).
Population pyramids illustrate the extremely young population in Rexburg, as well as shifting
trends from 1990 to 2000.
Population and History
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 25
Population Pyramid for Rexburg City 1990
2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 500 1000 1500 2000
Under 5 years
5 to 9 years
10 to 14 years
15 to 17 years
18 and 19 years
20 and 21 years
22 to 24 years
25 to 29 years
30 to 34 years
35 to 39 years
40 to 44 years
45 to 49 years
50 to 54 years
55 to 59 years
60 and 61 years
62 to 64 years
65 to 69 years
70 to 74 years
75 to 79 years
80 to 84 years
85 years and over
Female - 7,919
Male - 6,383
Population Pyramid for Rexburg City 2000
4500 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Under 5 years
5 to 9 years
10 to 14 years
15 to 17 years
18 and 19 years
20 and 21 years
22 to 24 years
25 to 29 years
30 to 34 years
35 to 39 years
40 to 44 years
45 to 49 years
50 to 54 years
55 to 59 years
60 and 61 years
62 to 64 years
65 and 66 years
67 to 69 years
70 to 74 years
75 to 79 years
80 to 84 years
85 years and
Female - 9,462
Male - 7,795
The average age in Rexburg has historically been extremely low. In 2000, nearly 40 percent of
the female population was between the ages of 18 and 19, and 52 percent was between the
ages of 18 and 21.
Race
The 1990 Census indicates that the vast majority of the citizens of
Rexburg were white (96 percent), while only three percent came from
Hispanic origin. As of the 2000 Census, the white population remained
fairly constant at 95.2 percent. With the expansion of BYU-Idaho, more
students may be attracted from around the world, and thus expand the
ethnic diversity of the community. Other than the white population,
Asians are the biggest single race, representing 0.7 percent of the
overall population of Rexburg.
PERCENT OF POPULATION
(RACE CHARACTERISTICS)
PERCENT OF POPULATION
White 95.2%
Asian 0.7%
Black or African American 0.3%
Native Hawaiian 0.3%
Some Other Race 2.2%
Source: Census 2000
Population Pyramid for The State of Idaho 2000
60,000 40,000 20,000 0 20,000 40,000 60,000
Under 5 years
5 to 9 years
10 to 14 years
15 to 17 years
18 and 19 years
20 years
21 years
22 to 24 years
25 to 29 years
30 to 34 years
35 to 39 years
40 to 44 years
45 to 49 years
50 to 54 years
55 to 59 years
60 and 61 years
62 to 64 years
65 and 66 years
67 to 69 years
70 to 74 years
75 to 79 years
80 to 84 years
85 years and over
Female - 645,293
Male - 648,660
Figure 2.4 Figure 1.4
Population and History
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 26
Housing Characteristics
During the 1990’s, the number of households in Rexburg increased from 3,410 to 4,274.
Growth escalated from 2000 through 2006, with a total of 6,478 households at the end of
2006 and an estimated population of nearly 27,000.
The average household size in Rexburg is 3.71 persons, slightly larger than the County
average of 3.66. The average statewide is 2.69 persons, while the average nationwide is 2.59
persons. This is an important statistic, when compared to household incomes, and suggests
that Rexburg households, due to their large size, may have less discretionary income than
other areas in the state and nation.
With such a large student population, the number of non-family households is large – 44
percent of the households in Rexburg. In Madison County, the percentage of non-family
households is a somewhat smaller 32 percent, while the percentage statewide is only 29
percent.
Income
Between the years 1990 and 2000, the median household income in Rexburg grew from
$19,962 to $26,965 – an increase of 35 percent. Statewide, household incomes in Idaho grew
from $25,257 to $37,572, an increase of 49 percent.
Neighboring Sugar City reported a median household income that was $18,535 above that of
Rexburg. Madison County was $5,642 above Rexburg’s $26,965, and the State of Idaho
reported a median household income of $37,572, which was just over $10,000 greater than
the median household income of Rexburg.
MEDIAN
HOUSEHOLD
INCOME
DIFFERENCE
FROM
REXBURG
Rexburg $26,965 $0
Sugar City $45,500 $18,535
Madison County $32,607 $5,642
Idaho $37,572 $10,607
Source: Census Data 2000
In the 1990’s, almost 70 percent of Rexburg households had incomes of less than $30,000
annually, and more than one-third of households had incomes of less than $15,000. Only 15
percent of households earned over $50,000. Madison County’s income distribution is similar to
Rexburg’s, although fewer households earned less than $15,000 and the County had a higher
percentage of upper-income households.
In 2000, slightly more than 50 percent of Rexburg residents had incomes less than $30,000,
compared to 69 percent in 1990. Less than one quarter of residents had incomes less than
$15,000, compared to 35 percent in 1990. Madison County had the lowest overall incomes in
the regional area, largely due to the lower student incomes in Rexburg.
Population and History
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 27
MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD
INCOME 2000
County Median Income
Bonneville $ 41,805
Fremont $ 33,424
Jefferson $ 37,737
Madison $ 32,607
Teton $ 41,968
Source: Census 2000
The difference in income between Rexburg and Madison County illustrates the impact of the
students (who generally have lower incomes) that reside in Rexburg. Student incomes are
particularly apparent in the average per capita incomes of Rexburg.
PER CAPITA INCOMES
Per Capita Income
Rexburg $9,173
Madison County $10,956
State of Idaho $17,841
USA $21,587
Bonneville County $18,326
Fremont County $13,965
Jefferson County $13,838
Madison County $10,956
Teton County $17,778
Source: United States Census 2000
Earnings and Employment
Madison County’s employment structure has changed over the past three decades. Although
Madison County has been a farm-based community, employment in the County has moved
away from agricultural employment. In 1970, the three largest employment areas were
services, farming, and government, which together accounted for nearly two-thirds of all jobs
in Madison County. The fastest-growing sectors from 1970 to 1980 were construction,
manufacturing, and wholesale trade.
In the 1980s, employment moved further away from agriculture and toward the retail trade
sector. Retail trade grew more than 50 percent during the 1980’s. By 1990, the service sector
dominated the employment base with 35 percent of total employment, followed by retail trade
at 16 percent. The fastest-growing industries from 1990 to 1999 were construction, finance,
insurance and real estate, and wholesale trade.
During the past ten years, the largest employment increases have been in professional and
business services, followed by educational and health services. The largest wage increases
have been in educational and health services; and in manufacturing.
Population and History
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 28
1996 2006 DIFFERENCE
Madison
County
Average
Employment Percent
Average
Wage
Average
Employment Percent
Average
Wage
Average
Employment Percent
Average
Wage
Total Covered
Wages 8,476 100% $ 17,987 12,224 100% $ 24,487 3,748 $ 6,500
Agriculture 361 4% $ 18,263 347 3% $ 26,481
(14) -1% $ 8,218
Construction 262 3% $ 19,459 649 5% $ 23,257 387 2% $ 3,798
Manufacturing 1,153 14% $ 18,152 1,085 9% $ 27,352
(68) -5% $ 9,200
Trade, Utilities
and
Transportation 2,360 28% $ 15,447 2,609 21% $ 23,027 249 -7% $ 7,580
Information 82 1% $ 13,254 144 1% $ 19,669 62 0% $ 6,415
Financial
Activities 287 3% $ 15,235 486 4% $ 22,865 199 1% $ 7,630
Professional
and Business
Services 365 4% $ 16,631 1,833 15% $ 17,713 1,468 11% $ 1,082
Educational
and Health
Services 1,417 17% $ 27,673 2,065 17% $ 36,952 648 0% $ 9,279
Leisure and
Hospitality 698 8%
$
6,459 1,053 9% $ 9,108 355 0% $ 2,649
Other Services 116 1% $ 13,669 148 1% $ 19,159 32 0% $ 5,490
Government 1,375 16% $ 19,288 1,804 15% $ 27,771 429 -1% $ 8,483
Source: Idaho Department of Labor, LYRB
Population and History
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 29
1996 2006 DIFFERENCE
Idaho
Average
Employment Percent
Average
Wage
Average
Employment Percent
Average
Wage
Average
Employment Percent
Average
Wage
Total Covered
Wages 490,869 100% $ 23,257 644,354 100% $ 32,568 153,485 $ 9,311
Agriculture 19,947 4% $ 17,688 21,762 3% $ 25,114 1,815 -1% $ 7,426
Mining 2,981 1% $ 35,001 2,374 0% $ 51,692
(607) 0% $ 16,691
Construction 31,123 6% $ 25,965 52,201 8% $ 33,560 21,078 2% $ 7,595
Manufacturing 65,431 13% $ 31,756 65,886 10% $ 45,278 455 -3% $ 13,522
Trade, Utilities
and
Transportation 104,632 21% $ 20,783 126,436 20% $ 30,240 21,804 -2% $ 9,457
Information 7,701 2% $ 26,328 10,595 2% $ 38,227 2,894 0% $ 11,899
Financial
Activities 21,646 4% $ 26,910 29,848 5% $ 40,036 8,202 0% $ 13,126
Professional
and Business
Services 42,969 9% $ 28,398 81,392 13% $ 39,320 38,423 4% $ 10,922
Educational and
Health Services 41,989 9% $ 23,858 67,072 10% $ 32,047 25,083 2% $ 8,189
Leisure and
Hospitality 47,564 10% $ 8,680 59,599 9% $ 12,571 12,035 0% $ 3,891
Other Services 13,938 3% $ 16,308 15,684 2% $ 22,634 1,746 0% $ 6,326
Government 90,948 19% $ 24,752 111,504 17% $ 33,213 20,556 -1% $ 8,461
Source: Idaho Department of Labor, LYRB
Wages range between $9,108 in leisure and hospitality (lowest-paying sector) to a high of
$36,952 in educational and health services. The largest sector – trade, utilities and
transportation – is relatively low paying ($23,027). However, the second largest sector –
educational health services – is the highest-paying sector in Madison County ($36,952) and
reflects the positive impact of BYU-Idaho on the local economy. ????
LARGEST EMPLOYERS
Name of Business
Number of
Employees
BYU-Idaho 1,000 - 1,200
Madison Memorial Hospital 400 - 650
Madison School District #321 300 - 400
Western Wats Center N/A
Discovery Research N/A
Artco N/A
Melaleuca N/A
Barrett Business Services N/A
Wal-Mart 200- 300
Madison County 100 - 200
N/A - have over 300 employees, but the exact number is
uncertain
Source: Idaho Department of Commerce and Labor
Population and History
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 30
Commuting to Work
According to the 2000 Census information, 5,112 of the 7,061 workers (72 percent) living in
Rexburg work within the City limits. And, 86 percent of the workers who reside in Rexburg
work inside the County limits. Economically, it is advantageous to have a high percentage of
the local workforce remain within the local community, as workers are then more likely to
make purchases closer to home and the workplace.
Future Employment Conditions
After the announcement of the expansion of BYU-Idaho, the City of Rexburg conducted
interviews with 12 large employers and manufacturers in Rexburg. These interviews suggest
that increased enrollment at BYU-Idaho is expected to have significant impacts on the
economic conditions of the City. General expectations among employers, as stated in the
interviews, include an increase in the number of students working year-round, with
accompanying increased productivity and profitability for employers. More married students
are anticipated to stay in the area during the summer months instead of returning to their
home towns.
Employers such as Artco and Melaleuca feel they will be able to hire more students as long-
term employees instead of seasonal and part-time workers. Based on input provided from the
City, Melaleuca indicated that it would consider increasing its call center employee base if its
applicant pool enlarged and the quality of applicants increased. The company often promotes
college graduates from its Rexburg call center to the regional office in Idaho Falls.
Schools, banks, and other financial institutions in Rexburg have already felt the impact of the
BYU-Idaho increase. Madison County School District is also experiencing growth. The district
gained 146 students in the 2008 school year, with a total of 4,616 students as of November
2007. Based on growth estimates for Madison County, the District is constructing two new
elementary schools and is in the design phase for a new high school. These capital
improvements are intended to relieve a portion of the student population housed in portable
classrooms and to absorb new growth.
Summary
This overview of the general demographic and economic conditions within Rexburg and
Madison County support the following conclusions:
Population growth has been extremely rapid over the past few years due to the
announcement of the expansion of BYU-Idaho. The growth rates in the future will be
solid, although not as rapid as the growth rates recently experienced. If BYU-Idaho
has additional expansions in enrollment in the future, communitywide growth rates will
then see significant increases.
Household statistics in Rexburg reflect the large student population and cultural
tendency to have large families. The median age in Rexburg is about 13 years younger
than the state average. Average household size in Rexburg and Madison County is
larger than the state average by almost one person. Non-family households comprise
the 44 percent of the households in Rexburg, but only 32 percent of the households in
Madison County.
Median household income in Rexburg ($26,965) is only 72 percent of the median
household income statewide ($37,572). Per capita income in Rexburg ($9,173) is only
51 percent of the state average ($17,841) – only 51 percent. This is a clear reflection
of the student incomes in Rexburg.
Population and History
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 31
The historically dominant farming employment sector has declined and diversified into
the growing service, retail trade, and government sectors. In 1999, fire, insurance and
real estate yielded the highest average earnings, followed by government, farming and
manufacturing. Average unemployment rates remain consistently lower than state
rates.
Interviews by The City of Rexburg with 12 large employers in Rexburg indicate that
the increase in enrollment at BYU-Idaho will have a positive impact on economic
conditions.
Population and History
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 32
Private Property Rights
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 33
Chapter 3: Private Property Rights
Goals and Objectives
Goal 1: Ensure that the City of Rexburg land use policies, restrictions,
conditions and fees do not violate private property rights. Establish an
orderly, consistent review process for the City of Rexburg to evaluate
whether proposed actions may result in a taking of private property.
Objective 1.1: Ensure that city land use actions, decisions, and regulations will not
cause an unconstitutional physical occupation of private property.
Objective 1.2: Ensure that land use actions, decisions, and regulations do not cause
an unconstitutional physical invasion of private property.
Objective 1.3: Ensure that city land use actions, decisions, and regulations do not
effectively eliminate all economic value of the property.
Objective 1.4: Ensure that city land use actions, decisions, and regulations further
the city's responsibility to protect public health, safety, and welfare.
Objective 1.5: Ensure that city land use actions, decisions, and regulations do not
prevent a private property owner from taking advantage of a
fundamental property right or impose a substantial and significant
limitation on the use of the property.
Policy: Ask and answer the six questions respecting private property
rights development identified by the Attorney General when
making any land use policy decision:
1. Does the regulation or action result in a permanent
or temporary physical occupation of private
property?
2. Does the regulation or action require a property
owner to dedicate a portion of property or to grant
an easement?
3. Does the regulation deprive the owner of all
economically viable uses of the property?
Private Property Rights
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 34
4. Does the regulation have a significant impact on
the landowner's economic interest?
5. Does the regulation deny a fundamental attribute
of ownership?
6. Does the regulation serve the same purpose that
would be served by directly prohibiting the use or
action; and does the condition imposed
substantially advance that purpose?
Constitutional Requirements and a Balance of Interests
Both the federal constitution and the constitution of the State of Idaho provide that private
property may not be taken for public use without just compensation as prescribed by law.
Idaho Code sections 67-6508 (a), 67-8001, 67-8002, and 67-8003 establish a review process,
which the City or County uses to evaluate whether proposed regulatory or administrative
actions result in a taking of private property without due process of law.
However, Section 67-8001 states that it is not the purpose of the chapter to expand or reduce
the scope of the private property protections provided in the State and federal Constitutions.
Section 67-8001 states that nothing in the section grants a person the right to seek judicial
relief requiring compliance with the provisions of the chapter.
Any laws or regulations governing private property should heavily depend upon the
government’s authority and responsibility to protect public health, safety, and welfare. Based
upon this premise, courts have supported the limitation of the use of private property through
land use planning regulations such as Comprehensive Plans, Zoning Ordinances, Subdivision
Ordinances, and Environmental Quality Acts.
Questions and Legal Background
It shall be the policy of the City of Rexburg that City staff shall consider the following
questions, as outlined by the State of Idaho Attorney General’s Office, in reviewing the
potential impact of a regulatory or administrative action on specific property.
While these questions provide a framework for evaluating the impact proposed regulations
may have generally, takings questions normally arise in the context of specific affected
property. The public review process used for evaluating proposed regulations is another tool
that the city should use aggressively to safeguard rights of private property owners. If
property is subject to regulatory jurisdiction of multiple government agencies, each agency
should be sensitive to the cumulative impacts of the various regulatory restrictions.
Although a question may be answered affirmatively, it does not mean that there has been a
"taking." Rather, it means there could be a constitutional issue and that City staff should
carefully review the proposed action with legal counsel.
1. Does the regulation or action result in a permanent or temporary physical
occupation of private property?
Regulation or action resulting in a permanent or temporary physical occupation of all or a
portion of private property will generally constitute a "taking." For example, a regulation that
required landlords to allow the installation of cable television boxes in their apartments was
found to constitute a "taking." See Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S.
419 (1982).
Private Property Rights
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 35
2. Does the regulation or action require a property owner to dedicate a portion
of property or to grant an easement?
Carefully review all regulations requiring the dedication of property or granting of an
easement. The dedication of property should be reasonably and specifically designed to
prevent or compensate for adverse impacts of the proposed development. Likewise, the
magnitude of the burden placed on the proposed development should be reasonably related to
the adverse impacts created by the development.
A court also will consider whether the action in question substantially advances a legitimate
state interest. For example, the United States Supreme Court determined in Nollan v.
California Coastal Commission, 483 U.S. 825 (1987), that compelling an owner of waterfront
property to a public easement across his property that does not substantially advance the
public's interest in beach access, constitutes a "taking."
Likewise, the United States Supreme Court held that compelling a property owner to leave a
Public greenway, as opposed to a private one, did not substantially advance protection of a
floodplain, and was a "taking." Dolan v. City of Tigard, 114 U.S. 2309 (June 24, 1994).
3. Does the regulation deprive the owner of all economically viable uses of the
property?
If a regulation prohibits all economically viable or beneficial uses of the land, it will likely
constitute a "taking." In this situation, the agency can avoid liability for just compensation
only if it can demonstrate that the proposed uses are prohibited by the laws of nuisance or
other pre-existing limitations on the use of the property. See Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal
County.,112 S. Ct. 2886 (1992).
Unlike 1 and 2 above, it is important to analyze the regulation's impact on the property as a
whole, and not just the impact on a portion of the property. It is also important to assess
whether there is any profitable use of the remaining property available. See Florida Rock
Industries, Inc. v. United States, 18 F.3d 1560 (Fed. Cir. 1994). The remaining use does not
necessarily have to be the owner's planned use, a prior use, or the highest and best use of
the property.
One factor in this assessment is the degree to which the regulatory action int erferes with a
property owner's reasonable investment-backed development expectations.
Carefully review regulations requiring that all of a particular parcel of land be left substantially
in its natural state. A prohibition of all economically viable uses of the property is vulnerable to
a takings challenge. In some situations, however, there may be pre-existing limitations on the
use of property that could insulate the government from takings liability.
4. Does the regulation have a significant impact on the landowner's economic
interest?
Carefully review regulations that have a significant impact on the owner's economic interest.
Courts will often compare the value of property before and after the impact of the challenged
regulation. Although a reduction in property value alone may not be a "taking," a severe
reduction in property value often indicates a reduction or elimination of reasonably profitable
uses. Another economic factor courts will consider is the degree to which the challenged
regulation impacts any development rights of the owner. As with 3 above, these economic
factors are normally applied to the property as a whole.
5. Does the regulation deny a fundamental attribute of ownership?
Private Property Rights
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 36
Regulations that deny the landowner a fundamental attribute of ownership—including the right
to possess, exclude others, and dispose of all or a portion of the property—are potential
takings.
The United States Supreme Court recently held that requiring a public easement for
recreational purposes where the harm to be prevented was to the floodplain was a "taking." In
finding this to be a "taking," the Court stated: The City never demonstrated why a public
greenway, as opposed to a private one, was required in the interest of flood control. The
difference to the petitioner, of course, if the loss of her ability to exclude others.
This right to exclude others is "one of the most essential sticks in the bundle of rights that are
commonly characterized as property." Dolan v. City of Tigard, 114 U.S. 2309 (June 24,
1994).
The United States Supreme Court has also held that barring the inheritance (an essential
attribute of ownership) of certain interests in land held by individual members of an Indian
tribe constituted a "taking" Hodel v. Irving, 481 U.S. 704 (1987).
6. Does the regulation serve the same purpose that would be served by directly
prohibiting the use or action; and does the condition imposed substantially
advance that purpose?
A regulation may go too far and may result in a takings claim where it does not substantially
advance a legitimate governmental purpose. Nollan v. California Coastal Commission. 107
S.Ct. 3141 (1987); Dolan v. City of Tigard. 114 U.S. 2309 (June 24, 1994).
In Nollan, the United States Supreme Court held that it was an unconstitutional "taking" to
condition the issuance of a permit to land owners on the grant of an easement to the public to
use their beach. The Court found that since there was no indication that the Nollan’s house
plans interfered in any way with the public's ability to walk up and down the beach, there was
no "nexus" between any public interest that might be harmed by the construction of the
house, and the permit condition. Lacking this connection, the required easement was just as
unconstitutional as it would be if imposed outside the permit context. Likewise, regulatory
actions that closely resemble, or have the
effects of a physical invasion or occupation of
property, are more likely to be found to be
takings. The greater the deprivation of use,
the greater the likelihood that a "taking" will
be found.
Private property rights and local land use
control have been linchpins of American
society for many years but it seems these
ideals, sometimes viewed as complementary,
have become unlikely adversaries. At least
part of the reason is that these concepts
have changed over time.
Property rights groups seem to be well aware
of their own rights, but sometimes lose sight
of others’ property rights and oppose
development projects they don’t like. Local
land use control, in principle a process that
allows local residents to be involved in
planning their cities’ future, has become a forum for outside activists to block new
development. The dilemma is that local control can certainly infringe upon property rights, but
pure property rights leaves few options for local land use control.
Local land use control and property rights are valid
topics that warrant intense focus and attention
amongst residents and governmental authority alike.
Private Property Rights
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 37
There are many local land use control issues these days. Opposition to growth and
development in some areas has grown to the point that it has prompted the creation of terms
such as NIMBY (not in my backyard), LULU (locally unwanted land use), and BANANA (build
absolutely nothing anywhere near anything). The forces behind this resistance range from
concerned local citizens worried about property values and neighborhood changes to
environmental groups worried about air quality and ecosystem preservation. Regardless of the
motive, the outcome of their opposition is often to deny property owners their preferred use of
their land and thus diminish their property rights.
From a treatise published by the American Planning Association.
Recommendations
There are a number of different ways in which communities concerned about fairness and
balance for all citizens in addressing the "takings" issue can protect themselves against
potential "takings" claims. These include the following:
Establish a sound basis for land use and environmental regulations through
comprehensive planning and background studies. A thoughtful comprehensive
plan or program that sets forth overall community goals and objectives and which
establishes a rational basis for land use regulations helps lay the foundation for a
strong defense against any "takings" claim. Likewise, background studies of
development and pollution impacts can build a strong foundation for environmental
protection measures.
Explore the benefits and applicability of instituting an administrative process
that gives decision-makers adequate information to apply the "takings"
balancing test by requiring property owners to produce evidence of undue
economic impact on the subject property prior to filing a legal action. Much of
the guesswork and risk for both the public official and the private landowner can be
eliminated from the "takings" arena, by establishing administrative procedures for
handling "takings" claims and other landowner concerns before they go to court. These
administrative procedures should require property owners to support claims by
producing relevant information, including an explanation of the property owner's
interest in the property, price paid or option price, terms of purchase or sale, all
appraisals of the property, assessed value, tax on the property, offers to purchase,
rent, income and expense statements for income-producing property, and the like.
Through good planning, take steps to prevent the subdivision of land in a way
that may create economically unusable substandard or unbuildable parcels.
Subdivision controls and zoning ordinances should be carefully reviewed, and should
be revised if they permit division of land into small parcels or districts that make
development very difficult or impossible--for example by severing sensitive
environmental areas or partial property rights (such as mineral rights) from an
otherwise usable parcel. Such self-created hardships should not be permitted to
develop into a "takings" claim.
Whenever possible, require development pay for its proportionate fair share
of impacts to city-wide resources and facilities, but establish a rational,
equitable basis for calculating the type of exaction, or the amount of any
impact fee. The U.S. Supreme Court has expressly approved the use of development
conditions and exactions, so long as they are tied to specific needs created by a
proposed development. The use of nationally accepted standards or studies of actual
local government costs attributable to a project, supplemented by a determination of
the actual impact of a project in certain circumstances, may help to establish the need
for and appropriateness of such exactions.
Private Property Rights
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 38
As appropriate, avoid any government incentives, subsidies, or programs that
encourage development in sensitive areas such as steep slopes, floodplains,
and other high-hazard areas. Nothing in the Fifth Amendment requires a
government entity to promote the maximum development of a site at the expense of
the public purse or to the detriment of the public interest. Taxpayers need not
subsidize unwise development. At the same time, consider complements to regulation
such as incentive programs that encourage good development, when regulatory
approaches cannot alone achieve necessary objective without severe economic
deprivation. While not a legal requirement, such programs can help take the sting out
of tough, but necessary, environmental land use controls. Generally, development
should avoid all sensitive areas, and should certainly not be encouraged through
incentives. However, sometimes development does occur in sensitive areas such as
floodplains. If development is to occur in floodplains, appropriate insurance should be
secured to ensure that development does not become a burden on the City or public.
Economic Development
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 39
Chapter 4: Schools and Transport
Goals and Objectives
Goal 1: As much as possible and within the controls of the City, provide and
maintain sufficient school building capacity for the needs of school children in
Rexburg.
Objective 1.1: Coordinate with the school districts to encourage the establishment
and maintenance of level of service standards for public school
facilities by type of facility (elementary, middle, and high school).
Policy: Encourage school districts to maintain an appropriate balance
between school system capacity and increases in student
populations as a result of future.
Policy: Support educational institutions in exploring opportunities to
expand continuing education offerings in the City through
existing educational institutions.
Policy: Encourage educational organizations to offer summer and
online courses and continuing education to traditional and non-
traditional students.
Objective 1.2: Cooperate with the school districts, as appropriate, to develop and
maintain current data for the evaluation of the adequacy of school
facilities in rezoning requests.
Policy: Encourage increased coordination between educational
organizations and the community through exploring
opportunities for shared facilities.
Objective 1.3: Support and encourage the maintenance and improvement of public
school facilities as needed.
Policy: Encourage coordination among business organizations and
educational institutions to provide a link between business
needs and educational training and programs.
Goal 2: As much as possible, ensure that school facilities are incorporated into
the long-range comprehensive planning process so that schools may serve as focal
points for communities and neighborhoods.
Economic Development
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 40
Objective 1.1: When appropriate, utilize common data sources in the development of
the Rexburg Public Schools’ planning documents and the
Comprehensive Plan.
Policy: Encourage inter-agency cooperation to provide a link between
planning efforts and community and educational needs.
Policy: Encourage increased coordination between educational
organizations and the community through exploring
opportunities for shared facilities.
Objective 1.2: Locate schools where they may assist in providing community and
neighborhood focal points, when possible.
Policy: Coordinate capital improvements in pursuit of co-location of
complementary facilities such as parks and libraries, as
appropriate.
Objective 1.3: As appropriate, encourage coordination in the design and appearance
of schools to meet address neighborhood needs.
Policy: Encourage the utilization of public workshops to engage the
broader community, as well as review by the city and county
design review boards.
Schools
Madison School District #321 covers almost 300 square
miles, and serves the majority of Madison County,
including all of Rexburg. District #322 serves the
remaining areas of Madison County, including Sugar
City. Within District #321, the high school, junior high,
and middle schools are located within the City of
Rexburg, with the elementary schools in Archer, Lyman,
Hibbard and within the City of Rexburg. The total
number of schools is eleven. The elementary schools
serve grades K-4, the middle schools serve grades 5-7,
the junior high serves grades 8-9, and the high school
serves grades 10-12. In addition, the District offers an
alternate high school. A new high school is under
construction and other schools will be considered as
needs arise. To accommodate growth and provide
necessary renovations and remodeling for capital needs,
the District recently passed (August 2006), a $40.5
million bond to be repaid over 20 years.
Brigham Young University-Idaho
On November 12, 1888, Bannock Stake Academy was
created in Rexburg. In 1903, the school was renamed as
Ricks Academy and in 1923 the Academy became known
as Ricks College.
On June 21, 2000, President Gordon B. Hinckley, who
serves as chairman of the Board of Trustees, made the announcement that Ricks College
would change from a two-year junior college to a four-year university. The school officially
Economic Development
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 41
became known as Brigham Young University-Idaho on August 10, 2001. BYU-Idaho is a four-
year university which is owned and operated by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints.
The campus, which is situated on 250 acres west of 2nd East, contains 32 major buildings,
residence halls, and a 5,000-seat outdoor stadium. The University recently completed several
building projects, namely the Gordon B. Hinckley Building and the Jacob Spori Building. The
total staff employed at BYU-Idaho is 1,112, and average enrollment per semester is growing,
with approximately 12,842 students attending Fall Semester 2007 and 13,155 students
anticipated in 2007-2008.
BYU-Idaho offers non-cooking style dormitories for single men and women with cooking style
dormitories as an option for women. All on-campus housing provides high-speed internet. The
men’s dormitory is located at the Lowell G. Biddulph Hall, which houses men year-round. The
women’s residences include the Virginia H. Perkins Hall, Annie S. Kerr Hall, Sarah Ann Barnes
Hall, Edna Ricks Hall, Helen Lamprecht Hall and the Verla J. Chapman Hall. Three of these
dormitories are used as year-round facilities
with the remaining three used during the Fall
and Winter Semesters.
On-campus housing is also provided for
families. University Village is owned and
operated by BYU-Idaho and houses BYU-
Idaho students who qualify to live in
community housing.
Off-campus housing consists of approved
single-gender complexes ranging in price and
size. All single students are required to live
in approved housing unless circumstances
prevent them from doing so. On- campus
community housing units designed for
student families are also provided to
students. These units are privately owned and operated.
BYU-Idaho attracts students from all 50 states and more than 30 foreign countries. The
University offers baccalaureate and associate degrees, integrated degrees and internships that
are tailored to fit students’ interests.
Brigham Young University-Idaho is a two-tiered institution that gives students a choice
between an associate degree and 49 different bachelor’s degrees -- from accounting to
computer science and from engineering to teacher education. Integrating degrees that are
interesting and relevant, as well as increasing student marketability through internships, is a
major priority for the institution. Expanding opportunities in on-campus sports, arts, service,
and social events to more students has also been a major focus.
Another major initiative since the BYU-Idaho announcement has been the implementation of
an innovative year-round track system that allows more students to attend the school. This
has in effect increased summertime enrollments by 80 percent. By rotating tracks, the
anticipated total students served in a calendar year will be 20,000.
The University Village shown above provides multiple
housing solutions for college students.
Economic Development
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 42
Economic Development
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 43
Chapter 5: Economic Development
Goals and Objectives
Goal 1: Promote and support a diverse and sustainable economy.
Objective 1.1: Cooperation and coordinate with and support Madison Economic
Partners on all economic development efforts.
Objective 1.2: As resources allow, provide demographic and economic market
information that will support existing businesses and aid in new
business development.
Objective 1.3: Encourage expansion of business, industrial and employment
opportunities that are environmentally sensitive in Rexburg.
Objective 1.4: Improve Rexburg’s competitive position by supporting incentives for
business growth, expansion and relocation.
Objective 1.5: As appropriate, proactively recruit new business by working with state
agencies, pursuing grant opportunities and private/public partnerships,
and improving the economic infrastructure of Rexburg.
Objective 1.6: Allow development of home-based businesses with appropriate
ordinances to mediate any potential impacts, as appropriate.
Objective 1.7: Identify and pursue strategically-targeted business and industry
clusters, as appropriate.
Objective 1.8: Encourage the support the development of a marketing/recruitment
plan aimed at new businesses.
Goal 2: Coordinate with Madison County to support development as an
outdoor adventure recreation and tourism center.
Goal 3: Identify and promote business/industrial park sites with good airport
and highway access, as appropriate.
Objective 3.1: Support designation of a sufficient supply of industrial land in urban
growth areas, in appropriate locations.
Objective 3.2: Explore partnerships with BYU Idaho, including business
entrepreneurship and business incubation.
Economic Development
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 44
Goal 4: Encourage entrepreneurship by supporting increased opportunities for
business incubation.
Goal 5: Promote downtown as the center and heart of Rexburg – an attractive
and dynamic place for students, residents, shoppers, civic users,
employment and business owners.
Objective 5.1: Encourage destination and specialty retail store clusters, including
eating establishments, in a walkable, pedestrian-friendly environment.
Objective 5.2: Encourage joint marketing of downtown businesses.
Objective 5.3: Support the improvement of the streetscape and ambiance of
downtown.
Policy: Explore the benefits and applicability of providing city-
sponsored revolving loan funds, or matching grant funds for
façade renovation for businesses fronting on Center Street and
College Ave.
Policy: Encourage code enforcement of rundown properties and those
not meeting code standards, including educational approach to
existing property owners regarding the level of standards
required in order to meet the code.
Policy: Improve signage through signage theme program or guidelines
to business owners, as appropriate. Review and rewrite zoning
design regulations as necessary.
Policy: Encourage rear parking and cross easements in rear of
buildings.
Policy: As resources allow, support the provision of city-sponsored
activities (i.e., parades, festivals, farmer’s markets, open-air
concerts, etc.) to take place in downtown and along College
Ave -- between downtown and the university.
Objective 5.4: Locate important community buildings in downtown, as applicable.
Objective 5.5: Support expanding physical and visual connections between downtown
and the university.
Policy: Encourage streetscape improvements along College Ave and
downtown in order to enhance the visual connection between
the two areas.
Goal 6: Encourage the expansion of shopping and entertainment opportunities
in Rexburg.
Objective 6.1: Aim to recapture lost sales opportunities in areas such as
entertainment, sit-down restaurants, and convenience shopping
categories.
Objective 6.2: Promote the development of neighborhood centers, in appropriate
areas.
Economic Development
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 45
Goal 7: Provide capital improvements, as possible and as needed by
commerce and industry, through intergovernmental cooperation and
public-private partnerships.
Objective 7.1: As possible, ensure
that impact fees within
Rexburg boundaries
adequately cover the
costs of new
development.
Coordinate with
Madison County to
ensure that new
development in Areas
of Impact pay impact
fees that reflect the
true cost of providing
services.
Objective 7.2: Promote efficient,
orderly development
that allows for efficient
use of city resources
and provision of
services.
Objective 7.3: Promote development and expansion of the airport.
Goal 8: Support local educational institutions to promote a well-educated,
trained workforce and educational opportunities for all residents.
Objective 8.1: Support expanded vocational training and opportunities in the
community.
Objective 8.2: Encourage an adequate supply of affordable housing for the
community through appropriate land use planning tools.
Overview
A stable and diverse economy supporting family-wage jobs plays a significant role in
maintaining the vitality and quality of life within a community. A healthy tax base provides for
schools, parks, infrastructure, public safety, and other public facilities and services. Economic
development activities help to build strong, sustainable communities. At the same time,
economic prosperity should not come at the detriment of the natural environment, which is an
important asset to attract and retain businesses and skilled workers. The balance between the
environment and the economy increasingly is called “sustainable economic d evelopment.”
Activities that seek to nurture a healthy economy involve far more than just business leaders
and local governments. Members of labor, neighborhood, social service, environmental,
cultural and educational groups are all concerned with how employment and economic vitality
affect our daily lives and our community. The context of economic development itself has
changed during recent years. In the past, economic development was a locally or regionally
driven process, occasionally affected by state or national concerns. Technological
advancements are pushing the world toward a more “global” economy.
As communities experience the impacts of this new economy, they should focus some of their
business retention, expansion, formation and recruitment efforts upon those industries that
are able to respond to global trends or are linked to the global economy and expected to grow.
Rexburg has the opportunity to develop commercial
centers that capture the spending power for tourists
traveling through the community
Economic Development
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 46
These key industries are predicted to be the primary generators of basic employment in the
future. Local economic policy and initiatives will play an ever-increasing role in shaping the
global competitiveness of Rexburg business and industry. These policies and initiatives should
focus on trade, transportation, communication, skilled labor, research and a regulatory and
taxation framework that promotes sound economic expansion.
In addition, Rexburg’s economic development policy requires that we develop, maintain, and
monitor a streamlined approval and permit process.
We should take a proactive stance in
attracting suitable industry and
commerce to Rexburg, measure our
performance, promote
intergovernmental cooperation and
make a commitment towards
consistency and predictability for all
parties. By implementing such, we will
be recognized and stand out as a
leader in economic development in a
very competitive market.
The Madison Economic Development
Corporation (MEDCO) is a non-profit
agency responsible for facilitating and fostering economic development and diversification in
Rexburg. MEDCO has begun to implement some of the strategies identified in its strategic
plan to foster economic development and diversification within Rexburg. MEDCO will be an
ongoing partner with Rexburg, its businesses and its citizens to help make the Rexburg
Comprehensive Plan’s economic vision a reality.
Planning Context
The Idaho Land Use Planning Act, in an attempt to encourage local governments to anticipate,
prepare for and respond to different economic trends, requires that jurisdictions’
comprehensive plans encourage economic development consistent with other community
policies and provide for the economic needs of all citizens, including the unemployed and
disadvantaged. Countywide Planning Policy also calls for policies to promote economic
development. In addition, Rexburg’s Planning Policy seeks to encourage coordinated
economic growth among all jurisdictions in the County. This Economic Development Chapter
is intended to meet these requirements and communicate community desires for a productive
and sustainable economy.
Geographic Location
Rexburg is located 32 miles northeast of Idaho Falls. Idaho Falls is a major regional center
that attracts shoppers from surrounding cities and counties – including Rexburg and Madison
County. While sales from Rexburg are definitely “leaking” out of the County to Idaho Falls and
other locations, Rexburg also has the ability to attract some shoppers from surrounding cities
and counties and to expand its services as the commercial center of the Upper Snake River
Valley. The nearest cities to Rexburg include the following:
A stable and diverse economy plays a significant role in
maintaining the quality of life within a community and affects
both commercial centers and neighborhoods.
Economic Development
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 47
DISTANCE FROM REXBURG POPULATION
Sugar City 4.3 miles 1,497
Teton 9.1 miles 565
Parker 9.5 miles 319
St. Anthony 12.1 miles 3,384
Newdale 13.2 miles 355
Ririe 13.4 miles 523
Rexburg’s Economic Needs
Rexburg needs more economic diversification in order to reduce dependence on agricultural
employment and relatively low-paying jobs at call centers. Currently, the City relies heavily
on employment at BYU-Idaho for its higher-paying jobs, with a large percentage of the
population also employed at call centers and with agricultural products.
Major, private employers in Rexburg include the following:
MAJOR EMPLOYERS (Private)
Artco
Brigham Young University – Idaho
Empro Professional Employment
Melaleuca, Inc.
Discovery Research Group
Western Watts
Wal-Mart
Source: Idaho Department of Labor, Madison County
Workforce Trends, January 2008.
Of these major employers, three are call centers that capitalize on the availability of college
students and a relatively low wage scale. BYU-Idaho also offers a multi-lingual labor force
that is attractive to many businesses.
In Madison County, agriculture has declined slightly as a percent of total employment – from
four percent to three percent from 1996 to 2007. Other sectors that have declined include:
manufacturing (14 percent to nine percent); trade, utilities and transportation (28 percent to
21 percent); and government (16 percent to 15 percent). Sectors that have increased
include: construction (three percent to five percent); financial activities (three percent to four
percent); professional and business services (four percent to 15 percent); and leisure and
hospitality (eight percent to nine percent). Those sectors with the highest wages include:
educational and health services ($36,952); government ($27,771) and manufacturing
($27,352). The lowest wages are in leisure and hospitality ($9,108).
