Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
MADISON COUNTY LEGAL FILE - Annexation of 10 Properties
MADISON COUNTY P.O. BOX 389 REXBURG, IDAHO 83440 TO: Rexburg City Council Members FROM: Madison County Commissioners DATE: March 10, 2003 RE: Annexation We realize that during the Public Hearing process for the Widdison Annexation that there was a great deal of controversy. Information was said and printed that led people to believe that we do not support what City Council approved for this area. Our stand from the beginning was that if the Kirby Forbush Subdivision was approved with the density that was being proposed, it was important he work with the City of Rexburg to have city services approved for the area. We appreciate the work that has been done to resolve the controversy surrounding this proposal, but still feel that the city services are in the best interests of the health and welfare of the residents in the Widdison Subdivision area. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that a Public Hearing will be held before the Planning & Zoning Commission of the City of Rexburg, Idaho, Thursday, November 21, 2002, at 7:05 p.m., in the City Council Chambers of the City Building at 12 North Center, Rexburg, Idaho, regarding annexation and a zone change from Madison County zoning to Rexburg zoning. These properties are primarily located in three areas in Rexburg City Area of Impact, Madison County, Idaho, and are described as follows: Area One: Annexation of Properties between US Highway 20 and 2000 West in Section 25 with some properties located on the East side of US Highway 20. Parcels numbered on the Annexation map as follows: 1,2,3,4,6,7,8 Proposed Rexburg City zoning for these parcels are as follows: a. Parcel 1 -Rural Residential b. Parcel 2 -Agricultural I c. Parcel 3 -Low Density Residential -1 d. Parcel 4 -Rural Residential e. Parcel 6 -Rural Residential f. Parcel 7 -Rural Residential g. Parcel 8 -Rural Residential The Legal description as follows: All of Section 25, Township 6 North, Range 39 East, Boise Meridian. Less the following: All parcels previously annexed by the City of Rexburg. Also less the following parcels: Tract I: Commencing at a point 95 feet East and 265 feet South of the Northwest Comer of the Northeast Quarter of Section 25, Township 6 North, Range 39 East, Boise Meridian, Madison County, Idaho, and muning thence East 235 feet; thence South 128 feet, thence West 235 feet, thence North 128 feet to the point of beginning. Tract H: Commencing at a point that is 95 feet East of the NW corner of the NEl/4 of Section 25, Township 6 North, Range 39 E.B.M., Madison County, Idaho, and running thence South 265 feet, thence East 235 feet, thence North 265 feet, thence West 235 feet to the point of beginning. EXCEPT County Road to the North. MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL September 04, 2002 7:30 P.M. STATE OF IDAHO, ) County of Madison ) SS. City of Rexburg ) Present were the following: Mayor: Mayor Bruce Sutherland Council Members: Glen Pond - Excused Shawn Larsen Marsha Bjornn Paul Pugmire Donna Benfield Nyle Fullmer - Excused P&Z Administrator: Kurt Hibbert City Clerk: Blair D. Kay Finance Officer: Richard Horner PFC: John Millar City Attorney: Stephen Zollinger Pledge to the Flag Glen Pond and Nyle Fullmer were excused from the meeting. Approval of Minutes Marsha Bjornn made a motion to approve the work meeting minutes of August 20, 2002. Donna Benfield seconded the motion. All voted aye, none opposed. The motion carried. The Scouts attending the meeting were welcomed to the meeting. Non Controversial Items Added to the Agenda Music Festival at Smith Park - September 14 -10:00 a.m, to 10:00 p.m. (Stacey Dye) Stacey Dye - Asked to use Smith Park for the 3rd annual music festival. Three stages will be used. Ten vendors will be selling items. A skate competition will held at the Madison Hospital parking lot. Mayor Sutherland — Discussed security and the Insurance waiver for skaters. Paul Pugmire — Expressed favorable comments on the event. Paul Pugmire — Reviewed the process for property owner notifications in annexation hearings. Mayor Sutherland — The City needs to remove Number 10, (Rexburg Heights) from the pending list of properties to be annexed. There are some details to work on before annexation of this neighborhood. The Impact Zone allows rural residential, which is large lots with meandering streets excluding curb and gutter; The City needs to act on creating a Rural Residential Zoning before this location is annexed. Paul Pugmire made a motion to remove parcels 5&10 from the proposed annex list, and begin the public notification and Public Hearing process for the remaining parcels as proposed by the Planning and Zoning Commission, Marsha Bjorn seconded the motion, discussion on `notification for annexation' to the prospective properties. Donna Benfield discussed the notification of parcels 12 and 13. Mayor Sutherland indicated that the City has had several discussions with the Businesses at these locations concerning annexation. Kurt Hibbert indicated that parcel 12 includes Artco plus three other parcels. Shawn Larsen — Indicated that he may have a conflict with one parcel in parcel 12. Stephen Zollinger discussed parcel 12 with the Council. Paul Pugmire - Discussed the Golf Course ownership and the make up of the Golf Course Board. A vote was taken on Paul's motion to begin the annexation process, all voted aye, none opposed. The motion carried. Discussion on Septic systems on Barney Dairy Road. District 7 approved a septic system near the City limits and it was close to the Teton River. Mayor Sutherland introduced Cindy Johnson from District 7 health was introduced to the Council. Stephen Zollinger - Reviewed the County requirements for a septic system. John Millar - The Walker subdivision can't be annexed. They are not contiguous to City limits. Richard Homer — Discussed the Work shops at the `National League of Cities' get with Pam. Committee Reports Shawn Larsen — Offered congratulations to Kurt Hibbert for his outstanding work with Planning and Zoning. John Millar - Reported on City Christmas decorations. A 25% discount will be given the City of Rexburg if the lights are ordered by September l'`. The discount was extended four days due to the Holiday. The bids were opened yesterday. There were two bidders for the Christmas lights. The first bid was $45,036.75 and the second bid was a little over $47,000.00. Both bids were for the same supplier. Merrill Landscaping, Jerry Merrill was the low bidder. In conjunction with this bid, the County has committed to put Christmas decorations on the Court House. Donna Benfield - Lighting the Christmas tree after the Thanksgiving Holliday is on Friday at 6:00 p.m.. City of Rexburg ANNEXATION PLAN October 21, 2002 In accordance with Idaho Code Title 50-222, 5.a.b.iii, the City provides the following information pertaining to the parcels shown and numbered on the attached map (Attachment D): It is proposed that the City of Rexburg would annex several high growth areas into the City. The extension of infrastructure to this area has already been started and the City anticipates servicing all new developments in the area with municipal services as soon as is practicable. Water service is already extended to the west side of US 20 and Sewer service will be bored under the highway to serve the area to the west as soon as groundwater lowers in the spring of 2003. Parcels included in this plan are as per the attached map. (a) Tax supported municipal services to be provided to this newly annexed area include police, fire and other city services including snow removal, public works and planning and zoning services. (b) Changes in the rate of taxation are described on the attached flyer " "at does annexation do for you." (c) Fee supported City services, including water and sewer will be available to parcels 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, and 9 by August of 2003. Parcels 11 &14 already have access to City services. (d) There is very little impact to other local government taxing districts outside of the Fire Protection District. This impact is approximately $60.04 per $120,000 of taxable value. (e) Proposed zoning in annexed lands is as per attachment (Attachment C) or other wise defined as follows: a. Parcel 1 -Rural Residential b. Parcel 2 -Agricultural 1 c. Parcel 3 -Low Density Residential -1 d. Parcel 4 -Rural Residential e. Parcel 6 -Rural Residential f. Parcel 7 -Rural Residential g. Parcel 8 -Rural Residential h. Parcel 9 -Rural Residential i. Parcel 11 -Low Density Residential j. Parcel 14 -Highway Business District If you have any questions that you feel we may answer, please do not hesitate to call. We would also greatly appreciate input at the public hearing that might assist the City in transitioning this area to best meet the long terms needs of its existing and future residents. The City of Rexburg Area Four: Annexation of Properties at 1050 North 2"d East Parcels numbered on the Annexation map as follows: 14 Proposed Rexburg City zoning for these parcels are as follows: j. Parcel 14 -Highway Business District The Legal description as follows: Tract I: Commencing at the SW comer of Sect 17, Township 6 North, Range 39 E.B.M., Madison County, Idaho, and running thence East 500 ft; thence North 230 ft; thence East 180 ft; thence North 210 ft; thence West 200 ft; thence South 100 ft; thence S89°49'40"W 480 It; thence South 338.53 ft to the point of beginning, excepting therefrom the state highway right-of-way. Tract ll: Commencing at a point that is North 340 ft and East 37.4 ft of the SW comer of Sect 17, Township 6 North, Range 39 E.B.M., Madison County, Idaho, and running thence North 82.99 ft; thence N58°47'31"E 33.37 ft; thence N89°27'04"E 401.8 ft; thence SO° 11'OOW 100 ft; thence S89027'4"W 430.02 ft to the point of beginning. Tract III: Commencing at a point 500 ft East of the Southwest comer of Sect 17, Township 6 North, Range 39 E.B.M., Madison County, Idaho, and running thence North 230 R; thence East 195 feet; thence South 230 ft; and thence West 195 feet to the point of beginning. At such hearing the Planning & Zoning Commission will hear all persons and all objections and recommendations relative to such proposed approval. The City Clerk will also accept written comments at City Hall prior to 4:00 p.m. on November 20, 2002. This notice is given pursuant to the provisions of Section 67-6509 and 67-6511 Idaho Code, and all amendments thereof. DATED this 22"d day of October, 2002. CITY OF REXBURG (SEAL) Blair D. Kay, City Clerk J Published: October 23, 2002 November 18, 2002 CRYOF REXBURG ANNEXATION PLAN OCTOBER 21,2002 In accordance with Idaho Code Title W-222, S.Odiil, the City provides i following information pertaining to the parcels shown and numbered on n each ad map (Attachment D): It Is proposed that the City of Rexburg would annex several high growth ms Into the City. The extension of Infmstmchan to this area has already an started and the City anticipates servicing all new developments in the as with municipal services as soon as is prasu al Water serace Is away extended to the west side of US 20 and Sewer mrvice will W red under the highway to serve the arae to the west as soon as sontlwakr lowers In Ne spring of 2003. Parcels Included In this plan are Far Ne attached map. (a) Tax supported municipal services to be provided to this newly vexed area include ponce, fire and other city services including snow ores, public works and planning and zoning series. tat Changes annInnB a aoeof Warren we described on the attached llyer (of Fee will City services, inducing water and sewer will be ailable to parcels 1, 2, 3,4, 6, 7, 0 and 9 by August of 2003. Parols 11 d 14 already have access to City sari (d) There is very line Impact to other local government Wing clutdds Iona of the Fire Protection District This impact is approximately $60.04 r $120,000 of tenable value. MMmanlC)...the, zoninin fraud in annexed ea ratio.: Is as per etlechmBM e. Parcel 1- Rural Residential b. Pascal 2- Agricultural t - "------- c. Parol 3- Low Density Residwsial 1 d Parcel 4- Ruml Residential o Parcel 6- Ruled Residential 1. Parol T- Rural Residentlal g. Pascal B- Rural Residential In. Parol 9- Rural Residential I. Parcel it -Low Density Residential Planning 8 Zoning Commission of Ire City of Rexburg, Idaho, Tuesday, November 21, 2W2. at 7:05 p.m., in the City Coundl Chambers of the City Building at 12 North Center, Rexburg, Idaho regaining annexation and a zone change from Madison County zoning to Rexburg zoning. now properties are primazlly Indeed in three areas in Rexburg City Area of Impact, Madison County, Itlaho, and are described As follows: Area One: Annexation of Puri between US Hlghway 20 and 2000 West In Section 25 with some properties located on the East side of US 15, Township 6 North, Range 39 East, Boise Meridin. The Lel ]ng: Tinct 1: 4.taly annexed by the Cit of R%Wry. Comms Mowing parcels: 39 E.B.M., 67-6511 Itlaho Code, and all amndre North 230 at a point 85 feet East and 265 feet South of the thence Son f the Northern Quarter o Section 25, Township 6 ft. to the Of East, Bei. Meddle. Madison County, Idaho, and way. ast 235 feet; then. South 128 loot, thence Wen 235 Tract II: in Met to the point of beginning. Comms cats.. corner of 1 it a Point that Is 95 fast East at the NW corner of the NE Itlaho, and Township 6 North, Range 39 E.B.M.,Mad[son County, thence N g' thence South 265 Net, thence East 235 feet, thence Nx27M'W Lance West 235 feet to the point of beginning. Except Treat 111 e North. Comms 17, Towns Northwest corner of Northeast quarter of Seclion 25, running NI Range 39 E.B.M.,Madison County, Idaho and running and them fast, thence East 330 feet, thence North 267 kat, At sus kat, thence North 393 kat than. Weft 95 kat, to the persona x 0°8'45" E T73 feet; therxe East 361.5 feet; and thence N !et, b the Point of beginning. Annexation of Properties on bath sides of South Mlllhollow - ITO Mlllhollow, Road. Bred an Ne Annua lion map as follows: 11. rxburg City nning for Nese parcels are es rolrows Low Call Resl. sorption as follows: 3 a Ne Northwest comer of SW 114 of BE V4 of Section' I North. Range 39 E.BM.,Madism County, Idaho, and N 0%1'41' E 885.7 X.; than. N 89x45'5Y E 452.28 It; '03" W 164.21 fl.; Nelly N 72x3T54' E.149.66 ft.; thence 100 ft: thence N 72x39'OO' E 06 g.; thence S 2M1'S6' E. nice West 1.265.0 R.; thence N 0x22'55' W 507.97 to Ne g. Mentiondon of Properties at map a North and East. bared On NB ni naxa110n map ave follows:amas f High City zoning rortheo parcels are as follows: Highway Business District. ascription as rollows: I at the SW corner N Sect. 17, Township 6 North, Range son County Idaho, and running ]hence East 500 g.; thence e East 160 g.;then. Noah 210 h.; thence West 200 g.; XI feel.; thence S Null W. 480 t3henm South 338.53 1 beginning, excepting therefrom the state highway right ol- g at a point that Is North 34011. and East 37.4 X. of Ne SW 17, Township 6 Noah, Range 39 EB.M.,Maalson County, g thence Nodh 82.99 ft.; than. N 58x47'31' E 33.37 g.; x04' E 401.8 Ip 11'OP W thence S ox100 ft.; than. 02100ttolbeparnlotbegraing. 