Economic Development
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 48
1996 2006 DIFFERENCE
Madison
County
Average
Employment Percent
Average
Wage
Average
Employment Percent
Average
Wage
Average
Employment Percent
Average
Wage
Total Covered
Wages
8,476 100% $ 17,987
12,224 100% $ 24,487
3,748 $ 6,500
Agriculture
361 4% $ 18,263
347 3% $ 26,481
(14) -1% $ 8,218
Construction
262 3% $ 19,459
649 5% $ 23,257
387 2% $ 3,798
Manufacturing
1,153 14% $ 18,152
1,085 9% $ 27,352
(68) -5% $ 9,200
Trade, Utilities
and
Transportation
2,360 28% $ 15,447
2,609 21% $ 23,027
249 -7% $ 7,580
Information
82 1% $ 13,254
144 1% $ 19,669
62 0% $ 6,415
Financial
Activities
287 3% $ 15,235
486 4% $ 22,865
199 1% $ 7,630
Professional
and Business
Services
365 4% $ 16,631
1,833 15% $ 17,713
1,468 11% $ 1,082
Educational
and Health
Services
1,417 17% $ 27,673
2,065 17% $ 36,952
648 0% $ 9,279
Leisure and
Hospitality
698 8% $ 6,459
1,053 9% $ 9,108
355 0% $ 2,649
Other
Services
116 1% $ 13,669
148 1% $ 19,159
32 0% $ 5,490
Government
1,375 16% $ 19,288
1,804 15% $ 27,771
429 -1% $ 8,483
Source: Idaho Department of Labor, LYRB
1996 2006 DIFFERENCE
Idaho
Average
Employment Percent
Average
Wage
Average
Employment Percent
Average
Wage
Average
Employment Percent
Average
Wage
Total Covered
Wages
490,869 100% $ 23,257
644,354 100% $ 32,568
153,485 $ 9,311
Agriculture
19,947 4% $ 17,688
21,762 3% $ 25,114
1,815 -1% $ 7,426
Mining
2,981 1% $ 35,001
2,374 0% $ 51,692
(607) 0% $ 16,691
Construction
31,123 6% $ 25,965
52,201 8% $ 33,560
21,078 2% $ 7,595
Manufacturing
65,431 13% $ 31,756
65,886 10% $ 45,278
455 -3% $ 13,522
Trade, Utilities and
Transportation
104,632 21% $ 20,783
126,436 20% $ 30,240
21,804 -2% $ 9,457
Information
7,701 2% $ 26,328
10,595 2% $ 38,227
2,894 0% $ 11,899
Financial Activities
21,646 4% $ 26,910
29,848 5% $ 40,036
8,202 0% $ 13,126
Professional and
Business Services
42,969 9% $ 28,398
81,392 13% $ 39,320
38,423 4% $ 10,922
Educational and
Health Services
41,989 9% $ 23,858
67,072 10% $ 32,047
25,083 2% $ 8,189
Leisure and 10% $ 8,680 9% $ 12,571 0% $ 3,891
Economic Development
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 49
Employment Sectors as Percent of Total
0%5%10%15%20%25%
Agriculture
Mining
Construction
Manufacturing
Trade, Utilities and Transportation
Information
Financial Activities
Professional and Business Services
Educational and Health Services
Leisure and Hospitality
Other Services
Government
Idaho
Madison
Employment Sectors as Percent of Total
0%5%10%15%20%25%
Agriculture
Mining
Construction
Manufacturing
Trade, Utilities and Transportation
Information
Financial Activities
Professional and Business Services
Educational and Health Services
Leisure and Hospitality
Other Services
Government
Idaho
Madison
1996 2006 DIFFERENCE
Idaho
Average
Employment Percent
Average
Wage
Average
Employment Percent
Average
Wage
Average
Employment Percent
Average
Wage
Hospitality 47,564 59,599 12,035
Other Services
13,938 3% $ 16,308
15,684 2% $ 22,634
1,746 0% $ 6,326
Government
90,948 19% $ 24,752
111,504 17% $ 33,213
20,556 -1% $ 8,461
Source: Idaho Department of Labor, LYRB
When compared to the State, Madison County has a significantly higher percentage of
employees in educational and health services. It also has a somewhat higher percentage in
professional and business services, and in trade/utilities/transportation. Surprisingly, given
the many recreational areas surrounding Rexburg, the area has a lower percentage of total
employment in leisure and hospitality.
Employment Growth
Long-term employment projections2 for the State of Idaho are included in the Appendix.
Within the next ten years, Idaho expects to see overall job growth of over 150,000 jobs.
While very few industries are expected to decline, crop production and support services for
agriculture and forestry are among the few declining industries. This will likely have an impact
on Rexburg.
While there are a wide variety of future development opportunities in Rexburg, some of the
most promising – those with good forecasted growth rates that would be suitable for
development in Madison County -- include: Education and Health Services; Trade,
Transportation and Utilities; Goods Producing; Leisure and Hospitality; and Manufacturing.
The City should actively pursue jobs with good wages, including expansion of education and
health care, manufacturing, high technology and business/professional services. Rexburg has
a competitive advantage in its ability to offer a highly-educated workforce and the amenities
of a university community. The bilingual skills of the student body are also becoming
increasingly attractive to companies that are emerging into the global marketplace.
2 Long-term projections are generally made for a ten-year period.
Economic Development
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 50
In order to attract manufacturing and industrial firms, the City will need to set aside significant
land areas for this use, as well as for other employment categories. Employment in Madison
County has increased from 12,391 persons in 2000 to 14,317 persons in 2006. Although jobs
have increased, the employment-to-population ratio has declined from roughly 45 percent to
38 percent, suggesting that jobs have not kept up with the rapid population growth of the past
few years. While the data below represents Madison County, Rexburg is the employment and
economic center of the County, and will be the site of the majority of the increased
employment due to the comparative level of services that it offers.
MADISON COUNTY
Historical Population and Employment Growth
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Employment
12,391
12,769
13,358
13,018
13,611
14,311
14,317
Population
27,467
28,958
30,531
32,189
33,937
35,779
37,722
Ratio employment to
population 45% 44% 44% 40% 40% 40% 38%
Source: Madison County Work Force Trends, January 2008; LYRB
Employment growth has been modeled based on an employment-to-population ratio ranging
from 38 percent to 45 percent. Using this approach, Madison County will need to plan for an
additional 8,256 jobs by 2020, the majority of which will be located in Rexburg and its Impact
Area.
MADISON COUNTY
Population and Employment Projections
Projections - Madison County 2006 2010 2015 2020
Employment 14,317 18,008 20,613 22,573
Population 37,722 41,159 45,693 50,038
Assuming that Madison County can increase its share of manufacturing, we have projected the
following ratios and number of jobs in Madison County in 2020, the majority of which should
be located within Rexburg and its Impact Area.
Economic Development
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 51
EMPLOYMENT GROWTH PROJECTIONS BY INDUSTRY
Madison County
2006
Adjusted
2006* 2006 2020 2020 Increase
Agriculture 347 406 3% 451 2% 45
Construction 649 760 5% 903 4% 143
Manufacturing
1,085 1,271 9% 2,935 13% 1,664
Trade, Utilities & Transportation
2,609 3,056 21% 4,740 21% 1,684
Information 144 169 1% 226 1% 57
Financial Activities 486 569 4% 903 4% 334
Professional and Business Services
1,833 2,147 15% 3,160 14% 1,013
Educational and Health Services
2,065 2,419 17% 3,837 17% 1,419
Leisure and Hospitality
1,053 1,233 9% 2,257 10% 1,024
Other Services 148 173 1% 226 1% 52
Government
1,804 2,113 15% 2,935 13% 821
TOTAL
12,223
14,317 100%
22,573 100%
8,256
Source: Madison County Work Force Trends, January 2008
*Includes all jobs, not just “covered” jobs. Covered jobs are from businesses that are subject to state and federal
unemployment insurance laws. These laws apply to approximately 92 percent of employers in Idaho.
The above analysis shows a fairly large increase in manufacturing. Rexburg needs to increase
its basic industry employment that exports products out of the local economy. Basic -sector
jobs provide good wages, attract job seekers from outside of the local community and
encourage the startup of non-basic businesses. Economic diversification and success is often
measured in terms of new basic jobs and the resultant income creation.
The County’s current low reliance on manufacturing is indicative of the County’s historical
reliance on agricultural employers for basic jobs. If significant reductions in agricultural
employment do occur, the Rexburg economy will suffer, not only in the loss of basic jobs, but
also in the multiplier impacts on the dependent service and retail industries.
Land Capacity Analysis
A land capacity analysis is used to estimate the projected demand for and supply of land for
employment uses in Rexburg through 2020. The general approach is to: 1) identify and
forecast job growth; and 2) estimate land needs based on typical building configurations,
densities and use patterns.
The number of projected new employees in commercial and industrial categories was
converted into gross acres of land using a number of ratios and factors, as provided by the
City of Rexburg. The ratios – which include estimates of square feet per employee and lot
coverage – were developed based on examination of the approaches of other jurisdictions in
the region and research into national trends. The square feet per employee factor indicates
the typical average number of square feet of building area devoted to each employee for each
type of use. Rexburg has conducted research that indicates that a weighted average of space
requirements per worker – calculated at 969 square feet per employee – was developed to
reflect different industrial use categories (business parks, light industrial, warehouse
distribution and heavy industrial). Based on a survey of ratios of commercial space per
Economic Development
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 52
employee used by other jurisdictions, an average of 500 square feet per employee was
identified as appropriate for retail, office and service business uses in Rexburg.
Lot coverage refers to the percentage of land that is covered by buildings, parking areas,
outside storage and other impervious surfaces. Permitted lot coverage for different types of
uses is generally determined by zoning regulations. The City of Rexburg’s research of Madison
County development standards and the City’s analysis of industrial developments built in
Rexburg over the last four years yielded an average lot coverage of 38 percent. A similar
analysis of other jurisdictions and recent development was performed for commercial
development, yielding an average of 32 percent.
Another approach to estimating the necessary amount of land to be zoned for industrial and
commercial development is by calculating an average floor area ratio (“FAR”) for building
coverage of the land. Generally, floor area ratios in rural or suburban areas for industrial are
approximately 15 percent; floor area ratios for office space are closer to 22 percent; and floor
area ratios for retail are approximately 20 percent. Clearly, these ratios can differ widely
based on the availability of suitable land in a community.
The average square feet per employee, using data provided through the Urban Land Institute,
would suggest approximately 450 square feet for light industrial; 550 square feet for
manufacturing; and nearly 800 square feet for light warehousing. Offices generally have 250
square feet per employee, while retail centers have closer to 400 square feet.
The land analysis below relies on the above assumptions in order to provide a general idea of
the magnitude of the additional commercial and industrial acreage that will be needed by
2020. However, these estimates are highly dependant on the type of development that takes
place. Some types of manufacturing require closer to 1,000 square feet per employee, in
which case the additional 140 manufacturing acres shown below would nearly double to 280
acres. Also, the figures provided below should be increased somewhat in order to
accommodate unforeseen opportunities that may arise in various industries and to allow for
flexibility in site location.
LAND ANALYSIS
Increased
Employment in
Madison County
(2020)
SF per
Employee FAR
Additional
Building
SF Acres
Agriculture 45 NA
Construction 143 NA
Manufacturing 1,664 550 0.15 915,008 140
Trade, Utilities & Transportation 1,684 700 0.18 1,179,101 150
Information 57 250 0.22 14,266
1
Financial Activities 334 250 0.22 83,418
9
Professional and Business Services 1,013 250 0.22 253,310 26
Educational and Health Services 1,419 250 0.22 354,673 37
Leisure and Hospitality 1,024 900 0.15 921,541 141
Other Services 52 400 0.20 20,951 2
Government 821 225 0.22 184,832 19
TOTAL 8,256 527
The information illustrated in the table above are based on Madison County growth statistics,
thus the data shows the county wide acres needed as a result of new employment. Based on
the 2000 U.S. Census, Rexburg’s civilian labor force equaled 7,923 persons, or 63 percent of
the County total. However, it is likely that some of the County residents work within the City
Economic Development
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 53
limits of Rexburg. To estimate the additional commercial and industrial acreage that will be
needed by 2020 we have applied a range assuming Rexburg captures 75 to 90 percent of the
new workforce.3 The results illustrated in the table below show that Rexburg will need to
provide additional industrial acres for future development. To date, there are 706 acres that
have been zoned as industrial in the city limits; 500 acres are for light industry and 206 acres
are for heavy industry. About 20 percent, or 141 acres, are vacant.
REXBURG NEW ACRES (SENSITIVITY)
Additional Commercial and Industrial Acreage
(Rexburg)
Increased
Employment
Madison County
(2020) 75% 80% 85% 90%
Agriculture 45 NA NA NA NA
Construction 143 NA NA NA NA
Manufacturing 1,664 105 112 119 126
Trade, Utilities &
Transportation 1,684 113 120 128 135
Information 57 1 1 1 1
Financial Activities 334 7 7 7 8
Professional and
Business Services 1,013 20 21 22 24
Educational and Health
Services 1,419 28 30 31 33
Leisure and Hospitality 1,024 106 113 120 127
Other Services 52 2 2 2 2
Government 821 14 15 16 17
Downtown Rexburg
Downtown Rexburg has historically been the heart of the community. It is valuable for not
only its commercial benefits but also its historical and social significance. Downtown Rexburg
is currently characterized by one, two,
and three-level buildings with
commercial office or retail filling the
first levels and some residential and
office filling the second and third
levels. This mixed-use concept has
been encouraged in the past and will
continue to be strongly encouraged as
Rexburg’s downtown makes the
transition from being primarily a
transportation route, to a more
pedestrian-friendly environment with
low through-traffic volumes.
A pedestrian-friendly concept for the
downtown area that ties in the
University is critical. In order to implement a pedestrian-friendly concept, downtown parking,
design standards, and traffic circulations will need to be addressed. It is strongly believed that
as the downtown district makes the transition towards a more pedestrian-friendly
environment, it will remain a vital and flourishing part of the community.
3 The U.S. Census was the most recent employment data attainable at the municipal level according to the Idaho
Department of Labor. Thus a sensitivity analysis was conducted to illustrate potential outcomes assume certain
employment capture rates.
Typical main street establishments flourish when design
standards such as the above pedestrian-friendly concepts are
set in place.
Economic Development
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 54
In downtown Rexburg, there are a variety of commercial businesses types, including grocery
stores, restaurants, financial services, big box retail, professional services, m iscellaneous
retail, etc. Downtown is anchored at the east end of Main Street by Walgreen’s, and at the
west end of Main Street by Broulim’s Grocery. In between these two locations, there are
clusters of miscellaneous retail, restaurants, as well as a variety of professional services.
The City of Rexburg values the historical sense of place that the downtown has provided for
over a hundred years and has identified several guiding principles that will guide the
continuation of the downtown core over the next hundred years. These principles are as
follows:
1. Downtown is a pedestrian-priority area;
2. Downtown is the civic, social and cultural center of Rexburg and Madison County;
3. Downtown is highly attractive to visitors;
4. Downtown is the heart of “America’s Family Community;”
5. Downtown is a mixed-use center which includes retail, office, residential,
entertainment, culture and educational facilities;
6. Downtown is highly connected to the City, region and to BYU-Idaho;
7. Downtown is guided by public-private partnerships, including agencies;
8. Circulation system manages “through” and “to” traffic strategically;
9. Downtown’s way-finding and parking systems are user-friendly;
10. Downtown hosts a central plaza for community events and activities;
11. Downtown is a great place to work, visit, shop, learn and live.
The Development Framework that has been identified and within which the community will
pursue a revitalization blueprint is as follows:
1. Define and focus development on target markets;
2. Emphasize mixed-use development with ground floor retail;
3. Infuse residential units downtown;
4. Build a sound parking system for employees, customers, visitors and residents;
5. Build a pedestrian and cycling pathway network linking key downtown nodes;
6. Undertake infill, adaptive re-use and historic preservation. Implement urban renewal
program;
7. Install small business amenities and services to draw this market;
8. Design the place of downtown for America’s families;
9. Connect to community and region with wayfinding, gateways, parking, amenities and
marketing.
10. Recruit social retailers to reconnect with major regional markets;
11. Emphasize Rexburg’s rich heritage in marketing.
Commute-to-Work Data
According to the 2000 Census information, 5,112 of the 7,061 workers (72 percent) living in
Rexburg work within the City limits. And, 86 percent of the workers who reside in Rexburg
work inside the County limits. Economically, it is advantageous to have a high percentage of
the local workforce remain within the local community, as workers are then more likely to
make purchases closer to home and the workplace.
Economic Infrastructure
The potential for economic development in a community is tied closely to the community’s
economic infrastructure – its roads, modes of transportation, including railroads, bus and
freight services, airports, and technology capability.
Economic Development
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 55
Airport
The Rexburg-Madison County airport (RXE), located 1 mile northeast of Rexburg, Idaho, is a
general aviation airport serving the communities of Rexburg, Sugar City and Teton, together
with surrounding Madison County.
Located at an elevation of 4,858 MSL, RXE has a single 4,200 x 75 ft. runway with a north -
south alignment (runway 17-35), full-length taxiways, tie-down areas and hangars. RXE has
two fixed-base operators offering airframe and engine repairs together with aircraft storage.
Both jet-A and 100LL fuel are available. The runway is lighted (MIRL) for night operations and
has pilot-activated VASI lighting at both ends of the runway. Radio communications are on
the common traffic advisory frequency of 122.8 and automated surface weather information is
available on frequency 135.075.
RXE is surrounded by a municipal golf course on the south and east sides, and by sewer
lagoons on both sides of the north end of the runway.
Although this airport is small and located approximately 25 miles north-east of the much
larger Idaho Falls airport, RXE can accommodate small corporate jets or turboprop aircraft.
While there is no scheduled commercial air service to RXE, the airport averages 85 aircraft
operations daily; principally private aircraft, helicopter training and crop dusting. The airport
is a significant advantage in developing the tourism and recreation industry in the area, as
well as in attracting new businesses and industries to Madison County.
In conjunction with BYU-Idaho, the airport could be used for training in aviation-related
services.
The closest airports to Rexburg that are certified for carrier operations include: 1) Idaho Falls
Regional in Idaho Falls (about 30 miles); 2) Jackson Hole in Jackson, Wyoming (about 75
miles); and 3) Yellowstone in West Yellowstone (about 76 miles).
Highways
Rexburg is well served by US 20 and Idaho 33. Not surprisingly, US 20 and Idaho 33 have the
highest traffic counts in the area. As would be expected, traffic counts where US 20 and
Idaho 33 intersect are higher than in surrounding areas.
Rail
Madison County and Rexburg are
served by the Eastern Idaho Railroad.
With nearly 270 mainline miles, the
Eastern Idaho Railroad is one of the
largest single shortline spin offs.
Serving the agriculturally diverse areas
of Idaho Falls and the Snake River
(from Buhl/Wendell to Minidoka), the
EIRR carries a wide variety of
products, including wheat, corn, and
potatoes, in its near 45,000 annual car
load capacity. Some of EIRR’s largest
customers are General Mills, Taylor
Produce, and Ririe Grain.
Economic Development
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 56
Trucking
Major trucking companies include MT West Bark, Cedar Point, Wal -Mart, Danco, Inc., David
Munns, LA Parkinson, Wadell Trucking, West Valley, AJ Trucking and Crapo Trucking.
Shipping Services
Rexburg is served by UPS, Federal Express and Airborne.
Recreation, Leisure and Hospitality Development
Due to its magnificent scenery and geographic location, Rexburg has the potential to increase
its visitor base for recreation and outdoor adventure tourism. The City is conveniently located
near top-quality fishing, hunting, snow sports and water sports. Rexburg is approximately 1.5
hours from Jackson Hole, 2.5 hours from Sun Valley, one hour from Targhee, and within a 90
minute drive of Yellowstone National Park. The Island Park and Teton Basin area, adjacent to
Yellowstone National Park on the east, are major tourist attractions with 35 resorts, lodges,
inns and dude ranches.
Business Parks
Existing business parks in Rexburg are shown below. The City will need to designate
additional areas for business park development if it is to keep up with the future growth in
demand. It is also important to note that many of these business parks are relatively small,
when compared to other business parks. It is important for Rexburg to set a standard for lot
sizes in relation to business and industrial parks that will help provide a more campus feel to
these parks. The City may consider clustering of businesses to promote larger industrial parks
that fit the design standards supported by the City. It was also important for the City to
develop and promote a unified development standard that incorporates street side
landscaping, street lights, sidewalks, and facades.
REXBURG BUSINESS PARKS
Subdivision Name Location Number of Lots
Valley Wide Cooperative West Main Street 30
Airport Commercial Park Airport Road 20
Trejo Professional Park 1, 2 4th South 15
Madison Professional Park Near Hospital on East Main St. 6
Professional Plaza East Main Street 13
Walker Addition 1, 2, 3 4th North & 2nd East 24
Artco Business Park North 2nd East 11
Rexburg Business Park 1, 2 North 2nd East 26
Wilcox Business Park
South Yellowstone Hwy/
University Blvd 6
Henrys Fork Plaza South Yellowstone Hwy 30+
Source: City of Rexburg
Economic Development
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 57
Industry Analysis
Madison County’s main industry is agriculture, with grain, hay and potatoes as the chief crops.
The area is known as a rich, potato region and has three potato processing plants that operate
nine to ten months each year. There are also 11 fresh market potato warehouses. The land
changes from semi-desert on the west side to a mineral-rich, volcanic soil east of the Henry’s
Fork of the Snake River. While agriculture is largely located in the County, rather than in the
City of Rexburg, it is an important economic generator for food processing plants which are
located within the City.
Future agricultural-related food processing would revolve around the County’s strengths in
potatoes, wheat and barley. Many also feel that there is the potential for solar/windpower
development in the area.
While manufacturing represents a small percentage of the overall employment of Madison
County (nine percent), the major manufacturing sectors in the County include: canning &
preserving; furniture & fixtures; and stone, clay and glass products. In addition, the County is
strong in stockyards (packing and crating and delivery services); water distribution (not
irrigation); and wholesale trade. These sectors represent areas of strength on which the
County may be able to build.
The following table shows the total sales in each of the industrial categories where Madison
County is a leader (note: data is not available at the City level). Total sales in each category
(taxable and nontaxable) are divided by the number of households in Madison County to
calculate a per household amount. Then, as a basis for comparison, total sales in Idaho are
also divided by the number of households statewide to calculate a per household amount for
the state. These two amounts are compared in order to estimate a current capture rate in
Madison County, as compared to the average (100 percent) statewide. When the capture rate
is greater than 100 percent, Madison County has a relative strength compared to the average
statewide for that particular industry sector.
MADISON COUNTY 2007
SIC Code Industry Total Sales
Nontaxable
Sales
Total
Taxable
Madison
County per
Household
Idaho per
Household Capture Rate
203
Canning & preserving
mfg 25,950,090 25,927,497 114,670 3,025.54 821.56 368%
250 Mfg furniture & fixtures 3,308,137 2,860,249 597,968 385.70 207.70 186%
320
Mfg stone clay & glass
prods 17,239,744 626,213 16,637,271 2,010.00 399.69 503%
478
Stockyards, packing &
crating, delivery svcs 457,711 0 491,248 53.36 3.43 1557%
494
Water/distribution for
sale (not irrigation) 292,406 222,359 70,047 34.09 2.18 1562%
500 Wholesale trade 24,090,381 23,820,087 270,295 2,808.72 1,608.24 175%
519 Misc nondurable goods 9,832,027 7,806,706 2,025,412 1,146.32 309.56 370%
In addition to building on its manufacturing strengths, other opportunities for Rexburg would
be to build on the region’s strengths and attractiveness as a gateway to outdoor recreation,
and to focus on high technology manufacturing firms in the outdoor technology sectors, such
as: boat manufacturers, fishing equipment, RV trailers, backpacks, etc.
Local economic development professionals have expressed the concern that vocational
educational opportunities are not available in Rexburg. Students have, in the past, had to
travel to Idaho Falls in order to receive this type of education. Vocational training
opportunities for Rexburg and Madison County residents are listed in Appendix D. The lack of
a skilled and trained workforce in areas such as welding, electrical, etc., could somewhat
negatively impact the City’s ability to attract certain types of manufacturing firms.
Economic Development
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 58
Idaho National Laboratories is a federally-funded project that is slated to become the nation’s
premiere nuclear research institution - especially with the announcement that Areva, the
French based company plans on putting a uranium enrichment plant in the area. The main
facility is located in the desert, 60 miles from Idaho Falls, with headquarters in Idaho Falls.
Idaho National Labs creates opportunities for “spinoff” businesses, as patents are issued, and
products are ready to be taken to market. At this point, they need to move off of the
federally-controlled site. Rexburg, with its highly-trained workforce is an ideal location for
many of these businesses. In order to encourage this type of development, the City should
provide land where these types of business ventures can “cluster,” and should provide state-
of-the-art technology infrastructure. Venture capital will be a critical factor for these startup
businesses.
Retail Sales Analysis
Retail sales in Madison County have been analyzed by comparing the average sales per
household in Madison County with average sales per household in Idaho. Where capture rates
are higher than 100 percent, Madison County is either: 1) attracting shoppers from outside of
the County for these types of purchases; or 2) the disproportionately high student population
(as compared to statewide) is distorting purchases in a particular category as compared to
statewide.4
As shown in Appendix C, Madison County has retail strengths in:
farm equipment sales;
cottage industry/home and hobby;
candy, nut and confection stores;
bakeries;
motor vehicle dealers;
gasoline service stations; and
beauty and barber shops.
The community is losing significant sales in many categories, including the following:
building materials;
general merchandise;
grocery stores;
shoe stores;
clothing stores;
restaurants;
computer stores; and
sporting good stores.
Professional Development
Rexburg has a significantly large percentage of medical service providers. Although somewhat
surprising with a relatively young population, medical professionals genera lly cluster near
hospital services. Therefore, this is likely explained by the presence of Madison Memorial
Hospital. Legal services development is quite low. Future development in these non -basic
sectors of the economy will be based on new demand generated by basic sector development
(i.e., manufacturing) that create demand for support services.
4 Sales tax data, as collected by the State of Idaho, does not include (in each County’s data) businesses
that have more than one outlet in the State. This data is collected in a separate category – not by
County. Therefore, total retail sales amounts are distorted. However, capture rates have some limited
comparison values across the state.
Economic Development
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 59
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
SIC Code Industry
Total
Sales
Nontaxable
Sales
Total
Taxable
Madison
County per
Household
Idaho per
Household Capture Rate
801 Physicians & surgeons 3,632,557 3,562,998 115,714 423.52 76.98 550%
802 Dentists 19,434 2,944 297,830 2.27 33.45 7%
803
Osteopaths chiropractors
etc 29,394 1,129 34,212 3.43 14.75 23%
806
Hospitals & nursing
homes 408,471 52,472 406,230 47.62 217.80 22%
809
Optometrists prescrbg &
fitng 2,970,668 946,346 2,024,321 346.35 90.25 384%
810 Legal services 1,414 0 9,038 0.16 8.51 2%
Community Quality of Life
Rexburg has many advantages that would be attractive to business development. Crime rates
are low in the City, with Rexburg’s crime index only 62.1 – compared to the United States
average of 325.2.5 Rexburg is a family-oriented community, with clean air and clean water.
Rexburg is located near a wide variety of recreational activities, including a 9 -hole municipal
golf course and a 27-hole course at Teton Lakes. The community is close to world-class
fishing, hunting, snow sports and water sports. It is also within a 90 minute drive of
Yellowstone National Park.
The expansion of BYU-Idaho to a four-year institution will create increased interest and
demand for jobs where students can remain in the community after graduation. This highly -
trained and educated workforce, with bi-lingual skills, as well as the advantages of a small-
town university community, will be a strong attraction to many businesses going forward.
Competitive Environment
Rexburg has a property tax rate that is considerably less than that of surrounding
communities. Its rates are roughly one-half to one-third the rates found in Rigby, Idaho Falls,
Blackfoot and Pocatello. Because property tax rates, in Idaho, cannot increase more than
three percent per year, Rexburg will likely continue to be less expensive than surrounding
communities in this regard.
Based on information provided by the City of Rexburg, the cost of building a new home
($150,000 in construction costs only), will be $13,624 more in the City of Rexburg than in the
County. The major difference is the price of land in the County (average of $35,000 per acre)
compared to land in Rexburg (average cost of $220,000 per acre).6 While water and sewer
hookup fees are much higher in the County than in Rexburg, these higher fees are more than
offset by the higher land prices in Rexburg. This cost discrepancy is encouraging development
to occur outside of City boundaries.
5 2005 crime data. Source: City of Rexburg
6 The land prices were provided by City of Rexburg. Interviews with local realtors suggest that land prices
might be more in the range of $40,000 to $80,000 per ¼-acre lot ($160,000 to $320,000 per acre) in
Rexburg proper. Land costs outside of the City are estimated at $40,000 to $50,000 per acre.
Economic Development
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 60
Economic Development Incentives
State Support Programs for Economic Development
Several factors influence where a business chooses to locate, including the cost of land (land
to capital ratio or the rent gradient), the supply and cost of transportation, space availability
and the proximity to key markets. Utility costs and natural resources also influence the
attractiveness of certain locations above others. Additionally, human inputs including labor
costs and general workforce qualifications are influential factors governing business location. A
successful economic environment may also result in a multiplier effect – successful economic
development promotes additional development. Although Idaho’s economy is expected to slow
this year, it will gradually improve through 2008 and 2009 and is projected to expand faster
than the national economy.7 This environment can foster economic development and
encourage growth.
A strong economic environment, coupled
with appropriate tax policies offered to new
businesses entering the state, has provided
Idaho with an era of growth. The State of
Idaho provides several incentive packages
to encourage businesses to locate in Idaho.
The Idaho Corporate Advantage is offered
to large companies that relocate their
headquarters or invest in a major
administrative expansion in Idaho. This
program provides a six percent tax credit
up to $5 million in any one year, coupled
with a tax credit based on new job creation
ranging from $1,500 to $3,000 per job
depending on salary levels. Additional
property tax credits and sales tax rebates
are offered for qualifying companies. The
Idaho Business Advantage offers similar
benefits for smaller businesses, offering an
enhanced Investment Tax Credit of 3.75 percent up to $750,000 in any one year. This credit is
offered to businesses investing $500,000 in new plant and facilities and creating at least 10
new jobs paying above $40,000 annually plus benefits. In addition, qualifying companies
receive a credit ranging from $1,500 to $3,000 per job, a 2.5 percent real property
improvement tax credit up to $125,000 in any one year, along with a 25 percent rebate on
sales tax paid on construction materials for a new plant.
The State also offers a three percent tax credit, income tax credits, research and development
credits, broadband credits, as well as net operating loss deductions. These incentives are
designed to encourage new investments, higher employee wages, and added broadband
services to public subscribers in Idaho. In addition, the net operating loss deductions provide
an avenue for the absorption of losses. The three percent tax credit is available for qualifying
new investments in Idaho and can offset up to 50 percent of state income tax liability on new
or used depreciable property.8 The five percent research and development income tax credit is
offered to remunerate businesses conducting basic and qualified research performed in Idaho.
An additional three percent investment tax credit, up to $750,000 in any one year, is allowed
for qualified broadband equipment used primarily to provide services to public subscribers in
7 Idaho Economic Forecast, Vol. XXX, No. 1, January 2008, p.5
8 As defined in Internal Revenue Code Sections 46(c) and 48.
A strong economic environment in recent years has
provided Idaho with an era of growth.
Economic Development
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 61
Idaho. The state also provides additional property, sales and use tax exemptions for certain
goods or equipment, as outlined below.
Property tax exemptions in the State of Idaho include the following:
Business inventories
Livestock
Goods temporarily stored in Idaho for shipment elsewhere
Required pollution control equipment
Household belongings and clothing, and
Registered motor vehicles, vessels and aircraft.
Partially exempt: improvements on residential property, farms.
The state also offers sales and use tax exemption on the following items:
Equipment and materials used directly or consumed in manufacturing, processing,
mining, logging operations or producing fabricated property
Clean rooms used in semiconductor and semiconductor equipment manufacturing, any
equipment or material used in research and development activities,
Goods purchased by a carrier in its business and delivered outside Idaho,
Certain containers for packaging,
Delivered utilities including water, electricity, natural gas, heating fuel, and industrial
fuels,
Required pollution control equipment.
The state provides additional property tax exemptions for companies with property in a single
county valued over $800 million. The property value over this threshold is exempt from
property tax if the company makes a yearly capital investment of at least $25 million in the
county and employs a minimum of 1,500 full-time employees in the county. These tax
incentives, coupled with the low per capita tax rates, reliable and inexpensive power, and an
overall lower cost of doing business are factors that influence business location.
The State offers business support and resources that enable companies to remain stable.
Additional workforce programs centered on training development and standardization,
technical assistance, export assistance, and management are offered to Idaho companies.
Small Business Development Centers (SBDC) deliver up-to-date counseling, training and
technical assistance in all aspects of small business management to help small business
owners and potential business owners make sound decisions that enable them to succeed.
Regional Development
There are several regional organizations providing business and fiscal stimulus for Idaho’s
economy. Madison Economic Partners, a non-profit economic development association created
in 1988, promotes and assists in economic growth throughout Madison County . The partners
include Madison County, the City of Rexburg, Sugar City, BYU-Idaho, Rocky Mountain Power,
and others. The goal of Madison Economic Partners is to bring in new businesses and retain
current establishments, focusing on job creation.
The Regional Development Alliance (RDA), located in Idaho Falls, also promotes business
growth through investment funds. These funds are available to every stage of business –
including start-ups and mature corporations – and applications are considered for funding from
nearly every industry sector, excluding retail operations, training/schools, or primarily
tourism-dependent concerns. RDA’s primary focus is job creation in a seven-county area in
eastern Idaho: Bannock, Bingham, Bonneville, Butte, Custer, Jefferson and Madison. In
addition to the standard loan program, RDA also supports a micro-loan program and a
Community Reuse Organization designed for start-up businesses or growing businesses in
need of small amounts of cash or land to succeed. Other statewide org anizations exist to
provide technical support, consulting, funding and other resources to business in Idaho.
Economic Development
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 62
Local Level Economic Development
TIF financing is a tool utilized at the local level for business development. This method of
financing allows cities to create special districts and make public improvements within those
districts that will generate private-sector development. During the development period, the
tax base is frozen at the predevelopment level. Property taxes continue to be paid, but taxes
derived from the increases in assessed values (the tax increment) resulting from new
development either go into a special fund created to retire bonds issued to originate the
development, or leverage future growth in the district.
Another resource available to businesses at the local level is tax-free bonds to finance
manufacturing, processing, production and assembly projects. These bonds are a form of
municipal bonds as they are issued by a local industrial development corporation. The bond
proceeds are loaned to businesses to finance capital investment projects and the company or
organization that uses the facility provides the interest and principal payments on the loan.
The project or business serves as collateral and the local government is simp ly in partnership
with industry lending its name but not its credit.
Public Input
As part of this planning process, the public was given multiple opportunities to provide input
for this economic development portion of the plan. Common themes of the publ ic input are
summarized as follows:
Need for employment growth with high-quality, good-paying jobs
Opportunities for increased recreation/tourism development
Maximize partnership opportunities with BYU-Idaho
Additional land needs to be identified and zoned for industrial/business park
development
Strengthen existing businesses
Need to revitalize downtown
Lack of higher-paying professional jobs
Housing is becoming unaffordable for many
Good, skilled workforce with bilingual skills; good work ethic
Temple will draw retirees to the area
Vision
As Carl Sandburg once stated, “Nothing
happens unless first a dream.”
Recognizing the necessity of having an
economic vision, as well as goals and
objectives, the City of Rexburg has written
the following vision statements.
A. Economic Development and
Diversity
Rexburg should create and encourage a
business environment that is supportive of
a variety of economic uses in order to
diversify the local economy. Rexburg
government can help by supporting the
MEDCO’s efforts of enlisting state and
federal agencies, the cities, the chambers
of commerce, port districts, public and
A business environment that fosters diversity amongst
economic uses strengthens the community.
Economic Development
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 63
private utilities, labor organizations, industry and private sector entrepreneurs, educators,
environmental groups and other interested stakeholders to assist in creating a business
environment that will foster a healthy and diverse economy. However, Rexburg recognizes
that it is virtually impossible to plan a community’s future without an examination of its
economic base and its tax base. Therefore, Rexburg endorses the need for a subsequent
market study to identify industries best suited for local expansion.
B. Industrial Land Capacity
Rexburg will provide for sufficient industrial land to meet estimated demand.
C. Cooperation and Partnerships
Rexburg’s economic development policy requires that we promote intergovernmental
cooperation and public-private partnerships.
D. Education and Job Training
A well-educated workforce is important to remain competitive in the global marketplace.
Rexburg will promote policies to maintain and attract a well-educated population.
E. Permit Process
Rexburg’s economic development policy requires that we develop, maintain and monitor a
streamlined approval and permit process. We should evaluate and revise our system, take a
proactive stance in attracting suitable industry and commerce in the county, measure our
performance and make a commitment towards consistency and predictability for all parties.
F. Major Industrial Developments
Rexburg will support current investments in industry in this city and encourage future
employment and industrial development by promoting continued capital investment. This will
be done through a concerted effort to attract major industrial developments for
manufacturing, industrial or commercial business that will benefit the city, as well as promote
environmentally sound industry.
G. Rexburg’s Downtown
Rexburg’s downtown area has traditionally existed as the central hub for its commercial
markets. However, as the population has increased, commercial developments are occurring
North on 2nd East and South on the South Yellowstone Highway, and substantial growth is
expected to occur at the three main interchanges in Rexburg. Future development is also
expected to occur on College Ave. Downtown will therefore need to redefine itself as the
community center, with an emphasis on specialty retail, dining, government services,
entertainment and community events. Downtown should also incorporate historic architecture
as future design standards as a way to create a sense of place that is unique when compared
to other commercial areas of Rexburg. This will require a combination of marketing and
promotion efforts, streetscape and urban design improvements, as well as encouraging the
right cluster and mix of businesses to congregate together.
Economic Development
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 64
Natural Resources and Hazardous Areas
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 65
Chapter 6: Land Use
Goals and Objectives
Goal 1: Preserve the high quality of life that currently exists in Rexburg, and
strengthen the image of the City as “America’s Family Community.”
Objective 1.1: Through the use of zoning, planning, and land use encourage future
development and growth to occur in an orderly and planned fashion
that fosters a sense of community and neighborhood connection.
Policy: Adopt a future land use plan and Map that reflects the needs
and values of the community and guides future growth in a
manner that is consistent with the City’s history and heritage.
Strategies should encourage:
Community-based residential development,
Revitalization and strengthening of downtown, and
Clustering of community and neighborhood commercial
centers around key infrastructure and activity centers.
Objective 1.2: Aspire to provide for a graduated transition between the land uses of
the City of Rexburg, Sugar City, and unincorporated County and
agricultural lands.
Policy: Coordinate with the Madison County and the cities of Rexburg,
Sugar City, Teton, and Newdale through the new Joint
Commission to:
1. Renegotiate Area of City Impact boundaries,
2. Coordinate zoning to ensure consistency in
development standards across jurisdictional
boundaries, and
3. Ensure Rexburg’s land use objectives are preserved at
the City’s borders.
Policy: When necessary, update the City zoning map to ensure future
development of lands likely to be annexed into the City in the
reasonably foreseeable future is appropriate and compatible.
Objective 1.3: Strive to minimize incompatibility of land uses by implementing City-
wide land use planning. Where varied uses are adjacent, protect the
viability of each use through appropriate standards, as appropriate.
Natural Resources and Hazardous Areas
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 66
Policy: Continue to locate industrial uses in the northern portions of
Rexburg. Preserve flat sites with convenient highway and
railroad access for industrial development, as appropriate.
Policy: Cluster industrial development to limit expansion of public
infrastructure, as appropriate. Services used by employees and
patrons of these facilities should be located adjacent to limit
the burden on local roads.
Objective 1.4: As appropriate, protect the quality of existing residential
neighborhoods, ensure new residential development is of high quality,
and provide a variety of housing opportunities to meet the needs of all
Rexburg residents.