3 at yint coraw Of SM. North. Range 39(nt 500 t E B.M.!Metloast .1 he on County, Idah an North 230 It: Morm East 195 feat thence Snmh San a It you have any questions that you Feel we may answer, please do not Area Two: Annexation of Property at 1647 Wast 1000 South Ciry Hall photo 4 p.m. on Ninart C 4kk 0 call. We would also greatly appreciate input at the public Parol numbered on the Annexation map as follows: 9 This notice is given pureuant to th oing that might assist the City in transitioning this area Is best meet Ne Proposed Rexburg City zoning for these parols we as follow.: 67-6511 Itlaho Code, and all amndre gtern.need. of Its edstin9 and future residents. h. Parcel 9- Rural Resitlential. Dated this 22nd day o October, 2f THE CITY OF REXBURG The Legal description as Follows: - ere plxmnTex E. . The Northeast quarter of the Northwest quarter of Sect. 36, Township 6 $7.7.10 NOTICEOF North, Range 39 East, Boise Meridian. cats.. PUBLIC HEARING Less the following: (SEAQ ]SEAL $178.66 Cammencirg at On North ... t ..or of the Northwest quark, e1 Sect. Pit. 23 and Nov.18, 2002SJ. NOTICE Is hereby given, that a Public Hearing will be held before the 36. Township 6 North, Range 39 E B.M., and running thence West 381.5 Proposed Annexations Esq wa•.m.o Cityo7Rexburg muniselon will hear all ions relative to such of wagon comments at N Season 678509 and City of Rexburg By: SUR D. KAY City Clerk What does annexation do for you? _. People living on the fringes of the City of Rexburg am already benefitting from: (These items are already paid for by current city 2sidenta t 1) Access to city stresis to get W work, school, stores, other businesses, etc. 2) Police proteclion bemuse Rome on the satyrs hinge directly benefit fringe neighborhoods. 3) Availability of Parks and Recreation facllige, and programs. 4) Ath ryng economic and pound carder in the city. You will have the added benefit of: 1) A.ees to dependable arM less expensive water and sevalservicas. Property Tax Levy % 2) Less expansive garbage pickup service(you save at least In.). 3) incrwsetl Police protection. 4) You gat to vote in city elections. 5) Less expensive remeation program fires (you save about 25%). What will happen to your property taxes? 1) Your incase in property tissues is relaiivet smalLd178.6firyear on a $120;000 home. (Sao below.) COUNTY 2) City property Was are only 22.9% of all 38.58% Property taxes you will Pay..(Sae to right) 3) Retugianesareleasthenmoslcilies. (You ova over 50%..pared to cities Gose in kxx ion or sue. (See below.) We sentry Nat, contrary to some rumpre, you will NOT contract Me black pleguel Property Taxes Added Yearly Duato Annexation Home A,xissiEVelue 5120.000 Havre Pmere Exxmi W.. Hcme Texabb Velw 570,000 County Tues S31].d Scaool Tax9!e -ILS ere plxmnTex E. . TOTAL BEFORE ANNEXATION $7.7.10 elry Trans Added Sna.7 tyrelss1m72xn.., cats.. TOTAL AFTER ANNEXATION $955..9 YEARLYMCREASE $178.66 What does annexation do for you? People living on the fringes of the City of Rexburg are already benefitting from: (These items are already paid for by city residents.) 1) Access to city streets to get to work, school, stores, other businesses, etc. 2) Police protection because police patrols on the city's fringe directly benefit fringe neighborhoods. 3) Availability of Parks and Recreation facilities and programs. 4) A thriving economic and cultural center in the city. When you are annexed you will have the added benefit of: 1 } Access to dependable water and sewer services. 2) Less expensive garbage pickup service (you save at least 10%). 3) Increased Police protection. 4) You get to vote in city elections. 5) Less expensive recreation program fees (you save about 25%). What will happen to your property taxes? 1) Your increase in property taxes is relatively small: $178.66/year on a $120,000 home. (See below.) 2) City property taxes are only 22.9% of all property taxes paid. (See below.) 3) Rexburg taxes are less than most cities. (You save over 50% compared to cities close in location or size. (See below.) Property Tax Levy % COUNTY 38.58% Property Taxes Added Due to Annexation Appraised Value $120,000 County Taxes School Taxes Other Taxes Fire District Taxes TOTAL BEFORE ANNEXATION $777.10 City Taxes Added 1 $238.7 Fire District Taxes Dropped 1 -$60.0 TOTAL AFTER ANNEXATION $955.76 INCREASE $178.66 PROPERTY TAX LEVY RATES PER $100,000 VALUE 2001 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 W(D 0 m(D 3 (yo m(D m c N m d CD v y M 10 o3(D (DID (D (D � � .<nm O3 W O3 W (D (p 0U) 0�fA .N-., �. O to O N N A W N (D O0 N O 7(D N Q �' O (D A D N n N N O !"h N N (D y 7 O O W ((D ^O'. N j Q j �1 N a N CD f N A � s (D (D N 3 C) -° N m Z O ;u X 0 w C O (Nj O O O * 3 N N A `< 0? 0 0> 00 N C a d 7 :7 Vl M O O 0 N 0 — M. � K N — O o G) o o N S m' m' m m a 0 ° N -* C N U) (D W 469 O EA co EA EA N 0) 69 O 0 U (.J O o O W N A O O OIO N W O O O w 0 s w 69 to cn '69 — O A A m N O ((J1 O co N N (N71 What does annexation do for you? People living on the fringes of the City of Rexburg are already benefitting from: (These items are already paid for by current city residents.) 1) Access to city streets to get to work, school, stores, other businesses, etc. 2) Police protection because police patrols on the city's fringe directly benefit fringe neighborhoods. 3) Availability of Parks and Recreation facilities and programs. 4) A thriving economic and cultural center in the city. You will have the added benefit of: 1) Access to dependable and less expensive water and sewer services. 2) Less expensive garbage pickup service (you save at least 10%). 3) Increased Police protection. 4) You get to vote in city elections. 5) Less expensive recreation program fees (you save about 25%). What will happen to your property taxes? 1) Your increase in property taxes is relatively small: $178.66/year on a $120,000 home. (See below.) 2) City property taxes are only 22.9% of all property taxes you will pay. (See to right.) 