Policy: When planning the City, aim to provide housing for Rexburg
residents in all stages of life by identifying in the land use plan
locations for a variety of dwelling sizes and types. Housing
options may include single-family homes, townhomes, mixed-
use options, and apartments and condominiums.
Policy: Encourage new development located adjacent to existing
residential neighborhoods to be compatible in scale and use.
Goal 2: As appropriate, preserve key natural and open spaces, maintain and
enhance existing park spaces, and promote development of additional
park spaces to meet growing demands.
Objective 2.1: As much as is practical, ensure continued public access to river
corridors and public lands.
Policy: Consider the
applicability of
establishing standards
to prohibit
development from
cutting off public
access to public lands
and significant river
corridors.
Objective 2.2: Aspire to become a city where
all residents, including those
not able to drive, the ability to
access parks, open spaces, and
community amenities.
Policy: Encourage and support the development of a “green grid” plan
that preserves opportunities for future bicycle and pedestrian
routes connecting neighborhood centers, schools, churches,
parks, commercial areas, and community assets such as the
Teton River, the Rexburg Temple, downtown, and BYU-I.
Objective 2.3: Wherever possible, protect sensitive lands, including steep slopes,
wetlands, wildlife habitat, and riparian areas from adverse impacts of
development; and protect the safety of Rexburg residents by
regulating development in hazardous areas.
Developing a green grid of parks, trails, and bicycle
routes will connect neighborhoods with open
spaces and community destinations.
Natural Resources and Hazardous Areas
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 67
Policy: If applicable, consider the development of a sensitive lands
ordinance to ensure protection of sensitive and hazardous
lands. The ordinance should ensure responsible development
where development is appropriate, and avoidance of hazards
and sensitive lands where development is not appropriate.
Policy: Explore the benefits and applicability of providing density or
other incentives to focus development in appropriate areas.
Goal 3: Encourage the efficient use of land, public infrastructure, and tax
dollars.
Objective 3.1: Minimize capital improvement costs to the City by encouraging new
development to occur near similar developments or existing
infrastructure systems where possible.
Policy: As appropriate discourage “leap-frogging” and development in
isolated areas. Options and tools available to local
governments include developer incentives in areas more
appropriate for development, or disincentives such as more
stringent requirements and application review procedures for
development in areas less appropriate for development.
Policy: As appropriate, consider a phased approach to expansion of
the City, focusing new development efforts in areas that are
closer to existing infrastructure systems.
Policy: Encourage development of vacant or underused land, when
appropriate, prior to additional greenfield development.
Policy: Encourage responsible growth within the City. Strategies the
City may want to consider include by developing policies that
require developers to demonstrate the availability of adequate
public services and facilities, or to demonstrate their plans or
alternatives for meeting the increased demand on these
services as a result of the development.
Goal 4: Promote an economically stable economy by promoting a coordinated
land use strategy, encouraging downtown revitalization and high-
quality commercial and office development in appropriate areas.
Objective 4.1: Plan for and accommodate a diverse mix of commercial, office,
research and development, and light industrial in appropriate places to
strengthen the economic base of Rexburg.
Policy: Encourage clustered large scale retail and office land uses
around the Highway 20 interchanges and the Yellowstone
Highway.
Policy: Encourage the redevelopment of industrial areas in the heart
of the city as future sites for employment centers, and open
space areas where appropriate such as directly adjacent to the
river, when timing is appropriate.
.
Objective 4.2: Recognize the hierarchy of commercial needs in the City of Rexburg.
Policy: When planning the City, encourage the separation of large
footprint commercial and industrial areas from planned or
Natural Resources and Hazardous Areas
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 68
existing schools, especially elementary schools. Separation will
maintain safety for students and eliminate incompatibility of
land uses.
Policy: Encourage the provision of neighborhood commercial services
at the intersection of arterial and collector streets, fostering
neighborhood center development. Appropriate areas are
identified on the Comprehensive Plan Map.
Objective 4.3: As possible, work to revitalize Main Street and downtown as the
cultural, civic, and commercial heart of the City.
Policy: Consider the recommendations of the Downtown Blueprint
Plan, and as appropriate, encourage the implementation of applicable
recommendations.
Background and Existing Land Use
The City of Rexburg is a growing community that is rich in cultural resources and concerned
with preserving its friendly, small town environment. Rexburg offers its residents continued
employment opportunities, affordable residential neighborhoods, and regional shopping
experiences. Much of the current land development is being spurred by the growth of Brigham
Young University-Idaho.
Knowing existing land use assists in developing plans for future land use. A walking survey to
determine land use was completed in 1990. A windshield survey was also done prior to
determining future land uses in the area of impact. In late 1996 and early 1997, another
windshield survey was completed to update earlier surveys. A new walking and windshield
survey was conducted as part of this planning process to determine any changes in land use
from previous analyses.
Agriculture
Very little agricultural land remains within the incorporated boundaries of the City, however,
much of the designated Area of City Impact is primarily agricultural in nature. This includes
lands on the Rexburg Bench to the east, north of the Teton River, and lands west of Highway
20. Agricultural land is transitioning to residential over time, and it is expected that this trend
will continue unless agricultural preservation tools are implemented in places where the City
feels preservation supports the City’s vision.
Commercial
Commercial businesses in the past have been located in the downtown and along two of the
City's main entrances, 2nd East and South Yellowstone coupled with 2nd West. In the past
commercial development has focused on “big box” or “strip” commercial, which has created a
ribbon of commercial development along these main transportation routes. In some cases, this
has created congestion in other parts of the City, like 2nd East, because all of the City’s
residents are traveling to these few areas for all of their shopping needs. There is a lack of
small, neighborhood-scale commercial throughout the rest of the City, so even quick trips
require a drive to a large retailer.
Main Street and downtown are experiencing effects of this style of commercial development as
well, and many retail spaces are underperforming. Main Street was the historic location for all
commercial uses in the City. Traditionally, main streets across the nation functioned in this
way and were the heart of each community. Today, Rexburg’s Main Street is still an attractive,
busy place but it is losing its prominence as the center of the City.
Natural Resources and Hazardous Areas
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 69
One gap in the spectrum of land uses in the City is a significant office component. Rexburg is
struggling in the employment area, and a cluster of office buildings has not yet sprung up in
the city.
Industrial
Industrial development has historically located in a central location adjacent to the railroad
both south and north of Teton River. These locations will likely redevelop over time, and it is
expected that future industrial land uses will locate farther away from the City.
Residential
Single-family residential development has been concentrated in the lower western portions of
the City or on the hill east of BYU-Idaho. The percentage of land occupied by single-family
homes is lower than found in most communities and the amount of land occupied by multi-
family housing is higher. Over one-quarter of the lands within the City boundaries are vacant.
The majority of these vacant lands are in residential areas.
Educational, Community, and Civic Institutions
There are a number of local schools scattered throughout the City, and the largest educational
institution, BYU-I, is located just south of downtown. There are a number of civic facilities also
located downtown. These include the City of Rexburg Hall and administrative buildings, the fire
station, the Madison County courthouse, and the Madison County administrative offices.
Several churches can be found downtown as well as the recently expanded hospital. The
location of all of these functions downtown reflects the historical importance of downtown and
Main Street. Rexburg’s Main Street and downtown sill have all the elements needed to once
again serve as the cultural, civic, and commercial heart of the community.
Open Space, Parks and Recreation
The City is home to two large parks, Porter and Smith parks, as well as a few other small
neighborhood parks. These parks are all well maintained, and frequently used. The residents
of the City also have access to a trail system that will eventually interconnect the Teton and
Snake Rivers, with the communities of Rexburg and Sugar City. Most of the existing residential
areas are well served with parks, but the southeast corner of the city could benefit from
additional park space. Additionally, as the City grows and expands there will be an increased
demand for parks and recreation opportunities. There is a current demand for additional
recreation facilities. Funding sources for these facilities should be explored, including a
regional parks and recreation district that could include Madison County, Rexburg, and Sugar
City.
Future Land Use Plan
The Rexburg Comprehensive Plan Map is a graphic illustration of the community’s desired
future. This map shows what land uses the community would like to see in the City in the
future, and where those land uses should take place. This map is a guide for City staff and
officials as they are evaluating development proposals or revisions to City policy.
This map differs from the City zoning map in two ways:
a. First, the land use designations on the Comprehensive Plan Map may or
may not match up with existing zoning classifications, they are simply
describing the character and type of land use that is desired for a certain
location in the City. For example, there may not necessarily be a Highway
Commercial zoning classification, but is a Comprehensive Plan Map
designation as described in this plan.
Natural Resources and Hazardous Areas
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 70
b. Second, the Comprehensive Plan Map does not legally entitle a landowner
to develop their property in a certain way. Landowners may find that their
property is identified as “Neighborhood Center/Mixed-Use” on the
Comprehensive Plan Map, but the City Zoning Map identifies their land as
zoned for Low Density Residential 1. In this hypothetical case, the
Comprehensive Plan Map simply shows that the City would eventually like
to see that area be developed in a way that is consistent with the
character and manner of a Neighborhood Center, as described in this plan.
A landowner may need to apply to the City for a zone change if they woul d
like to develop their property with some commercial or residential use
consistent with the “Neighborhood Center” description. Additionally, the
City may determine that the property might be appropriate for that land
use, but the timing may not be right. The Commission and Council would
need to determine if the timing is right.
This Comprehensive Plan is intended to be a long-term vision for land use within the City.
Although Idaho State Law allows of updating of the Comprehensive Plan Map every six
months, it is not advisable to update the plan with this frequency.
The Rexburg Comprehensive Plan includes a number of key components worthy of elaboration
and explanation. These key components are described below.
Residential Neighborhoods
The Comprehensive Plan suggests no changes to the land uses of existing neighborhoods. The
City should work to provide additional park space in areas that are currently not well-served
by parks, such as the southeast portion of the City, when appropriate. The City should also
encourage community groups and neighborhood associations to host neighborhood
beautification projects and clean-up days.
It is anticipated the demand for higher density housing and commercial development near
Brigham Young University-Idaho will intensify. Multi-family residential will continue to be
located around the BYU-I area. Improvements to these existing areas include the inclusion of
some green space or trees, but otherwise these developments seem to be functioning well as
they are. Multi-family housing, with its height, parking areas, and landscaped lawns, will
continue to buffer single-family housing from commercial developments, downtown, and BYU-
I. The City should continue to work with BYU-I on creating solutions to pedestrian safety,
parking issues, and ways to encourage greater student housing density adjacent to campus
rather than in nearby neighborhoods or further out from campus, when possible.
As goods, services, and jobs move to the north of Rexburg, residents may wish to live closer
to jobs and shopping and single-family homes may start to fill in north of the Teton River.
Additional new development is likely to occur around BYU-I and the new Rexburg Temple, as
well as on the west side of Highway 20, where a new high school is currently being planned.
As new areas of the City’s impact area are
developed over time, residential neighborhoods
should be planned to be self-sustaining, and to
provide for the basic daily needs of a
neighborhood. Neighborhood centers should
provide places for residents to play, learn, and
worship. The City should work with the school
districts, church organizations, and other City
departments to ensure that schools, churches,
and parks are located in the areas that they
serve. The housing density in new areas should
be located strategically around future
Higher density housing is anticipated to intensify
near BYU-Idaho.
Natural Resources and Hazardous Areas
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 71
neighborhood centers, and located along collector roads.
Neighborhood Commercial
As the City expands, neighborhood centers
should be considered as appropriate locations
for future small-scale commercial
developments such as small markets, boutique
retail stores, dry cleaners, or daycare centers.
No changes are proposed to include
neighborhood commercial in existing
neighborhoods. However, as the city expands
into its Area of City Impact, the City should
consider encouraging neighborhood
commercial in these areas, as appropriate.
While there is a place for large-scale retailers
in Rexburg’s future, individual free-standing,
neighborhood commercial centers should be
encouraged; with increased reinvestment in
downtown. Many of the traffic problems in
the City are a result of everyone in the City
traveling up 2nd East to access the only
large commercial outlets. By creating opportunities and incentive for commercial uses to
relocate downtown and into future neighborhood centers, many of the cars traveling up 200
East will be rerouted.
Regional Employment/Commercial Centers
The community has expressed the need for an expanded job base, and more opportunities for
shopping. As, the City is well served by two state highways and a small airport, it is natural to
identify these areas as locations for future retail and employment centers. While commercial
development that has recently arisen in the area has had some negative impacts on traffic and
downtown there is a demand for this type of retail. Rexburg should encourage the future
development of commercial serving regional needs is located close to the Highway 20
interchanges where they can be easily accessed and capture a regional market.
Commercial businesses to serve the needs of the college student and resident are encouraged
to locate downtown and near Old Highway 91 in the southern portions of Rexburg.
Relocation of Industrial Land Uses
Industrial development has historically been located in a central location adjacent to the
railroad both south and north of Teton River. Eventually, this location is probably more suited
to future expansion of the City’s residential neighborhoods and park space, and these existing
facilities are obstructing potential bridge locations, which would expand opportunities for
north-south access through the City. Industrial development, if its impacts can be contained
within the building footprint can be compatible with a residential community like Rexburg, but
the future center of the community is likely not the best long-term location for this type of
land use.
Appropriate locations for light industrial (those that do not produce noise, odor, dust, or other
nuisances beyond their lot lines) and business park developments have been located on the
Comprehensive Plan map near the railroad tracks and the Yellowstone Highway, as well as
near the airport. General and Heavy industrial land uses which can create a nuisance for
nearby residents are not considered to be appropriate developments within Rexburg.
Downtown Revitalization
Neighborhood centers should provide services for daily
needs and may include small markets or other
commercial uses.
Natural Resources and Hazardous Areas
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 72
The City hired a consultant to develop the Rexburg Downtown Blueprint plan in 2005, which
clearly articulates the issues surrounding the current state of downtown and scores them
based on their level of seriousness. It also identifies a number of possible remedies to address
these issues, and ranks them by level of ease to implement and correct. It is the
recommendation of this Comprehensive Plan that the City work towards and implement the
recommendations of the Downtown Blueprint plan, as appropriate and at the appropriate time.
Additionally, the City should encourage the organization of community leaders, business
leaders, and interested citizens to develop a downtown program which sponsors special
events, promotes retail and entertainment businesses, and assists new businesses interested
in locating downtown. The Downtown Blueprint Recommendations are as follows:
1. Define and focus development on target markets;
2. Emphasize mixed-use development with ground floor retail;
3. Infuse residential units downtown;
4. Build a sound parking system for employees, customers, visitors and
residents;
5. Build a pedestrian and cycling pathway network linking key downtown
nodes;
6. Undertake infill, adaptive re-use and historic preservation. Implement
urban renewal program;
7. Install small business amenities and services to draw this market;
8. Design the place of downtown for America’s families;
9. Connect to community and region with wayfinding, gateways, parking,
amenities and marketing.
10. Recruit social retailers to reconnect with major regional markets;
11. Emphasize Rexburg’s rich heritage in marketing.
Downtown Rexburg is lacking in the polish and vibrancy of a successful downtown, but it has
all the necessary bones for making the transition to an active downtown that serves as a
destination for city residents and visitors. Downtown currently has a strong civic and
institutional presence making it a place of authority and respect. It has a number of retail
storefronts, most of which are occupied, which provide the commercial and business
components of a successful downtown. While some of these existing businesses have not
reached their fullest potential, underperforming retail spaces create opportunity for
improvement. The downtown has the benefit of proximity to the university, a large population
of people looking for places to socialize, shop, live, and recreate – another opportunity. Lastly,
the downtown is home to a number of historic buildings, which create a visual tie to the City’s
past, but demonstrate the ability of the community to adapt and mature over time. Preserving
historic buildings, especially along Main Street and College Avenue should be a priority for the
City. Perhaps even more important than preservation of buildings, is the preservation of
similar architecture. If new buildings and those that are remodeled followed standards that
made the downtown “feel” historic, that helps create the sense of place that will keep
downtown alive.
This area of downtown, and connecting to BYU- I along College Avenue is defined as an area
of pedestrian emphasis and the City should work to make this area a safer, and more
attractive and comfortable place to walk. A study of student transportation modes by Keller
Associates in 2004 found that students walk or bicycle (4.79 avg. daily trips per student)
nearly as frequently as they drive (4.88 avg. daily trips per student). Given that students
comprise the majority of the Rexburg population, making planning decisions that do no
prevent the option of walking or bicycling is necessary. Options emphasizing pedestrian safety
and comfort in downtown include:
Street furnishings (benches, decorative trash and recycling receptacles, and possibly
even water fountains and street clocks) make walking more enjoyable.
Street light flags or banners and flower baskets help create an attractive place and
define and unify the district. The City should continue to support these types of
decoration.
Natural Resources and Hazardous Areas
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 73
Bicycle racks would accommodate the large student population traveling by bicycle.
Mid block crosswalks would help prevent jaywalking and identify safe locations for
crossing major roads.
Other pedestrian safety amenities include: pedestrian operated flashing lights,
pavement treatments, and bollards.
Encourage on-street dining and seating
opportunities for restaurants and cafes.
Require pedestrian-oriented signage for
businesses, such as blade (signs hung or
mounted perpendicular to the building
façade, so that they can be read from the
sidewalk), decorative pole, temporary
sidewalk, etc. signs).
Install tree grates.
Preserve the current on-street parking.
Improve alley accesses for parking and
business entry.
Extend street furnishings, sidewalk
improvements, banners, landscaping, and
street lighting along College Avenue and
Center Street.
In terms of land uses encouraged within downtown
and along Main Street, the City should encourage
mixed-use developments – where office or
residential occurs on a second floor over retail –
and higher density residential development within
the downtown district.
Downtown/BYU-Idaho Pedestrian Zone
A similar effort to improve pedestrian safety is
focused on the 1-2 block radius around BYU-I,
identified as a BYU-I pedestrian emphasis zone.
Many students walk to class, but live off campus,
so the sidewalks and streets are busy with
pedestrians between classes. Because of the large
block size of Rexburg’s historic grid, many people
jaywalk at mid block to shorten their trip. Highlighting key pedestrian crossings at
intersections and mid block is a priority to ensure the safety of the students and drivers. While
the students are usually in a hurry to class, providing benches and some of the amenities
recommended for downtown are less critical. The primary
objective here is to ensure students get to their destinations
safely and encourage them to linger in areas where the City
is working to define a sense of place, like downtown.
The growth of BYU-I will spur development, both residential
and commercial, around the college. The new entrance to
BYU-I, formed by 2nd West and University Boulevard, should
utilize streetscaping techniques including street furnishings,
pavement treatments and should be framed by green
planting strips enhanced by street trees. Behind the
landscaping, new multi-family structures provide convenient
housing for students. Retail businesses clustered at South
Yellowstone and the southern Highway 20 interchange
provide goods and services to both students and the
community.
Example of Downtown/BYU-Idaho Pedestrian Zone.
Natural Resources and Hazardous Areas
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 74
Historic Grid Extension
Like many cities and towns in the West, Rexburg was settled
by Mormon pioneers. The City was settled following a
distinct pattern of development originally conceived of by the
LDS Church’s first leader, Joseph Smith. The Plat of Zion,
as it was called, was a grid network of blocks and streets
oriented around a central three-block section set aside for
community services: schools, temples, churches,
businesses, and other public facilities. Joseph Smith, who
was only 28 years old at the time the plan was conceived,
did not live to see it used as the template for hundreds of
western towns, including Salt Lake City and Rexburg.
The Plat was a response to the challenges of agrarian
living, where farmers had little connection with one
another and a lack of a sense of community. The rationale
behind this new pattern of development was the social
advantages that village living entails: schools and other
public facilities can be more easily provided and more
intensively used. The Plat also brought order and security
in the early colonization of the rugged western United
States.
In the early years of settlement of the western United
States, agrarian economies and the associated large family
farms resulted in a dispersed, non-centralized development
pattern. Mormon settlers set out to create a very different
kind of western community, one with clustered, and
central community services, tighter concentrations of
development and housing, and agricultural land on the
outskirts of town. This important feature of the Plat of
Zion, evident in nearly all Mormon communities, is a simple
but powerful concept: a contrast between rugged individualism
and community prosperity and order that has characterized
cities like Rexburg for generations.
The above diagram illustrates the original plat of
the City of Zion, as depicted by Mormon Prophet
Joseph Smith.
This diagram illustrates the ability to repeat the
individual neighborhood cells of the historic grid into a
network of neighborhoods and neighborhood centers
connected by arterial roadways.
The above diagram illustrates the original plat of
the City of Zion, as depicted by Mormon Prophet
Joseph Smith.
Natural Resources and Hazardous Areas
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 75
Preserving this history and heritage, as well as recognizing the benefits of this organized
pattern of development, the Rexburg Comprehensive Plan supports the extension of the grid
into new areas of development. The Comprehensive Plan encourages planning for future areas
of development as self-sustaining neighborhood units, each complete with their own
neighborhood center (schools, churches, parks, and neighborhood-scaled commercial). As the
Rexburg Comprehensive Plan implemented, the City will expand as a series of new
neighborhood units. The neighborhoods will be tied together by a gridded network of
roadways. Arterials and collector roads will connect neighborhood centers, while the vast
majority of the grid streets are preserved as quiet residential streets.
There are three main components of Rexburg’s modern application of the Historic grid plan for
areas of new development. These are: a series of nucleated neighborhoods, a gridded street
network, and a green grid.
An example of how an individual block of the original Plat
of Zion might have been developed.
An example of how an individual block of the original Plat
of Zion might have been developed.
Natural Resources and Hazardous Areas
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 76
Neighborhood Center
An example of a possible modern adaptation of the historical
plat.
When tiled, a modern version of the historical development pattern shows how
neighborhood centers can be linked with transportation networks.
Natural Resources and Hazardous Areas
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 77
A major component of the Rexburg Comprehensive Plan is the creation of nucleated
neighborhoods as the City grows and expands. Following the historical roots of the Rexburg
area, the Comprehensive Plan includes a neighborhood center for each new cell of residential
development, where neighborhood services will be located. Appropriate land uses for
neighborhood centers include churches, schools, and other civic and community services,
recreation centers, plazas and public open spaces, and neighborhood-scaled commercial.
Benefits of a nucleated neighborhood development pattern include:
Re-building of community and neighborhood identify, people can easily identify which
neighborhood they reside in.
Increased communication and “neighborliness” among neighbors – neighborhood
residents worship at the same churches, kids go to the same school and play at the
same park, and shop at the same stores, etc.
Reduced congestion in other parts of the city by providing daily services in each
neighborhood
Reduced length and frequency of necessary vehicle trips, with myriad benefits
including reduced air pollution, obesity, reliance of fossil fuels, etc.
Ideally, neighborhood centers should be with-in a
quarter mile walk from each residence. This is the
distance that the average person can comfortably walk
within five minutes. Studies have show that people
generally drive to destinations farther than ¼ to ½ mile
away.
Example of a possible neighborhood center configuration which includes townshomes, park space, neighb orhood-
oriented commercial businesses – all which fit appropriately within a predominantly sing-family residential
neighborhood.
Other appropriate neighborhood center land uses include: schools, churches, mixed -use developments,
apartments, duplexes or other forms of residential development.
Neighborhood-oriented businesses include: cafes, bookstores, clothing boutiques, dry cleaners, child care centers,
florist shops, professional office, convenience stores, gas stations, hair salons, grocery stores, and many other
uses.
Natural Resources and Hazardous Areas
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 78
Street Gri
Typical suburban style development,
while still including multiple services and
land uses, results in segregated
development, and necessitates the use of
a persona vehicle to safely access daily
destinations and needs. This pattern also
places an incredible load on a few key
roadways and often results in traffic
congestion.
Traditional development patterns, which
have been used to plan cities for centuries
provide the same resources and variety of
land uses as a suburban street pattern, but
does so in a more integrated and connected
manner. This type of development pattern,
offers residents multiple routes to reach daily
destinations, and by providing more
intersections, traffic is dispersed and shorter
distances are provided to travel from point A
to point B.
Natural Resources and Hazardous Areas
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 79
The Rexburg Comprehensive Plan includes the extension
of the City’s historic street grid wherever possible.
Modifications to the grid may be necessary in certain
situations, for example to tie into existing streets or
accommodate changes in natural topography. The
Rexburg Comprehensive Plan street grid includes a
hierarchy of street classifications: local roads, collectors,
and arterials. Arterial roads are aligned with the County
Survey Section Lines, and in most cases, connect
neighborhood centers.
Use of grids in planning cities has been a common
practice since medieval times and earlier in some cases.
In the United States, the grid system was widely used in
most major cities and their suburbs until the 1960s.
However, during the 1920s, the rapid adoption of the
automobile caused a panic among urban planners, who
claimed that speeding cars would eventually kill tens of
thousands of small children per year. They called for an
inwardly focused "superblock" arrangement that
minimized through automobile traffic and discouraged it
from traveling on anything but arterial roads; traffic
generators, such as apartment complexes and shops,
would be restricted to the edges of the superblock, along
the arterial. This paradigm prevailed between
approximately 1930 and 1960.
In the 1960s, traffic engineers and urban planners
abandoned the grid virtually wholesale in favor of curvilinear streets designed to slow and
discourage vehicular traffic. This is a thoroughly "asymmetric" street arrangement in which a
residential subdivision, often surrounded by a noise wall or a security gate, is completely
separated from the road network except for one or two connections to arterial roads. Virtually
all traffic is funneled onto a few main roadways. This practice has resulted in many problems
including: increased traffic congestion on arterial roadways, separation and isolation of
neighborhoods and commercial centers, loss of “community”, impacts to human health, slower
emergency response times, higher expenditure of public resources to maintain roadways and
infrastructure, and many more.
Fortunately, Rexburg has been able to avoid the challenges that many communities are facing,
as the City’s growth has been more recent. Although the City has a number of suburban
roadways, it is privileged in that there are far fewer disconnected neighborhoods than many
other communities. However, residents are starting to experience many of the problems
created by suburban street patterns. The majority of residents use Main Street and 2nd East
to access a single commercial district, both of which are now congested with traffic and
causing problems for the city. The Rexburg Comprehensive Plan highlights the extension and
reconnection of the historic grid as the city grows as a solution to these problems.
Benefits of a gridded street network include:
Increased ease of navigation as addressing can be easily tied to the grid.
Faster emergency response times.
Promotes options for multiple modes of transportation including transit, walking, and
driving.
The diagram above illustrates a hierarchy of roadways
within the extended Rexburg grid system. The red line is
an arterial, the blue lines are collector roads, and the
green lines are bicycle routes or the “Green Grid.” All
other roadways within the grid system are local residential
streets.
Natural Resources and Hazardous Areas
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 80
More intersections mean shorter walking distances to commercial districts and transit
for pedestrians.
Minimizes and reduces the potential for traffic congestion by dispersing traffic onto
multiple roadways for daily travel, but also in the event of an accident or unexpected
disasters.
Promotes efficient use of infrastructure systems. Grid street patterns are generally
considered to be less expensive than curvilinear, suburban street plans because fewer
road miles are needed to serve the same population.
Recent studies have found higher traffic fatality rates in outlying suburban areas than
in central cities and inner suburbs with smaller blocks and more-connected street
patterns.
Decreased severity of accidents. The
frequency of intersections encourage lower
travel speeds which produce less severe
accidents.
Green Grid
The population demographics in Rexburg, with a high
percentage of young families and retired persons
indicate that there is a strong demand for park space.
This is reinforced by the comments of citizens
throughout this process requesting additional
recreational opportunities.
While the Comprehensive Plan proposes extending the
traditional street grid as new areas develop, a “green
grid” or network of bike lanes, trails, parks, and open
spaces should similarly be extended. In many cases
the green grid sections may be nothing more than a
quiet street with a painted bike lane on the roadway.
In other areas, the green grid sections may be
comprised of Class I dedicated multi-use trails along
rivers, canals, or major roadways. Specifically, the
Teton River is highlighted in the Comprehensive Plan
as a unique and precious resource for the community.
The Teton River Park, much of it left in its natural
state, will occupy a portion of the floodplain. The bike and jogging path within the river park
will tie into a bike system that encircles Rexburg and connects new and existing
neighborhoods to other neighborhood centers and community destinations.
New parks should be encouraged in new development areas with ownership and maintenance
by neighborhood associations. In many cases, storm water retention ponds not only
temporarily hold storm water but also provide treed open space, informal picnicking, and
walking and sitting space to neighbors. The City should work with develo pers to ensure that
new development pays its fair share towards the construction of new park spaces. These parks
should be large enough to provide opportunity for a variety of recreational activities.
Clustered Bench Development and Open Space Preservation
With growth, the vacant lands on the Rexburg Bench, along Pole Line Road, and near the
Starlite and Park View Additions will experience new residential development. As these areas
develop, The City should encourage clustered development to preserve view corridors and
open space.
Many people have chosen to live in Rexburg because they like the small town, rural
atmosphere of the area. Development within the character-defining areas of the City should
reflect its rural/small town surroundings as much as possible.
A green grid suggests accommodating multiple modes of
transportation within the historic street grid by designating a
connected network of bicycle routes along local roadways.
Natural Resources and Hazardous Areas
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 81
Rural cluster residential offers these residents an opportunity to live away from the hustle and
bustle of downtown, and in areas surrounded by abundant open space. The concept of
“clustering,” means locating homes in a proposed subdivision in closer proximity to one
another to minimize infrastructure expenditure and maximize preservation of open space.
Clustering does not mean higher density. Clustering simply takes the same number of homes
allowed on a tract of land, and groups them together. Lots sizes can include any range of
acreage, but typically a large parcel of
open space is created in the subdivision
layout that is treated differently than
individual private lots. This open space
can be use for formal community
purposes, or maintained as natural
open space for everyone’s passive
enjoyment.
The open spaces created by clustering
can be managed in a number of ways.
In clustered residential developments
the undeveloped portion of the parcel is
protected from future subdivision and
development, most typically by a
conservation easement. Conservation
easements, legal deed restrictions
prohibiting development of the land in
perpetuity, can be held by the City
government or by a third party land
trust or management entity.
The management responsibility of the open spaces can fall to a number of entities. The entire
open space can be sold to a single landowner, which would then continue to farm or maintain
the land as they would any other agricultural parcel. Another effective option is to assign
management responsibility to a third party funded by the sale of the development lots. This
third option is currently being used in Ada County, Idaho, where the Soil Conservation Service
(SCS) is managing open spaces created by clustered residential development. The SCS takes a
percentage of the sale price of each lot which then goes into an escrow fund for future
management and maintenance of the open space.
While management of open spaces within residential areas can be complicated, the value of
open spaces near communities easily outweighs the challenges. Open space provides a range
of benefits to citizens of a community including opportunities for recreation, storm-water
drainage, wildlife habitat, and aesthetic benefits. Benefits to the residents near open space
include the above in addition to protected property values and rural residential neighborhood
character. Additionally, in rapidly growing urban and suburban areas, any preserved land can
offer relief from congestion and other negative effects of development. Preserving open spaces
within and around cities does not limit the development potential of those communities, but
rather enhances the development that does take place, and actually reduces infrastructure
expenditures for the community by grouping development together.
Open space preservation, as described by the Center for Green Space Design’s CEDAR
principles, includes using cultural, ecological, developmental, agricultural, and residential
applications. These principles have been addressed throughout the planning process in order
to preserve these vital lands from improper development.
See Appendix B, “Open Space Zoning: What It Is & Why It Works,” by Randall Arendt,
Originally printed in Issue 5 of the Planning Commissioners Journal, July/August 1992.
The photo above shows a residential development with
homes clustered together in the background, preserving
an open field in the foreground
Natural Resources and Hazardous Areas
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 82
Comprehensive Plan Map Classifications
The Comprehensive Plan Map contains a number of land use designations:
Business Park
This designation is used to identify areas of the city that are appropriate places for future
research and development and, when adhering to appropriate commercial/business park
design standards, light industry expansion. This may include high-tech research, light
manufacturing, office park, hotels and motels, and other BYU-Idaho and INL spin-off
businesses.
These areas are intended to be the employment centers of the community. They are located
where they can take advantage of existing infrastructure and transportation networks such as
the highways, rail lines, and the airport.
Light Industrial
This designation includes areas of the city appropriate for light industrial operations such as
food processing, grain or agricultural product storage and transporting, mechanic or other
repair shops, construction, or other uses that require some storage facilities. These areas
should be located where they can take advantage of existing infrastructure and transportation
networks such as the highways, rail lines, and the airport.
Any industrial uses that have severe impacts (noise, odor, dust, etc.) extending beyond the
footprint of the building they are generated in, are not appropriate land uses within the City.
Rexburg residents feel these land uses are more appropriate in the unincorporated county.
Highway Commercial
This designation includes general commercial land uses with a community-wide and regional
focus. These include large-scale commercial buildings, automotive dealerships, drive-through
restaurants, large-footprint retail stores, and other similar land uses appropriate for highway
frontage areas. These areas should not compete with downtown or neighborhood commercial
areas, and should be focused on a more regional market.
Downtown Commercial
This designation includes land uses traditionally found in the cultural, civic, and commercial
heart of a community. These include retail shops, professional offices, restaurants, and mixed-
use buildings (buildings with office or residential above retail, or any other combination of
those uses). This area should foster a high level of activity, and building heights should
accommodate higher density residential and commercial development. Minimum building
heights along Main Street should discourage single-story structures in favor of two to four
stories, or higher.
Given the proximity of Rexburg’s downtown to BYU-I, uses that help meet the need of
students are encouraged. These include reproduction or copy centers, community service
organizations, grocery, and entertainment. Downtown should also be the employment center
of the city and the location of office buildings downtown should be encouraged.
Natural Resources and Hazardous Areas
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 83
Neighborhood Commercial/Mixed-Use
This designation includes the commercial aspect of a neighborhood center. These areas
include commercial land uses that have a neighborhood-scale, and are intended to primarily
serve the needs of the neighborhoods in which they reside. These areas form the heart of daily
activity within a neighborhood and should serve as and identifying area for each neighborhood
district.
Neighborhood commercial uses may include neighborhood anchors such as grocery stores or
markets, and smaller ancillary uses such as dry cleaners, bakeries, day care centers, video
rental, cafes, bicycle shops, florists, or other unobtrusive commercial businesses. These
centers should also include mixed-use developments where two or more land uses (retail,
office, or residential) are located together either vertically or horizontally within the same
building.
The height, scale, and massing of buildings within a neighborhood center should be respectful
to the residential nature of the neighborhoods in which they are located. Buildings should be
no more than two (2) or three (3) stories in height, with buildings of one (1) to two (2) stories
being the typical standard.
Public Facilities
This designation includes civic, public, and quasi-governmental facilities. These include
churches, schools, governmental services, community recreation facilities, etc. These uses
should be located whenever possible in neighborhood centers alongside neighborhood-scaled
commercial and mixed use. Co-locating public facilities with neighborhood commercial centers
helps reinforce the concept of a neighborhood center which is the hub of all neighborhood
activity.
High Density Residential
This designation includes residential areas of high-density, multiple-family development.
These areas are located in the heart of each neighborhood district, and should be adjacent or
very near neighborhood centers to ensure those centers serve as many residents as possible.
Land uses and densities allowed in High Density Residential areas range from 17-42 units per
acre. Medium Density Residential densities (8-16 units/acre) are also allowed within areas
with this designation. Similar density figures may eventually be developed based on
students/bodies/beds per acre as a tool to regulate the number of occupants allowed in each
unit.
Medium Density Residential
This designation includes residential areas of medium-density, attached or detached single-
family homes; and small-scale, multiple-family homes. These areas are to be located between
low- and high-density areas, and fall within a specific neighborhood district. These areas,
located nearby to neighborhood centers, will provide a lifestyle opportunity for families and
individuals looking for a residential atmosphere, but with the convenience of easy access to
most daily needs including places to worship, play, learn, and shop.
Land uses and densities allowed in the Low Density Residential designation are also allowed in
the Medium Density Residential designation. In addition to those uses, this designation
includes residential densities ranging from eight (8) to 16 units per acre with conditional use
permits.
Natural Resources and Hazardous Areas
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 84
Low Density Residential
This designation includes residential areas of low-density, detached, single-family homes.
These areas provide the opportunity for quiet residential neighborhoods, a short drive away
from neighborhood service centers. These areas form the edge or transition area between
various neighborhood districts. Residential densities in this area should range from three (3)
to seven (7) dwelling units per acre.
Rural Cluster
This Comprehensive Plan designation includes
lands where residential development is allowed at
an overall base density but clustered onto smaller
lot sizes, while maintaining large tracts of open
land. Again, the desire of the community is to
preserve the rural character of the City, and
maintaining large open spaces in critical view areas
are essential to ensure this openness is preserved.
Open Space
This Comprehensive Plan designation indicates
lands that are desired to be maintained as natural,
undeveloped open space or developed as a formal
recreation area. This designation includes lands
bordering public lands, river and stream corridors,
and County park spaces. These spaces are
important to the community and help create the
rural and open character that everyone cherishes.
Developed open spaces like parks, ball fields,
tracks, etc. should be located in or adjacent to
neighborhood centers whenever possible to further
reinforce those areas as the hub for neighborhood
activity.
Agriculture
This Comprehensive Plan designation includes
lands used primarily for grazing, crop farming, hobby farming, and other related uses. These
lands are intended to remain in their customary agricultural use for the foreseeable future.
Residents like the small town, rural feel of Rexburg, and these areas should preserve that
character.
Open spaces like the Teton River help
contribute to a unique community and should be
preserved
Open spaces like the Teton River help
contribute to a unique community and should be
preserved
Natural Resources and Hazardous Areas
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 85
Summary Table of Appropriate Land Uses for each Comprehensive Plan Map
Designation:
(Amended 05 May, 2010 by Resolution 2010–07)
(Amended 18 Aug. 2010 by Resolution 2010-12)
(Amended 13 May, 2010 Ordinance 1045)
(Amended 03 Nov. 2010 by Ordinance 1055)
(Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073)
Comprehensive Plan Designation Allowable Zoning District
Commercial
TOZ
RBC
GBD
CBC
Technology and Office Zone
Regional Business Center
General Business Center
Community Business Center
Light Industrial LI
TOZ
Light Industrial
Technology and Office Zone
Commercial
RBC
GBD
CBC
Regional Business Center
General Business Center
Community Business Center
Downtown Commercial Mixed Use
CBD
MU2
Central Business District
Mixed Use Two (2)
Neighborhood Commercial Mixed
Use
NBD
MU1
MU2
PO
OS
Neighborhood commercial
Mixed Use One (1)
Mixed Use Two (2)
Professional Office
Open Space
Public Facilities
PF Public Facilities
Point of reference & may be included
in any zone
Moderate to High Density
Residential
MDR1
MDR2
HDR1
HDR2
Medium Density Residential 1
Medium Density Residential 2
High Density Residential 1
High Density Residential 2
Low to Moderate Density Residential
LDR2
LDR3
MDR1
MDR2
Low Density Residential 2
Low Density Residential 3
Medium Density Residential 1
Medium Density Residential 2
Single Family Residential
RR1
RR2
LDR1
LDR2
LDR3
Rural Residential 1
Rural Residential 2
Low Density Residential 1
Low Density Residential 2
Low Density Residential 3
Agriculture / Rural
TAG1
TAG2
OS
Transitional Agriculture 1
Transitional Agriculture 2
Open Space
Open Space OS Open Space
University UD University District
Natural Resources and Hazardous Areas
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 86
Chapter 7: Natural Resources and Hazardous Areas
Goals and Objectives
Goal 1: Where appropriate, preserve open spaces and natural resources of the
City that contribute to the overall vision and image of the City of
Rexburg.
Objective 1.1: Identify open spaces that are important elements of the Rexburg
community character, as appropriate to implement a community
vision.
Objective 1.2: Work with developers, citizens, and other stakeholders to protect
resources important to the community, when appropriate.
Policy: Explore the need and applicability of various tools to protect
sensitive areas. An overlay zone could address development in
areas with any of the following characteristics:
High value or critical wildlife habitats
Known or suspected wetlands
View corridors
River and stream corridors
Hillsides, ridges, or benches
Groundwater and surface water
Goal 2: Protect the health, safety and welfare or Rexburg citizens by
minimizing risks to life and property as a result of natural hazards.
Objective 2.1: When applicable, identify hazardous areas within and around Rexburg,
so that they can be avoided as much as possible.
Policy: If deemed appropriate, develop a sensitive lands overlay zone
with accompanying regulations and requirements designed to
protect natural resources from the potential adverse impacts of
development. Natural hazards identified may include:
Unsuitable or critical building soils
Sensitive slopes or slopes over 25%
Floodplain or flood areas
High vegetation/fire danger
Known geologic hazards
Natural Resources
View Corridors
Rexburg is located in an area of unique visual quality, and preservation of key view corridors is
a goal of the community. Primary views which the City may want to consider for preservation
include the Rexburg Bench, the LDS Temple, the Teton Mountains, and the Snake River.
Where appropriate and necessary, the City can utilize development regulations on building
height, reflectivity, and location to ensure that key views are not obstructed or detracted from
by development.
Natural Resources and Hazardous Areas
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 87
Rivers and Streams
Rexburg is located in a county that is traversed by two large rivers and many smaller streams.
The Teton River flows directly through the municipal boundaries of Rexburg, and the Snake
River flows past the City on its west. The smaller of the two river corridors, the Teton River is
a unique resource for the City, and has the potential to become a centerpiece for the City.
The County, City, and community group, “Trails of Madison County”, has worked diligently to
map out a potential trail alignment along the river corridor.
Wetlands
The Office of Biological Sciences, Fish and Wildlife Service, U. S. Department of Interior, has
prepared a map series identifying wetlands on "USGS 7.5 degree quads." These maps provide
a "red flag" for local planning purposes. On-site investigation is required to identify wetlands
not designated by the Fish and Wildlife Service or to verify the continued existence of
wetlands. Wetland designation along the Teton River was recently modified during the
environmental assessment for the Airport Master Plan prepared in 1996. Most of the wetlands
are located near or adjacent to the South Fork of the Teton River.
Snake River Plain Sole Source Aquifer
The Environmental Protection Agency defines a sole or principal source aquifer as one that
supplies at least 50 percent of the drinking water consumed in the area overl ying the aquifer.
Sole source aquifer designations help increase public awareness on the nature and value of
local ground water resources by demonstrating the link between an aquifer and a community's
drinking water supply. Often, the realization that an area's drinking water originates from a
vulnerable underground supply can lead to an increased willingness to protect it. Rexburg
actually gets most of its water from an aquifer separate from the Snake River Sole Source
Aquifer, but preservation of groundwater resources in the area is just as critical.
Protection of ground water resources can best be achieved through an integrated and
coordinated combination of federal, state, and local efforts. For example, local wellhead
protection programs designed to protect the recharge areas of public water supply wells
should work in concert with contaminant source control and pollution prevention efforts
managed at various levels of government. This coordination ensures that all ground water
activities meet the same protection goal without duplication of time, effort, and resources.
As of December 1997, EPA has designated 68 sole source aquifers nationwide. Thirteen
aquifers have been designated in Region 10, which includes the states of Alaska, Idaho,
Oregon, and Washington. Currently, there are two main sole source aquifers in Idaho.
Rexburg and Madison County are located over the largest in the Pacific Northwest.
The State of Idaho has three “Designated Sole source Aquifers”:
Lewiston Basin Aquifer 10-03-88
Eastern Snake River Plain Aquifer 10-07-91
Eastern Idaho’s Sole Source Aquifer
Natural Resources and Hazardous Areas
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 88
Hazardous Areas
Based on the Stevenson-Wydler Act of 1980, the Technical Assistance Program at the Idaho
National Laboratory (INL) was established to allow surrounding communities to benefit from
the vast and diversified experience of INEL employees. This assistance includes engineering
solutions, laboratory experience, and other professional engineering experience. As part of the
Technical Assistance Program, various cities and counties have requested assistance from
INEL personnel to provide direction for addressing hazards in their various comprehensive
plans. The potential hazards identified in this plan include not only natural hazards (i.e.
flooding and earthquakes), but also industrial hazards (chemicals and pesticides, underground
storage tanks, railroad crossings, grain silos, etc.)
Natural Hazards
Natural hazards include, but are not limited to, seismic events, flooding, landslides, and fires.
Hazardous Soils
The Soil Conservation Service (SCS), U.S. Department of Agriculture, in its publication, Soil
Survey of Madison County, Idaho (1977), provides information for community planning
purposes. Soils in the county have been rated for various uses with most limiting factors
identified. The SCS notes the information provided is intended for general land use planning
purposes and evaluating alternatives. The information has very real limitations, is not site
specific, and does not eliminate the need for on-site investigation.
The soils surrounding Rexburg differ depending on direction from Rexburg. To the north is
predominantly Annis silty clay loam, a nearly level, deep, moderately well drained soil with
little slope. Low permeability and strength are the main limitations for urban use. Low strength
limits the use for small commercial buildings and residences; compensation is required in
construction to ensure foundations and walls do not crack due to low strength. The water table
may fluctuate between 3 to 5 feet during the summer and fall.
To the west and southwest of Rexburg, Blackfoot silt loam and Labenzo silt loam are found.
Blackfoot silt loam has the same limitations for urban growth as Annis silty clay loam: high
water table and low strength. Labenzo silt loam, a deep, moderately well drained soil on river
terraces and flood plains, also has low strength, a water table that fluctuates between 3 to 5
feet, and rapid permeability due to underlying sand and gravel.
Ririe silt loam and Pocatello Variant silt loam are the predominant soils to the southeast of
Rexburg. Permeability, slope, frost action, and low strength are the main limitations to urban
growth.
The SCS has determined the degree and kind of soil limitations, which affect shallow
excavations, dwellings with and without basements, small commercial buildings, and local
roads and streets. The limitations are grouped as follows:
Slight Soil properties and site features are generally favorable to urban uses
and limitations are minor and easily overcome.
Moderate Soil or site features are not favorable for certain urban uses and
special planning, design, or maintenance is needed to overcome or
minimize the limitations.
Severe Soil properties or site conditions are so unfavorable, or so difficult to
overcome, that special design, significant increases in construction
costs, and possible increased maintenance are required.
Natural Resources and Hazardous Areas
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 89
Dwellings and small commercial buildings are defined as structures built on shallow
foundations on undisturbed soil. Ratings for dwellings with and without basements are based
on soil properties, site features, and observed performance of the soils. A high water table,
shrink-swell potential, organic layers, flooding, depth to bedrock, boulders, and slope are
factors considered in the rating.
Soils with slight, moderate, and severe limitations for building site development and for local
streets and roads have been mapped and are shown on the following pages. Slope, low
strength, and water table are the severe limitations for buildings. Low strength and frost
action are the limitations for local roads and streets.
Floodplains
The Federal Emergency Management Agency has prepared maps of the 100- and 500-year
floodplains within Madison County and the City of Rexburg. Statistically, the 100-year floods or
those within the A zone are those floods which have a 1 % change of occurring within a given
year. The 100-year floodplain is the land that will be covered by such a flood. Zone A (the 100
year floodplain) is located along the South Fork of the Teton River. It extends to 2nd North in
portions of the City and from 100 feet to 1800 feet north of the river, depending on the
location.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) publishes Flood Insurance Rate Maps
(FIRMS) for areas prone to flooding. This information can be used to identify areas that need
special planning. Flooding may result in damage or loss of property, injury or loss of life, and
contamination of waterways with debris and hazardous chemicals.
There is a FIRM for Madison County, which indicates flood-prone areas within the City and
County. The majority of the flood areas are located in the valley near each of the rivers
(Snake River, Henry’s Fork, and
North and South Forks of the Teton
River). Several businesses and
homes were constructed in some of
these areas prior to their
identification by FEMA in 1978.
Spring flooding, due to melting
snow and rain, is common within
the flood prone areas and
sometimes affects homes and
businesses in these areas. The
FEMA FIRM for Madison County is
somewhat inaccurate and is in
need of updating.
In 1962, many parts of Madison
County and other eastern counties
along the Snake River were
affected by flooding caused by ice
dams, which formed in the river.
The Teton Dam flood of 1976 is the
most well-known flood event
affecting the City. The dam was built to alleviate flooding issues experienced in the 1960s
along the Teton River. However, the dam failed during the filling of the reservoir and the
seasonal flooding problem still exists. The Teton Dam Flood inundated much of the land in
eastern portions of Madison County, including downtown Rexburg and Sugar City, and images
of the event can be viewed at the Teton Dam Flood Museum located across from City Hall in
Rexburg.
Future construction in flood zones should be prohibited unless
clearly proven to be within the community’s best interest in
order to minimize potential disasters.
Natural Resources and Hazardous Areas
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 90
Future construction in the flood zones should be prohibited unless clearly proven to be within
the community’s best interest. In addition, any homes or businesses already located in the
flood-prone areas should be informed of the potential hazard. Businesses within flood-prone
areas should not be allowed to store large quantities of hazardous chemicals, or be able to
show that any such chemicals are stored in a manner that ensures they will not pose a
contamination risk in the event of a flood.
Seismic Hazards
Madison County is located within the Intermountain Seismic Belt, which is second only to
California in the number of earthquakes per year in the continental U.S.. The two largest
earthquakes in the last several decades in the intermountain seismic belt have occurred
nearby: 1959 Quake Lake Earthquake (7.5 Richter magnitude) and 1983 Borah Peak
earthquake (7.3 Richter magnitude).
There are a number of faults that have the potential to affect Rexburg. The most active
significant fault in our area is the East Teton fault. It would be the most likely cause of severe
damage in Rexburg. The Rexburg Fault runs from the Heise Cliffs areas south of Rexburg,
north through Rexburg, and then curves to the northeast. The Rexburg/Heise fault(s) has not
moved in quite some time, but there is no indication that it is inactive. It is clearly not as
active nor is it as likely to cause as large an event as the East Teton fault. Fault trench
analyses suggest that the last movement on the fault caused a 7.1 Richter magnitude
earthquake approximately 25,000 years ago. If another large earthquake occurred on this
fault, essentially all the buildings in Rexburg would be in danger of collapsing. There are also
other faults (the faults on either side of the Driggs graben and Centennial horst, for example)
that could cause significant damage.
All new buildings on the campus of BYU-I are earthquake resistant. There was some minor,
mostly cosmetic damage to buildings on campus during the Borah Peak earthquake. Most of
the newer homes in the County would withstand an earthquake.
Construction within the City should meet the requirements of the International Building Code
2B due to seismic hazards. It is also recommended that City planners address emergency
actions in the event that an earthquake does impact the area. More detailed seismic
information for the Rexburg area can be obtained from the geology department at BYU-I.
Steep Slopes
Subdivision development in areas with steep slopes is encouraged to work closely with the
Public Works Department to ensure adequate storm water management is addressed.
Development should be encouraged to avoid areas of steep slopes (30% or greater).
Volcanic Hazards
Rexburg is located in close proximity to Yellowstone National Park, which is a nested set of
three volcano calderas. This volcanic system has erupted three times, all several million years
ago. These eruptions have been very infrequent, and the likelihood of one occurring within the
next several thousand years is extremely remote. The volcanic characteristics of the region
are of interest and highlight the uniqueness of the region; however, volcanoes or volcanic
activity should not be considered a significant threat to the City or County.
Other Hazards
In addition to the above hazards, critical erosion (defined as areas with erosion rates higher
than allow soil loss limits) has been identified as a concern within the Rexburg Bench area.
The erosion is primarily the result of melting snow on the farmlands above. Future
development along the base and slope of the Bench may need to address erosion concerns
prior to development.
Natural Resources and Hazardous Areas
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 91
Industrial Hazards
Industrial hazards cover a vast range of hazards that have resulted as a part of the
advancement of industry. It is not the intent of this section to identify all industrial hazards,
but to indicate likely hazards based on current industry trends in the City. Hazards associated
with any new industry should be assessed by the City prior to allowing new the industry into
the City.
Railroad
The railroad provides a vital service for the agricultural industry. However, the City should
consider the hazards associated with this service in authorizing expansions in areas traversed
by railroad tracks. These hazards include, but are not limited to, dangers in crossing the tracks
and impacts from an accident, such as collisions and release of hazardous materials.
Railroad lines run north and south through Madison County. The West and East Belt Branches
are not located in densely populated areas, and do not post a significant risk to the residents
of the county. Moody, Parkinson, Walker, and Byrne are railroad stops located along the East
Belt Branch. The Yellowstone Branch is located along Highway 20, which runs through the
valley near populated areas.
It is recommended that the City address this potential hazard by developing plans for train
accidents within the City. The emergency plans need contingencies for human injury and
death resulting from impact, fire, explosion, and hazardous chemical release.
Air Pollution
Because of topography and meteorological conditions, Madison County and therefore the City
of Rexburg is fortunate. The potential for air quality problems does exist but hasn’t yet been
observed or documented.
Within the City of Rexburg there are presently 4 known “permitted” facilities operating. They
are: Basic American Foods, a major source, (potential to emit greater than 100 tons of
particulate). Walters Ready Mix (minor source up to 100 tons pm / yr) and BYU Idaho
presently a minor source on the threshold of becoming a major source, and Artco, a minor
source printing company. There are several “portable sources” that from time to time that also
contribute.
Air pollution is typically not a problem in rural areas and small cities; however it is becoming a
global issue and the recommendations of the Rexburg Comprehensive Plan should work to
reduce the air emissions created by development and population in the city by requiring
appropriate mitigation measures for construction sites and industrial operations to reduce
dust, an the reduction of necessary vehicle trips through land use strategies that concentrate
development near existing infrastructure and community resources.
Underground Storage Tanks
Underground storage tanks constitute a hazard in that leakage from these tanks can result in
contamination of ground water aquifers. Tanks should be constructed according to the
standards the Eastern Idaho Public Health Department to minimize this risk. Additionally,
there may be areas of high water table where underground storage tanks are determined to
be inappropriate. Fires and explosions are typically mitigated by locating fuel tanks
underground. Fires and explosions can still occur however. The placement of these tanks
should be considered by county planners, particularly in areas close to residences or critical
facilities such as schools and hospitals.
Natural Resources and Hazardous Areas
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 92
Hazardous Chemical Storage
Hazardous chemicals stored properly do not pose an immediate hazard to the public. However,
if the chemicals are spilled or are involved in an accident (i.e. fire, explosion, etc.) there could
be a chemical release – potentially affecting the public. City officials need to know the type of
chemicals stored in a business or farm to protect emergency personnel in the event of an
accident and the public from undue hazards.
State and Federal laws require notification of hazardous chemical spills according to Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) Title 40, Section 302. Additionally, the public should be informed of
releases in accordance with the community
right-to-know act covered in 40 CFR 372.
Emergency planning should be provided in
accordance to 40 CFR 355. The City should
ensure areas of previous chemical spills are
remediated and cleaned to meet federal
and state standards prior to redevelopment
of the land.
Grain elevators, common throughout the Rexburg and
Madison County area, can post another man-made hazard
and regular maintenance can prevent accidents.
Natural Resources and Hazardous Areas
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 93
Transportation
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 94
Chapter 8: Transportation
Goals and Objectives
Goal 1: Plan ahead for transportation needs in Rexburg, and work with local,
state, and regional decision-makers regarding issues that affect the
City whenever possible.
Objective 1.1: Encourage dialogue among land use and transportation planning
partners and surrounding local governments.
Policy: Encourage the establishment of a working process with the
County and State to provide input on regional and state-wide
transportation planning and decision making.
Objective 1.2: Encourage adoption of the Madison County Transportation Plan as the
official guide for transportation planning within the City.
Goal 2: Provide an efficient and integrated transportation system for the City
of Rexburg, to the extent possible.
Objective 2.1: Whenever possible, improve traffic movement on City streets and road
access to all areas of the City.
Policy: When appropriate, identify and prioritize transportation facility
needs and projects in a Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) for
the City. The CIP should ideally identify target timelines,
funding sources, and responsibilities.
Policy: When resources allow, implement components of the Madison
County Transportation Master Plan that are consistent with,
and complement, the City’s land use strategy.
Policy: Whenever possible, identify opportunities for the construction
of bridges over the Teton River to increase north-south access
for the City.
Policy: Whenever possible, preserve the traffic function of the City’s
“grid” streets by minimizing deviations to the grid, whenever
possible. Preserve future rights of way extending from, and
complimentary to, the historic grid as the City grows to:
Transportation
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 95
1. Ensure neighborhood connectivity,
2. Provide for efficient emergency response, and
3. Provide multiple travel routes to prevent and minimize
traffic congestion on a select few roadways.
Policy: As much as possible, encourage the preservation of the
necessary rights-of-way in new developments to promote
extension of the City’s overall grid system.
Policy: When appropriate, consider developing a Neighborhood Traffic
Management Program (NTMP) to address neighborhood traffic
issues and discourage shortcuts through residential areas.
Policy: When possible, develop a truck route plan to limit heavy
industrial traffic to state highways and City-designated truck
routes. Discourage the location of schools, neighborhood
centers, parks and other pedestrian-oriented areas on truck
routes.
Policy: Encourage the location of residential traffic generators such as
churches and elementary, middle, and junior high schools
within the neighborhoods centers that are being served.
Objective 2.2: Aspire to provide safe and connected pedestrian and bicycle facilities
throughout the City.
Policy: Encourage the development of a “green grid” plan identifying
pedestrian and bicycle routes connecting neighborhoods to
community amenities and destinations including: schools,
parks, churches, downtown, BYU-I, the Teton River, and
neighborhood commercial areas.
Policy: Work with landowners to construct sidewalks where they do
not presently exist, whenever possible.
Policy: When resources allow it, identify areas with high pedestrian
volumes (downtown and around BYU-I), and evaluate the need
and possibility for added crosswalks or other types of
pedestrian crossing treatments. These may include pedestrian-
activated flashing lights, pavement treatments, or pedestrian
signals.
Policy: Encourage the Trails of Madison County organization to
implement the Madison County Trails Master Plan and
Greenbelt Plan.
Policy: When appropriate, identify and prioritize improvements to the
green grid, sidewalk, and trails system to include in a City -
wide Capital Improvement Plan.
Goal 3: Balance access, mobility, and safety on all city streets, whenever
possible.
Objective 3.1: Support improvement in the safety of all city streets and intersections
for use by all modes of transportation.
Transportation
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 96
Policy: If necessary and at the appropriate time, widen, improve, or
replace bridges that are obstacles to traffic flow and safety.
Policy: Consider the benefits of establishing a traffic-calming program
for use on streets where average speeds are deemed unsafe;
and encourage vigorous enforcement of City speed limits,
especially near residential areas and schools.
Policy: Develop and complete a “safe route to school” street plan.
Discourage high speeds and heavy traffic on these streets.
Work with school district committees to develop safe route to
school routes.
Policy: Encourage cooperation among the school districts and other
organizations in selecting locations for schools to minimize the
necessity of children crossing arterial roads.
Policy: If appropriate, consider allowing modified street design
elements, such as on street parking, street medians, etc.
throughout the City to improve safety and decrease travel
speeds. Efficient movement of transportation should not take
precedence over the safety of users.
Policy: When appropriate, develop a city-wide street lighting plan that
address the safety needs of automobiles, pedestrians, and
residents.
Policy: Continue the winter on-street parking restriction, requiring
residents to ensure that their vehicles and/or personal
property are off the public right of way overnight between the
months between November and April or dates, as determined
by the Mayor, which are appropriate for given conditions.
Madison County Transportation Plan Development Process
Madison County’s Transportation Plan has
been taking shape since 2002, when the
City of Rexburg and the County began
working together to apply for funding to do
a comprehensive study of transportation
needs in the County. This was done with
the intent of forecasting future travel
demand and developing alternative
transportation projects, programs and
policies to accommodate or manage that
demand. The 2004 study serves to clarify
goals and policies, and reorganize the
existing information into a more usable
tool.
This Transportation Plan and components
within the City are incorporated into this
document directly and by reference.
Existing Transportation Network
Rexburg has opportunities to provide efficient and
ample parking near commercial centers like this one
shown above.
Transportation
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 97
This existing transportation network analysis is a summary of the Madison County
Transportation Master Plan prepared in 2004 by Madison County, Rexburg, and Sugar City
with the consulting assistance of Keller Associates.
The City of Rexburg maintains 49.1 miles of roadway, less than two miles of which are
unpaved. With few exceptions, the city streets are arranged in a north-south, east-west grid.
The City of Rexburg currently has no one-way streets. Nearly all of the streets are two-lane
roadways and most have curb, gutter and sidewalks. Most residential streets are 34 to 44 feet
wide (curb to curb). Most commercial streets are 56 feet to 66 feet wide, except for the four-
and five-lane arterials, which range from 66 to 100 feet in width.
SH 33 is the main commercial thoroughfare through Rexburg, with the east-west portion
designated as Main Street and the north-south segment identified as 2nd East. Main Street is
primarily a four-lane roadway with some five-lane segments. 2nd East is a five-lane road from
Main to SH 33 (N. Yellowstone). Other primary streets in Rexburg include 2nd West, the south
portion of 2nd East, 1st North, 2nd South, and 7th South. A new arterial route for the
southern portion of the City has recently been completed that connects the south US 20
interchange with 7th South.
Airport
The Idaho Falls Municipal Airport, is twenty-two miles southeast of Rexburg and provides
commercial passenger service by Delta, Skywest, and Horizon/Alaska Airlines. The City of
Rexburg/Madison County Airport currently has one runway, Runway 17/35, which is 4,200 feet
long and 75 feet wide. The airport is located in the northwest quadrant of city, is north of U.S.
33, and has access from Airport Road (N 1500 West) to U.S. 33 and U.S. 20. As of 1996,
thirty-five hangars had been built at the airport. Operations at the Rexburg/Madison County
Airport include flight instruction, which accounts for over 85% of annual operations, business,
agricultural spraying, and pleasure.
Improvements to the existing airport and a longer runway at another site may enable existing
users to use larger aircraft or may increase the utilization of the airport. In addition, a longer
runway may increase the use of corporate aircraft for business visits, furthering business
opportunities for the areas. In 1995-1996, Armstrong Consultants prepared an airport master
plan and environmental assessment. The recommendation of plan suggested airport activity
rather than time as the measure for scheduling airport development. The master plan
considered expansion of the existing airport and alternate sites. With expansion of the existing
airport, the alternatives involve the redesign of the golf course, relocating or altering the
channel of the South Teton River, and impacting private land uses.
Rail
The Yellowstone Branch of the Eastern Idaho Railroad crosses through Madison County
running parallel to the Old Yellowstone Highway and parallel to much of US 20. This railroad
also passes through Thornton, Rexburg and Sugar City. There is also the East Belt Branch that
travels across the foothills east of Rexburg, roughly six miles from the Yellowstone Branch.
The East Belt Branch runs between Ririe, Moody and Newdale, and connects to the
Yellowstone Branch in St. Anthony.
Public Transportation
Public transportation is very limited. The University, major employers, Targhee Regional Public
Transit Authority (TRPTA) and others may consider future options for expansion of service.
A Greyhound Lines partner operates a route that stops in Rexburg during the season that
Transportation
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 98
Yellowstone National Park is open – typically May through September. This route stops in
Rexburg once or twice per day, depending on demand. Connections can be made with other
Greyhound buses through this route.
Shuttle service is available from Rexburg to Salt Lake International Airport, and is provided by
Salt Lake Express.
Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities
Rexburg residents have expressed interest in
expanding opportunities for trails within and
around the City. Residents currently have
access to a number of snowmobiling, hiking,
and mountain biking trails (see Recreation
Section) and bikeway systems. The Trails of
Madison County Committee, with the
assistance of a citizen consulting team, is
working on a trail and bike path plan which
would connect Rexburg residents to local
amenities and to neighboring communities.
The work of the committee is in response to a
1993 city survey, which listed bicycle-
pedestrian paths as the top recreational
priority for the City.
The goal of the Trails of Madison County Committee is to link residential areas, major
employers, the downtown, BYU-I, schools and parks. The resulting bikeway network
envisioned in the plan loops the City of Rexburg and extends into the more rural parts of
Madison County. The plan includes twenty-two miles of facilities which include shared lanes,
shoulder bikeways, bicycle lanes, and separated, multiple-use paths.
Functional Classification System
The Functional Classification System (FCS) classifies streets and highways based on the level
of access and mobility provided by the road to the overall transportation system. When the
intended function of a roadway is to move significant volumes of traffic at a higher speed,
limiting access becomes an important aspect of the roadway design. The other end of the
spectrum is when the function of a roadway is to provide ample access to adjoining property.
In that case, it is desirable to have low speeds and frequent access points.
The functional classifications are based upon guidelines prepared by the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA). Roads within Rexburg are classified under the Urban Functional
Classification System, which is used for urban areas with a population greater than 5,000.
There are four main classifications that are used to indicate the different levels of mobility
versus access:
Principal Arterial
These are streets and highways that contain the greatest proportion of through travel or the
highest level of mobility. Rexburg has several streets designated as principal arterials such as
Main Street, 2nd W, 2nd E (north of Main Street), and N. Yellowstone (SH 33). Generally,
principal arterials should have limited access to adjacent properties in order to retain mobility.
City residents have expressed interest in expanding
bike paths and connecting trails to neighboring
communities.
Transportation
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 99
Minor Arterial
Minor arterial roads and highways have fewer access restrictions than principal arterials and
accept traffic from collector streets. Although the predominant function of minor arterial
streets is the movement of through traffic, they also provide for considerable local traffic that
originates from or is destined to local collectors. Generally, minor arterials should not be
located in predominantly residential neighborhoods. In Rexburg, the minor arterials are 1st N.,
7th N., Barney Dairy Road, 2nd E (south of Main Street)., S. Yellowstone Highway, and
Poleline Road.
Collector
Collectors are streets and roadways that provide direct services to local streets. In urban
areas, they are usually spaced at about half-mile intervals to collect traffic from local-access
streets and convey it to major and minor arterial streets and highways. These roadways
provide both access and circulation within residential areas, but access is often controlled to
minimize impacts to traffic, providing a balance between access and mobility to serve the
area. In rural areas, collectors are often divided into major and minor collectors. In Rexburg,
Pioneer Road, 5th W, 2nd S, 7th S and Hill Road are designated as collectors.
Local Streets
Streets that are not selected for inclusion in the arterial or collector classes are classified as
local. They allow access to individual homes, shops and similar traffic destinations. Direct
access to adjoining land is essential and through traffic is discouraged.
Transportation Policies and Standards
The existing transportation policies and standards are set by agencies having jurisdiction over
the roadways. These agencies are the Idaho Transportation Department (ITD), Sugar City,
Rexburg, Madison County and the Forest Service. The existing policies and standards vary
with the agency. The street classification and related design standards determine roadway
construction.
Street classification standards relate the design of a roadway to the function performed by
that roadway. The function is determined by operational characteristics such as traffic volume,
operating speed, safety, and capacity. Street standards are necessary to provide a community
with roadways which are appropriate for the intended use.
Standards are based on experience, policies, and publications of the transportation industry.
Within the generally accepted range of standards, communities have some flexibility in
adopting specific design requirements to match the planned roadway with adjacent land uses.
Future Transportation Plan
More than 19,000 new residents and 11,500 new jobs are expected in Madison County
between 2007 and 2020. Major investments in transportation will be required to maintain
acceptable conditions on roads, provide and expand transit and bikeway systems, and to
maintain the quality of life enjoyed by the residents of the community. The intent of this
Transportation Plan is to provide a long-range plan to meet the transportation demands of
future growth in ways that support Rexburg’s vision of the future.
Rexburg has become an increasingly busy City, and transportation concerns are rising to the
top of residents’ and city officials’ priority lists as concerns. The City’s primary transportation
related concerns are:
Congestion on a few main roads, primarily Main Street and Second East.
Transportation
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 100
Speeding, and motorist and pedestrian safety issues.
Piecemeal street design resulting from planning by subdivision.
Limited north-south access across the Teton River.
The Rexburg Future Transportation Plan reinforces many of the recommendations of the
Madison County Transportation Plan, produced by Keller Associates in 2004. In addition to
those recommendations, the Future Transportation Plan includes the following four key
components:
Extension of the historic grid.
Establishment of safe routes to school.
Establishment of a BYU-I and Downtown pedestrian emphasis district.
Development of a “green grid” of trails, bike lanes, and pedestrian paths.
Extension of the Historic Grid
Rexburg’s settlement history lies in the progressive ideas for development and planning of
early Mormon leader, Joseph Smith. A modified version of the Plat of Zion, explained in
greater detail in the Land Use Chapter, was used as a template for development of the
Rexburg Area. At the core of this concept was the use of a street grid oriented around a
central service district. Rexburg’s historic grid contains blocks of roughly 750 feet in length,
and approximately 10 acres in area. Early developers in Rexburg extended the grid to the
north and south as the City grew, and in many cases split the large blocks into halves and
quarters that were easier to develop and access.
Grids have been used to organize cities all over the world, and have been in use for centuries.
Like many cities across the United States, the use of the grid in Rexburg was abandoned in
favor of more organic curvilinear subdivision road patterns. Hundreds of studies in land use
and transportation planning have come to prove that such suburban street patterns have
created many more transportation and planning problems than they have solved.
Rexburg is fortunate in that it has not, until recently, experienced rapid growth leading to
dozens of haphazardly planned subdivisions and disconnected street networks. It has begun
to experience some of the problems associated with disconnected street networks however.
The address grid for future development within Rexburg will transition from the historic 7
blocks per mile grid to a 10 block per mile grid as illustrated in the diagram below:
Transportation
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 101
The Future Transportation Plan is intended to provide a time-tested, sustainable solution to
transportation concerns in Rexburg.
Future east-west connections:
There are a number of opportunities for additional east-west connection through the City. To
serve BYU-I and future growth in the southern parts of Rexburg, future arterial streets have
been identified as South 2nd West, 7th South, 1500 South, and 2000 South. Barney Dairy
Road and an extension of East 4th North will be future arterials to serve the northeast corner
of the city. Additionally, extension of the historic grid will provide multiple opportunities for
local traffic to travel through the city, reducing the demand and congestion on the identified
arterial and collector roadways.
Transportation
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 102
Future north-south connections:
Additional Teton River crossings could be made possible with the redevelopment of the
property along the river, and future growth and expansion to the east. A new arterial roadway
has been identified in the Madison County Transportation Plan connecting Sugar City with the
planned 7th South extension through the university property. Additionally, extension of the
historic grid should provide multiple opportunities for local traffic to travel through the city,
reducing the demand and congestion on the identified arterial and collector roadways.
Safe Routes to School
Safety for school children, and college students is of utmost importance to the Rexburg
community. Identifying safe walking routes to schools should take first priority for pedestrian
improvements within the city. Enhancement of school routes include, completion of sidewalks
where they are incomplete, repair of sidewalks in poor condition, and intersection and school
zone signage. The Future Transportation Plan map identifies pedestrian traffic generators,
such as schools and highlights areas for additional safety consideration and emphasis.
Additional pedestrian safety emphasis areas should include areas around parks and natural
areas, commercial districts, libraries, and other community resources and destinations.
Downtown/BYU-I Pedestrian Emphasis District
Residents, City officials, and the Idaho Department of Transportation are concerned about the
number of accidents resulting from angle parking in the downtown area of Rexburg. For a
short period in recent history, downtown Rexburg was identified as one of the 25 worst
accident locations in Idaho. Main Street has since dropped off the list of worst accident
locations, but the Department of Transportation would like to redesign Main Street to more
efficiently move traffic along U.S. 33. Unfortunately, more efficient traffic flow, often does not
equate to safer traffic flow or the development of community resources. Studies have shown
that faster traffic flow exponentially increases the severity of accidents and dramatically
reduces the survival rate of pedestrians when involved in automobile accidents.
It is the recommendation of this plan to advocate for retaining angled on-street parking in the
downtown area, but to work to improve safety along Main Street through other measures
which may include:
Reducing traffic congestion on Main Street by proving additional east-west and north-
south connections through the City.
Reducing the posted speed limit
Defining Main Street and Downtown as a district and destination with streetscape
improvements (banners, lighting, landscaping, furnishings, and commercial activity),
encouraging motorists to slow down to “experience” the district.
Removal of on-street parking in downtown will hurt business owners, increase traffic levels
and speeds along Main Street, increase safety risks for pedestrians and motorists, and further
exacerbate the safety issues that the City is currently experiencing.
The Future Transportation Plan identifies a one-to-two block radius around BYU-I and the
downtown area as a “pedestrian emphasis zone” where the safety of pedestrians and
motorists is given priority over the most efficient movement of vehicles. Tools to increase
pedestrian safety and comfort used in a number of other communities include:
Pedestrian-activated crossings
Mid-block crosswalks
Pavement treatments
Traffic calming devices: bulb-outs, chokes, raised intersections or crosswalks, etc.
Streetscape beautification and pedestrian amenities: landscaping, furnishing, lighting,
etc.
Transportation
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 103
Green Grid
The population demographics in Rexburg, with a high percentage of young families and retired
persons indicate that there is a strong demand for park space. This is reinforced by the
comments of citizens throughout this process requesting additional recreational opportunities.
While the Comprehensive Plan proposes extending
the traditional street grid as new areas develop, a
“green grid” or network of bike lanes, trails, parks,
and open spaces should be extended, similar to the
gridded network of streets. In many cases the green
grid sections may be nothing more than a quiet
street with a painted bike lane on the roadway. In
other areas, the green grid sections may be
comprised of Class I dedicated multi-use trails along
rivers, canals, or major roadways. Green grid
routes should occur at least every half mile, following
the pattern of gridded streets, and should connect
new and existing neighborhoods to other
neighborhood centers and community destinations.
The Teton River is highlighted in the Comprehensive Plan as a unique resource for the
community. The Teton River Park, much of it left in its natural state, will occupy a portion of
the floodplain. The bike and jogging path within the river park should tie into a green grid
system within the city, and connect to the Trails of Madison County bikeway encircling the
city.
Trails are typically categorized under the following classification system:
Class I: Shared Use Pathway:
A shared use pathway is typically a paved trail that is separate physically from roadways and
other transportation facilities. Use pathway is designed for simultaneous use by bikers,
joggers, etc. These trails typically meet specific standards for components such as trail width
and accessibility.
Class II: Bike Lane:
A bike lane is typically a portion of an existing roadway (or expanded roadway) that has been
striped as for use by bicycles.
Class III: Shared Roadway:
A shared roadway is a road that is constructed to design standards that allows for the safe use
of both motor vehicles and bicycles. Roads are signed as a bike route.
Walking facilities can at times be shared with bikers on Class I facilities. Class II and Class III
facilities are not typically suitable for walking/hiking. Sidewalks should be constructed on all
trail-designated streets to facilitate this use.
The Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan Map, located in the Recreation Chapter, identifies
future trail alignments by classification.
Residents demand for park space contributes to the
need to provide ample green networks around the
City.
Public Services, Facilities, and Utilities
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 104
Chapter 9: Public Services, Facilities, and Utilities
Goals and Objectives
Goal 1: Provide quality public services to residents, businesses and
institutions.
Objective 1.1: Integrate public services, utilities and facilities into the fabric of
neighborhoods so as to create a pleasing visual appearance.
Policy: Require the use of underground utility lines where feasible.
Objective 1.2: When possible, manage the timing of residential development so that
adequate streets, water, sewer, drainage facilities, schools and other
essential services can be economically provided.
Policy: Encourage the phasing of development with the City to ensure
that it can be served by the City’s resources without impairing
existing developments and systems or existing residents.
Policy: Consider the benefit and applicability of requiring area studies
to be prepared by developers showing the relationship of the
subdivision to the neighborhood of which it is a part. Access to
the general street system, school, recreation sites, and other
facilities and services would ideally be shown.
Policy: Encourage the sequencing of development projects to be built
concurrently with infrastructure or services required by the
development.
Goal 2: New development should “pay its own way” in building the capital
infrastructure needed to adequately provide public services.
Objective 2.1: Continue to maintain fair impact fees that adequately reflect the cost
of building/acquiring the capital infrastructure required by new
development.
Public Facilities, Utilities, and Services
This portion of the plan presents a brief inventory of the major public services and facilities
available to the citizens of Rexburg. Any existing deficiencies in the operation and capacity of
Rexburg's facilities will limit future population growth and land development. This inventory is
based on information provided by department heads and other administrators.
Public Services, Facilities, and Utilities
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 105
Culinary Water
Water for the City of Rexburg is supplied from ground water pumped directly into the system
for culinary use. No treatment of the water is required or provided. Water is supplied from six
wells located throughout the city. The water system is divided into three pressure zones
depending on the elevation of the user. Supply and pressure is maintained by four water
storage reservoirs that have a total capacity of 4,750,000 gallons. The two uppermost
pressure zones are supplied by Well No.5, a two million ground level storage tank and an
elevated 250,000 gallon storage tank. This well and the two storage tanks can also provide
water to the lower pressure zones. Maximum total well production is approximately 14 million
gallons per day.
The water system also includes three booster stations that pressurize water into the system
for use or for back-up of other zones. Water is distributed to the users through several miles
of piping that vary in size from 2 inches to 24 inches. The average domestic usage is 3.5 to 4
million gallons, with summer irrigation increasing the total demand to 11.5 million gallons. The
water transmission system between the wells and the distribution system consists of 10"
through 20" lines. Most of the water distribution system is loop ed and is composed of 6" and
8" diameter lines, although approximately five miles of the distribution are only four inch or
smaller lines. The water system is predominantly constructed of ductile iron pipe.
Water is provided to the residents of Rexburg through six wells, which range in depth from 75
feet to 380 feet. One well is located in Porter Park, one in Smith Park, one is to the north of
the Teton, and three wells are located on the hill in the southeast quadrant of Rexburg. Well
pumping volumes are:
Existing Well Facilities
Location Pumping Volumes (g.p.m)
Well No.2 Porter Park 1,000
Well No.3 Smith Park 900
Well No.4 1000 North 1,385 from Well to Tank and 2,000 from
pressure boosters at tank to main
Well No.5 Skyview Drive 2,100 to 2,200
Well No.1 2nd East and 5th South 2,200 to 2,300
Well No.6 2nd East and 5th South 2,100 to 2,200
Maximum Well Production
(g.p.d) 14,000,000
Water quality is tested several times per month to assure the quality of the water being
provided meets all required standards. Periodically the water is tested for 117 different
chemicals, metals, organic compounds and other constituents as directed by the EPA. A
summary of the water quality is provided to the users on an annual basis.
Due to growth and age-based improvements, the water system has been upgraded since the
previous Comprehensive Plan. A generator room and a 500-KV diesel driven generator were
installed at Well No.5. This installation ensures delivery of water from Well No.5 during a
power outage as well as emergency power at Well No.4 that will run the 1385 g.p.m. well
pump and the 2400 g.p.m. booster pumps from the tank. Three water lines traveling under
U.S. 20 have been installed based on new development occurring on the west side of the City.
Before this, a 12-inch water line was installed, traveling west then south along 12th West, and
then through the South Rexburg interchange with a 16” water line to loop this system.
There are some locations scattered throughout the City system where very old, deteriorated
lines need to be removed and replaced or where lines that are too small need to be replaced
with larger lines to provide adequate water pressure or fire flow. In addition, the City is
Public Services, Facilities, and Utilities
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 106
currently in the process of completing a system-wide water study to assess future capital
improvement projects necessary for new growth and to prioritize age-based improvements.
The biggest need in the City is for three (3) additional wells and to increase line sizes to
support new growth. It is also anticipated that the next well and water storage tank will be
constructed along 12th West roughly centered between the two interchanges.
Wastewater Treatment
The Wastewater Departments' responsibilities include the operation of t he wastewater
collection system, pumping stations, and the treatment plant and related facilities.
Responsibilities also include the monitoring of all industrial and commercial users of the
system to insure that substances that would be harmful to the treatment system or process
are not discharged into the collection system. Treated wastewater is discharged to the South
Fork of the Teton River at a point just upstream of the Highway 20 river bridge. The treated
water is monitored daily for quality. The level of treatment of the wastewater is governed by
the EPA. The treated water from the treatment plant is always well below the mandated limits,
and in fact is usually cleaner than the water in the Teton River.