3) Rexburg taxes are less than most cities. (You save over 50% compared to cities close in location or size. (See below.) Property Tax Levy % COUNTY 38.58% SCHOOL 32.11% We certify that, contrary to some rumors, you will NOT contract the black plague! Property Taxes Added Yearly Due to Annexation Home Appraised Value $120,000 Home Owner's Exemption -$50,000 Home Taxable Value $70,000 County Taxes $313.4 School Taxes $334.6 Other Taxes $68.92 Fire District Taxes $60.0 T OTAL BEFORE ANNEXATION $777.10 City Taxes Added $238.70 Fire District Taxes Dropped -$60.0 TOTAL AFTER ANNEXATION $955.76 YEARLY INCREASE 178.66 BULANCE 2.34% LIBRARY 3.62% :EM/MOSQ 0.45% PROPERTY TAX LEVY RATES PER $100,000 VALUE 2001 POCATELLO CALDW ELL RIGBY SALMON POST FALLS MOSCOW SUGAR CITY REXBURG 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 OTAL BEFORE ANNEXATION $777.10 City Taxes Added $238.70 Fire District Taxes Dropped -$60.0 TOTAL AFTER ANNEXATION $955.76 YEARLY INCREASE 178.66 BULANCE 2.34% LIBRARY 3.62% :EM/MOSQ 0.45% PROPERTY TAX LEVY RATES PER $100,000 VALUE 2001 POCATELLO CALDW ELL RIGBY SALMON POST FALLS MOSCOW SUGAR CITY REXBURG 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 Public Notice Neighborhood Meetings on Annexation Due to the rapid growth in the City, it has been proposed that certain areas adjacent to the City of Rexburg be annexed. Both the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council feel that for organized growth and planning to exist, this annexation is important to the community. The City would like to further address questions that may not have been answered during the public hearing process. The Planning and Zoning Commission has greatly appreciated the input of concerned citizens and many questions and issues have been addressed as a result. It is the desire of the City to meet individually with the two neighborhood areas to further address questions and concerns. The City of Rexburg therefore invites you to a neighborhood meeting .to discuss -the annexations as proposed. There will be two separate meetings that cover two major geographical regions: NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING 1 For the Widdison Addition (East and West sides) and the properties between 440 S. and Main Street: December, 10, 2002 • At Rexburg City Hall, 12 N. Center, Rexburg Idaho • Meeting time 5:00 P.M. to 6:00 P.M. NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING 2 For the Willowbrook and Rexburg Acres Additions and properties between 7th South (1000 S.) and 440 S. • December, 11, 2002 • At Rexburg City Hall, 12 N. Center, Rexburg Idaho • Meeting time 5:00 P.M. to 6:00 P.M. We hope that you will be able to attend the meeting applicable to your neighborhood area and look forward to productive meetings. The City of Rexburg FINDINGS OF FACT FOR ANNEXATION On September 4, 2002, the City Council had a discussion on proposed areas to be annexed into the City of Rexburg. These areas were recommended for annexation by the City Staff due to proposed growth in the area. The Council recommended that the City adopt a Zone for Rural Residential Subdivisions that are proposed to be annexed into the City. Parcels 5 and 10 were recommended to be removed from this annexation proposal. Parcel 10 is an existing neighborhood that is connected to City services. 2. On September 5, 2002, the Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on one of several annexation proposals in the year 2002. This annexation included portions of the Teton Lakes Golf Course, Madison County shops and sheds, and other properties adjacent to the east side of Highway 20. The hearing was held to take public input on the proposal. These parcels were intended to be annexed into the City of Rexburg under Ordinance 881. On September 25, 2002, the City Council and Planning and Zoning Commission held a joint work meeting to discuss growth issues for the City. One of the issues discussed was additional zones for rural residential subdivisions. The Planning Commission recommended the Rural Residential 2 (RR2) zone to be incorporated into the City of Rexburg zoning ordinance. 4. On October 2, 2002, the City Council approved the proposed annexation of seven parcels as discussed in item two above. On October 21, 2002, the City Clerk sent the Notice of Public Hearing for Planning and Zoning Commission, including the annexation plan, proposed annexation map, and a information sheet on some of the costs of annexation. This was published in the local newspaper on October 23, 2002, and November 18, 2002. A notice was posted on parcels that were part of the annexation proposal. These notices were sent to all property owners within 300 feet of the above mentioned property. 6. On November 15, 2002, the City Clerk sent the Notice of Public Hearing for the City Council, including the annexation plan, proposed annexation map, and a information sheet on some of the costs of annexation. This was published in the local newspaper on November 18, 2002, and December 16, 2002. A notice was posted on parcels that were part of the annexation proposal. These notices were sent to all property owners within 300 feet of the above mentioned property. On November 21, 2002, the Planning & Zoning Commission for the City of Rexburg requested the public to offer input on the proposed annexation. Winston Dyer explained the issues concerning the proposed annexation of ten properties into the City of Rexburg. Winston indicated that the proposed annexation from the County to the City limits is to maintain orderly growth. He also indicated that there were some property owners on the west side of the City that had requested annexation of their properties. Madison County Planning and Zoning Coordinator, DaNiel Jose, testified in favor of the annexation on behalf of the County. She mentioned that the County is concerned with preserving the quality of the ground water in the area. It was the opinion of the Madison County Planning and Zoning Commission and Departments that the proposed areas need to be annexed into the City. There was some concern with the Zoning that would be applied to the areas to be annexed. There were some residents that gave testimony opposing the annexation proposal. There were other residents that sent in letters requesting that the Planning Commission deny the request. Kurt Hibbert indicated that he would schedule neighborhood meetings to provide additional information to the residents on the costs of annexation. It was recommend by Planning & Zoning that this request be approved for public hearing before the City Council. 8. On December 5, 2002, the City mailed notices to concerned neighbors to inform them of a neighborhood meeting to discuss the annexation proposal. The neighborhood meeting for the Widdison Addition and properties between 440 South 2000 West and Main Street was held on December 10, 2002. The neighborhood meeting for the Willowbrook and Rexburg Acres Additions and properties between 7' South and 440 South 2000 West was held on December 11, 2002. These meetings were held to inform the neighbors of the connection fee costs and the monthly fees for water and sewer. They were allowed to ask questions of concern on costs to be annexed into the City. The City staff responded with information on monthly fees and connection fees associated with annexation. The neighbors seemed very concerned about the additional costs that they would be expected to pay. 9. On December 18, 2002, the City of Rexburg held a public hearing concerning the annexation of ten tracts of land. The City Council accepted written and verbal input concerning the annexation. Many of the residents testified against the proposal due to the costs of annexation that would be imposed upon them. There were comments from the public with regards to increased traffic, safety, future roads and property values. There seemed to be a need to defer the vote on the annexation to a later date. This would allow the neighbors to gather more information on costs of annexation and the reason the City has proposed this annexation. The City Council read the annexation ordinance for the first reading with future readings to be scheduled at a later date. 10. On January 8, 2003, the City Council reviewed the Rural Residential zone that was to be applied to rural residential subdivisions for a 2"d reading. After discussion, the Council moved to read the proposed RR2 zone a second time. The Council reviewed the annexation proposal to be considered for a second reading. DaNiel Jose, director of the County Planning and Zoning office, gave testimony to the commission for the need to annex the proposed areas into the City. She discussed the enhanced septic systems that are required in the County on lots that are less than two acres. She mentioned that district 7 health and the department of developmental quality recommend that this area be serviced by a central sewer system. She commented on the failed septic systems and the high ground water that had caused problems in crawl spaces in the area. No action was taken. The Council scheduled a work meeting to discuss the annexation proposal at 6 p.m. on the 22' of January. 