The wastewater facilities for the City of Rexburg include a state-of-the-art treatment plant that
was constructed in 1996 and expanded in 2001 and 2007, adding capacity for solid
processing. The treatment process is termed extended aeration, using the oxidation ditch
process. The treatment plant has a capacity of 3.6 million gallons per day and is presently
operating at approximately 3.0 million gallons per day. The treatment plant provides for the
treatment of wastewater from Rexburg, Sugar City, and the City of Teton.
The wastewater system also includes eight pumping stations to transport the wastewater flows
to the treatment plant. The Main Street station at the golf course serves a major portion of the
City. The K-Mart lift station at 1st East and Valley River Drive, which serves the north end of
Rexburg, including Sugar City, is operating at approximately 80 percent of its capacity. It is
expected that the neighboring City of Teton will be adding its wastewater to the line served by
this line. Sunglow, a large potato processor, is also expected to i ncrease its flow to this lift
station. These two changes will make it necessary to increase the pumping capacity at this lift
station. The Mill Hollow lift station on Rodney Drive serves the Mill Hollow Meadows Mobile
Home Park and the Ricks-Palmer addition. It is operating at 60 percent of its capacity.
Continued residential expansion in the areas east and south of this service area may make it
necessary to upgrade the Mill Hollow lift station. The additional pump stations include a station
at the middle school, the Wilcox station, a station at Airport Road and at 12th West.
Many of the sewer lines in the older part of town are over forty years old and will probably
need to be replaced or relined in the next few years. The City has recently conducted a T V
monitoring program to determine the condition of older lines in the downtown area to
prioritize repairs and replacements. This program will be combined with the overall water
system analysis to determine future capital improvements.
The City of Rexburg maintains a separate storm water system. The storm water collection
system uses holding ponds and discharges into the Teton River or canals.
Public Services, Facilities, and Utilities
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 107
Sanitation
The Sanitation Department is in charge of collecting and disposing of trash throughout the
City. Sanitation trucks collect the trash for both residential and commercial places. The
department also delivers and maintains the trash receptacles. All collected trash is transported
to the Madison County transfer station located on Airport Road. During a normal month, the
department will collect 750 tons of refuse, or about 9,000 tons a year. Construction and
demolition wastes are disposed of in the Madison County landfill twelve miles west of Rexburg.
Domestic wastes are transported and buried in the Jefferson County landfill near Mudlake. The
life expectancy of the landfill for construction and demolition wastes in Madison County is
twelve years and eighty years for the Jefferson County landfill near Mudlake. BYU-Idaho
operates its own sanitation department consisting of one truck.
Public Safety: Police
The Rexburg Police Department is located at 25 East Main Street. The department currently
maintains an animal impound located on North 5th West. The police department has 25 full -
time employees, five part-time employees, and six full-time civilian office staff employees. The
Rexburg Police department provides the following community policing services:
Patrol
Community Service
School Resource Officers
Bicycle Patrol
Crime Prevention
Detectives
DARE
K-9
Emergency Response Team
Animal Control
The five members of the administrative division are the Chief of Police, Captain, and the office
staff. They are primarily responsible for the smooth running of the department, community
relations, parking enforcement, and evidence and record maintenance. The Chief works with
other local agencies in drug enforcement programs. Fourteen of the employees are in the
patrol division, including a lieutenant, sergeant, and 12 patrol officers. The patrol division
maintains two K-9 drug dogs. These specially-trained K-9’s and their handlers perform drug
searches and tracking. The reserve patrol officers are used to supplement patrol
responsibilities. Patrol officers conduct criminal patrol duties, DUI and traffic law enforcement,
issue traffic citations, conduct traffic accident scene investigations, file crime reports, and
provide traffic control. They also participate in the investigation of fatal traffic accidents, and
hit and run cases. The Patrol Division also assists fire and ambulance units whenever they are
dispatched. Patrol officers serve as a direct liaison between the department and the
community on quality-of-life issues.
The community policing division has five officers who maintain and organize the school
resource officer program (in association with the Madison School District #321), DARE
education, block parties and community programs, preparation of grant requests, and bike
patrol during summer months. The animal control officer is part of this division. In addi tion,
the City has recently hired a Code Enforcement Officer as part of this division to enforce city
ordinances. The Investigation Division is consists of one Lieutenant and four Detectives, with
specialized training in Crime Scene Investigation, Evidence Collection, Interviewing, Child
Abuse and Sex Crimes. Two of the officers are dedicated to internet and computer crimes.
The City completed construction of a new animal shelter in 2007, with one full -time animal
control officer. The City is also planning to construct a storage building for emergency
equipment.
Public Services, Facilities, and Utilities
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 108
Public Safety: Fire
The City's emergency medical and fire services are combined into one agency, the Emergency
Services Department. Fire protection in Rexburg is provided by 13 full-time fire fighters and
60 paid fighters who are on call. The primary emergency response facility is located next to
City Hall at 26 N. Center. This station provides first response to all fire & EMS incidents within
Madison County. The personnel at this station operate on three 24-hour shifts which is the
standard in most fire agencies throughout the State. Additional support is provided by
approximately 60 paid-call volunteer firefighters and a second fire station. The majority of the
fire personnel are cross-trained as basic, advanced or paramedic level EMT's.
Additional space needs include classroom space, weight room, and facilities for women. A new
ladder fire truck has been obtained to maintain Rexburg’s fire rating. The goal is to respond to
any call within three to five minutes. The fire district is in the process of building a storage
facility at station #2 for seasonal equipment. The fire district responds to approximately 500 -
600 calls annually with a total of 2,000 calls answered by the Emergency Services
Department. The Fire Department has five class-A pumpers purchased from 1977 to 1993.
The Department also purchased a 3,000 gallon water tender and a rescue truck in 2007.
Funding for fire protection is provided by the Madison County Fire District. With $1 mi llion in
operating expenses and a total budget of $1.7 million, the Emergency Services Department
accounts for 7 percent of Rexburg's total budget. Several agencies provide the revenue
sources to maintain emergency services including the fire district, the City of Rexburg and the
ambulance district.
Ambulance service is provided by the county
ambulance district, dispatched from Rexburg,
and housed at fire station immediately north of
City Hall.
Public Safety: Emergency Medical Services
Ambulance service is provided by the County by
the ambulance district, dispatched from Rexburg,
and housed at the fire station immediately north
of City Hall. The facility is staffed by the
emergency response personnel who also serve
as firefighters. The majority of the fire personnel
are cross trained as basic, advanced or
paramedic level EMT's and are able to respond
based on need.
Ambulances are replaced at 100,000 miles or every three to four years. The district currently
has five ambulances that respond to approximately 1,400 calls annually, with a response time
of two to five minutes in the City of Rexburg, depending on location and severity of call.
Madison Memorial Hospital
Madison Memorial Hospital, is an acute primary care facility, offering services in the following
areas: medical, intensive care, coronary care, obstetrics, cardiac rehabilitation, social work,
general surgery, recovery, orthopedics, ear nose and throat, gynecology, podiatry, full
ambulatory surgery, emergency services, physical therapy, occupational therapy, pharmacy,
intensive care nursery, respiratory therapy, radiology, MRI, CT, ultrasound nuclear medicine,
laboratory, and speech.
Currently, Madison Memorial is nearing the end of construction on a $50 million expansion.
The expansion includes all new facilities for inpatient medical, surgical services, obstetrical and
Inside Madison Memorial Hospital
Public Services, Facilities, and Utilities
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 109
post-partum and NICU services, emergency, radiology, new procedural services for surgery,
GI, interventional radiology, day surgery and central sterile processing. With the additional
facility, the bed count will increase to 62.
There are also plans for renovation of the existing building. In this space, the medical and
records offices, maintenance, laboratory, laundry, cafeteria, pharmaceutical services,
engineering, information systems, and cardio-diagnostics will be housed. Both the expansion
and renovation of the hospital is expected to be complete in January 2009.
Madison Memorial has 42 active staff, five associate staff, 35 courtesy staff physicians, 29
allied health staff, and 520 total employees serving residents of all surrounding counties.
Other hospitals and medical centers near Rexburg include: 1) Idaho Falls Recovery center in
Idaho Falls (approximately 30 miles); 2) Eastern Idaho Regional Medical Center in Idaho Falls
(about 42 miles); and 3) Teton Valley Hospital and Surgicenter in Driggs (about 47 miles).
Parks, Recreation, and Open Space
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 110
Chapter 10: Parks, Recreation, and Open Space
Goals and Objectives
Goal 1: Aspire to a goal for all Rexburg residents to have adequate access to
high-quality, clean, and safe park and recreation facilities.
Objective 1.1: Maintain, and when possible, further develop existing parks and green
space areas throughout the City.
Policy: When appropriate, identify and prioritize park space needs and
include in a City-wide Capital Improvements Plan.
Objective 1.2: Plan for the development of additional park spaces as the City grows
to ensure all Rexburg residents have convenient access to parks.
Policy: When appropriate, develop and adopt a Parks and Recreation
Plan for Rexburg that inventories all parks and recreational
facilities available and assesses and plans for future parks.
Policy: As appropriate, identify and acquire sites for future parks and
recreational facilities in areas of the city currently not well-
served by parks.
Policy: Encourage developers to set aside park space in areas of new
development.
Policy: Collect and balance the use of park impact fees to help ensure
that new demand for a range of park and recreation facilities
are addressed.
Objective 1.3: Encourage and support the development and maintenance of regional
park and recreational facilities.
Policy: Consider entering into discussions with Madison County and
Sugar City to identify and secure funding for a regional
community recreation center, and other recreation facilities
Goal 2: Support the development of an integrated trail network connecting
Rexburg neighborhoods to parks, recreation areas, and community
amenities such as the Teton River corridor, BYU-I, and downtown.
Objective 2.1: Support and encourage the development of a “green grid” plan
identifying key pedestrian and bicycle routes throughout the City.
Parks, Recreation, and Open Space
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 111
Policy: Encourage developers to set aside land for trails as new
development occurs.
Policy: When appropriate, the City should identify and prioritize
alignments for future bicycle routes to be included in a City-
wide Capital Improvement Plan.
Policy: Cooperate with the Trails of Madison County organization to
implement the Madison County Trails Master Plan and
Greenbelt Plan.
Policy: Explore options for funding sources for the development of
future trails systems, as identified in the Trails of Madison
County Trails Master Plan, and in this Comprehensive Plan
Chapter, at the appropriate time.
Existing Parks, Recreation, and Open Spaces
Rexburg residents have the opportunity to enjoy and participate in a number of forms of
recreation, and have convenient access to several recreational resources within the City and in
the areas around it. Situated at the southwestern gateway to the Grand Teton and Yellowstone
National Parks, residents need only drive a couple hours to enjoy some of our nation’s most
spectacular scenery. In addition to these destinations, Rexburg is on the way to several
additional tourism areas including: Craters of the Moon National Monument, the Idaho
National Laboratory, Jackson Hole, Island Park, Ririe and Palisades Reservoirs, Sand Hills and
the historic Teton Dam site. The City’s location creates a prime opportunity for capitalizing on
tourism and regional travel and visitation.
Despite the convenience of these incredible resources, residents of Rexburg have access an
abundant selection of recreational opportunities without having to leave the home. Currently
the area can boast the following public and semi-public recreational facilities:
Parks
Rexburg has developed three different
types of park facilities. Each park type has
a distinct purpose and role and meets a
specific community need. Some of the
various parks are shared facilities with
other municipal entities such as the school
district, and service clubs and
organizations.
Community Parks - Currently there are
four (4) community parks. These include
Smith Park, Porter Park, The Nature Park,
and Community Park.
Neighborhood Parks - Neighborhood Parks
include the Eagle Park, Evergreen Park,
and Hidden Valley Park. Generally these
parks are smaller in acreage and primarily
serve local area residents within walking
distance of the facilities. These parks are increasing in number primarily due to the efforts of
developers who see the marketing and lifestyle advantages to providing these amenities to
their subdivisions.
Community and neighborhood parks provide safe gathering
places and recreation for City residents.
Parks, Recreation, and Open Space
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 112
Pocket Parks – Pocket Parks include Park Street Park and Rotary Park.
Specialty Parks - Specialty Park Facilities include Eagle Park on the south side of the Teton
River, which has primarily been developed by service clubs and local Boy Scouts of America
troops.
City/County Facilities
Madison County Fairgrounds - these grounds, located in Rexburg, contain an indoor arena and
two outdoor arenas used on a continuous basis for livestock oriented activities, a fairgrounds
site and three animal barns, All of these facilities are used for community activities and
social/cultural events throughout the year.
City/County Golf Courses - The Teton Lakes Golf Course (27 hole) and the Rexburg Municipal
Golf Course (9 hole) are available for public use in Madison County. 9 holes have been added
to the Teton Lakes Course. During the winter the two Madison County Rexburg golf courses
are regularly used for cross-country skiing activities.
Trails
County Bikeway System - This in-progress trail system will include a series of bikeways
throughout the County providing for transportation alternatives for County residents. These
could also be used for cross-country trails in the winter months. Currently, sections of the trail
system including a bikeway surrounding Rexburg and a trail connecting Rexburg and Sugar
City using the Eastern Idaho Railroad right-of-way exist or are in-progress.
Greenbelt Development – A planned multi-use trail system along the Teton River to Rexburg
has been identified and a section of the trail has been completed.
Natural Areas
The Teton River natural area, crossing through the heart of the City, provides a unique
opportunity for Rexburg residents to enjoy an undeveloped riparian area within the heart of
the City. A trail running through the river corridor and eventually connecting the planned Trails
of Madison County Trails Master Plan provides a unique resource to the community.
School, Churches, Misc.
In addition to the formal recreation opportunities in the County, there are a variety of other
forms of recreation available to Rexburg residents. Those include hobby farming, horseback
riding, and even parachuting at the airport. Additionally, many churches and schools in the
City have park space associated with them, and those spaces are typically open for public use
on off-hours.
The School District maintains an additional 16-acre park adjacent to the High School, which is
shared with the community at large. Rexburg residents also routinely enjoy the facilities at the
various schools within the district. The Middle school has two very fine multi use field next to
the building, which are used for the community sports programs.
Future Parks Recreation and Open Space Plan
Parks, trails, and recreation facilities are valued as venues for recreation opportunities and
large group gatherings, play an integral role for Rexburg’s residents not only for the aesthetic
value of green space but also for their overall beneficial impact on a community’s health. As
Rexburg’s population increases, it will be necessary to plan for and develop additional parks.
Parks, Recreation, and Open Space
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 113
The Rexburg Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan includes a spectrum of different types of
formal and informal, active and passive, developed and natural open spaces. Open spaces
serve many different functions and have different purposes. There are four main components
of the community’s vision for the future of parks, recreation, and open space within Rexburg:
Parks, Recreation Facilities, Trails, and Natural Open Space. These are described below.
Parks
The City of Rexburg, in cooperation with other entities, both public and private, provides a
number of resources, facilities and programs to meet the needs of Rexburg residents. Based
on comments by the general public gathered as part of this planning process, there is a
demand for additional park spaces within the City.
The National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA) used to set recommended standards on
the amount of park space that should be provided in a city based on its population size.
NRPA has decided to no longer set these standards, and instead recommends that
communities establish their own standards based on the resources that a jurisdiction can
commit to maintenance and upkeep of parks.
The latest park, recreation, open space and greenway guidelines released last year by the
National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA) appear to have been based on a new
philosophy, with a "systems approach" to community facility planning at its core. The new
approach reconsiders the old notion of a national standard of 10 acres of park land for every
1,000 people, which has been in place since 1981 and is generally recognized as deficient in
today’s recreation and open space environment.
NRPA presents an alternative premise which states that every community has its own unique
blend of social and economic characteristics that define it. Each community should be
considered on an individual basis in order to tailor the most appropriate range, quantity and
quality of recreational facilities within fiscal limits.
The new guidelines address three particularly important social changes in the last decade:
The need to accommodate different cultures
The need to include citizen opinion in the process
The identification of the wellness movement
The establishment of level of service standards (LOS).
This new approach recognizes that the residents of each community should be given the right
to determine the size and use of land set aside for parks and recreation facilities. Past
planning models relied less on direct community involvement and more on mediated public
hearings with limited technocratic input from staff and consultants. Importantly, the new
approach also recognizes that facility planning should constitute a component of a given
community's comprehensive land use plan.
The Level of Service Guideline
Once the community's infrastructure has been fully considered, the planning framework is
designed to determine the Level of Service guideline. The LOS sets the community's standard
for a minimum amount of space required to meet the citizen recreation demand. The LOS
addresses infrastructure concerns in particular and links the systems approach to the actual
planning process.
In calculating the LOS, the new guidelines suggest eight steps:
1. Park classification;
Parks, Recreation, and Open Space
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 114
2. What recreation activities will be offered and what facilities will be needed;
3. Open space size standards;
4. Present supply of those activities;
5. Total expressed demand;
6. Minimum population service requirements for the activity choices;
7. Individual LOS for each park class; and,
8. Collective LOS for the entire park and recreation system.
To illustrate the process, a tennis courts supply can be calculated by multiplying its expected
use (number of visits per day per unit) by its availability (number of days available per year).
The expected use is determined as a combination of average daily use and peak use. Once the
supply is determined, planners then determine the number and types of users, from light
users (one visit per year) to medium users (one visit per month) to heavy users (one visit per
week).
The recreation facility demand can then be calculated by adding the products of the three
types of users and dividing the total by the number of people in the community. From there,
the facility classification can be determined.
While the process is a complex, formulaic one, it does represent a fresh perspective on an
issue that has not been revisited by NRPA in many years. The new standard is dependent on
the specific characteristics of individual communities.
Although a thorough inventory of park and recreation activities and use levels has not been
conducted as part of this Comprehensive Planning Process, it is recommended that the City
consider the NRPA’s planning approach and a Rexburg Parks Plan is developed. NRPA
references the following as a good resource for park planning,
Park, Recreation, Open Space and Greenway Guidelines, James D. Mertes and James R. Hall,
National Recreation and Park Association, 1996.
Recommended Park Acreage Standards
Type Service Area
Radius Usual Size
Mini/Pocket Park 0.25 mile 1 acre or less
Neighborhood Park 0.5 mile 1-5 acres
Community Park 1.5 miles 5 -25 acres
City-wide Park 3 miles 25-50 acres
Regional Park Entire City 50+ acres
Rexburg Park Inventory
Park Type Acres
Rotary Park Mini/Pocket Park 0.4
Park Street Park Mini/Pocket Park 0.4
Hidden Valley Park Neighborhood Park 2.85
Evergreen Park Neighborhood Park 2.95
Community Park Community Park 8.2
Smith Park Community Park 12.0
Porter Park Community Park 12.0
Eagle Park Community Park 19.10
Nature Park Community Park 19.6
77.5 Total acres
With projected population increases, the demand for park space will increase, and the City
should work with developers to plan for and include parks as part of new subdivision designs.
Parks, Recreation, and Open Space
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 115
Specific locations for new parks have not been indicated in this comprehensive plan as it is
difficult to predict the availability of land or resources for the establishment of new parks at
this time. However, the historic grid extension concept included in the Land Use Chapter of the
plan includes a park space for each new neighborhood. These future parks may eventually be
developed in any number of places within the neighborhoods. The park spaces are shown on
the Land Use and Parks maps simply to indicate that if the populations of these neighborhoods
increase over time as a result of development, there will be a demand for designated park
areas.
Options for funding these new parks can come through a variety of mechanisms, but should all
ultimately come from the developers of the surrounding lands. Impact fees can help meet the
additional demand for park space created by expanding the population of an area.
Alternatively, the City may require a developer to set aside a certain portion of land for a park
in their development master plans. A third option is to require developers to pay a fee in lieu
of the setting aside of a specific parcel for the development of a park.
A recreation survey conducted by BYU-I students in 2008 noted that 49% of survey responses
mentioned that the development of additional larger parks is preferred over smaller parks.
However, nearly the same amount, 46% of respondents said they preferred pocket parks. As
the student report notes, this suggests that future park planning in the community should
ideally include the development of both large and small parks. Pocket parks are challenging
for many cities to maintain, but research shows that they are some of the more frequently
used parks in many places. The City should work with developers to have smaller park spaces
designed into subdivisions, and ensure that homeowner association fees and programs are
established for park maintenance. Maintenance of small park spaces is very expensive for
cities, and Rexburg leaders discourage the development of pocket parks that will require
maintenance and upkeep by the City. Regardless of the type and size of parks developed, the
City should aim to provide a balance of park space opportunities within the city as it grows.
The following is a list of other specific park recommendations for Rexburg:
Encourage the development of a new a neighborhood park in the southeast quadrant
of the City
Support the utilization of areas of the eastern portion of the City where topography,
floodplains, steep slopes, or narrow drainages make development difficult for the
creation of linear parks.
Explore the benefit and feasibility of developing a Capital Improvements Plan that
identifies and prioritizes park, recreation, and open space needs.
Encourage the location of neighborhood parks within one-half mile of new residential
developments. Such parks should emphasize landscaped open areas, picnic facilities,
and playground equipment.
Support the connection of new and existing parks, open spaces, neighborhoods, and
neighborhood centers together with a networked “green grid” of sidewalks, bicycle
routes, and trails.
Provide facilities and equipment necessary to meet local needs at neighborhood parks
when possible. Such improvements may include landscaping, trees, picnic areas,
playground equipment, and sports fields in all new neighborhood parks.
Support the design of storm water retention ponds, when needed, for multiple uses
including parks and temporary storm water retention facilities.
Cooperate with the Trails of Madison County organization to explore the development
of a river park plan which identifies the location of paths and accompanying facilities
such as overlooks, jogging paths, picnic areas, signs, parking areas, and nature areas
along the Teton River.
Parks, Recreation, and Open Space
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 116
Recreation Facilities
Comments gathered through various public outreach efforts indicate strong community
support for the development of parks, greenway trails, and also the development of a
community recreation facility. It is anticipated that such a community recreation center will be
an opportunity for joint coordination between the City of Rexburg, Madison County, and Sugar
City.
A recreation survey conducted by BYU-I students in 2008 reported that 67% of survey
respondents mentioned that they would like to see a swimming pool available for public use.
A new swimming pool is being planned for Rexburg, and will be open for public use.
Trails
The community group, Trails of Madison County, have an ambitious vision for a connected trail
network throughout the County. Trails can be used for a variety of uses. They can be for
hikers, bikers, walkers, joggers, etc. Trails are typically described as paths that connect two or
more locations together. Pathways that loop around a single park are not typically included as
a separate trail, although they become part of the overall trail network. Trails used for
transportation/commuting are primarily used by bicyclists.
Walking facilities can at times be shared with bikers on Class I facilities. Class II and Class III
facilities are not typically suitable for walking/hiking.
Sidewalks should be constructed on all trail-designated
streets to facilitate this use. Trail classifications are
described in the Transportation element of this plan.
In addition to developing parks, the community values
the further development of greenbelt trails adjacent to
the Teton River and around Rexburg. Extending the
existing greenbelt trails will provide opportunities for
recreational activities such as biking, jogging, and
rollerblading in the summer and cross-country skiing in
the winter. Moreover, further developing the greenbelt
will enhance the area surrounding the Teton River and
connect neighborhoods to parks.
The population demographics in Rexburg, with a high
percentage of young families and retired persons
indicate that there is a strong demand for park space.
This is reinforced by the comments of citizens
throughout this process requesting additional
recreational opportunities.
While the Comprehensive Plan proposes extending the traditional street grid as new areas
develop, a “green grid” or network of bike lanes, trails, parks, and open spaces should
similarly be extended. In many cases the green grid sections could be nothing more than a
quiet street with a painted bike lane on the roadway. In other areas, the green grid sections
may be comprised of Class I dedicated multi-use trails along rivers, canals, or major
roadways. Specifically, the Teton River is highlighted in the Comprehensive Plan as a unique
and precious resource for the community. The Teton River Park, much of it left in its natural
state, will occupy a portion of the floodplain. The bike and jogging path within the river park
could tie into a bike system that encircles Rexburg and connects new and existing
neighborhoods to community destinations.
A series of new parks should be dedicated as each new neighborhood arises in the City’s
Impact Area. Large City parks are encouraged by the City, but smaller parks developed and
maintained by specific subdivisions are also encouraged. In many cases, storm water retention
Parks, Recreation, and Open Space
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 117
ponds not only temporarily hold storm water but also provide treed open space, informal
picnicking, and walking and sitting space to neighbors.
The following is a list of specific trail recommendations for Rexburg:
Encourage the utilization of areas of the eastern portion of the City where topography,
floodplains, steep slopes, or narrow drainages make development difficult for the
alignment of new trails.
Encourage the development of a “green grid” of sidewalks, bicycle facilities, and trails
connecting new and existing neighborhoods, parks, neighborhood centers, open
spaces, and recreation resources throughout the City.
Support the development of a greenbelt trail system along the Teton River corridor,
encircling the City, and connecting to Sugar City.
Encourage investigation of sources for funding the development of trails throughout
Rexburg.
Support the development of parking areas in appropriate places to increase access to
trails throughout the city.
Work with local civic organizations to encourage community events along the City’s
trail systems to raise awareness and funding for additional trails.
Encourage redevelopment of underutilized or vacated industrial lands along the Teton
River as opportunities arise.
Natural Open Space Preserves
Madison County has a number of picturesque natural open spaces within its borders
mentioned above. Preservation and maintenance of these open spaces is of utmost importance
to the community. This plan encourages the long-term preservation of these areas through
regulatory and market tools when privately-owned, and through government sponsored
maintenance when publicly-owned.
Specific preservation goals may include:
Preservation of public access to river and stream corridors
Preservation of views, including hillsides, ridgelines, river corridors, and bluffs
Preservation of natural open areas as a primary design objective in all future
development proposals.
Coordination with non-profit organizations or land trusts to help promote
preservation, and accept and maintain donations of land and easements for parks,
recreation, and open space.
Agricultural Lands
Although not typically considered recreational
resources, agricultural lands provide a valuable
resource to a community. When people move to a rural
area, much of the reason is the open, rural, and small
town feel of the place. Agricultural lands are typically
the primary generator of this rural character, and
ensure the wide, open vistas unencumbered with
multiple residential developments are preserved for
the enjoyment of the few residents who do live in
these areas.
In addition to preservation of a rural, open character,
preservation of agricultural lands has many other
values and benefits. Preserving agriculture in a
community also means preservation of the
Landscape standards assist in creating an aesthetically
pleasing environment.
Parks, Recreation, and Open Space
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 118
community’s heritage and historical industry. Many forms of wildlife rely on agricultural lands
in the winter months to seek refuge from the harsh mountainous environment, and to find
more easily accessible food sources than available in their summer range.
Lastly, it is important to recognize that it is easy to develop agricultural lands into residential
neighborhoods, but it is nearly impossible to return a subdivision to productive agricultural
land. The City of Rexburg is fortunate in that there are many areas close to existing
infrastructure systems that are available and appropriate for development. It would be wise
for the City to direct development to these areas first, and preserve the more remote
agricultural lands for all the reasons mentioned above as well as a potential “rainy day” option
if the City experiences some extraordinary and unpredictable future population increase some
day in the long-term future.
There are several implementation tools available to cities for agricultural preservation. They
include: clustering development, conservation easements, TDRs, agricultural zoning,
agricultural protection areas, and federal and state grant programs. Appendices B and C
explain clustering development and TDRs in more detail.
City-wide Landscaping Recommendations
The City may expand City-wide standards for landscaping. The City has received recognition
as a Tree City USA for the last 3 years, and has submitted a recertification for the fourth. The
City encourages and supports the utilization of trees for their functional value in addressing
critical city issues, such as stormwater, air and water quality, and energy conservation.
The City supports encouraging conditions favorable for a healthy community forest as part of
the development or redevelopment process. It is recommended that the City encourage
developers to plant street trees in new subdivisions at appropriate times or make provisions to
encourage and enable tree planting in subdivision designs . The City may want to consider
establishing minimum shade requirements in commercial parking lots and minimum landscape
requirements for commercial development. New and existing industrial parks and business
parks should create an overall landscape theme that establishes the park as a unified and
cohesive development. A well landscaped industrial park can help compensate for the use of
all metal buildings that have large blank walls and uninterrupted rooflines.
In addition to the urban forestry objectives stated above, the following additional landscaping
standards may be incorporated into City regulations:
Where arterial streets must cross through residential neighborhoods, use landscaped
medians to break up the width of the roadway, soften traffic noise, and lessen and
control the impact of traffic volume.
Develop and maintain a list of plant materials suitable for Rexburg's climate and
distribute the list to developers and homeowners.
In cooperation with state and federal transportation agencies, create and maintain
landscaping on entryways to Rexburg.
Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan Map
Open space is typically described as a land use that has not be developed for commercial,
office, industrial, or residential use. Recreation-oriented open space can be in the form of park
space; natural undeveloped lands; recreation facilities; public utility, railroad, or canal
corridors; or even the grounds of education and religious institutions. The Rexburg Parks,
Recreation, and Open Space Plan Map illustrates preferred parks and open spaces in specific
areas of the County. Generally the map mirrors current land uses in those areas where the
present use is deemed desirable and appropriate. Vacant areas, areas with inappropriate
Parks, Recreation, and Open Space
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 119
current land uses, and areas potentially available for parks and open space may be included in
the Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan Map as uses other that their present use.
The Rexburg Park, Recreation, and Open Space Plan Map contains the following designations:
Parks
Parks are developed facilities within the City that provide opportunities for outdoor active and
passive recreation and recreational programs. These include areas with designated picnicking
or camping areas, ball fields, horseshoes, playgrounds, or other similar programmed areas.
Trails
Trails are essentially linear parks. They are pathways, bike lanes, or shared roadways
designated for use by pedestrians and other alternative modes of transportation. Depending
on surface materials and designated uses, trails provide opportunities for a range of activities
including walking and running, bicycling, rollerblading, horseback riding, snowshoeing, cross-
country skiing, and ATV or snowmobiling.
Natural Open Spaces
Natural open spaces are lands that desired to be maintained as natural, undeveloped open
space. Natural open spaces can include roadway or canal corridors, but this designation is
generally used to describe larger areas of undeveloped, naturally vegetated lands. Typically no
amenities are available for users of natural open space.
Agricultural Lands
This land use category includes lands used primarily for grazing, crop farming, hobby farming,
and other related uses. These lands are intended to remain in their customary agricultural use
for the foreseeable future.
Recreation Facilities
Recreation facilities are areas within the City that provide opportunities for formal
programmed recreation and events. Examples include fairgrounds, golf courses, and public
swimming pools and recreation centers.
Housing
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 120
Chapter 11: Housing
Goals and Objectives
Goal 1: Encourage clustered neighborhood development as a basic pattern
of growth.
Objective 1.1: As appropriate, locate public buildings, such as elementary schools,
churches, etc., so they form the nucleus or center of each
neighborhood.
Policy: Group residential areas into neighborhoods in relation to
schools, playgrounds, parks, and other facilities, as
appropriate.
Policy: As much as possible, ensure major thoroughfares and other
manmade barriers do not disrupt neighborhoods.
Policy: Discourage subdivisions that create "pockets" of development
too small or too isolated to be served conveniently or
economically by residential services and facilities.
Policy: Encourage schools, churches, libraries, fire stations, and other
public buildings and structures, located in residential areas,
should provide attractive and well-maintained landscaping.
Policy: Protect and enhance residential amenities, when possible, by
reducing conflicts with adjacent uses.
Policy: As appropriate, industrial, and other non-compatible activities
should not be permitted in or allowed to expand or encroach
upon residential developments.
Objective 1.2: Ensure safety in and accessibility between all residential areas, as
much as possible.
Policy: Support the development of safe and convenient pedestrian
routes from home to school that are separate from truck
routes and other dangerous facilities.
Objective 1.3: Increase community pride by supporting and encouraging upkeep and
improvements to the appearance of all residential areas.
Policy: Support increased enforcement of ordinances requiring land
owners to keep their property free of weeds, junked vehicles
Housing
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 121
and equipment, unsightly buildings, trash, and other debris.
Policy: Promote the maintenance of open space and park areas to
minimize blight and unsightly residential areas.
Policy: Encourage street-side tree planting for new subdivision areas.
Policy: Support the current tree ordinance to create a quality, healthy
and pleasant urban environment.
Policy: Consider a landscape ordinance in appropriate zones to
address issues of health, safety and aesthetics.
Policy: Continue to encourage and support City-wide beautification
programs to strengthen citizen pride.
Policy: In existing neighborhoods, consider options for compatible,
quality design consistent with existing character. Design
standards may be considered in areas where design
compatibility may have an impact on quality of neighborhoods.
Objective 1.4: Enhance the visual character of residential areas and provide for the
preservation of environmental values, as possible.
Policy: Encourage the creation of residential areas which are sensitive
to natural features and environmental constraints.
Policy: Encourage the preservation and enhancement of areas that
should be maintained for scenic, historic, conservation, or
public health and safety purposes.
Objective 1.5: Encourage management of the timing of residential development so
that adequate streets, water, sewer, drainage facilities, schools and
other essential services can be economically provided.
Policy: As appropriate, permit development to the degree that it can
be served by the City’s resources without impairing them or
existing residents.
Policy: Explore the possibility of requesting area studies to be
prepared by developers showing the relationship of the
subdivision to the neighborhood of which it is a part. Access to
the general street system, school, recreation sites, and other
facilities and services should be shown.
Policy: Encourage All development projects to be sequenced and built
concurrently with infrastructure or services required by the
development.
Objective 1.6: Through the Comprehensive plan, plan for a land use polity that
encourages housing to meets the demands of all stages of the life
cycle, including starter and senior housing.
Policy: Allow for multi-family or town home mixed-use development
as buffers between commercial and single-family residential
Housing
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 122
areas, as well as in the vicinity of town centers and near the
university. Accessory dwelling units may also be considered in
appropriate areas.
Policy: Allow for the development of senior housing, including
accessory dwelling units in appropriate areas, so that housing
for all phases of the life cycle will be available within the City.
Overview
This section provides information on the current housing market in Rexburg and surrounding
areas, including the number and type of housing units, vacancy rates, housing conditions, and
housing affordability, as well as trends in the real estate market and goals and objectives for
future residential development.
Growth in Housing Units
In 1990, based on United States Census data, Rexburg had 3,554 total housing units. Ten
years later, according to the 2000 Census, Rexburg had a total of 4,533 housing units – an
increase of 979 units, for an overall increase of 28 percent over the ten-year period.
However, it is important to note that Census information does not include rental housing
located on school campuses (i.e., does not include units provided by BYU -Idaho), and
therefore understates the total residential housing in the City. The City estimates 7,328
occupied dwelling units as of 2007.9
About 61 percent of the total occupied housing units in 2000 were reported to be rented,
leaving the other 39 percent owned. This is a relatively high percentage of rent to own when
compared to the ratio statewide that is 28 percent rentals, with 72 percent owned. The high
rental ratio in Rexburg is due to the large student population. The percentage of renter -
occupied housing in 2000 rose three percent from the 1990 Census when it was 58 percent
renter-occupied and 42 percent owner-occupied. This rise in renters is largely due to the
growing student population at BYU-Idaho
In 2007, students at BYU-Idaho accounted for approximately 44 percent of the City’s total
population.10 In 2000, students accounted for 52 percent of the population.11 Students are
therefore becoming a slightly smaller percentage of the overall population, but still a major
component of the housing market.
Rexburg issued 2,204 building permits from 2000 through 2006, while Sugar City issued 69
permits and the remainder of Madison County issued 496 permits. The number of building
permits issued does not necessarily reflect the actual number of new residential units. For
example, apartment buildings have more than one dwelling unit, but were only tracked as one
permit and one unit by some of the government entities for a portion of the reporting period.
9 Source: Madison Economic Partners
10 The 2007 student population is 11,791, compared to Rexburg’s population of roughly 27,000.
11 Based on 8,949 students and a population of 17,257 in 2000.
Housing
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 123
GROWTH IN HOUSING UNITS
Building Permit Data
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Total
Growth
County (other than
Rexburg and Sugar City)
43
50
70
80
90
92
71
496
Rexburg 8
123
797
631
226
223
196
2,204
Sugar City
69
Madison County
2,769
Source: Madison County; Rexburg; Sugar City
Surrounding Areas
Since 1990, Madison County has grown more rapidly than the surrounding counties of
Bonneville, Fremont and Jefferson, but slower than Teton County. Growth in Teton County
was fueled by resort growth at Targhee and from Jackson Hole.
HOUSING UNITS
Households
in 1990
Households
in 2000
Estimated
Households
in 2007
Average
Annual
Percent
Growth
1990-
2007
Average
Annual
Percent
Growth
2000-
2007
Total
Growth
Bonneville
27,289
28,753
34,184 0.52% 1.75% 6,895
Fremont
3,453
3,885
4,212 1.19% 0.81% 759
Jefferson
4,871
5,901
7,095 1.94% 1.86% 2,224
Madison
5,801
7,129
8,773 2.08% 2.10% 2,972
Teton
1,123
2,078
2,847 6.35% 3.20% 1,724
Source: Census Data 1990, 2000; LYRB
Vacancy Rates
The 2000 Census information showed a 5.7 vacancy rate in Rexburg (259 of the 4,533 total
households were vacant). This rate is two percent higher than it was at the time of the 1990
Census. If seasonal and recreational units are removed from the number of vacant units
counted to determine the rate in 2000, the vacancy rate drops to 5.1 percent.
Of the total 4,533 housing units in the year 2000, only 259 or 5.7 percent were vacant,
leaving 4,274 occupied housing units. This percentage was well below the County and State
vacancy rates of 6.6 and 11 percent respectively at that time. Rexburg has been fortunate to
have extremely low vacancy rates when compared with the historical rates in surrounding
counties. While this data has now aged, and census updates are not available regarding
housing occupancy, interviews with local real estate professionals have been used to
supplement this information.
Housing
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 124
VACANCY RATES COMPARISON FROM 1990 TO 2000
Vacancy Rate 1990 Vacancy Rate 2000 Percent Change
Rexburg 4.0% 5.7% 1.7%
Madison County 5.0% 6.6% 1.6%
Teton County 32.0% 21.0% -11.0%
Fremont County 42.0% 43.6% 1.6%
Jefferson County 9.0% 6.1% -2.9%
Bonneville County 7.0% 5.7% -1.3%
State of Idaho 13.0% 11.0% -2.0%
Source: Census Data 1990, 2000
Currently, the apartment rental market in Rexburg is thriving. The influx of st udents at the
beginning of the school year places a strain on the availability of apartments and town homes
in the area. There is some availability throughout the year, but it is limited. The only part of
the rental market experiencing difficulty in Rexburg is home rentals of $1300 or more a
month. 75 percent of renters in Rexburg are students and the remaining 25 percent are
families.
BYU-Idaho conducts a survey each semester of apartment owners and managers who provide
BYU-Idaho approved housing for single students. Single student bed vacancy rates have
ranged from the present nine percent vacancy rate to a high of 11 percent, with periods of full
occupancy. Beds that are designated for single students are sometimes occupied by married
students based on demand. BYU-Idaho calculates the vacancy rates of beds occupied by
singles only to gauge demand for single and married housing.