11. On January 22, 2003, at 6 p.m. the Council held a work meeting to discuss the annexation issues that were raised by the residents. The public was invited to give input on the proposed annexation. They identified six areas of concern to be discussed: 1. Sewer and water installed at the same time. 2. Waiving front footage fees similar to the South 5t' West annexation 3. Waiving additional fees without precedent 4. Sidewalk costs in context with impact fees 5. Impact fee ordinance 6. City/County discussion for shared cost expansion of City services An additional work meeting was scheduled for the 5" of February for continued discussion on the annexation proposal. 12. On January 22, 2003, the City Council took up the proposed annexation ordinance for discussion under the topic of old business on the agenda. After discussion on the annexation proposal the Council moved to approve the 2"d reading of the annexation ordinance. 13. On February 5, 2003, at 6 p.m. the Council held a work meeting to continue discussion on issues residents raised about the proposed annexation of their properties. The public was invited to give input on the proposed annexation. The Council began discussing each neighborhood independently in reference to mitigating factors that would work well for their subdivision. 14. On February 19, 2003, at 6 p.m. the Council held a third work meeting to discuss the proposed annexation. The public was invited to give input on the proposed annexation. Mayor Sutherland reminded the Council the need to annex for orderly planning of City growth. Different options were discussed that would allow the residents to annex at less costs. Another work meeting was scheduled to continue the annexation discussion on the 20" of February at 7 p.m. 15. On February 26, 2003, at 7 p.m. the Council held a fourth work meeting to discuss the proposed annexation. They developed specific language that would mitigate the cost and time of connection for the residents of the subdivisions to be annexed. This substantially reduced or delayed the cost of annexation for the residents. Many residents expressed thanks to the Council for their patience and understanding of the residents concerning this critical discussion. The Mayor and Council indicated that these proposals for annexation would be in writing for review on Monday, March 3, 2003, in Ordinance form. 16. On March 3, 2003, the draft Ordinance was made available to the public for review. Stephen Zollinger, City Attorney Proposed Annexations F-1 Coy of ROXWfq Rexburg Impad kea M AuealoFeAn.n ea Future Ar .aoan + City of Rexburg Madison County, Idaho N 0Llad GAy of Re�q Y � County m GeaVOPtK iMMmWn SYSterl City of Rexburg Madison County, Idaho N 0Llad GAy of Re�q Y � County m GeaVOPtK iMMmWn SYSterl «� ..�> . .. rB. . ..� ... If. MR � IN Wiz.« .� .. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that a Public Hearing will be held before the City Council of the City of Rexburg, Idaho, Wednesday, December 18, 2002, at 7:35 p.m., in the City Council Chambers of the City Building at 12 North Center, Rexburg, Idaho, regarding annexation and a zone change from Madison County zoning to Rexburg zoning. These properties are primarily located in three areas in Rexburg City Area of Impact, Madison County, Idaho, and are described as follows: Area One: Annexation of Properties between US Highway 20 and 2000 West in Section 25 with some properties located on the East side of US Highway 20. Parcels numbered on the Annexation map as follows: 1,2,3,4,6,7,8 Proposed Rexburg City zoning for these parcels are as follows: a. Parcel 1 -Rural Residential b. Parcel 2 -Agricultural 1 c. Parcel 3 -Law Density Residential -1 d. Parcel 4 -Rural Residential e. Parcel 6 -Rural Residential f. Parcel 7 -Rural Residential g. Parcel 8 -Rural Residential The Legal description as follows: All of Section 25, Township 6 North, Range 39 East, Boise Meridian. Less the following: All parcels previously annexed by the City of Rexburg. Also less the following parcels: Tract I: Commencing at a point 95 feet East and 265 feet South of the Northwest Comer of the Northeast Quarter of Section 25, Township 6 North, Range 39 East, Boise Meridian, Madison County, Idaho, and running thence East 235 feet; thence South 128 feet, thence West 235 feet, thence North 128 feet to the point of beginning. Tract II: Commencing at a point that is 95 feet East of the NW comer of the NEI/4 of Section 25, Township 6 North, Range 39 E.B.M., Madison County, Idaho, and running thence South 265 feet, thence East 235 feet, thence North 265 feet, thence West 235 feet to the point of beginning. EXCEPT County Road to the North Tract III: Beginning at Northwest comer of Northeast quarter of Section 25, Township 6 North, Range 39 E.B.M., Madison County, Idaho, and awning thence South 660 feet, thence East 330 feet, thence North 267 feet, thence West 235 feet, thence North 393 feet, thence West 95 feet, to the point of beginning. Area Two: Annexation of Property at 1647 West 1000 South Parcel numbered on the Annexation map as follows: 9 Proposed Rexburg City zoning for these parcels are as follows: h. Parcel 9 -Rural Residential The Legal description as follows: The Northeast quarter of the Northwest quarter of Sect. 36, Township 6 North, Range 39 East, Boise Meridian. Less the following Commencing at the Northeast corner of the Northwest quarter of Sect 36, Township 6 North, Range 39 E.B.M., and running thence West 361.5 feet, thence S 0 09'45"E 773 feet; thence East 361.5 feet; and thence NO °9'45"W 773 feet, to the point of beginning. Also less the following: Commencing at the SE comer of the NW 1/4 of the NW I/4 of Sect 36, Township 6 North, Range 39 E.B.M., and running thence NO 023'05"W 1317.50 ft, thence N89°47'48"E 499.96; thence S6 048'42"W 426.45 ft; thence S6°33'28"W 854.33 ft; thence S4°23'45"W 46.26 ft; thence S89 049'40"W 339.40 ft to the point of beginning. Area Three: Annexation of Properties on both sides of South Millhollow Road from 350 — 700 South Millhollow Road Parcel numbered on the Annexation map as follows: 11 Proposed Rexburg City zoning for these parcels are as follows: i. Parcel 11 -Low Density Residential The Legal description as follows: Commencing at the Northwest corner of SW 1/4 of SE1/4 of Section 29, Township 6 North, Range 39 E.B.M., Madison County, Idaho, and running thence NO ° 11'41"e 995.7 ft; thence N89045'52"E 452.58 ft; thence N22°50'03W 184.21 ft; thence N72037'54"E 149.66 ft; thence N17022'23"W 100 ft; thence N72°38'00"E 86 ft; thence S20'3 1'56"E 1965.97 ft; thence West 1265.68 ft; thence NO °22'55"W 507.97 to the point of beginning. 