OCCUPANCY/VACANCY STATUS
Single Student Housing
Year
Available
Beds
Empty
Beds
Occupied
Beds
Percent
Occupied Percent Vacant
1985 5,672 - 5,672 100% 0%
1986 6,193 675 5,518 89% 11%
1987 6,270 180 6,090 97% 3%
1988 6,510 118 6,392 98% 2%
1989 6,602 10 6,592 100% 0%
1990 6,694 5 6,689 100% 0%
1991 7,098 212 6,886 97% 3%
1992 7,235 168 7,067 98% 2%
1993 7,770 135 7,635 98% 2%
1994 7,830 343 7,487 96% 4%
1995 8,028 435 7,593 95% 5%
1996 8,186 774 7,412 91% 9%
1997 7,789 269 7,520 97% 3%
1998 8,191 395 7,796 95% 5%
1999 8,748 744 8,004 91% 9%
2000 8,947 648 8,299 93% 7%
Housing
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 125
OCCUPANCY/VACANCY STATUS
Single Student Housing
Year
Available
Beds
Empty
Beds
Occupied
Beds
Percent
Occupied Percent Vacant
2001 8,667 394 8,273 95% 5%
2002 9,155 289 8,866 97% 3%
2003 9,957 1,100 8,857 89% 11%
2004 10,120 1,148 8,972 89% 11%
2005 10,280 1,064 9,216 90% 10%
2006 10,324 577 9,747 94% 6%
2007 10,180 960 9,220 91% 9%
Source: BYU-Idaho
As of 2007, BYU-Idaho had 1,061 beds on-campus, with no plans to expand on-campus
housing. It appears that the private rental market in Rexburg is vibrant and university
officials have indicated that their intentions are to let the private sector accommodate any
increases in student housing demand in the near term.
2007 BYU-IDAHO ON CAMPUS HOUSING
Number of Beds Number of Dorms Number of Apartment Units
Men 231 1 114
Women 830 6 190
Total 1,061 7 304
Source: BYU-Idaho
Housing Conditions
2000 Census data indicates that Rexburg is in overall good condition. However, there is little
official, updated data regarding the condition of interior features (such as plumbing, wiring,
and structural hazards) of private housing after the year 2000. Unless comprehensive surveys
have been conducted, the best source of data for most cities is the U.S. Census. Census data
contains a number of housing quality indicators, including type of sewage disposal, heating
fuel, water sources, and plumbing facilities, and allows for an evaluation of the age of units,
which can be an indicator of condition.
The majority of the households use gas or electric utilities. Only 0.6 percent of the homes lack
complete plumbing facilities and 0.7 percent of the homes lack complete kitchen facilities.
Housing
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 126
HOUSE HEATING FUEL
Rexburg Madison County State of Idaho
Utility Gas 47.7% 43.4% 45.4%
Bottled, Tank, or LP
Gas 0.5% 6.8% 5.8%
Electricity 46.4% 39.3% 34.4%
Fuel Oil, Kerosene, etc. 1.9% 4.0% 5.1%
Coal or Coke 0.1% 0.6% 0.3%
Wood 2.3% 5.0% 7.7%
Solar Energy 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Other Fuel 0.5% 0.4% 0.7%
No Fuel Used 0.6% 0.5% 0.2%
Source: Census 2000
More than 70 percent of the City’s housing units were built after 1970, and less than six
percent were built before 1939 when the risk of a unit containing lead -based paint is highest.
Also, over one-third of the City’s current housing stock was built between 1970 and 1979.
This was due to the Teton Dam disaster of 1976, which destroyed a significant share of the
City’s housing stock. As a result of the flood, much of the City’s housing stock is relatively
new and in relatively good condition.
YEAR HOUSING UNIT BUILT
City of
Rexburg Percent Idaho Percent
Total: 4,501 100% 527,824 100%
Built 1990 to March 2000 964 21% 134,268 25%
Built 1980 to 1989 695 15% 65,869 12%
Built 1970 to 1979 1,580 35% 129,261 24%
Built 1960 to 1969 555 12% 52,263 10%
Built 1950 to 1959 207 5% 51,019 10%
Built 1940 to 1949 201 4% 34,381 7%
Built 1939 or earlier 299 7% 60,763 12%
Source: Census Data 2000
Housing
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 127
Unique Characteristics of Rexburg’s Market
Like most university towns, Rexburg’s housing market is significantly impacted by the
university’s student population. The smaller the town, and the larger the student population,
the greater the impact of students on housing demand. In Rexburg, students currently make
up approximately 44 percent of the population. At the time of the 2000 Census, stud ents
represented 52 percent of the city’s population.12
The housing market in Rexburg is also affected by the unique requirements for single BYU-
Idaho student living. BYU-Idaho is a religious institution affiliated with the Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS). The university has a strict set of housing requirements for
single students. Single students must live at home with their family or in approved housing,
which includes on-campus housing (owned and operated by BYU-Idaho) and off-campus
housing that has received approval from the university.
Landlords of off-campus housing units must agree to assist in enforcing a set of living
standards that cover curfew, visitation by members of the opposite sex, and approved
television cable stations.
12 2000 enrollment equaled 8,949 students. The 2000 population was 17,257 residents.
Housing
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 128
Summer Student Housing
The Rexburg Sunbird program began in 1976 and was one of the first in this country. There
are approximately 2,000 retired senior citizens (summer visitors) or Sunbirds as they are
known who fill the off-campus single student university apartments surrounding BYU-Idaho
during the summer months. This program has been dropping in the last few years, part of
this may be the year-round track system for BYU-I. Less student vacancies are occurring as a
result.
The program offers many activities including concerts and entertainment. Sunbirds come to
enjoy the warm summer days, cool summer nights, fishing, golfing, affordable housing, day
trips, great sight seeing trips, etc.
Housing Affordability
Income projections have been used to estimate the depth of the primary market for various
home price segments. The following table takes the percentage of households by income
range in 2000,13 and projects the percentage of households in each income range in the year
2007. Sixty-eight percent of households have incomes in the range of $15,000 to $75,000.
INCOME ANALYSIS
2000 2007
Households
Percent of
Total
Percent of
Total Households
Less than $10,000 524 12.3% 10.5% 769
$10,000 - $14,999 466 11.0% 10.0% 733
$15,000 - $24,999 946 22.2% 20.0% 1,466
$25,000 - $34,999 712 16.7% 14.0% 1,026
$35,000 - $49,999 688 16.2% 18.0% 1,319
$50,000 - $74,999 557 13.1% 15.0% 1,099
$75,000 - $99,999 202 4.7% 6.0% 440
$100,000 - $149,999 103 2.4% 3.0% 220
$150,000 - $199,999 22 0.5% 2.0% 147
$200,000+ 34 0.8% 1.5% 110
TOTAL 4,254 100.0% 100.0% 7,328
Source: U.S. Census; LYRB
The table below shows housing affordability for each income range, using the following
assumptions:
30-year fixed mortgage at the various interest rates shown in the table;
10 percent down payment; and
30 percent of income is spent on housing, including utilities, insurance,
property taxes, etc.
Based on the income analysis above, the bulk of the market will be spending, depending on
interest rates and the amount of the down payment, less than $200,000 for a home. This
suggests that townhome/condominium development, with less expensive construction costs
due to shared, attached walls, and smaller lot sizes, will be particularly in demand in the
community.
13 Source: United States Census 2000
Housing
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 129
HOME AFFORDABILITY FOR VARIOUS INCOME RANGES
2007$ at 6% 2007$ at 7% 2007$ at 8%
LOW HIGH LOW HIGH LOW HIGH
$20,000 to
$24,999 $43,000 $62,000 $39,000 $56,000 $36,000 $51,000
$25,000 to
$29,999 $62,000 $81,000 $56,000 $74,000 $51,000 $67,000
$30,000 to
$34,999 $81,000 $100,000 $74,000 $91,000 $67,000 $83,000
$35,000 to
$39,999 $100,000 $119,000 $91,000 $108,000 $83,000 $99,000
$40,000 to
$44,999 $119,000 $138,000 $108,000 $126,000 $99,000 $115,000
$45,000 to
$49,999 $138,000 $157,000 $126,000 $143,000 $115,000 $131,000
$50,000 to
$59,999 $157,000 $195,000 $143,000 $178,000 $131,000 $163,000
$60,000 to
$74,999 $195,000 $252,000 $178,000 $230,000 $163,000 $210,000
$75,000 to
$99,999 $252,000 $348,000 $230,000 $317,000 $210,000 $290,000
$100,000 to
$124,999 $348,000 $443,000 $317,000 $403,000 $290,000 $369,000
$125,000 to
$149,999 $443,000 $538,000 $403,000 $490,000 $369,000 $448,000
$150,000 to
$199,999 $538,000 $729,000 $490,000 $664,000 $448,000 $607,000
$200,000 or
more $729,000 $664,000 $607,000
Source: LYRB
New Construction
The average value of new home construction has risen rapidly in Rexburg. In 2004, the
average value was approximately $124,000 per unit – well within the affordability range of
most non-student residents. By 2005, the average value had increased to $166,000 and by
2006, the average value reached $246,000, representing an almost 100 percent increase in
the average new home price over a two-year period. Home values of $246,000 are affordable
to those making roughly $75,000 or more annually.
GROWTH IN HOUSING UNITS
Building Permit Data
2004 2005 2006
Rexburg 226 223 196
Residential Valuation $21,071,607 $27,813,961.23 $36,202,058.41
Land $7,023,869 $9,271,320 $12,067,353
Total Residential Value $28,095,476.00 $37,085,281.64 $48,269,411.21
Average Residential Value $124,316.27 $166,301.71 $246,272.51
Source; City of Rexburg; LYRB
Housing
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 130
Existing Home Sales
The average sales price of existing homes increased by approximately seven percent from
2006 to 2007, with an average sales price of $173,000. Homes in this price range are
affordable to those making approximately $50,000 or more annually. Home prices in
surrounding counties also experienced significant appreciation, ranging from over six percent
to more than twelve percent over the one-year period.
RESIDENTIAL SALES BY COUNTY
County
1/1/06 -
12/31/06
Activity
1/1/07 -
12/31/07
Activity % Change
Madison County - Sugar City, Rexburg
Number Sold 293 295 0.68%
Average Sales Price $161,488 $173,317 7.33%
Fremont - Island Park, Ashton, St. Anthony
Number Sold 237 186 -21.52%
Average Sales Price $194,712 $207,573 6.61%
Jefferson - Terreton, Menan, Rigby, Ririe
Number Sold 371 358 -3.50%
Average Sales Price $165,579 $182,724 10.35%
Bonneville - Ucon, Iona, Idaho Falls, Ammon,
Swan Valley
Number Sold 1758 1743 -0.85%
Average Sales Price $158,016 $174,714 10.57%
Bingham - Shelley, Firth, Blackfoot, Fort Hall
Number Sold 435 401 -7.82%
Average Sales Price $135,728 $152,494 12.35%
Bannock - Chubbuck, Pocatello, McCammon,
Inkom, Downey
Number Sold 1363 1413 3.67%
Average Sales Price $139,464 $151,539 8.66%
Cost of Development and Municipal Services
The relative cost of building in the City, in comparison to the County, will have a significant
impact on development patterns, especially as financing sources become tighter and the
housing market slows down. Based on information provided by Rexburg, the cost of building a
new home ($150,000 in construction costs only), will be $13,624 more in The City of Rexburg
than in the County. The major difference is the price of land in the County (average of
$35,000 per acre) compared to land in Rexburg (average cost of $220,000 per acre).14 While
water and sewer hookup fees are much higher in the County than in Rexburg, these higher
fees are more than offset by the higher land prices in Rexburg. This cost discrepancy is
encouraging development to occur outside City boundaries.
14 The land prices were provided by City of Rexburg. Interviews with local realtors suggest that land prices
might be more in the range of $40,000 to $80,000 per ¼-acre lot ($160,000 to $320,000 per acre) in
Rexburg proper. Land costs outside of the City are estimated at $40,000 to $50,000 per acre.
Housing
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 131
NEW HOME COST COMPARISON
Rexburg v. Madison County (outside of Rexburg)
Rexburg
Madison County
Outside Rexburg Savings
Building Permit $1,554 $1,554 $0
Plan Check $177 $155 $22
Water Hookup $1,767 $5,500 -$3,733
Water Meter & Parts $317 $0 $317
Plumbing Permit $184 $184 $0
Sewer Hookup $1,266 $6,000 -$4,734
Mechanical Permit $160 $160 $0
Electrical Permit $160 $160 $0
Impact Fees $1,752 $1,752
Total Fees $7,337 $13,713 -$6,376
Lot Cost* $55,000 $35,000 $20,000
Construction Cost $150,000 $150,000 $0
Total Cost $212,337 $198,713 $13,624
*Acreage 0.25 1.00
*Cost per Acre $220,000 $35,000
Lots Sold in 2006 56 43
Source: City of Rexburg Finance
The cost of providing services to development is dependant on several factors, including: 1)
type of development; 2) density of development; and 3) geographic location and distance
from core services. Rexburg will need to carefully evaluate the revenues generated by various
types of development, as well as density and geographic locations, in comparison to the costs
associated with providing services to those developments.
Based on the analysis below, commercial development has the highest taxable value per acre
($521,106), followed by residential ($252,622), industrial ($167,795) and rural residential
($81,480). Because of the limited nature of the data that was available at the time of this
planning effort, this analysis is unable to differentiate between developed values and
undeveloped values within a given zoning type.
Housing
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 132
RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL VALUE COMPARISON
Tax Value Acres Per Acre
Total
Parcels
With
Improvements
Residential:
Residential
$452,251,622
1,790
$252,622
3,574
2,615
Rural Residential
$142,101,920
1,744
$81,480
1,040
588
Manufactured
Housing
$19,560,371 NA NA
Residential
Townhomes or
Condos
$3,255,964 NA NA
49
Commercial:
Commercial
$391,591,529
751
$521,106
1,019
771
Industrial
$3,775,398
23
$167,795
2
2
Neither Rexburg nor Madison County have conducted a cost-of-service study. However,
neighboring Fremont County conducted a cost of service study in September 2005. This study
concluded that:
for every dollar raised in revenue from residential property, the county had to
spend $1.13 to provide services to residential property. Commercial land use
required $0.46 to provide services for every dollar raised by commercial land.
Agricultural land use required $0.82 to provide services for every dollar raised.
Therefore, assuming a similar relationship exists in Madison County, residential development
places a strain on financial resources that is only offset by commercial development.
Unfortunately, the Fremont County study did not differentiate between single -family and
multi-family uses in its residential designation. Because single-family homes are discounted
for tax purposes, and multi-family is not, they will have varying fiscal impacts on a
community. Rexburg has an unusually high percentage of multi-family units, due to the large
student population.
Higher-density development will reduce the capital and operating costs of the infrastructure
necessary to support the development. A recent study completed by the Urban Land Institute
concluded the following with regards to higher-density development:15
The compact nature of higher-density development requires less extensive
infrastructure to support it.
No discernable difference exists in the appreciation rate of properties located
near higher-density development and those that are not. Some research even
shows that higher-density development can increase property values.
Higher-density development generates less traffic than low-density
development per unit; it makes walking and public transit more feasible and
creates opportunities for shared parking.
Low-density development increases air and water pollution and destroys
natural areas by paving and urbanizing greater swaths of land.
15 Urban Land Institute, “Higher-Density Development: Myth and Fact.”
Housing
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 133
RESIDENTIAL INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS vs. GROSS DENSITY
Fitted and Smoothed Relationships
$-
$5,000
$10,000
$15,000
$20,000
$25,000
$30,000
$35,000
$40,000
$45,000
-2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Gross Density - DU per Acre
Un
i
t
C
o
s
t
-
$
p
e
r
D
U
RAW LAND
REUSE
INFILL
NPR INDEX
Reuse Demolition Costs = $10000 per Acre
2 Units per Acre = Rural Subdivision
Source: QGET
RESIDENTIAL INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS vs. GROSS DENSITY
Fitted and Smoothed Relationships
$-
$5,000
$10,000
$15,000
$20,000
$25,000
$30,000
$35,000
$40,000
$45,000
-2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Gross Density - DU per Acre
Un
i
t
C
o
s
t
-
$
p
e
r
D
U
RAW LAND
REUSE
INFILL
NPR INDEX
Reuse Demolition Costs = $10000 per Acre
2 Units per Acre = Rural Subdivision
Source: QGET
Based on engineering research conducted (see tables below), it is estimated that it costs the
City three times as much to provide basic infrastructure to a residential development with a
density of two units per acre, as it does to provide the same services to residential
development with eight units per acre. As development occurs sporadically throughout
outlying areas of the City and its Impact Area, it needs to recognize that there are significant
costs associated with outlying, low-density development.
Higher Density = Lower Water Use
50
70
90
110
130
150
170
190
210
230
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Average Residential Density - DU's per Acre
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
W
a
t
e
r
U
s
e
-
G
a
l
l
o
n
s
p
e
r
C
a
p
i
t
a
p
e
r
D
a
y
Source: PSOMAS Engineering
Higher Density = Lower Water Use
50
70
90
110
130
150
170
190
210
230
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Average Residential Density - DU's per Acre
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
W
a
t
e
r
U
s
e
-
G
a
l
l
o
n
s
p
e
r
C
a
p
i
t
a
p
e
r
D
a
y
Source: PSOMAS Engineering
Special Areas or Sites
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 134
Chapter 12: Special Areas or Sites
Goals and Objectives
Goal 1: Protect special areas or sites with cultural, historical, or local
significance for the enjoyment of future generations, as much as
possible.
Objective 1.1: As appropriate, ensure future development does not negatively impact
special areas and sites.
Policy: If deemed appropriate, update existing County policy to
specifically call out the avoidance and protection of areas
special interest in development projects.
Policy: As resources allow, research the possibility of nominating new
sites to the National Historic Register.
Objective 1.2: Encourage the minimization of loss to areas of special interest when
impacts are unavoidable.
Policy: Consider the possibility of maintaining a record of special sites
and areas for future generations.
Policy: Consider the development of a marker or plaque program to
commemorate special sites that may have been lost.
Policy: Mitigate losses through educational interpretation, or
relocation, if possible.
Policy: If appropriate, consider including an assessment of impact on
special areas and sites as part of a building permit application
process.
Rexburg Area Special Sites
The community has identified several sites within their community that have special or
historical significance to them. Many of these sites have structures that remain standing, and
many are simply locations of previous structures and locations of historical significance. The
City may want to consider interpretation of historic importance of interest, or simply prepare a
log is special areas and sites within the City to preserve so record of their existence for future
generations.
Special Areas or Sites
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 135
Areas, sites, and structures of local historical significance include:
Churches and Religious Buildings
a. Rexburg Tabernacle
b. Rexburg 2nd Ward LDS Chapel
c. Rexburg 3rd Ward LDS Chapel
d. Rexburg 4th Ward LDS Chapel (1930-present)
e. Community Presbyterian Church (1916-present)
f. St. Patrick’s Catholic Church (1902- )
g. Catholic Church (1963-present)
Historic Buildings and Sites
a. Porter Park Rock Restrooms
b. Madison County Courthouse
c. BYU-I Campus Buildings
d. Mill Hollow Mill Site
e. Historic Downtown and College Avenue
Miscellaneous sites
a. Rexburg Carousel
b. Rexburg Cemetery
c. Smith Park
d. Porter Park
e. Teton River
f. Snake River
g. Rexburg Bench
Sites Outside Madison County
a. Teton Dam Site
b. Diversion Dam
c. Great Feeder Headgates
Community Design
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 136
Chapter 13: Community Design
Goals and Objectives
Goal 1: Preserve the high quality of life that currently exists in Rexburg, and
strengthen the image of the City as “America’s Family Community”
through good community design policies.
Objective 1.1: Promote and foster the concepts of good community design at the city,
neighborhood and project level.
Policy: When appropriate, implement site planning standards for
commercial development, specifically along Main Street and in
areas with historical significance.
Objective 1.2: Recognize the role of the streetscape as a component of community
identity.
Policy: When appropriate, evaluate the design of streets and street
improvements from both aesthetic and functional perspectives.
Elements of the streetscape could include traffic control
devices, signs, lighting, medians, curb and gutter, parking
strips, pedestrian and bicyclist safety, snow removal, and tree
plantings.
Policy: Support the Identification of key gateways into the City and
identify beautification projects in a Capital Improvements Plan
in order to emphasize and preserve the character and
appearance of the community.
Policy: As appropriate, preserve the Highway 20 corridor as an
attractive corridor, and visual gateway into Rexburg.
Goal 2: Draw upon the history of the City of Rexburg to guide future
development and preserve the character of the City.
Objective 2.1: Take advantage of natural assets that contribute to the beauty and
character of Rexburg.
Policy: Developers of land along the Teton River should be
encouraged to integrate the river area into their project as
both a recreational and aesthetic element. Participation by
Community Design
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 137
these landowners in the Trails of Madison County Committee is
highly encouraged.
Policy: As appropriate, ensure the preservation of historic drainages,
ditches, and canals where they exist. These often provide
obvious alignments for trails or greenways.
Policy: As appropriate, ensure protection of views of hillsides,
specifically the Rexburg bench and views of the mountains.
Tools available include a sensitive lands overlays and viewshed
protection ordinances.
Objective 2.2: Promote and enhance Main Street and the downtown area as a
destination and the civic and cultural heart of the community.
Policy: Encourage the preservation and restoration of historic and
architecturally significant buildings. Encourage compatible
signs in new and remodeled structures.
Policy: Continue to plan and implement consistent landscaping, street
lighting, and street furnishings in the downtown area, as
resources allow.
Policy: Landscaping within existing commercial parking lots should be
encouraged. A significant amount of landscaping should be
required within new parking lots.
Policy: Consider the recommendations of the Downtown Blueprint,
and implement those deemed applicable and appropriate.
Historical Trends and Cultural Expectations
Community design is more than landscaping, building design, and parks. It involves the city’s
physical layout, the natural setting, and the visual relationships among the individual features
that make up the community. Good community design results in a town that functions well,
has a pleasant environment, and has visual identity.
Rexburg is a beautiful, clean, safe, and
family-friendly city located in a valley along
side the Teton and Snake Rivers. Given
this lovely setting, it is no wonder that the
early settlers of the area decided to make
Rexburg their home. Settled by Mormon
pioneers, Rexburg has a unique history of
development.
Perhaps the most significant, and often
overlooked, American settlement in the
west is that of the Mormons. A sizable part
of the West bears the impress of the
Mormon culture. Hundreds of settlements,
extending from Arizona, north into Canada,
were founded in the 19th century under
the guidance of Brigham Young.
The LDS Temple in Rexburg is a prime example of unique
architecture strengthening the image of the city, as well
as helping preserve Rexburg’s rich heritage.
Community Design
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 138
We can learn much from a short review of these settlement patterns about the City of Rexburg
and why it was laid out as it was. In 1847, the first settlers from the East arrived in the Salt
Lake Valley. By 1852, more than 20,000 were living in the Great Basin; 100,000 by 1877.
During the latter half of the 19th century, more than 360 of these planned settlements were
established in Utah, Idaho, Arizona, Nevada, and California.
It has been noted that the wellspring of Mormon civic design lies deep within the Mormon’s
doctrine that identifies a New Jerusalem referred to as Zion that would be located in the
Western hemisphere. This city is described as being a four square city. Salt Lake City was laid
out in this way.
Perhaps equally important has been the Mormon agrarian ethic. The family farm was the
mainstay of society. Synthesizing the urban view of Zion with an agrarian way of life, Mormon
farmers were expected to live in town and commute to their fields of work.
The rationale behind this was the social advantages that village living entails: schools and
other public facilities can be more easily provided and more intensively used. Perhaps more
importantly is that Mormons had faith in the rules of order of their religions founder.
Joseph Smith, who was only 28 years old at the time, had devised a master plan for the City
of Zion in 1833 that ultimately was used as the template for hundreds of Mormon towns,
including Salt Lake City and Rexburg.
The overall plan has been summarized as follows:
Compact nucleated farming community within a 1 mile square area.
The square is divided into 10 acre blocks of 660 feet by 660 feet.
Blocks are further subdivided into house lots of equal size.
Streets are 132 feet wide.
No more than one house on any one lot
Uniform setback of 25 feet for each house
Houses constructed of brick and stone.
Each home site to have shade trees, orchards and garden plots
Central blocks reserved for public buildings and temples
No street to have houses facing upon it throughout its entire length: houses would
face north/south and east/west alternatively
Barns and stables to exist near, but outside of, town boundaries
The model city was intended to accommodate a population of 15,000 to 20,000 people. Once
this number had been reached, a new city would be laid out in much the same fashion. The
population was further divided into wards in which all within the assigned area would attend
the same church.
The wide streets and their orientation, though not designed to take advantage of solar energy,
clearly reflect a desire to maintain distant views and create a sense of internal spaciousness
within the town.
The City of Zion concept was never fully implemented in its pure form, but it served as the
model for several hundred Mormon communities including that of Rexburg. Joseph Smith was,
in fact, far ahead of his time in establishing an optimum city size, provision for public buildings
and churches, zoning against undesirable uses, wide streets, density limits, and aesthetic
controls.
It has been noted that there are similarities between the concepts of community by Joseph
Smith and by the 19th century English planner and father of the garden city movement,
Ebenezer Howard. Three key elements of the English garden city movement are all present to
Community Design
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 139
some extent within the Mormon towns: (1) use and density zoning; (2) ward or neighborhood
planning unit; and (3) agricultural greenbelts to control urban size. Joseph Smith’s City of Zion
predated Howard’s garden city by some 65 years. Given the utopian leanings of both and the
desire to build strong, socially cohesive communities, it is perhaps not surprising that
similarities in their pattern languages evolved.
In Rexburg, this model for engineering the community was closely followed. There was land
set aside for pubic buildings, church houses, tithing barns and granaries and these became
distinctive features of the community. However, in contrast to Smith’s original model,
Rexburg’s typical town lot contained barns, granaries and other farm related outbuildings.
Rexburg’s current visual continuity originates in the fact that the community’s initial identity
was that of a planned community.
Historical Patterns in Rexburg’s Development
Local community planning traditions offer a number of additional lessons that can help shape
new development in a more appropriate fashion. Many of these patterns dovetail nicely with
current trends for “smart growth” and are worth noting:
Regional Development Patterns - Limit rural communities to 15,000 to 20,000. This is
a size that provides a critical mass for services and amenities, before creating new
towns or major developments.
Town and Neighborhood Centers - Locate employment and daily services within close
proximity to housing. Develop towns in a compact form surrounded by agricultural
land in close proximity to town dwellers.
Streets/Access - Establish a connected fabric of streets that respects topographical
constraints without resorting to dead ends.
Public Realm - Reserve sufficient space within the core of each neighborhood or town
for civic buildings and facilities; at least one should serve as a visually prominent focal
point.
Community - Where possible, establish neighborhoods within towns built on a
foundation of common social, political, or cultural interests.
Environmental - Encourage the planting of native, drought-resistant trees to provide
shade. Encourage the planting of fruit trees to provide food for residents and an
attractive environment.
Architecture/Design: Color and Materials - A sense of quality and stability can be
created by utilizing building materials such as brick and stone.
Site Design - Create a sense of unity and continuity by utilizing uniform setbacks in
residential and commercial areas.
Many Citizens of Rexburg have a desire to maintain these important historical/cultural
considerations as a measuring-stick by which to approve future growth and development
within the City.
Appearance of a town reflects a great deal about the community and the people who live in it.
Appearance also greatly determines whether or not the community is perceived as a
progressive and active environment, and thus plays a strong role in the economics of the area.
A town that is well planned and attractive will draw shoppers, visitors, businesses, and
residents.
Community Design
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 140
Visual Considerations
The attractiveness of the City of Rexburg begins
with its setting in the Upper Snake River Valley.
The community is nestled at the edge of the
Valley floor against the fertile farm ground of the
Rexburg bench. To the west there are two
ancient volcanoes and the lava flows of the
upper valley desert.
The hill adds visual interest to the city,
emphasizing the area on top of the hill and the
mountainous skyline. The Rexburg hill contains
some of the finest visual features in Rexburg
such as the buildings of the university, and
several historic residential areas, as well as new
residential areas. In addition, the hill creates a
gentle relief to the open valley floor.
Two canals pass through Rexburg, the Rexburg Canal and the Woodmansee Canal. The South
Fork of the Teton River also cuts in a East to West direction through the community. These
canals and the river have much visual potential. Cleaned, restored, and displayed with a green
way, they can give character and appeal to the area. The city should master plan and acquire
a greenway along the river as the land develops.
Rexburg contains some significant design features that contribute to an attractive
environment. The older part of the city is in an intermittent grid street pattern. A benefit of
the grid layout is it produces blocks that contribute to a small-scale neighborliness that
reinforces the traditional ambiance of the town, ensures connected neighborhoods, and more
easily accommodates pedestrians and vehicles equally.
In newer areas of the city, the street system has been designed by developers to maximize lot
development for new single-family homes. In the areas being developed on the hill and in the
Mill Hollow area, subdivisions are being developed with streets factoring in the contour of the
slopes.
Buildings and Structures
Rexburg has a significant amount of interesting architecture. The University includes several
fine examples of Modern Architectural style. The residential areas contain numerous stately
homes, many of them historic to Rexburg.
In the central business district, many of the original buildings still stand and are in active retail
use. Several of the more significant structures have been remodeled. There is a substantial
uniformity in the bulk and exterior treatment of the buildings that unifies the downtown area.
Heights range from one to three stories, and brick has been used extensively as a building
material, but has been painted over in many instances. These brick buildings nevertheless
create an atmosphere of tradition, dignity, and stability.
Signage and Lighting
Signage, lighting, and similar details relate strongly to architectural design and the
appearance of the town. Along strips of highway business district, larger freestanding signs
are oriented to motor vehicle traffic. In the central business district, many projecting and wall
signs catch the eye of both pedestrian traffic and vehicular traffic.
The City has several unique and natural visual
interests, from winding rivers as seen above, to
valleys, hills and a mountainous skyline.
Community Design
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 141
Public signage in the city has been improved in recent years with the readdressing that took
place within the City of Rexburg Addressing grid. The only signs directing traffic to the
university occur at the periphery of the city, and more might be useful. Because Rexburg is a
university town, it is common within Rexburg to have people from out of town looking for
locations, particularly in the downtown and on the university campus. Street lighting
throughout the city primarily consists of overhead lighting. Street trees exist throughout the
downtown area and are very important in creating a pleasant, comfortable, and inviting
atmosphere.
Open Space and Public Space
Open space also greatly contributes to an area's ambiance, as well as providing a place for the
aesthetic features of landscaping. In Rexburg, open space occurs in the two main City Parks,
Smith Park and Porter Park as well as on the university campus. Outside these main areas,
neighborhood parks are also found within various residential areas of the city. The plans of
many of the new residential subdivisions call for the creation of new parks and also areas of
open space.
In the central business district, there has been strong support for development of a gathering
space in the center of downtown. It could provide a resting area for pedestrians, and serve as
a focal point within the business district.
Landscaping is a significant factor in the formation of the city’s ambiance. Trees, flowers, and
shrubs are perceived as being a reflection of the natural world. Landscaping is thus seen as a
means of beautifying and humanizing the urban environment. The university and the
residential areas of Rexburg are well landscaped. The older residential areas feature streets
lined with large trees whose canopies add grace to the city.
The university property is well landscaped, which benefits the entire city. In the downtown
area, the landscaping consists mostly of trees and flowerbeds that are located throughout the
downtown area and break the monotony of the pavement.
Land uses can have a dramatic effect on the appearance of a community. Consideration may
be given to locations and appearance of certain types of higher impact businesses to minimize
conflicts.
Analysis of Needs
Rexburg has some strong positive elements present in its physical design that contribute
greatly to its appearance and character. However, there are still opportunities for
enhancement as well as problems to be solved.
One of the main attributes of Rexburg is its small town atmosphere. Aside from the actual size
of the town, community design plays an important role in creating this atmosphere. The
accessibility, viability, and pedestrian friendliness of downtown are large factors in this small
town feeling. The visual effects of the agricultural component to the local economy further the
small town impression.
The architecture of many of the city’s buildings is interesting and contributes both to the small
town feeling, and also to Rexburg’s sense of place. Preservation and enhancement of some of
these buildings and compatible new buildings can maintain the ambiance that these buildings
help to create. The university is a great asset to the design of the community with its
landscaping, open space, and large, well-designed buildings. Better integration of the
university into the design of the city would benefit both the university and the city.
Community Design
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 142
The visual effect of entrances is important. Not only does an entrance provide a first
impression of an area, the entrance both advertises and defines what is within that area.
Several of the approaches to the city and to the campus are in a poor visual state.
The south city entrance off of US Highway 20 has
been labeled the University Blvd Exit. With this
designation, the City and the University should
work together to create a gateway entrance that
would allow public green space and aesthetic
appeal to this primary access.
The entrances to campus are important as well.
The south side of 7th South remains unimproved.
The majority of the designated bike paths have not
been striped in the downtown. The central
business district is a large part of the image of the
city. The city is fortunate in having a compact
central business district. Visual improvements
could be made using landscaping and sign controls. The many signs along Main Street over
the sidewalk are confusing and some are unattractive. The size, number, and placement
should be better regulated. Small, scattered landscaping projects could greatly improve the
appearance of the shopping area. Parking lots, both in the central business district and in
other areas, are often expanses of gravel or pavement. Landscaping requirements for parking
lots can allay the monotony of parking areas.
While businesses adjacent to residential areas may be convenient, they can easily become a
visual liability in the area. Care in the site layout, signage, landscaping, and lighting can make
these businesses more compatible with the residential neighborhood.
Some innovation is needed to add variety in residential development and to make more
efficient and effective use of unusual parcels of land. Faculty and students from BYU-Idaho
have made presentations promoting good design techniques in the Downtown. The city should
continue to use this local technical assistance.
Although it can complicate subdivision layout, the hilly terrain of the Rexburg bench is a
positive factor in the city’s physical appearance. Visually prominent areas should be developed
carefully so they do not detract from the appearance of the area or be visually obtrusive to
neighboring areas.
The South Fork of the Teton River is presently a visual liability in some areas of the city. This
is unfortunate, because the river has potential to add variety and a sense of nature to the
urban environment. Because this watercourse runs through under developed areas of the city,
it has been physically barred from view. A plan needs to be formulated to address the needs of
the Teton River so that its potential can be realized and the people of Rexburg can enjoy it.
Strong, effective visual effects of entrances
enhance a visitor’s first impression of a space,
location, or city.
Community Design
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 143
Impact Area
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 144
Chapter 14: Impact Area
Purpose and Authority
Idaho State Code, Section 67-6526, authorizes the governing board of each county and each
city therein to adopt by ordinance a map identifying an area of city impact within the
unincorporated area of the county. The legislation clearly outlines the procedure for
establishment of an area of impact, and the options for regulation of lands within the area of
city impact.
Agreement with Madison County, Sugar City, Teton and Newdale
Representatives of the local governments of Madison County met as a committee to discuss
the purpose of areas of city impact, and a process and framework for future area of city
impact renegotiations. Over the course of roughly six months, the committee met monthly to
collaboratively develop an ordinance to be adopted by each local government and guide all
area of impact discussions. This ordinance was also presented to the cities of Teton and
Newdale for adoption, since their areas of city impact extend into Madison County.
An inter-local agreement was prepared that states that each local government agrees to the
standards outlined in the ordinance, and that no jurisdiction will amend or revise the
ordinance, which outlines the procedures and process for renegotiating impact areas, without
the joint agreement of all other local governments to change this process.
Ordinances authorizing authority to zone and enforce
The state code states that a separate ordinance providing for application of plans and
ordinances for the area of city impact shall be adopted. Three options are provided for
regulation of lands within the area of city impact:
1. Application of the city plan and ordinances to the area of city impact; or
2. Application of the county plan and ordinances adopted to the area of city impact; or
3. Application of any mutually agreed upon plan and ordinances adopted the area of city
impact.
Historically, the lands within areas of city impact in Madison County have been governed by
the cities’ land use and development regulations. The actual ordinances stating this agreement
and which jurisdiction has authority to zone and regulate areas of impact were prepared and
adopted, but have been misplaced since that time. It is the recommendation of this
Comprehensive Plan element that Madison County and the local governments redevelop and
execute an ordinance clearly outlining the which set of regulations are to be used to govern
land use within the areas of city impact, and which local government is responsible for
administration of those regulations. Despite this, there is clear understanding that the
Impact Area
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 145
incorporated cities will regulate lands within their areas of impact.
Area of City Impact Purpose
The local governments have defined areas of city impact as follows:
An unincorporated area bordering a municipality, governed under coordinated
standards, mutually agreed upon by all affected local governments, to:
1. Protect the health, safety, and welfare of Madison County residents;
2. Ensure protection for municipalities and landowners against adjacent,
incompatible development;
3. Plan for orderly and consistent development where annexation is
anticipated;
4. Guide the efficient and prudent expenditure of local governmental
resources;
5. Organize and manage growth; and
6. Minimize undue environmental degradation and loss of open space.
Area of City Impact boundaries can accommodate changes in growth patterns
and growth rates, natural and environmental constraints and concerns, and
community interests.
Guidelines for Area of City Impact Delineation
The Local Governments discuss and agreed upon a number of guidelines for delineation of
Areas of City Impact. These are as follows:
1. In defining an Area of City Impact, the following factors shall be considered:
a. Trade area, defined as the region from which a city can expect the primary
demand for a specific product or service, and which may cross County
boundary lines;
b. Geographic factors; and
c. Areas that can reasonably be expected to be annexed into the municipality
within ten years or less, and
where the city is prepared to
provide for and maintain
infrastructure.
2. Whenever reasonable, Area of City
Impact boundary lines, at the
discretion and negotiation of the
affected governing bodies, should
follow one or some combination of
the following boundaries:
a. Natural and geographic
boundaries (i.e. waterways,
heavily wooded areas, geologic
features);
b. Man-made boundaries (i.e. road,
utility, train rights-of-way,
survey section lines, private
parcel lines); and
c. Other similar clearly defined boundaries.
3. Pursuant to Idaho Code §67-6526, Area of City Impact boundaries shall remain
fixed until all affected governing bodies agree to the renegotiated boundaries.
Local governments should work together to
ensure development on either side of a
governmental boundary is compatible.
Impact Area
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 146
4. Expansion or realignment of an Area of City Impact may be considered under the
following conditions:
a. Limited Developable Space within existing Area of City Impact boundary,
including lands within the existing city boundaries.
b. Regularly scheduled comprehensive plan update. Pursuant to Idaho Code,
§67-6509, the land use map component of a comprehensive plan may be
updated every six months.
i. At the time of a regularly scheduled comprehensive plan update, an
analysis of the available land for development within an impact area
should be conducted. If limited developable space is found within the
existing Area of City Impact boundary, including lands within the
existing city boundaries, an expansion or realignment of the impact
area boundaries may be appropriate.
c. Regularly scheduled Area of City Impact boundary update. The Local
Governments agree to conduct a Build Out analysis and consider the need for
realignment or renegotiation of Area of City Impact boundaries every three
years.
i. At the time of a regularly scheduled Area of City Impact Boundary
update, an analysis of the available land for development within an
impact area should be conducted. If limited developable space is found
within the existing Area of City Impact boundary, including lands
within the existing city boundaries, an expansion or realignment of the
impact area boundaries may be appropriate.
d. Request by a property owner to be included within an Area of City Impact,
when the city feels that being included within an impact area will help
implement the vision outlined in its Comprehensive Plan, and
e. When a city annexes up to an Area of City Impact boundary, resulting in
municipal and Area of City Impact boundaries sharing the same boundary line.
Guidelines for Annexation
The Local Governments agreed to the following process for expansion or realignment of Areas
of City Impact.
1. The Local Governments agree to follow the requirements and procedures for
annexation recorded in Idaho Code §50-222, §67-6525, and §67-6526.
2. Idaho Code §67-6526, states that, “Subject to the provisions of §50-222, an Area
of City Impact must be established before a city may annex adjacent territory.”
3. All affected municipalities shall limit their annexation to those lands within their
Areas of City Impact. If a municipality wishes to annex lands outside of its Area of
City Impact, it shall renegotiate its Area of City Impact boundary with Madison
County in accordance with Idaho Code §67-6526(d) and the procedures outlined
above. The Local Governments agree to renegotiate Area of City Impact
boundaries for all annexations, including Category A annexations as described in
Idaho Code §50-222, Annexation by Cities
Establishment of a Joint Commission
The Local Governments agree to the establishment of an ad hoc Joint Commission with the
purpose of considering and analyzing requests for renegotiation of Area of City Impact
boundaries. The Joint Commission will be structured as follows:
1. Representation on the Joint Commission will include three (3) representatives of
the Planning and Zoning Commissions of all affected Local Governments.
a. Since the size of the Joint Commission will vary depending on the number of
Local Governments affected, a quorum is considered to be the assembly of a
Impact Area
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 147
simple majority, including at least one representative of each affected Local
Government. Each affected Local Government shall have equal voting power.