2 Area Four: Annexation of Properties at 1050 North 2nd East Parcels numbered on the Annexation map as follows: 14 Proposed Rexburg City zoning for these parcels are as follows: j. Parcel 14-1-lighway Business District The Legal description as follows: Tract I: Commencing at the SW corner of Sect 17, Township 6 North, Range 39 E.B.M., Madison County, Idaho, and running thence East 500 ft, thence North 230 ft; thence East 180 fl; thence North 210 ft; thence West 200 ft; thence South 100 ft; thence S89°49'40"W 480 ft; thence South 338.53 ft to the point of beginning, excepting therefrom the state highway right-of-way. Tract II: Commencing at a point that is North 340 ft and East 37.4 ft of the SW comer of Sect 17, Township 6 North, Range 39 E.B.M., Madison County, Idaho, and running thence North 82.99 ft; thence N58°47'31"E 33.37 ft; thence N89 27'04"E 401.8 ft; thence SO ° I VOOW 100 ft; thence S89027'4"W 430.02 ft to the point of beginning. Tract M; Commencing at a point 500 ft East of the Southwest comer of Sect 17, Township 6 North, Range 39 E.B.M., Madison County, Idaho, and naming thence North 230 ft; thence East 195 feet, thence South 230 ft; and thence West 195 feet to the point of beginning. At such hearing the City Council will hear all persons and all objections and recommendations relative to such proposed approval. The City Clerk will also accept written comments at City Hall prior to 4:00 p.m. on December 17, 2002. This notice is given pursuant to the provisions of Section 67-6509 and 67-6511 Idaho Code, and all amendments thereof. DATED this 15d' day of November, 2002. CITY OF REXBURG By (SEAL) Blair D. Kay, City Clerk Published: November 18, 2002 December 16, 2002 November 17, 2002 Planning and Zoning 12 N Center Rexburg, Idaho 83440 Dear Planning and Zoning: I want to applaud you fox recognizing that the current zoning ordnance is not adequate to address the present situation facing Rexburg and the surrounding impact zones. I also praise you for having the courage to table zone requests until the comprehensive plan and ordnance is updated. I'm sure there is and will be external pressure to do a quick and duty fix so developments can move forward. Next, I would like to congratulate you on your decision regarding the Central Business District near East Main Street..My opinion is that you have preserved part of the "small town" that makes Rexburg a great place to raise families. Thanks cc: Mayor ill Milller 1730 S 1000 W Rexburg, Idaho 356- 9'771 November 20, 2002 612 South 2000 West Rexburg, ID 83440 Mayor Bruce Sutherland 12 North Center Rexburg, ID 83440 Dear Mayor Sutherland: We would just like to post a protest to the proposed annexation of our property to the City of Rexburg. We were quite surprised to get a letter with such a degrading tone from the city offices. Rexburg has always stood for something that was good and uplifting and the letter we received informing us of the future annexation was anything but uplifting. First of all, the letter states that by joining the city we will be able to save money on our sewer, water and garbage service. I don't know how you can save us money when we already have our own service in place that is of minimal 'cost. These are tough economic times and the addition of having to pay city taxes and service fees could create a financial hardship on our family. We don't think that we have been trying to abuse the privileges of city members by driving on city streets and using city parks. We didn't know that these places were not to be used by anyone but city members. Have we been the only ones using these services? Are not other people who live in the county using these services, also? We know that this is a very transitional time for the city. We understand the changes that have been forced upon you by the change from Ricks College to BYU-Idaho. Are we to be the next victims of a forced change? We would like to feel that we live in an area where the needs and desires of the residents matter. From the petition that was circulated among the people that this will impact, you can see that none of us approve or desire this annexation. We know that the 4-plexes and the Co-Op'construction have been annexed in, but couldn't the drawing line be the freeway instead of 2000 West? We have lived at the same address since my parents bought this home in 1945. We aren't subdividing our 20 acres. We haven't moved or changed, why is this being forced upon us? We hope that you will reconsider this annexation and listen to the voice of the people who are actually being affected by this change. Please don't make us feel that joining the city would be equal to contracting the black plague. Sincerely, ,�. and Jud!-Stei This letter is in regards to the proposed annexation of parcels 1,2,4,6, and 7 on your proposal map. I have a few concerns that need to be mentioned. 1. A few months ago in a public hearing, both the city and county zoning boards met concerning the spot zoning that had occurred on the east side of US -20. I mentioned the destruction of property value by having single unit homes, town houses, storage units all within the same area. Since that time we continue to see further. spot placement. I realize that your plan to annex is for the reason of having better planning. I hope that we can have confidence that will happen. I hope this doesn't mean that the original development of one or two acre lots will be altered for smaller lots and possible multiple use. The history of the development that you have fostered is that small lots and apartment complexes have appeared at any location at any time. There has been no proactive planning and decision making based on original plans for an area. I would be opposed to developments with smaller lot restrictions and apartments in this rural area. 2. As I read the map - I observed that you have already annexed a piece to the west of US -20 with actually no road frontage other than a narrow strip. That is unreal to think that it was annexed. This is the portion adjacent to parcels 7,6, and 4. This is why I became nervous about your intent and action. 3. Another consideration - As you annex more property and encourage more development to the west, you are basically asking for weed patches and open areas in the areas you have developed within the current boundaries. You are driving the market by encouraging development of lower priced land to the west of the freeway. 4. Does the city have funds to run sewer and water to the new areas? Or is the plan to force all property owners to hook up and pay a substantial hookup? The price paid by these hookups will subsidize the commercial development on highway 33 and any other residential development. The city would use this technique to allow developers to be a free rider rather than passing impact fees onto the development. I am not interested in subsidizing other developments. You need to consider who is imposing the impact. 5. I would hope that no requirement for curb and gutter would be required in these rural areas. With the current developed lots we have, I see no need for additional costs or destruction of a nice neighborhood. 6. As for other information in relations to your publicity approach for encouraging annexation: --- I see a decrease in winter road care if I am annexed into the city. The county does more than throw a few red cinders on the intersections. They take excellent care of our area. --- City recreation, garbage collection, etc. This could be debated as to whether there is any savings. In fact there may be an increase in fees that are not marked driven. ---Your figures will be adjusted by the fact that my home value will change. This could increase, causing an increase in the taxes I pay. 7. Another concern is the impact that neighborhoods will have on the right to have animals. In summary, I have concerns about the planning decisions being made. I watch the construction of a gas station that will cater to trucks, when the use of 2000 West for a truck route is restricted. I see a gerrymandering plan for annexation where you don't include the property to the north of Highway 33 even though there is a commercial business on the north side. I would encourage you to plan and implement the plan. Let the plan drive the development. If I could have confidence in your plan and consistency I would feel better about the proposal. Thank you for listening. Fenton Broadhead 1888 West 190 South Rexburg, Idaho POST REGISTER i WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 2002 NOTE- This page contains opinions, not news. The items on this page are not news reports. They �T Post Register editorial board members are TALK OUR VIEW EW Roger Plothow, actingpublisher, J. Robb Brady; Marty Trlllhaase; and Dean Miller. Channeling ReAurg's growth n the shadow of the new Brigham Young University -Idaho, Rexburg is growing too quickly and hap- hazardly. Left unchecked, it could destroy the character of the commu- nity, its neighborhoods and business district. So the Planning and Zoning Com- mission's decision to put much of its immediate business on hold for a month or two makes sense. P&Z members will use that time to con- front some difficult issues, such as: ■ In the past year, Rexburg has annexed 23 parcels, mostly on the City's west and north sides. That's as many annexations as Rexburg saw throughout the 1990s. ■ A majority of property owners want to transform a commercial area on Rexburg's south side to apart- ment complexes. ■ So many homeowners want to convert their houses into apartments that single-family homes have become the exception along some residential blocks. ■ People are requesting zoning that does not exist on the city books. For instance, the Rexburg compre- hensive plan and zoning ordinance do not have a mixed-use zone or a professional office zone. ■ Today, just about any kind of business goes within Rexburg's broad business zones. Most commu- nities separate types of business. Because of these laws, P&Z mem- bers have found themselves signing off on things they otherwise might not. For instance, they couldn't pre- vent a strip mall being shoehorned near a drive-in, despite their reserva- tions about traffic problems and aes-, thetics. The P&Z has not imposed a mora- torium on growth. A moratorium might not stand up against a court challenge. And it could telegraph the wrong message about Rexburg's atti- tude toward economic growth. Instead, P&Z members are exer- cising their discretion under state and local laws to defer most of the permits coming.their way for up to 60 days. But that's only enough time to respond to obvious problems such as getting more specific business zones and devising a plan to protect single family neighborhoods. Rexburg has- n't updated its zoning ordinance since January and its comprehensive plan since February. Fortunately, the city doesn't have to reinvent the wheel. Rexburg isn't the first university town to wrestle with how best to channel growth. It can draw upon the lessons learned at Provo, Utah; Bozeman, Mont.; and Moscow. But this effort shouldn't end there: For one thing, the best plans and zoning laws aren't worth much with- out implementation. Rexburg recently created a new P&Z adminis- trative office, but it's possible the city will.need more resources to handle demands. And for another, 30 or 60 days isn't enough time to address all of the potential changes needed in Rexburg's zoning, nor is it enough to time to permit community involvement. That's where a thorough, revamp- ing of the community's comprehen- sive plan comes in. The process can take 18 months. It provides a forum for serious public debate. For Rexburg, that work ought to begin in early 2003. Marty Trillhaase T T We welcome reader letters. We usually limit them to 300 words. LAll letters must be typed; and letters, e-mail andphone messages -' must include your name, address and daytime phone number. A Ar .. 1 _.._..a.__-_.-....... Tom Walsh Re dem Advisory Boan or brashness. That said, I in his normalll give up the shi Orange Count for its-less-tha newcomers he Here in Tet late, moderate the country. Ai ots, all of whof worked their t ation district t n't pass, what who worked h earned retiren ll Ju r } u. � t if#all e3 . 21 November 2002 As residents of Madison County living in Parcels 1 through 7 as designated by the City of Rexburg, we the undersigned do object to the proposal to annex the said land parcel to city property as indicated in the proposed Annexation Plan of October 21, 2002. 6-6 >4O O 0 L0 J ea 7 J Lu - AZ L 7.� i d 8�a ow roeC —06; l ,; 1//'� �, iv' �3qqo Wil//l/o�r� r��iL I• 3��-552 ..., bi Gs 2 r P � 9�C x(10 C.� U O / J7•J 6 — �� &z a �U It (✓1Y��Z -*Z5T6 -G C,1`I.it2' �✓�D - cJsZ7` ti r; taco 1 -2-i W Lo 6 Y 0 3 21 November 2002 As residents of Madison County living in Parcels 1 through 7 as designated by the City of Rexburg, we the undersigned do object to the proposal to annex the said land parcel to city property as indicated in the proposed Annexation Plan of October 21, 2002. 4 �I V --�JP Alm& 0 Ho _- 5' - 5N' l -1 led tJ n/ % 331-G a 1 t l�S'tJ �9J S-b-���f� /7'3/ L , f y �> 1,713 tv l4aS .4 3:r(- - Ss 64, a/o 0 /%os t' -3:z -q 76(!� G-����� • .