2. Members of the Joint Commission will serve on an ad hoc basis, and at any given
time the Joint Commission may include various individuals from the Local
Governments’ Planning and Zoning Commissions based on context and the specific
conditions surrounding the proposed Area of City Impact boundary renegotiation.
3. The Joint Commission will meet at the following times:
a. Any Local Government may call the assembly of the Joint Commission.
b. On a minimum three-year cycle, corresponding to the agreed upon regularly
scheduled Area of City Impact boundary review.
c. As requests for Area of City Impact boundary realignments arise according to
the conditions outlined above.
Implementation
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 148
Chapter 15: Implementation
Implementation Tools
There are a number of tools that the City can use to implement the Proposed Land Use plan
and achieve the goals and objectives outlined above. These tools have been successfully used
in a number of other communities across the Nation. Every tool may not ultimately applicable
to the City of Rexburg, or applicable in every land use situation.
Programs that may be more useful to the City of Rexburg are those that work within the land
use markets, and use financial incentives to encourage appropriate land use techniques to
take place. Many of the programs listed in this section are based upon this principle. Some of
the most successful programs, although often more complicated to administer for small
communities, are those that mix the available resources.
Future Land Use Map
One tool is the Future Land Use Map. This map and the associated land use classifications
should be adopted and referred to when any new development or rezoning is proposed. The
Proposed Land Use Map should serve as a guide to the City to help decide whether a proposed
development or zone change is appropriate or consistent with the City’s plan for that area.
Referring to this map and plan when making these types of decisions will ensure that all future
development or redevelopment within the City is compatible with the desires and vision of
both the City and it’s residents. The City should strive to not deviate from the plan, except
where the change would be supportive of the overall City vision. Where more complex land
use strategies are employed, described in more detail later in this plan, it is especially
important to not make changes to underlying land uses that may defeat the purpose of the
other strategies.
City Ordinances and Zoning Map
The City of Rexburg should ensure City Ordinances and the Zoning Map are consistent with
each other and the Future Land Use Map. Zoning that is not consistent with the Future Land
Use Plan should be avoided. Where it is deemed appropriate to change current zoning, the
Future Land Use Map should also be updated. Where more complex land use strategies are
employed, described in more detail later in this plan, it is especially important to not re -zone
properties where the action may defeat the purpose of the other strategies.
Implementation
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 149
Small Area Plans
There are a number of areas within the City that the community may be interested in
developing more detailed plans. Developing and implementing small area plans for these areas
would provide the City with the tools to ensure that development of these areas occurs
consistently with the community’s desires and visions for these areas.
For each small area plan, the City should consider developing a series of goals and objectives
for the area, identifying any issues or constraints to address, and proposing a longer-range
plan to guide future development or redevelopment of that specific area. These small area
plans may propose changes to the existing land uses or zoning of that area. Small area plan
overlay zones could be used to apply additional development standards to those particular
areas. Small area plans would be appropriate for areas with future development or
redevelopment potential such as the town center and neighborhood centers (also described in
the land use district section).
Parks and Open Space Master Plan
The community has expressed interest in acquiring additional parks and open spaces within
the city. A Parks and Open Space Master Plan could serve as a guiding tool for the city as
future developments are proposed or as open spaces are annexed. A Parks and Open Space
Master Plan would provide the city with an inventory of the existing park and open space
opportunities within the city, assist in identifying areas of the city in need of more open spaces
or parks, and assist in identifying existing open space preservation priorities for the city.
Generally, parks are defined as developed (at least loosely) spaces with user amenities. Open
Space can include park space, but also may include non developed lands, such as wetlands,
sensitive hillsides, etc.
Sensitive Lands Ordinance and Overlay Zone
Rexburg residents have expressed that they would like to preserve existing open spaces. One
tool that the city should consider is a sensitive lands ordinance. If implemented, this ordinance
could be used to guide development within sensitive lands in a manner that appropriately
addresses any environmental constraints of the land and the community’s desire to preserve
open spaces. The ordinance may make use of cluster or transfer of development rights
techniques (described in more detail later in this document) as tools for preservation.
Alternatively, the zone may simply limit development unless the sensitive lands are
appropriately mitigated. A sensitive lands overlay zone would work in tandem with this
ordinance to identify the areas that have sensitive lands characteristics or environmental
constraints
Hillside/Ridgeline or Viewshed Protection Ordinance
The community has indicated that it is interested in preserving the rural view corridors into
and out of the city. A hillside protection ordinance is a tool for ensuring that the visual
qualities of hillsides and ridgelines are preserved. There may be key areas, or key future
annexation areas that could contain key characteristics to be preserved. This type of ordinance
can be used to limit development in areas that, as a community wide identifiable landmark,
should be preserved.
Performance Zoning
Performance based zoning requires developers to show evidence that they can meet
regulations (a specified level of performance) prior to the approval of their project. One
common performance zoning measure is the requirement to maintain minimum open space
ratios in a development. Developers could be awarded points for going above and beyond
what is required by the city. For example, points could be awarded to developers for not
Implementation
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 150
impacting and/or leaving an open space intact. These points could translate to density
bonuses, which may be used on or off site. When used with a PUD or cluster ordinance,
additional points could be awarded for “moving” development to appropriate areas such as
town or neighborhood centers. This bonus becomes an economic incentive designed to
encourage more appropriate development, rather than simply prescribing the development.
Cluster Development
Cluster development requirements are often part of a performance-zoning program (as
described above). Cluster development is a strategy to maximize the amount of open space
within a development plan. Development is clustered in less sensitive areas (or neighborhood
centers) rather than evenly spread out at a lower density. The cluster development strategy
can also involve providing density bonuses to developers in exchange for not building in
sensitive areas. By granting density bonuses
to developers, they can achieve a profitable
development level without having to build in
sensitive areas. Through clustering, an
undeveloped preserve is created that may be
jointly owned by the homeowners, or sold as
a very large tract to a single owner. Usually
this remaining open space is placed under a
conservation easement. Such easements are
usually assigned to non-profit such as an
open space preservation organization or a
local government entity. A third party holding
prevents the easement from being removed
without appropriate approval. The easement
prevents further subdivision or construction.
Conservation easements are discussed in a
following section.
Transfer of Development Rights
Transfer of development rights (TDR) is a land use management tool designed to direct
development away from areas that a municipality wants to preserve (i.e. wetlands, hillsides,
agricultural land, etc.) to locations that are more appropriate for development (i.e. a town or
neighborhood center). Land to be preserved is designated as a sending area (often as part of
a City sensitive lands plan), while developable land is reserved as a receiving area (often using
a town or neighborhood center overlay zone). Under a TDR system, sending area landowners
are allowed to transfer or sell their right to
develop for fair market value to owners of
receiving area properties. This sale or
transfer allows the receiving site developer to
build a project with increased density in the
receiving zone. This can be a useful tool for
farmland owners who wish to maintain their
operation, property and lifestyle but are
finding it increasingly difficult because of
increase property values and taxes.
The concept of TDR is based on the
assumption that title to real estate is actually
a bundle of individual rights, which may be
isolated and transferred to someone else (as
is the case with water rights). One of the
components of this bundle of rights is the
Implementation
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 151
right to develop land. After the original owner sells his development rights, he/she still retains
whatever rights have not been transferred away.
TDR offers communities an alternative to expensive acquisition or more restrictive regulations.
TDR is a new option, in a sense, a new property right that can be sold in a private market
transaction with another property owner. Few programs seem to offer so much for so little—
the community retains the critical resource without the acquisition costs, the property owner
receives compensation in addition to property tax relief, and a developer can achieve a varie ty
of densities generally not available within the community.
Open Space Preservation Tools and Mechanisms
Funding rural character preservation, as part of an overall land use management strategy, can
come from a number of sources. Agricultural based communities often have looked to
programs, such as those funded through the US Department of Agriculture, for grant money.
Exactions, Dedications, and Impact Fees
Exactions may provide alternatives for local governments strained by the impacts of growth.
Where new development creates a need for increased public services and infrastructure, such
as park space, this proactive approach is intended to ensure that the new development pays
for the needed increase in level of service. When used for open space acquisition a developer
is typically required to leave a certain percentage of land undeveloped. Exactions are best
used in conjunction with a flexible zoning code that allows for planned unit developments and
clustering.
Impact fees are another option for local communities. Typically the fee is charged for the
purpose of financing increased facility needs or improvements. Capital improvement or project
improvements that qualify for funding generation by impact fees include parks, recreation
facilities, open space and trails.
Purchase Mechanisms
Purchase of Development Rights
A unique way to preserve open space for public interest is for local and state governments to
purchase development rights (PDR). Purchase of development rights does not result in
purchase of title fee simple. Rather, the rights to all future development are acquired, while
the original landowner retains all other rights to the property. PDRs are voluntary programs.
The advantage to the landowners is the devaluation of the land, and consequently reduced
property taxes. Finding a willing buyer and seller is the challenge with this technique. The land
in question needs to be suitable for use by the current owner (and all future owners), and
worth preserving by the new owner.
Fee Simple Acquisition
Outright purchase of property is a simple and certain approach to ensure protection of open
spaces. However, this can be very expensive depending on property values. Additionally, to
achieve acquisition without condemnations, a community must rely on willing sellers.
Conservation Easements
Conservation easements are another tool for protecting land from development. As the PDR
and TDR programs work, conservation easements also remove the development rights from a
property. Under a simple conservation easement plan however, the development rights are
held by a third party and cannot be applied to a separate piece of land. These development
rights are often held by a land trust or a local governmental entity. The original landowner
Implementation
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 152
retains all other rights associated with landownership, but has given up the right to develop
the land. Conservation easements can be purchased by a third party or donated by the
landowner. One notable feature of giving up the development rights to a parcel of land is that
the landowner receives a significant tax benefit. By stripping the development rights away
form a parcel, the value of the property has been decreased, and therefore the property taxes
are correspondingly decreased. In some instances if development rights are donated, there
are tax benefits to the landowner.
Local Funding Sources
The city may consider, if additional park, open space, or trail lands are desirable, establishing
a funding structure or mechanism for acquiring undeveloped and/or vacant land for use as
parks and open space. While this list appears long and promising, in all reality many
communities will find it a challenge to implement these funding sources. It may take additional
staff by the City to work with the myriad of landowners who are located within the designated
preservation areas. Programs that allow the City to provide financial incentives, in exchange
for preservation often are the best way for a City to implement new programs. Incentives can
be, for example, in the form of local tax breaks, low interest loans, or density bonuses.
1. Private funding possibilities
2. City funding mechanisms
3. County General Fund
4. Special Taxing district
5. Collaboration with School Districts
6. State programs
7. Federal Programs
Private Funding
Private Donations
Private donations have been used in many instances for the development and construction of
recreational facilities. Public donors, including individuals and corporations, will be most
attracted to higher profile facilities such as parks or recreational facilities. Obtaining these
donations, which often are a tax benefit to the donor, generally requires an aggressive
promotion and management by the city or other agencies.
Generally, open space preservation in the form of rural character or agricultural land
preservation comes in the form of a donation of land by a landholder. A common scenario is
for a landowner to donate a portion of a develop able property, in an area that is desirable for
preservation, in exchange for density bonuses to develop other portions of the land. This
requires the City to adopt specific ordinances to support the incentive program.
Private and Public Partnerships
Cities and private developers may cooperate on a facility that serves the public, yet is also
attractive to a developer. These partnerships can be effective funding methods for special use
sports facilities like baseball complexes or soccer complexes; but are not as effective in
developing neighborhood or community parks that provide facilities such as playground,
informal playing field, and other passive recreation opportunities.
Land Trusts and Nonprofit Organizations
Private land trusts are non-governmental, private, nonprofit, charitable organizations. The
National Land Trust Census has defined a land trust as a “nonprofit organization that, as part
or all of its mission, actively works to conserve land by undertaking or assisting direct land
Implementation
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 153
transactions—primarily the purchase or acceptance of donations of land or conservation
easements.” While land trusts use a variety of methods to protect land, two of the most
commonly used are the purchase of or acceptance of donated lands and the purchase of or
acceptance of donated conservation easements. Some land trusts acquire land and then
convey it to another nonprofit organization or a governmental agency for permanent
protection and stewardship. Perhaps the most significant benefit of private land trusts is their
flexibility to create partnerships between individual landowners, governmental agencies, and
other private organizations to enable preservation.
City Funding – General Fund or Bonding
Mill Levy Increases
Many times, this is one of the most effective
ways to generate a substantial amount of money
for parks, trails, or open space. Mill levy
increases allow money to be levied over a long
period of time, but it can be difficult to reach
community consensus on a tax increase. Often
times a city can use generated funds to leverage
money from other sources, such as government
programs and matching grants from land trusts.
Recreation or Open Space Bonds
Bonds are usually made by a special investment
company and sold to the public at current
market prices with a guaranteed rate of interest.
The funds generated are used to buy and/or
build recreation facilities, as well as purchase
open space. The city then has to repay the bond
at a prescribed interest rate over a predetermined period of time. Bonds are most effective for
large projects.
Special Improvement Districts
Residents within these districts (or areas) are assessed additional taxes above the regular mill
levy expressly for the development and maintenance of public facilities and recreational
projects in a specific area of the city. The idea is to have local users pay more for services that
directly affect them. This option has rarely been used for open space preservation, as there is
little service provided to residents. This program would best be utilized to fund parks, trails, or
other recreational opportunities. There is some potential of using a special improvement
district to operate lands that are purchased by the City, and preserved as park/open space.
User Fees
User fees can generate small to large amounts of revenue depending on the activity. Most of
the facilities that charge user fees are special use recreation facilities such as golf courses,
swimming pools and recreation centers. Many communities charge leagues and sports
organization to use public facilities in order to recover some of the costs of upkeep and
maintenance. This program is also best used for implementing parks, trails, and recreational
facilities.
State and Federal Programs
It is recognized that there is considerable competition for these funds, and that these funds
are at times very limited. However, it is also been documented that creative communities have
Bonds and taxes help fund the maintenance of
public recreation facilities and open space such
as in area seen above.
Implementation
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 154
been successful at obtaining funding by demonstrating careful planning and a strong vision for
the use of the money. It may take additional City staff seek to and obtain these grants. Some
programs do require matching local funds, which may require the City to raise funds in some
manner.
Community Development Block Grants (CDBG)
The primary statutory objective of the CDBG program is to develop viable communities by
providing decent housing and a suitable living environment and by expanding economic
opportunities, principally for persons of low- and moderate-income. The State must ensure
that at least 70 percent of its CDBG grant funds are used for activities that benefit low- and
moderate-income persons over a one-, two-, or three-year time period selected by the State.
Sometimes these grants can be used towards the development or construction of parks, open
spaces, sidewalks, trails, or bridges. They may also be used to upgrade parks, provide new
park equipment, and improve accessibility. HUD distributes funds to each State based on a
statutory formula that takes into account population, poverty, incidence of overcrowded
housing, and age of housing.
Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality
The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) program is intended to realign the focus of
transportation planning toward a more inclusive, environmentally sensitive, and multimodal
approach to addressing transportation problems. It provides $6.0 billion in funding for surface
transportation and other related projects that contribute to air quality improvements and
reduce congestion.
Transportation Enhancement Funds
SAFETEA-LU, or the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy
for Users, provides federal funding through the Surface Transportation Program. Through the
Surface Transportation Program, the city can apply directly for funds to pay for projects and
programs that are transportation related with an emphasis on reducing auto trips, enhancing
safety and providing intermodal connections. Although this federal funding source is
traditionally used for transit and highway improvement, bicycle and pedestrian facilities are
eligible activities.
Implementation
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 155
MAPS
Implementation
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 156
Maps
Map 1. Locater Map
MAPS
Implementation
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 157
Map 2. Rexburg Annexation History
MAPS
Implementation
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 158
Map 3. Rexburg Subdivision History
MAPS
Implementation
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 159
Map 4. BYU-Idaho Campus
MAPS
Implementation
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 160
Map 5. Future Land Use (9-3-2008)
MAPS
Implementation
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 161
Map 6. Rexburg Zoning Map (5-14-2008)
MAPS
Implementation
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 162
Map 7. Soil Limitations for Dwellings with Basements
MAPS
Implementation
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 163
Map 8. Soil Limitations for Small Commercial Buildings
MAPS
Implementation
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 164
Map 9. Soil Limitations for Local Roads and Streets
MAPS
Implementation
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 165
Map 10. Future Transportation Plan
MAPS
Implementation
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 166
Map 11. Street Map
MAPS
Implementation
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 167
Map 12. Future Parks Recreation, and Open Space
MAPS
Implementation
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 168
Map 13 Madison Trails
MAPS
Implementation
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 169
Map 14. Impact Areas
Appendix A
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 170
Appendix A: Planning Term and Concept Glossary
A – B
C
Cluster Development - Clustered development is a land use tool to preserve open space within
individual developments. The tool allows the same overall amount of development that is
already permitted. The key difference is that this technique requires new construction to be
located on only a portion, typically half, of the parcel. The remaining open space is
permanently protected under a conservation easement co-signed by a local conservation
commission or land trust, and recorded in the registry of deeds. The basic principle of cluster
development is to group new homes onto part of the development parcel, so that the
remainder can be preserved as unbuilt open space. The degree to which this accomplishes a
significant saving of land, while providing an attractive and comfortable living environment,
depends largely on the quality of the zoning regulations and the expertise of the development
designer. Clustered developments do not affect the overall density of development, and
“clusters” can include a number of lot sizes. For example, a 20 acre area zoned for one
dwelling unit per five acres could be developed as a cluster of four one acre lots. The
remaining 16 acres would be preserved as open space.
The maintenance of the open space created by clustering can be handed in a number of ways.
If this space is recreational (playing fields, jogging trails, tennis courts), upkeep is typically
handled by a homeowners' association, to which everyone is contractually obligated to
contribute when they purchase their home. Home-buyers sign a legally enforceable agreement
which enables the homeowners' association to collect any unpaid dues. If the open space is
agricultural, there are a couple options. The agricultural open space can be sold "in fee" to the
homeowners' association, which can in turn lease it to local farmers. It can be sold as a single
large agricultural parcel. Or, the original farmer can retain ownership of it, and continue to
farm it, after being compensated for the sale of his development rights by the developer of the
clustered parcels. More information on the idea of clustered development can be found in the
book Rural By Design, by Randall Arrent.
Conservation Easement - Conservation easements are a useful legal tool to preserve farmland
by limiting land uses. They are used to prevent development or to preserve scenic, natural, or
other values the land may hold. Once in place, an easement runs with the deed, and,
therefore, future landowners need to abide by the terms of the agreement. Landowners either
donate or sell a conservation easement to a recipient that holds the easement and is
responsible for monitoring the terms of the easement for compliance.
When easements are sold, the price is often the difference between the value of the land if
used for development and its value under current use. When easements are donated, a federal
income tax deduction can be taken. Typical easement holders are land trusts managed by
non-profit organizations or governments. Governments often fund easement purchases by
various means to meet local community objectives such as watershed protection or historic
Appendix A
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 171
preservation.
D – G
H
National Register of Historic Places - The National Register of Historic Places is the United
States' official list of districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects worthy of preservation.
Administered by the National Park Service, the Register was authorized under the National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966. Its goals are to coordinate and help groups such as the
National Trust for Historic Preservation identify and protect historic sites in the United States.
The National Register of Historic Places is primarily a tool to recognize the historical
significance of a building, structure, object, district, or site. Listing in the National Register
does not restrict private property owners from the use of their property. Some states,
however, might have state or local laws that are triggered by National Register listing. If
federal money or a federal permitting process is involved, Section106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 is invoked which requires the federal agency involved to assess the
impact of its actions historic resources. The SHPO advises and assists the federal agency, but
has no regulatory authority. In cases where the federal action will have an "adverse effect" on
historic properties, mitigation should be sought. Typically, a Memorandum of Agreement
(MOA) in which the parties involved agree to a particular plan is created. An MOA might
address the adverse effect in a variety of ways, often recommending "document and destroy"
in which the historic resource is first documented and then demolished as the most prudent
and feasible alternative.
National Historic District - National Historic Districts are neighborhoods, or districts, that
contain a certain percentage of contributing historic structures, that have been nominated and
federally accepted as part of the National Register of Historic Places. Districts are typically
designated when there are too many historic structures to realistically nominate them all
individually for the National Register of Historic Places.
A National Historic District designation does not limit subdivision of land within the district or
the regular use of private property. If restoration projects are undertaken within the district,
and federal monies are used to help subsidize the cost, there may be restrictions placed upon
how the structure can be modified.
Historic District Overlay Zone - An Historic District Overlay Zone is a land use tool established
by a local government. The purpose of an historic district overlay zone is to give local
governments additional tools to ensure the protection of its local historical resources. An
overlay zone, described below, typically applies additional regulations and restrictions to
properties falling within its boundaries than those originally required by the base zoning. The
actual restrictions and requirements of an historic district overlay zone are determined by the
local government and adopted into the zoning code. The boundaries of an historic district
overlay zone do not necessarily have to match the boundaries of a National Historic
District, nor is their use limited to areas that have federally recognized National Historic
Districts. However, if a community has a National Historic District, it makes logical sense for
the overlay to include the entire district at a minimum.
I – L
M
Mixed-Use Development - Mixed use refers to the combining of retail/commercial and/or
service uses with residential or office use in the same building or on the same site in one of
the following ways:
1) Vertical Mixed Use. A single structure with the above floors used for residential or office use
and a portion of the ground floor for retail/commercial or service uses.
Appendix A
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 172
2) Horizontal Mixed Use – Attached. A single structure, which provides retail/commercial or
service use in the portion fronting the public or private street with attached residential, or
office uses behind.
3) Horizontal Mixed Use – Detached. Two (2) or more structures on one (1) site which provide
retail/commercial or service uses in the structure(s) fronting the public or private street, and
residential or office uses in separate structure(s) behind or to the side. Mixed use is a key
component of many current development trends, including Transit Oriented Development
(TOD), Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND), Livable Communities, and Smart
Growth principles. The benefits of Mixed Use include: activating urban areas, increasing
housing options, reducing auto dependence, increasing travel options, and creating a local
sense of place. Mixed use can be developed at a variety of scales, from building, to parcel, and
walkable or transit area.
N
O
Overlay (Floating) Zone - The overlay, or floating, zone concept allows for districts that are
not delineated on the zoning map. The boundaries of these zones are somewhat flexible, and
allow the City to identify additional allowable land uses in areas to be determined as long as
they meet certain criteria. The most common use of the concept of the overlay zone is the
over-laying of standards that change or are added to the standards of the underlying district.
This concept works well in areas in which there may be sensitive lands, natural hazards, and
other characteristics of merit such as historical architecture. Areas in which the potential for
such conditions to exist are graphically identified on the zoning and comprehensive plan land
use maps, showing both the base zoning and the area over which the overlay regulations
apply.
P
Performance Zoning - Performance zoning differs from all other forms of zoning (Euclidian,
Conditional, and Form-Based) because it is based on standards designed specifically to meet a
wide range of established goals. For instance, rather than using a conventional land use map
with well intended transition districts or a conditional approval process in an attempt to avoid
land use conflicts through rezoning, and lengthy use restrictions, or public hearing processes,
performance zoning directly addresses conflicts in use by implementing design standards that
eliminate and/or mitigate such conflicts.
Performance zoning is designed to evaluate the context and compatibility of uses within their
environment, as opposed to whether or not a use should be permitted. The premise of
performance zoning is that land use is irrelevant when it is designed to respect the built and
natural environments. In fact, it is not the use itself that determines compatibility; instead, it
is the design and intensity of the use, which may be effectively addressed by performance
standards.
Performance criteria are used to establish limits to intensity of use. Property developers are
awarded “points” towards meeting zoning goals through compliance with a variety of planning
issues, including environmental impacts, public amenities, affordable housing, architectural
consistency, etc. Clustering of housing or commercial development is generally required, and a
full range of development types and densities are allowed on the buildable portion of the site.
Advantages include increased flexibility, greater involvement of stakeholders, and improved
collaboration among interested parties. The basic intent of performance standards is that
without rigid regulations, more creative and responsible land development is possible.
Disadvantages may include a steep learning curve for those new to performance zoning
concepts, more administrative time required to implement, and possible increased legal
challenges due to the perceived subjectivity of the process.
Appendix A
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 173
Q
R
Receiving Area - Part of a Transferrable Development Rights program, the receiving area is an
area identified by a governmental body for potential increased development. This is the area
to which development rights are transferred in order to achieve greater development densities
and intensities.
S
Sending Area - Part of a Transferrable Development Rights program, the sending area is an
area identified by a governmental body for preservation. This is the area from which
development rights are transferred in order to protect the resources and desirable values of
the area (e.g. open space, wetlands, forests, scenic areas, agricultural value).
T
Transferrable Development Rights (TDR) - TDR is defined as, the transferring of development
rights from one parcel of land to another through a program created by a government body
intend to preserve certain undeveloped areas, stimulate growth and development in other
areas, and compensate the owners for the transferred value of their lands.
U – Z
Appendix B
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 174
Appendix B: “Open Space Zoning: What It Is & Why It
Works”
by, Randall Arendt
From Issue 5 of the Planning Commissioners Journal, July/August 1992
Local officials in most rural and suburbanizing areas have a long-term choice about which
many are not fully aware. That is whether to continue implementing "conventional zoning", or
whether to refine their existing land-use regulations to ensure the preservation of open space
through creative development design.
Conventional zoning is essentially a blueprint for development, and development
alone. Of course, zoning normally separates incompatible uses, and it does establish certain
standards (such as maximum densities and minimum setbacks), but it typically does little to
protect open space or to conserve rural character. The reason many subdivisions consist of
nothing more than house lots and streets is because zoning and subdivision design standards
usually require developers to provide nothing more. While many ordinances contain detailed
standards for pavement thickness and culvert diameters, very few set any noteworthy
standards for the quantity, quality and configuration of open space to be preserved.
Conventional zoning assigns a development designation to every acre of land, generally
residential, commercial, or industrial. The only lands which are normally not designated for
development are wetlands and floodplains. Conventional zoning has been accurately described
as "planned sprawl," because every square foot of each development parcel is converted to
front yards, back yards, streets, sidewalks, or driveways. Period. Nothing is left over to
become open space, in this land-consumptive process.
Above photo is of conventional large lot zoning in Middletown, Rhode Island.
Appendix B
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 175
Above photo is of open space development in Lower Makefield Township, Pennsylvania, where
over half of this 431 acre tract has been preserved as farmland (137 acres donated to a local
farmland trust) or as woods and wetlands (100 acres). Houselots are about 1/2 acre in size.
Buyer response has been very favorable, with sales outpacing similarly priced developments.
The developer advertises the project as "a community that will be forever surrounded by acres
of preserved farmland, open fields and woodlands."
[Editor's Note: The Center for Rural Massachusett's Web site contains excellent drawings
comparing development under conventional zoning principles and development using open
space/cluster principles (http://www-unix.oit.umass.edu/~ruralma/Parsons.un.html)].
A Better Solution
Local officials who are interested in ensuring that their communities will not ultimately become
a seamless web of subdivisions, shopping centers and office or industrial parks now have a
practical and effective alternative: compulsory open space zoning. This technique has been
successfully implemented by a number of municipalities in New England and the Mid-Atlantic
states, and by several counties in Virginia, Washington State and California.
In order to avoid disturbing the equity held by existing landowners, open space zoning
allows the same overall amount of development that is already permitted. The key
difference is that this technique requires new construction to be located on only a portion --
typically half -- of the parcel. The remaining open space is permanently protected under a
conservation easement co-signed by a local conservation commission or land trust, and
recorded in the registry of deeds.
As "open space zoning" is based upon the technique of "clustering," these two terms are used
interchangeably throughout the rest of this article. It should also be noted that the cluster
Appendix B
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 176
concept can be restricted to detached, single-family homes, each on its own down-sized
houselot, in communities or in specific zoning districts where this is politically desirable. In
other words, cluster housing is by no means limited to townhouses, apartments, or
condominiums, as is typical in many PUDs (planned unit developments) and PRDs (planned
residential developments). In fact, the classic rural village settlement pattern is a superb
example of single-family clustering, sometimes with a central green constituting the
permanently preserved open space.
Cluster Design
The basic principle of cluster development is to group new homes onto part of the
development parcel, so that the remainder can be preserved as unbuilt open space.
The degree to which this accomplishes a significant saving of land, while providing an
attractive and comfortable living environment, depends largely on the quality of the zoning
regulations and the expertise of the development designer (preferably someone experienced
in landscape architecture).
Although the concept of clustering is fairly simple, this "new" form of development has raised
concerns among some residents of rural or suburbanizing areas because it is quite different
from the conventional, standardized subdivision pattern with which most of us are very
familiar. Interestingly, the conventional suburban model, commonplace in many growing
communities, is actually a pattern that is at odds with the otherwise traditional rural
landscape. It looks "at home" only in our sprawling metropolitan post-war suburbs, where it
has become the predominant building pattern.
The purpose of this article is to first briefly explain what I believe are the major advantages of
requiring clustered (open space) development, and then to discuss several of the concerns
typically expressed at local meetings where the open space planning concept has been
discussed.
The Advantages of Open Space Development
The conventional approach to development results in the entire parcel being covered with
houselots and subdivision streets. Communities which have had a lot of experience with this
type of development ultimately realize that, as one parcel after another is eventually
developed, their formerly open landscape evolves into a network of "wall -to-wall" subdivisions.
The beauty of open space zoning is that it is easy to administer, does not penalize the rural
landowner, does not take development potential away from the developer, and is extremely
effective in permanently protecting a substantial proportion of every development tract. It
does not require large public expenditures (to purchase development rights), and allows
farmers and others to extract their rightful equity without seeing their entire land holding
bulldozed for complete coverage by houselots.
This pattern of down-sized houselots and preserved open space offers distinct economic
advantages to all parties. Developers can reduce the costs of building roads and, if applicable,
water and sewer lines. Local governments save on snowplowing and on periodic road re-
surfacing. And home buyers often pay less because of these cost savings.
Landowners who view their property as their "pension" no longer have to destroy their woods
and fields in order to retire with a guaranteed income, as their equity is not diminished. Local
governments do not have to raise property taxes to finance expensive open space
acquisitions, and are not faced with the administrative complexities posed by TDR (transfer of
development rights) systems. Developers are not placed under unreasonable constraints, and
realtors gain a special marketing tool, in that views from the new houses will be guaranteed
by conservation easements protecting the open space from future development.
Appendix B
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 177
Why Require Cluster Design?
Perhaps the most controversial issue surrounding the cluster concept is the
suggestion that this open space approach be made mandatory. The rationale is that
there are certain types of irreplaceable natural resources which are extremely important to
protect. Among these may be listed aquifers, riverfront land, fields and pastures. In addition,
clustering allows flexibility in layout so that a developer can avoid impacting important wildlife
habitat areas, such as deeryards, or scenic features of the rural landscape, such as large rock
formations, hill crests, and mature tree-stands. It is a local decision whether to require the
cluster approach when development is proposed on any or all of these resource lands.
There are several possible options to mandating open space. One is to require the cluster
approach in only certain zoning districts, or when certain resources are present. Another
alternative is to authorize the planning commission to require it only when the developer's
conventional plan would destroy or remove more than a specified percentage of certain listed
resources, leaving determination on a case-by-case basis. Whatever the choice, it is important
-- in my view -- not to leave it to the developer to decide whether to opt for cluster
development.
Questions About Cluster Development:
Will It Harmonize With Its Surroundings? A concern I often hear is that cluster housing
will not blend in with a town's rural character. It is true that some cluster developments done
in the past have failed to harmonize with their surroundings. Recognizing this potential
problem, a few communities are now requiring that new cluster plans consist of only detached,
single family homes, each set on its own, down-sized individual lot, roughly resembling a
traditional village pattern. This also ensures that everyone will have their own separate yard
space, in addition to the larger "open space" which the cluster approach creates.
The related issue of "impact upon surrounding property values" is also often raised. Along any
part of the parcel perimeter where down-sized lots would adjoin standard-sized lots,
communities can require buffer strips. Along other edges, this may not be desirable or logical,
as lots which border permanently protected open space almost always enjoy higher property
values. Indeed, most realtors would attest to the fact that all lots within a well-
designed cluster development usually gain enhanced value as a result of the
protected open space.
"Open Space" Maintenance. Another issue is maintenance of the open space created by
clustering. If this space is recreational (playing fields, jogging trails, tennis courts), upkeep is
typically handled by a homeowners' association, to which everyone is contractually obligated
to contribute when they purchase their home. Home buyers sign a legally enforceable
agreement which enables the homeowners' association to collect any unpaid dues.
If the open space is agricultural, there are several options. The agricultural open space can be
sold "in fee" to the homeowners' association, which can in turn lease it to local farmers.
Alternatively, the original farmer can retain ownership of it and sell only his "develop ment
rights." I favor the latter option, even if the farmer is planning to retire, because he could still
sell the field to a younger farmer in the neighborhood at an affordable price reflecting the
land's agricultural value -- not its potential building-lot value -- thus strengthening the local
farming economy.
Buffering Farm Operations. In order to reduce potential conflicts between new residents
and agricultural practices, communities are beginning to require that cluster lots be separated
from the protected farmland by a "buffer" strip, typically 75 to 100 feet wide. Where it is not
possible to use existing woodlands for this purpose, officials can require new buffer areas to be
thickly planted with a variety of rapidly growing native trees and shrubs. A similar requirement
should also be placed on conventional subdivisions when they abut working fields, but this is
rarely done.
Appendix B
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 178
Street Standards in Cluster Developments. When cluster developments are designed with
privately maintained road systems, planning boards are often asked to reduce their normal
street construction standards. This has sometimes created substandard conditions, and is a
practice which communities would be well-advised to resist. If subdivision street construction
standards are excessive -- as they often are -- they should be revised for all types of new
development, so that street width bears a reasonable relationship to the expected volume of
traffic.
Sewerage and Septic Systems.
Because of the shorter road system needed to serve lots in a cluster development, substantial
savings are possible with respect to the construction of roads, sewers, and water lines. Where
sewer service is unavailable, however, people have expressed concerns about siting septic
systems on the smaller cluster lots. Recognizing this factor, officials are requiring such
houselots to be located on that part of the parcel where soils are most favorable for leaching
fields. The flexibility of cluster design allows this to happen. On the other hand, in a
conventional subdivision, septic systems are located wherever the soils manage to pass
minimum health requirements, even on marginal soils whose long-term suitability is
questionable. In addition, it should be noted that septic systems can be located beyond one's
lot lines, on an easement within the protected open space.
Summing Up:
Whether continuous coverage by large-lot subdivisions is more desirable than a mixture of
village-sized cluster lots surrounded by permanently protected fields and woodland is a
decision for residents and officials in each town. As long as everyone is clear about the
ultimate consequences of the various development types which are available to them, these
decisions can be made on an informed basis.
Appendix B
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 179
Appendix C
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 180
Appendix C: Transfer of Development Rights Program
Administration Overview
The following has been adapted, with permission, from an outline prepared by Lindberg &
Company. For more information please contact:
Neil Lindberg, Esq., AICP
Lindberg & Company
13692 Hackamore Drive
Draper, Utah 84020
(801) 553-6416
nlindberg@aros.net
Transfer of Development Rights, or TDR, is a land use management tool designed to direct
development away from areas a municipality/county desires to preserve (i.e. wetlands,
hillsides, agricultural land, etc.) to locations that are more appropriate for development. Under
a TDR system, preservation area landowners are allowed to transfer or sell their right to
develop to developers in a different part of the city.
Definitions
To understand how a TDR program works, some basic terms need to be defined.
Property - The rights and ownership of property is generally determined under state law. The
concept of a TDR program is based on the assumption that title to real estate is actually a
bundle of individual rights which may be isolated and transferred to someone else. This bundle
includes:
The right to possession,
The right to exclude others,
The right to freely use and enjoy property unless it will cause harm to others,
constitute a public nuisance, or is contrary to law,
The right to freely transfer or sell the property
The right to the minerals and water occurring on the land, and among others
The right to develop the land.
Some of these rights (e.g. mineral and water rights) can be transferred, or sold, while the
ownership of the property and all other rights are maintained.
Easement - An easement is a non-possessory interest in another’s land. The holder of the
easement is allowed access through, or use of the land, but is not given any right to
ownership. Common examples are easements for the accommodation of roadways or utilities
on private land.
License - A license is a privilege or permission to use the property in a certain way. Licenses
are revokable at will, and are not considered a property right, but rather a right specified by
contract. A TDR is more closely related to an easement than a license.
Transfer of Development Rights - TDR is defined as, the transferring of development rights
from one parcel of land to another through a program created by a government body intend to
preserve certain undeveloped areas, stimulate growth and development in other areas, and
compensate the owners for the transferred value of their lands.
Purchase of Development Rights - A related, but separate concept is the purchase of
development rights (PDR). This term describes the notion of a governmental body purchasing
Appendix C
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 181
the development rights of a property in a preservation area. Rather than transferring the
development rights to another parcel, the government simply holds those rights to lock the
potential for development of the preservation area. Because most local governments have
limited resources, PDR is not used as frequently as TDRs. However, a governmental body will
often purchase development rights, in order to create a bank and jump start a TDR program.
These TDRs are later sold by the government to willing buyers in identified receiving zones.
TDR Program Components
A TDR program has four required elements:
Sending Area - The sending area is an area identified by a governmental body for
preservation. This is the area from which development rights are transferred in order to
protect the resources and desirable values of the area (e.g. open space, wetlands, forests,
scenic areas, agricultural value).
Receiving Area - The receiving area is an area identified by a governmental body for potential
increased development. This is the area to which development rights are transferred in order
to achieve greater development densities and intensities.
Allocation Formula - The governmental body determines an allocation formula to specify what
constitutes a development right, and the ratios and basis for a transfer. The most basic
formula is a 1:1 ratio, where one development right in a sending area, equals one
development right in a receiving area.
Conservation Easement - A recorded conservation easement is placed on the sending area
properties after the transfer which limits the future development of the property. The
conservation easement can be held by a third party land trust, or by the local government
itself.
TDR programs have some variable elements as well:
Participation - In some cases participation in a TDR program is mandatory, but most
commonly they are voluntary and landowners may chose whether to participate or not.
Allocation Formula Criteria - The criteria and ratios of the TDR allocation formula vary based
on market economics. Some communities may offer incentives to encourage landowners to
participate in the program. For example, a single TDR in a sending area, may equal five
additional units in receiving area. Some communities offer a bonus if the property in the
sending area is placed under a conservation easement held by a land trust v. by the city or
county.
Authority to Enact a TDR Program
TDR programs can be enacted in two ways:
Police Power - Police power is the power of a state to make laws in order to coerce its subjects
into obeying those laws. States are widely regarded by lawyers and jurists as having an
"inherent" right to police power, meaning that it does not have to be explicitly written into any
basic law or constitutional or other foundational document. The most common use of police
power over real property is for the adoption and enforcement of zoning regulations, building
codes, environmental protection regulations, etc. by local, regional governments, national
governments. Police power is delegated to local governments under the Municipal and County
Land Use Development Management Acts. Local governments may use any zoning technique
as long as it is used in a way that does not violate the federal or state constitutions, does not
violate a specific statute, and is not arbitrary, capricious, or discriminatory. Therefore, a
exercise of police power should be premised on the protection of public health, safety, and
welfare, should not deprive an owner of all viable use of land, and should be based on
regulations that are clear and definite.
Appendix C
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 182
Express Authority - Authority is the right and power which an officer has in the exercise of a
public function to compel obedience to his lawful commands. An express authority is that
which is physically given in writing, not under seal or verbally. In Idaho, TDR programs are
enacted through the express authority outlined in state statute §67-6515A.
Practical Considerations
In order to set up a TDR program to work effectively, a governmental body should consider
the following practical considerations.
Sending Areas
In sending areas, the government should clearly identify the resources to be protected to
explain the public purpose of the program. There may need to be some limits on development
permission to encourage program participation. For example, if the program is mandatory the
landowners in sending areas may realize increased value of their land only through
development transfers. If the program is voluntary, landowners retain existing development
rights, even if they choose not to participate in the program. Regardless, whichever type of
program the city selects, the TDR program should still allow reasonable use of the property
after development rights have been transferred or it may face a takings claim.
Receiving Areas
Receiving areas have a few requirements as well. They may require an initial downzoning in
order to encourage developer participation, but may not. Sometimes, receiving areas should
be places that have community support for higher densities, otherwise the increase in density
may be politically challenging. Finally, the TDR scheme should be consistent with market
economics, and TDRs may have different values for different properties.
Allocation Formula
The allocation formula should be readily understandable and easy for buyers and sellers to
use. If the formula is overly cumbersome, parties will be less likely to participate. The formula
should allow landowners to determine how many TDRs they have, the extent to which TDRs
will increase developer’s density, and the maximum density increase allowed. There should
also be a proper ratio of TDRs between sending and receiving areas. TDR programs work best
if the receiving areas are 2-3 times larger than the sending areas. If the sending area is
particularly large, downzoning may help make the ratio between sending and receiving areas
more effective.
Program Objectives
The TDR program overall should be clear in order to properly establish criteria for sending and
receiving areas and allocation formula, and to survive any legal challenge. The geographic
scope of the program needs to be determined; this may be mapped or unmapped.
Making a Market
TDR programs do no work in all situations, and merely establishing a program does not ensure
a market for TDRs. To be effective, a TDR program mush not be contrary to local market
economics. There should already exist development interest or potential for the receiving area,
and community support for preservation of the sending area. Some communities will need to
start a TDR bank to get the program started.
Enforcement Issues
A local government should recognize that adding conditions to permit approvals may affect
TDR need or value; therefore, standards and procedures should be developed to ensure
fairness and predictability. In order to ensure clear enforcement of TDR transfers, the local
Appendix C
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 183
government should have a good record keeping system to keep track of how many TDRs have
been transferred to different ownership, how many have been “cashed in” for additional
density, and how many still remain unused or under original ownership. The local government
must be unbending in the way it handles development requests and zone changes. This means
ensuring that parcels from which TDRs are transferred are not developed contrary to the
restrictions agreed upon for that land. It also means that zone changes are not allowed within
potential sending or receiving areas unless associated with a transfer of development rights.
Approving zone changes outside of the TDR program will completely undermine the
effectiveness of the TDR program. The actions of future city councils and governmental bodies
should be consistent with the objectives of the TDR program.
Setting Up a TDR Program
There are four primary steps in establishing and organizing a TDR program.
1) Define sending and receiving areas
Sending and receiving areas can be determined legislatively or administratively. It is
recommended that either way, the process include citizen input in defining the purpose of the
TDR program. If defined legislatively, the sending and receiving areas are defined in the
comprehensive planning document. Within the receiving areas, desired development standards
should be defined. The local government should also prepare buildout maps to show eventual
development patterns for the sending and receiving areas.
2) Determine the effect of the TDR program
The ratios between sending and receiving areas should be calculated to ensure that receiving
areas are large enough to absorb the transferred development potential from the sending
areas. TDR programs work best when the transfer is the only bonus option in receiving areas.
By making TDRs the only way to increase density within a receiving area, it creates greater
incentive for landowners and developers to participate in the program. Therefore, the number
of TDRs potentially credited to a parcel should exceed the number of lots/dwelling units that
can be approved by other means.
3) TDR sales must give adequate compensation to the sellers in sending areas
The total value of TDRs available from a given parcel should be comparable to what it would
be worth for development purposes less the land’s residual value. An analysis of the local real
estate market should yield a general idea of TDR values. Knowing the value of the
development rights will help a local government determine how to allocate the TDRs among
the sending area properties, and determine the ratios between sending and receiving areas
that make fair economic sense to parties in both areas.
4) Economics of receiving area parcels are what makes a TDR program work
In order for a TDR program to be effective, and an enticing option for landowners and
developers of receiving areas, TDRs must add value to the bottom line of development
projects. One way to determine the value of TDRs is to ask a developer what they would pay
for increased density.
Each potential TDR participant should know:
Potential TDR sending and receiving areas (defined in the Comprehensive plan )
Base density available in receiving areas
Types of dwelling units or commercial uses permitted in receiving area
Terms of any other density bonus programs (TDRs work best when they are the only
bonus option)
TDR approval mechanism
Availability of public facilities in receiving area
Appendix C
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 184
TDR transfer rate
A TDR Example
The following is an example of how a TDR program might be established and administered in a
community, and the program would allow landowners in sending and receiving areas to
participate.
Procedure
1) The governmental body establishes potential sending and receiving areas in the
comprehensive plan. The Comprehensive plan merely states where TDRs may be created and
used, but does not guarantee or authorize use of TDRs.
2) The zoning ordinance is revised to allow for two new zoning classifications:
TDR-S = sending areas
TDR-R = receiving areas
The zoning map, however, does not change at this time. Changes to actual zoning occur only
after landowners within the sending or receiving area request zone changes to participate in
the TDR program Some communities have initiated downzonings in sending and receiving
areas to make the ratios between sending and receiving areas work, and to encourage
landowner participation.
3) The number of TDRs is calculated using predetermined ratios, stated in the TDR ordinance.
For example, the ordinance may state that for each TDR transferred from a sending area,
three additional units of density may be built within a receiving area. The allocation formula
and TDR ratios is determined through an economic analysis of local real estate and
development demand.
4) After the parameters of the program have been established, and the opportunity for
landowner participation advertised by the local government, the program can be used.
The local government may wish to purchase a few TDRs initially to start a TDR bank to get the
program started, but this may not be necessary. When the time is right for the individual, a
landowner will request a zone change from the base zoning to a TDR-S overlay zoning
classification for their property. Once a zone change in the sending area has been approved, a
conservation easement is placed on the sending area property and TDR certificates are issued
to the landowner. These certificates, like a stock certificate, represent actual value and can be
sold to receiving area landowners in a free market. A local government has the ability to limit
the validity of TDR certificates to a defined period of time if it wishes.
5) After a few TDRs have been issued and are available for transfer, landowners in sending
and receiving areas are able to enter in private transactions. The price of the TDR is
determined by the two parties in a free market system.
6) Once a landowner in a potential receiving zone has purchased TDR certificates from a
sending area landowner, they can then petition for a rezone of the receiving site to a TDRR
overlay zoning classification. The developer can then petition for subdivision of site plan
approval using TDRs. This may happen after or simultaneous with the rezone application and
purchase of TDRs.
7) Upon approval of the receiving area site plan, the developer relinquishes the TDR
certificates. The local government “retires” the certificates and maintains a record of TDR use
so it will know how many TDR certificates remain “unredeemed.”
Appendix C
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 185
Suggested Standards
1) At lease two-thirds of the TDRs permitted to be transferred to a receiving site must be
used. This helps to create a market for TDRs and ensures that the TDRs are used in
designated areas.
2) A request to utilize development rights on a receiving site must be approved if the request:
Does not exceed the number of dwelling/density units permitted in the underlying
zone and the density limitations of the Comprehensive plan.
Complies with the TDR ordinance.
Complies with subdivision and site plan rules.
Is consistent with other recommendations of the Comprehensive plan.
References
Lindberg, Neil. Lindberg & Company, 13692 Hackamore Drive, Draper, Utah 84020, (801)
553-6416, nlindberg@aros.net
Pruetz, Rick. Saved by development: preserving environmental areas, farmland and historic
landmarks with transfer of development rights. Burbank, Calif.: Arje Press, c1997.
Mapleton, Utah. Mapleton Municipal Code, Chapter 18.76,TDR Transferrable Development
Rights Overlay Zone. http://66.113.195.234/UT/Mapleton%20City/index.htm
West Valley City, Utah. West Valley City Municipal Code Chapter 7-26, Transfer of
Development Rights Overlay Zone. http://www.wvc-ut.gov/citycode/html/title7
Appendix D
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 186
Appendix D: Employment Growth Projections
EMPLOYMENT GROWTH PROJECTIONS
State of Idaho
TITLE
ESTIMATED
EMPLOYMENT
PROJECTED
EMPLOYMENT
GROWTH
RATE NET CHANGE
Total Employment, All Jobs 655,963 807,569 2.10 151,606
Services-Providing 468,816 602,171 2.53 133,355
Education and Health Services 117,732 151,658 2.56 33,926
Trade, Transportation, and
Utilities 117,923 151,499 2.54 33,576
Professional and Business
Services 73,161 104,861 3.67 31,700
Goods-Producing 124,278 149,171 1.84 24,893
Health Care and Social
Assistance 66,340 90,630 3.17 24,290
Retail Trade 73,721 97,252 2.81 23,531
Professional, Scientific, and
Technical Services 29,499 45,364 4.40 15,865
Professional, Scientific, and
Technical Services 29,499 45,364 4.40 15,865
Construction 39,848 55,616 3.39 15,768
Construction 39,848 55,616 3.39 15,768
Administrative and Support and
Waste Management and
Remediation 36,269 51,659 3.60 15,390
Administrative and Support
Services 35,147 50,145 3.62 14,998
Leisure and Hospitality 55,521 68,507 2.12 12,986
Ambulatory Health Care Services 22,600 33,900 4.14 11,300
Accommodation and Food
Services 47,914 58,591 2.03 10,677
Specialty Trade Contractors 25,250 35,237 3.39 9,987
Educational Services 51,392 61,028 1.73 9,636
Educational Services 51,392 61,028 1.73 9,636
Government 53,855 62,720 1.54 8,865
Government 53,855 62,720 1.54 8,865
Food Services and Drinking
Places 40,004 48,736 1.99 8,732
Manufacturing 61,635 69,192 1.16 7,557
Manufacturing 61,635 69,192 1.16 7,557
Local Government, Excluding
Education and Hospitals 26,062 33,557 2.56 7,495
Building Material and Garden
Equipment and Supplies Dealers 8,286 13,662 5.13 5,376
General Merchandise Stores 15,357 20,682 3.02 5,325
Transportation and Warehousing 16,920 22,030 2.67 5,110
Hospitals 21,676 26,585 2.06 4,909
Financial Activities 26,024 30,743 1.68 4,719
Construction of Buildings 9,190 13,619 4.01 4,429
Appendix D
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 187
EMPLOYMENT GROWTH PROJECTIONS
State of Idaho
TITLE
ESTIMATED
EMPLOYMENT
PROJECTED
EMPLOYMENT
GROWTH
RATE NET CHANGE
Elementary and Secondary
Schools 36,020 40,398 1.15 4,378
Wholesale Trade 25,408 29,759 1.59 4,351
Social Assistance 10,829 15,097 3.38 4,268
Animal Production 6,776 10,952 4.92 4,176
Information 9,939 14,025 3.50 4,086
Information 9,939 14,025 3.50 4,086
Residential Building Construction 6,395 10,232 4.81 3,837
Nursing and Residential Care
Facilities 11,235 15,048 2.97 3,813
Finance and Insurance 18,574 22,194 1.80 3,620
Other Services (Except
Government) 14,661 18,158 2.16 3,497
Other Services (Except
Government) 14,661 18,158 2.16 3,497
Truck Transportation 8,542 11,832 3.31 3,290
Telecommunications 3,806 6,491 5.48 2,685
Food and Beverage Stores 12,096 14,719 1.98 2,623
Arts, Entertainment, and
Recreation 7,607 9,916 2.69 2,309
Amusement, Gambling, and
Recreation Industries 6,561 8,764 2.94 2,203
Colleges, Universities, and
Professional Schools 11,191 13,319 1.76 2,128
Credit Intermediation and
Related Activities 9,833 11,940 1.96 2,107
Merchant Wholesalers, Durable
Goods 11,709 13,660 1.55 1,951
Accommodation 7,910 9,855 2.22 1,945
Motor Vehicle and Parts Dealers 11,172 13,089 1.60 1,917
Health and Personal Care Stores 2,881 4,768 5.17 1,887
Repair and Maintenance 6,131 7,930 2.61 1,799
Merchant Wholesalers,
Nondurable Goods 11,347 13,097 1.44 1,750
Natural Resources and Mining 22,795 24,363 0.67 1,568
Sporting Goods, Hobby, Book,
and Music Stores 4,221 5,767 3.17 1,546
Food Manufacturing 14,998 16,470 0.94 1,472
Heavy and Civil Engineering
Construction 5,408 6,760 2.26 1,352
Miscellaneous Store Retailers 4,524 5,767 2.46 1,243
Electronics and Appliance Stores 2,582 3,816 3.98 1,234
Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and
Hunting 20,859 21,993 0.53 1,134
Real Estate and Rental and
Leasing 7,450 8,549 1.39 1,099
Religious, Grantmaking, Civic,
Professional, and Similar Org 3,972 5,003 2.33 1,031
Transportation Equipment
Manufacturing 2,332 3,253 3.38 921
Appendix D
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 188
EMPLOYMENT GROWTH PROJECTIONS
State of Idaho
TITLE
ESTIMATED
EMPLOYMENT
PROJECTED
EMPLOYMENT
GROWTH
RATE NET CHANGE
Wood Product Manufacturing 7,255 8,121 1.13 866
Miscellaneous Manufacturing 1,857 2,708 3.84 851
Insurance Carriers and Related
Activities 7,421 8,241 1.05 820
Nonstore Retailers 1,332 2,119 4.75 787
Real Estate 4,882 5,640 1.45 758
Personal and Laundry Services 3,941 4,672 1.72 731
Securities, Commodity
Contracts, and Other Financial
Investm 1,212 1,877 4.47 665
Wholesale Electronic Markets
and Agents and Brokers 2,352 3,002 2.47 650
Publishing Industries 3,155 3,764 1.78 609
Clothing and Clothing
Accessories Stores 3,763 4,357 1.48 594
Nonresidential Building
Construction 2,795 3,387 1.94 592
Utilities 1,874 2,458 2.75 584
Utilities 1,874 2,458 2.75 584
Furniture and Home Furnishings
Stores 2,501 3,027 1.93 526
Postal Service 2,755 3,270 1.73 515
Gasoline Stations 5,006 5,479 0.91 473
Warehousing and Storage 1,362 1,828 2.99 466
Couriers and Messengers 1,811 2,261 2.24 450
Management of Companies and
Enterprises 7,393 7,838 0.59 445
Management of Companies and
Enterprises 7,393 7,838 0.59 445
Technical and Trade Schools 428 864 7.28 436
Mining 1,936 2,370 2.04 434
Waste Management and
Remediation Service 1,122 1,514 3.04 392
Furniture and Related Product
Manufacturing 2,283 2,672 1.59 389
Transit and Ground Passenger
Transport 1,560 1,946 2.24 386
Mining (except Oil and Gas) 1,839 2,216 1.88 377
Chemical Manufacturing 1,877 2,254 1.85 377
Motion Picture and Sound
Recording Industries 802 1,159 3.75 357
Fabricated Metal Product
Manufacturing 3,636 3,952 0.84 316
Plastics and Rubber Products
Manufacturing 1,678 1,978 1.66 300
Air Transportation 899 1,155 2.54 256
Beverage and Tobacco Product
Manufacturing 451 644 3.63 193
Business Schools and Computer
and Management Training 154 343 8.34 189
Appendix D
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 189
EMPLOYMENT GROWTH PROJECTIONS
State of Idaho
TITLE
ESTIMATED
EMPLOYMENT
PROJECTED
EMPLOYMENT
GROWTH
RATE NET CHANGE
Broadcasting (except Internet) 1,566 1,741 1.07 175
Internet Service Providers, Web
Search Portals, and Data Pro 413 570 3.27 157
Nonmetallic Mineral Product
Manufacturing 1,498 1,644 0.93 146
Other Schools and Instruction 649 788 1.96 139
Primary Metal Manufacturing 389 525 3.04 136
Support Activities for
Transportation 1,229 1,331 0.80 102
Museums, Historical Sites, and
Similar Institution 185 263 3.58 78
Electrical Equipment, Appliance,
and Component Manufacturing 404 479 1.72 75
Other Information Services 117 175 4.11 58
Textile Product Mills 228 283 2.18 55
Internet Publishing and
Broadcasting 80 125 4.56 45
Fishing, Hunting and Trapping 65 107 5.11 42
Leather and Allied Product
Manufacturing 97 136 3.44 39
Funds, Trusts, and Other
Financial Vehicles 108 136 2.33 28
Performing Arts, Spectator
Sports, and Related Industries 861 889 0.32 28
Textile Mills 77 92 1.80 15
Machinery Manufacturing 2,569 2,584 0.06 15
Apparel Manufacturing 181 185 0.22 4
Scenic and Sightseeing
Transportation 333 336 0.09 3
Private Households 617 553 -1.09 (64)
Paper Manufacturing 1,605 1,532 -0.46 (73)
Printing and Related Support
Activities 1,921 1,845 -0.40 (76)
Forestry and Logging 2,103 1,667 -2.30 (436)
Support Activities for Agriculture
and Forestry 3,932 3,130 -2.26 (802)
Crop Production 7,983 6,137 -2.60 (1,846)
Total Self-Employed and Unpaid
Family Workers, Primary Job 62,869 56,227 -1.11 (6,642)
Appendix E
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 190
Appendix E: Nearby Tourist Destinations, Facilities, and
Attractions
Campgrounds
Thompson’s RV Park
Thompson’s RV Park, located six miles out of Rexburg, is an excellent location for recreational
camping and is the starting point for many nearby attractions. The Targhee National Park is
close by which allows visitors to go hiking. The Teton River, located southwest of Rexburg,
allows for river rafting, fishing, and hiking. For those interested in winter recreation, Kelly
Canyon Ski Resort offers skiing and accommodation.
Harriman State Park
Harriman State Park is situated 60 miles north of Rexburg and is close to Targhee National
Park, Kelly Canyon, and the Teton River. With temperatures reaching the 80’s during the
summer and snow in the winter, the park offers year round recreation Over 20 miles of trails
are available for hiking, biking, horseback riding, and cross country skiing. In addition,
Herriman State Park provides access to Carlton Cutoff Trail the.
Whitewater Paddling
Teton River
This river is located seven miles outside of Rexburg. The stretch that is known for river rafting
is 6.3 miles long and is classified as a 2-3 section (low end difficult) by American Whitewater.
This is a good river for rafting and kayaking. The scenery along the river is beautiful and the
cool water makes a summer rafting trip enjoyable. The river also provides access to scenic
landscape and hiking.
Henry’s Fork
Idaho is known for having some of the most difficult river rafting, and this stretch of 11 miles
lives up to that standard. It is rated a 3-4 (highly difficult) by American Whitewater for
experienced enthusiasts with appropriate training and skill.
Skiing
Kelly Canyon
The 1,000 foot vertical drop and eight feet of annual snow fall gives this ski mountain a great
appeal. There are 26 runs and five lifts to accommodate the skiers. Although there are more
easy runs than hard ones, this mountain appeals to those of all talents. The 740 acres of ski
able terrain provide an exciting recreational area.
Grand Targhee, Wyoming
Grand Targhee is located 44 miles north of Rexburg, and provides a 2,395 foot drop, more
than double Kelly Canyon. The 2,000 acres of ski -able land and 76 runs with 5 lifts assure a
great day on the mountain. There are runs for beginners and the more advanced skiers.
However, number of beginner runs outweighs those runs dedicated to advance categories.
Grand Targhee receives 42 feet of snow annually.
Golfing
Fremont County Golf Course
This nine-hole golf course measures 3,151 yards and is a par 36. The low price of $15 allows
golfers of all ages and talent levels to come and enjoy what this course has to offer. It was
designed by Bill Frome and was opened to play in 1967. Golfers my warm up on the 20 tee
Appendix E
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 191
driving range, utilize golf carts (included in the base price), and receive lessons from the
professional golfing staff.
Aspen Acres Golf Club and RV Park
Aspen Acres is an 18 hole, par 60 golf course situated with great views of the Grand Tetons
and the Continental Mountains. The course provides different challenges for golfers as they
maneuver the many doglegs, narrow fairways, and undulating greens. All of these factors,
plus the grove of aspens that this course is built into, makes this course the hardest in
Fremont County.
Lakes
Lower Arcadia Reservoir
This lake is similarly situated near skiing, rafting, and golfing and offers fishing, swimming and
boating. The reservoir is also near DeWitt Canyon the Arcadia Upper Dam. There are great
camping facilities at the nearby Harriman State Park.
Island Park Reservoir
This lake is formed from the Henry's Fork of the Snake River. It is a beautiful lake surrounded
by lodgepole pine trees, with fantastic fishing, and located only about 60 miles north of
Rexburg. This large reservoir is popular for boating, fishing and water skiing. Visitors may
drive across the top of the dam for scenic views of the Centennial Mountains and Box Canyon.
Island Park Reservoir's body of water covers 8,400 acres. Boat ramps/docks are located at
Buttermilk Campground, Island Park, Lakeside Lodge, McCrea Bridge Campground, Mill Creek
and the West end. Camping is also available at Buttermilk, McCrea Bridge, Mill Creek and West
End.
Egin lake
A fishing area and BLM campground near the St. Anthony Sand Dunes. This new BLM
Campground opened in July 1, 2003. Camping is free but there is a donation box that goes to
maintain the area.
Parks
Grand Teton National Park
This national park is 61 miles away from Rexburg. As with many other natural attractions,
visitors can hike through this park and look at its beauty while doing so. Whitewater rafting is
also a popular tourist attraction. During the winter, visitors can ski at Jackson Hole and all
through the year can stay at local accommodation and enjoy the outdoor settings.
Yellowstone National Park
The first of the national parks, Yellowstone was discovered and explored in 1808 by John
Colter, formerly of the Lewis and Clark expedition. Today millions of visitors are still enjoying
this spectacular wilderness.
Whether you are a camera buff, a geologist, nature lover, or just a tourist, Yellowstone will
weave its spell on you. Geysers periodically spouting water, "mudpots" filled with boiling mud
and sulphurous smell can be left behind in the blink of an eye.
The next curve in the road can suddenly give you a breathtaking scene of whitecapped
mountains, sweet air and rivers that cascade into powerful waterfalls. Mountain meadows filled
with profusions of wildflowers may be the backdrop for elk or deer.
Buffalo and grizzly bears are the most spectacular animals seen in the park. The grizzlies are
harder to spot and tend to stay in the high country, while the buffalo can be seen grazing and
you may need to share the road with them. Other animals to watch for include antelope,
bighorn sheep, coyote, lynx, wolves, mountain lion, and numerous birds.
Appendix E
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 192
Fishing, biking, horseback riding and boating are just a few of the activities offered. In the
winter, the quiet beauty of Yellowstone is awe-inspiring. The wilderness saga continues and
can only be seen by those who venture in by cross-country skis, snowshoes, snowmobiles, or
snowcoach. Whatever season you visit the park, the unparalleled beauty of nature will give
you special memories that you will cherish forever.
Miscellaneous
Bear World
Yellowstone Bear World is located about 5 miles south of Rexburg just off Highway 20. Bear
World takes a nostalgic look back to when black and grizzly bears roamed free in Yellowstone
National Park. Bear World is a unique drivethrough park where you can watch the wildlife in
their own habitats in your own vehicle. Yellowstone Bear World is open from mid-May to mid-
October, seven days a week. Rates vary, and full vehicles receive discounts.
Sand Dunes
Starting about eight miles west of St. Anthony are the living sand dunes - 41,000 acres of
exciting potential playground just being discovered by dune buggy and snowmobile
enthusiasts.
The white rolling hills of sand range in height from 200 to 300 feet above the 4,900 foot valley
floor. They stretch about 35 miles in length and from one to five miles in width. In mid-
summer, although the sand gets hot, the temperature rarely tops 90 degrees. The dunes gain
in size to a certain point, depending on the intensity of the prevailing winds as they creep
slowly north.
Mesa Falls
The falls is one of the most impressive geological sites in Eastern Idaho. The whole Snake
River pours over the crest and drops 114 feet to the canyon floor with an explosion of spray.
The wood walks and railings make it possible for one to view this beautiful fall from relative
safety. A ramp from the parking lot to the falls makes it handicapped accessible. The scenic
view is spectacular as you are standing within a few feet of the water going over the falls. The
Lower Mesa Falls is 65 feet high. The overlook here is not as close as the Upper Mesa Falls but
it gives a grander view of the falls in relation to the surrounding canyon.
The two Mesa Falls are the last undisturbed waterfalls of consequence in the western U.S. The
falls are located 35 miles north of Rexburg. Highway 47 east of Ashton has been designated
Mesa Falls Scenic Byway. There are restrooms and a visitors center at the falls.
Cave Falls
Cave Falls is only 20 feet high but reaches 250 feet across the Falls River in the southwest
corner of Yellowstone National Park. It is accessible by road from Ashton and is a popular
starting point for hikers. Cave Falls is also accessible in winter by snowmobile.
Appendix F
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 193
Appendix F
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 194
Appendix F: Sales Leakage
MADISON COUNTY INFO FOR 2007
Industry Total Sales
Nontaxable
Sales
Total
Taxable
Madison
County
per HH
Idaho
per HH Est. Lkg
Capture
Rate
10 Commercial Farms 581,765 29,471 552,295 67.83 248.41 -180.58 27%
70
Agricultural
svc&hunting trap 5,102,226 2,568,294 2,549,910 594.87 1240.61 -645.74 48%
74 Vets/vet hospitals 1,187,598 998,182 251,890 138.46 162.27 -23.81 85%
140 Non-metallic minerals 33,881 0 33,881 3.95 97.80 -93.85 4%
150
Building constr/gen
contractor 3,667 0 33,646 0.43 974.88 -974.45 0%
160
Construction other than
bldg 3,489 0 73,068 0.41 288.33 -287.93 0%
170
Construction/special
trades 19,746,357 16,002,777 4,501,311 2302.25 2454.28 -152.04 94%
200
Mfg food & kindred
products 131,284 80,443 50,841 15.31 513.16 -497.85 3%
201
Meat products/meat
packing 455,036 17,902 437,134 53.05 103.99 -50.93 51%
202 Dairy products mfg 236,478 0 236,478 27.57 1585.17 -1557.60 2%
203
Canning & preserving
mfg 25,950,090 25,927,497 114,670 3025.54 821.56 2203.98 368%
205 Bakery productgs mfg 160 40 120 0.02 37.09 -37.07 0%
230
Mfg apparel from
fabrics 2,338 0 2,338 0.27 45.63 -45.36 1%
239 Misc textile for trade 7,105 3,408 3,697 0.83 63.25 -62.42 1%
240
Mfg lumber & wood
products (excl
furniture) 32,000 0 32,000 3.73 471.75 -468.02 1%
242
Sawmills and planning
mills 1,066,007 276,260 789,746 124.29 644.24 -519.95 19%
243 Veneer plants 460,434 1,605 458,829 53.68 499.37 -445.69 11%
250 Mfg furniture & fixtures 3,308,137 2,860,249 597,968 385.70 207.70 177.99 186%
270
Mfg printing &
publishing 800,065 147,152 921,377 93.28 380.04 -286.76 25%
289
Establishments mfg
gelatin 126,548 954 125,594 14.75 40.97 -26.22 36%
300
Mfg rubber & misc
plastic prod 269,895 248,816 21,079 31.47 134.40 -102.94 23%
310
Mfg leather & leather
products 32,003 26,919 5,084 3.73 41.75 -38.02 9%
320
Mfg stone clay & glass
prods 17,239,744 626,213 16,637,271 2010.00 399.69 1610.31 503%
340
Mfg fabriated metal
products 2,720 1,320 1,453 0.32 245.68 -245.36 0%
341
Fabrication/ferrous-
nonferrous mfg 1,007,800 752,677 255,123 117.50 262.32 -144.82 45%
347 Electroplating mfg 37,588 37,588 0 4.38 230.41 -226.02 2%
350
Mfg machinery &
equipment 4,000 0 4,000 0.47 779.34 -778.87 0%
359 Mfg industrial equip 182,084 0 183,355 21.23 30.79 -9.56 69%
369
Misc electrical
equipment 6,589,242 6,589,242 30,994 768.25 1280.05 -511.80 60%
373
Mfg boats & railroad
eqpt 630 435 195 0.07 9.98 -9.91 1%
390
Mfg jewelry signs &
misc 247,145 195,884 52,003 28.81 316.96 -288.14 9%
Appendix F
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 195
MADISON COUNTY INFO FOR 2007
Industry Total Sales
Nontaxable
Sales
Total
Taxable
Madison
County
per HH
Idaho
per HH Est. Lkg
Capture
Rate
391
Mfg neon signs & ad
disp -23,000 0 -23,000 -2.68 79.19 -81.87 -3%
392
Mfg of jewelry thru
brooms 46,402 32,809 13,593 5.41 78.57 -73.16 7%
394
Mfg toys/sport
goods/athletic 11,790 270 11,520 1.37 138.29 -136.92 1%
420
Motor freight,
warehousing, UPS 2,010,589 1,979,210 31,379 234.42 234.58 -0.16 100%
422 Transportation services 519 0 519 0.06 18.15 -18.09 0%
478
Stockyards, packing &
crating, delivery svcs 457,711 0 491,248 53.36 3.43 49.94 1557%
481
Telephone
communication 56,362 16,447 39,914 6.57 260.06 -253.49 3%
489
Misc communication
svc, internet, etc. 1,469,076 1,468,729 40,616 171.28 177.50 -6.22 96%
494
Water/distribution for
sale (not irrigation) 292,406 222,359 70,047 34.09 2.18 31.91 1562%
500 Wholesale trade 24,090,381 23,820,087 270,295 2808.72 1608.24 1200.48 175%
501
Automobiles/wholesale
distr 4,688,432 2,972,608 1,715,822 546.63 1587.40 -1040.77 34%
503 Wholesale distr/lumber 4,750 0 4,750 0.55 372.37 -371.82 0%
504
Wholesale distr
photographic 1,265,828 849,537 416,291 147.58 1875.96 -1728.37 8%
505 Wholesale distr metal 1,138,714 1,137,794 920 132.76 287.41 -154.65 46%
506 Electrical goods whsl 292,923 245,606 47,316 34.15 841.27 -807.12 4%
508 Wholesale machinery 7,269,943 6,543,542 726,401 847.61 1155.95 -308.34 73%
509
Wholesale durable
goods 1,563,643 1,503,855 59,787 182.31 4637.15 -4454.85 4%
514 Whs trade/groceries 671,027 306,766 365,082 78.24 254.42 -176.18 31%
515 Whs farm products 14,723 0 14,723 1.72 125.96 -124.25 1%
519 Misc nondurable goods 9,832,027 7,806,706 2,025,412 1146.32 309.56 836.77 370%
521 Building materials 7,952,055 2,556,537 5,495,218 927.14 3717.47 -2790.33 25%
522 Farm equipment sales 20,201,344 19,700,428 500,915 2355.29 1263.32 1091.97 186%
526
Retail lawn/garden
supply 1,066,924 472,497 594,427 124.39 137.16 -12.77 91%
530
Retail trade/gen
merchandise 267,023 81,652 186,642 31.13 130.42 -99.29 24%
532 Mail order houses 362,532 360,532 1,999 42.27 294.57 -252.30 14%
534
Retail sale by vending
machine 42,668 411 42,257 4.97 37.36 -32.39 13%
535 Direct selling 561,478 16,497 552,450 65.46 257.74 -192.27 25%
536
Cottage industry/home
and hobby 1,419,738 680,279 765,223 165.53 73.08 92.45 227%
540 Retail trade/food 164,040 146,388 18,113 19.13 93.93 -74.81 20%
541 Retail grocery stores 2,243,346 84,968 2,190,931 261.55 6680.18 -6418.63 4%
544
Candy nut & confection
stores 1,087,599 259,740 827,855 126.80 15.62 111.18 812%
546 Retail bakeries 284,581 6,987 277,592 33.18 27.91 5.27 119%
549 Egg & poultry dealers 650,429 1,988 648,441 75.83 29.08 46.76 261%
551 Motor vehicles
110,609,18
2 46,939,250 63,989,785 12896.02 7533.40 5362.62 171%
553
Tire battery &
accessory dlrs 5,684,704 2,149,407 3,535,299 662.78 1179.26 -516.48 56%
554
Gasoline service
stations 6,193,654 5,709,094 484,561 722.12 377.04 345.09 192%
Appendix F
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 196
MADISON COUNTY INFO FOR 2007
Industry Total Sales
Nontaxable
Sales
Total
Taxable
Madison
County
per HH
Idaho
per HH Est. Lkg
Capture
Rate
555
Gas srvc stn w/conv
store 8,351,718 6,452,443 1,899,275 973.73 3294.99 -2321.26 30%
558
Mobile homes/new and
used 1,209,743 561,470 648,272 141.05 323.21 -182.17 44%
559
Miscellaneous marine
aircraft 937,026 168,286 770,540 109.25 753.76 -644.51 14%
560
Retail trade/apparel &
access 11,481 0 11,481 1.34 13.87 -12.54 10%
561 Retail clothing 3,856,127 3,899 3,852,228 449.59 867.43 -417.84 52%
566 Shoe stores 4,370 0 4,370 0.51 119.96 -119.45 0%
570
Retail trade/furn-home
furnishings 855,143 526,372 460,354 99.70 435.81 -336.10 23%
571 Furniture stores 4,878,850 1,583,177 3,810,592 568.83 875.49 -306.66 65%
572
Household applicance
stores 2,567,752 1,682,282 889,343 299.38 527.90 -228.52 57%
573
Retail computer
hard/software 1,764,674 1,296,655 469,043 205.74 1068.77 -863.02 19%
574
Retail floor
cover/draperies 194,606 6,729 187,876 22.69 97.73 -75.04 23%
580
Retail trade/eating &
drinking 233,882 44,704 189,178 27.27 225.17 -197.90 12%
582 Eating places 24,103,485 68,474 24,037,582 2810.25 2514.93 295.31 112%
583 Drinking places 18,930 0 18,930 2.21 211.46 -209.25 1%
590
Retail trade/misc retail
store 893,148 617,578 275,569 104.13 131.16 -27.03 79%
591 Drug stores 6,099,905 5,602,503 497,402 711.19 1025.05 -313.85 69%
593 Antique stores 40,792 1,559 39,236 4.76 212.63 -207.88 2%
594 Jewelry stores 3,415,767 206,087 3,209,958 398.25 644.10 -245.85 62%
595
Sporting good store
bicycle shop 831,129 108,504 722,664 96.90 552.69 -455.79 18%
596 Non store retailers 11,899,157 11,688,950 212,969 1387.33 920.39 466.94 151%
598 Fuel & ice dealers 4,856,626 4,351,252 505,375 566.24 270.70 295.54 209%
599
Retail stores not
classified 10,886,838 7,169,186 3,717,651 1269.31 3692.28 -2422.98 34%
610
Credit agencies othern
than bks 2,492,219 0 2,492,219 290.57 224.08 66.49 130%
700
Lodging
accommodations 1,210,401 63,789 1,154,111 141.12 208.60 -67.48 68%
701
Hotel/motel/bed &
breakfast 2,824,116 105,828 2,718,289 329.27 693.02 -363.75 48%
710 Leasing companies 2,210,617 630,152 1,582,664 257.74 832.66 -574.93 31%
720 Personal services 34,309 17,070 17,239 4.00 46.12 -42.12 9%
721
Funeral services and
crematories 236,735 78,206 159,242 27.60 147.03 -119.43 19%
722
Photo studios & comm
photography 536,069 10,310 525,886 62.50 63.91 -1.41 98%
723
Beauty and barber
shops 1,139,349 1,015,646 124,535 132.84 72.95 59.89 182%
730
Miscellaneous service
groups 6,350 0 6,350 0.74 226.07 -225.33 0%
731 Advertising agencies 11,666 11,666 0 1.36 230.25 -228.89 1%
733
Duplicating address
blue prntng 229,184 25,064 204,120 26.72 99.58 -72.86 27%
734
Window cleaning,
janitorial svcs 365,568 354,417 11,150 42.62 65.77 -23.14 65%
735 Leasing & rental 254,141 193,751 60,391 29.63 526.32 -496.68 6%
Appendix F
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 197
MADISON COUNTY INFO FOR 2007
Industry Total Sales
Nontaxable
Sales
Total
Taxable
Madison
County
per HH
Idaho
per HH Est. Lkg
Capture
Rate
companies
739 News syndicates 3,287,817 1,480,019 1,831,814 383.33 873.71 -490.38 44%
750
Auto repair svcs &
garages 92,331 20,536 71,795 10.76 265.41 -254.65 4%
751
Automobile repair
shops 7,177,646 3,202,651 3,980,646 836.85 974.92 -138.07 86%
760 Misc repair services 26,986 4,147 23,114 3.15 100.50 -97.36 3%
762 Electrical repair shops 175,323 123,954 51,368 20.44 114.85 -94.41 18%
764 Upholstery 230,718 199,768 30,951 26.90 20.46 6.44 131%
769
Bicycle shop repair
locksmiths 955,523 849,391 106,430 111.41 243.36 -131.95 46%
780
Motion picture
theaters, prod & dist. 5,000 0 5,000 0.58 103.17 -102.59 1%
784 Video tape rental 386,706 0 386,706 45.09 78.93 -33.84 57%
790
Amusement &
recreation svcs 1,999 0 1,999 0.23 36.53 -36.29 1%
791 Recreation facilities 3,174,100 1,465,596 1,709,098 370.07 352.78 17.29 105%
799
Misc
amusement/recreation
svcs 2,158,411 229,478 1,928,933 251.65 125.43 126.22 201%
801 Physicians & surgeons 3,632,557 3,562,998 115,714 423.52 76.98 346.55 550%
802 Dentists 19,434 2,944 297,830 2.27 33.45 -31.18 7%
803
Osteopaths
chiropractors etc 29,394 1,129 34,212 3.43 14.75 -11.32 23%
806
Hospitals & nursing
homes 408,471 52,472 406,230 47.62 217.80 -170.18 22%
809
Optometrists prescrbg
& fitng 2,970,668 946,346 2,024,321 346.35 90.25 256.11 384%
810 Legal services 1,414 0 9,038 0.16 8.51 -8.34 2%
821
Pub state supported
institution 1,183,559 794,863 388,695 137.99 292.56 -154.57 47%
829
Misc schl/educational
svc 494,683 94,854 399,831 57.68 30.83 26.84 187%
840 Museums & galleries 102,064 25,788 76,276 11.90 25.27 -13.37 47%
860
Nonprof membership
organization 74,073 21,674 52,399 8.64 247.46 -238.83 3%
890 Miscellaneous services 639,858 605,774 76,196 74.60 860.44 -785.84 9%
920 State government 13,333 10,311 3,022 1.55 452.75 -451.19 0%
930 Local government 13,217,791 25,820 13,191,971 1541.07 849.11 691.96 181%
Appendix G
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 198
Appendix G: Vocational Educational Opportunities
ITT-Technical Institute
Boise, Idaho
The ITT-Technical Institute, located in Boise, has six different schools of trade. They are
information technology, electronic technology, drafting and design, business, criminal justice,
and health science.
A bachelor’s degree can be obtained in 15 quarters, and school is in session year round.
Associate degrees are also available through ITT-Tech.
Sage Truck Driving
Blackfoot, Idaho
The Sage Truck Driving School, located in Blackfoot (55 miles south west of Rexburg) has
provided top quality, comprehensive driving training to thousands of students for nearly 20
years.
Eastern Idaho Technical College
Idaho Falls, Idaho
Eastern Idaho Technical College is located in Idaho Falls, 32 miles south west of Rexburg.
Fields of study include: business, technology, health professions, trades and industry, and
general education.
The welding technology division of the technical college offers three different options ranging
from two to five semesters in length. The Technical Certificate, which is the shortest program,
will allow graduates to get a job at a manufacturer where they will perform the same weld
continuously on an assembly line. This is the most basic education. The Advanced Technical
Certificate and the Associate of Applied Science Degree offer more possibilities for teaching
and the ability to work in more than one trade.
Appendix G
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 199