� 4�F�, baa Ct� .f i� 21 November 2002 As residents of Madison County living in Parcels 1 through 7 as designated by the City of Rexburg, we the undersigned do object to the proposal to annex the said land parcel to city property as indicated in the proposed Annexation Plan of October 21, 2002. n S, �ceca Gu, e->o,61LY� S, a u11 6 W r 71 o4 1' ' fq t� D000 co 6\1 o C cL� o ca 918 v on L. r (p l S'• W �,u 3SZ0-- 58 REXBURG PLANNING & ZONING November 21, 2002 7:00 p.m. Chairman: Winston Dyer Members: Robert Schwartz Ted Whyte DaVawn Beattie Mike Ricks - Excused Steve McGary Doug Smith Jerry Hastings Mary Haley Jordan Dyer - Excused David Stein P.F.C. John Millar P & Z Administrator Kurt Hibbert City Attorney Stephen Zollinger - Excused City Clerk Blair D. Kay APPROVAL OF MINIITES Steve McGary made a motion to approve the minutes with corrections on page 6, 9, and 12 for November 07, 2002, DaVawn Beattie seconded the motion, all voted aye, none opposed. The motion carried. Winston Dyer - Welcomed those present to the meeting along with the Boy Scouts. Commissioner Mike Ricks and Commissioner Jordan Dyer were excused from the meeting. The County Planning and Zoning Noncontroversial agenda items: DaVawn Beattie — Requested to add the "Tree Ordinance" to the agenda, Kurt Hibbert - Reviewed the zoning enforcement violations — Enforcement issues are primarily concerning education of the zoning ordinances. All complaints have been acted upon; All of the violators are working on their violations to come into compliance with the zoning ordinance. There is one violation that may need a misdemeanor citation. Winston Dyer — The Chair would like to revisit the issue with Dr. Craig Heiner's request to remodel his professional office on this agenda. Public Hearings 7:05 pm Annexation of 10 Tracts — City of Rexburg Winston Dyer - Introduced the Commissioners to the public and gave instructions concerning testimony for the Public Hearing. Winston explained the issues concerning the proposed annexation of 10 tracts of property into the City of Rexburg. He explained that from the earliest of human history people have lived together in communities for the common good. The quality of life is improved due to shared resources, economy of services that are available, shared protection, and protect our living environment. Winston mentioned the concept of synergy — "The end result is much.greater than the individual contributions of all of us". Rexburg has a strong sense of Community. There has been a great willingness on the part of people to sacrifice their personal interests in many respects for the greater common good. All have a desire to improve the quality of life and protect our environment. Winston Dyer — Explained the transition that Rexburg is experiencing in the development of new housing for students attending the University. Rexburg has major challenges. He explained the changes that were brought about by the Teton Dam Flood. Now the University expansion is causing change. There will be more students, staff, families and associated, growth as the population increases. Winston explained that more people require more housing and more services. Winston Dyer — Continued his comments on the City expanding to the West of the current City limits. The ground is available and it is more favorable for excavation. Transportation and Utilities are easy to extend in this area. The Planning and Zoning Commissions in the City and the County are charged with the following: 1) The protection of existing property rights of citizens to allow them to use their property within certain bounds that reflect the greater common good of the Community. 2) Provide for orderly growth of the Community. Proposed land use must be compatible with existing land use. An example of undesirable land use would be a medical waste burning facility located next to a residential zone. The master plan needs to be logically extended and provide for orderly growth. Winston Dyer — Discussed growth on the fringe areas of the City of Rexburg. He mentioned the West side of the City in particular for this meeting's discussions. "The bottom line is that we must better plan and control the outward growth and expansion of Rexburg". Control is needed to protect everyone and bring order to the planned expansion of the City. 2 Winston Dyer - The City of Rexburg is proposing to annex some areas of the County into the City limits to maintain orderly growth. The City of Rexburg wants to be proactive and have the opportunity to do it in the right way. Some property owners on the West side of the City has requested annexation of their properties. Winston explained that the annexed properties would be required to pay higher taxes. The following conditions will impact the residential properties. 1) Annexed property will have additional City of Rexburg taxes. The additional tax will be about 30% higher than current County taxes. 2) The City zoning assigned to the property would be entirely consistent with current land use. This would protect existing land use and property rights. There is a new rural residential zoning application being developed for the City of Rexburg that will allow subdivisions into the City with larger lots. These lots will not require curb and gutter for Rural Residential Zoning (RR2). They can have broad borrow pits for the road ways. Sidewalks will be included for these subdivisions. This will allow the residents to maintain a rural residential setting for their subdivisions. The zoning laws will allow a grandfathered status for certain uses. An example would be existing animals on the property. 3) No one would be forced to hook up to City utilities unless it is a proposed new development. Environmental conditions would require dense developments to connect to City of Rexburg services. Winston Dyer — City utilities will be available to those in these areas in response to two criteria. 1) If there is a need. Documentation indicating contaminated wells or things of that nature. The City of Rexburg will be interested in moving forward to get City utilities in that area for the protection of everyone involved. 2) A common desire or majority of property owners to come onto City utilities. The City does require a hook up fee to connect to City utilities The following fees are in place at this time. a) Residential water connection - $1,100 b) Residential sewer connection - $575 c) Front lot line cost for sewer - $10 per foot d) Front lot line cost for water - $10 per foot Winston indicated that these costs do not cover the entire cost of connecting an area to the City of Rexburg utility systems. e) The monthly utility rates would apply for water, sewer & garbage. The rates are based on the usage of the water and sewer services. Winston indicated that there have been many studies done in the Engineering field that indicate the actual cost of being on City services is less expensive than being on private systems over an extended period of time. The studies indicate 3-5 years favor the private systems. If the cost of replacing the well pump, or the septic tank or drain field is included, the cost favors being on City services. - f) Sidewalks are required when: 1) The property is sold or: 2) Undeveloped property is developed or: 3) The creation of an LID - Local Improvement District that is financed for 20 years by the City of Rexburg Winston indicated that the benefits of the annexation proposal is preserved land uses, reliable City of Rexburg utility services, protected environment, logical growth and development, unproved transportation facilities, and improved police, fire and emergency services. Winston Dyer — Reviewed the format for public input in a Public Hearing. The City Council has scheduled a Public Hearing December 18`s for this annexation request. The annexation requests can be reviewed as a block or individually. The Commission can either approve, table or dis-approve the annexation requests. This Commission's action tonight will be a recommendation to the governing body, the City Council. Winston Dyer - Discussed the role of the Planning and Zoning Commission. The P & Z Commission looks at the technical merits of the proposal. Is it good planning? Does it make sense? Are there problems that need to be avoided? How does it look for the future in terms of regulation, order, and growth? Winston Dyer - Discussed the role of the City Council as a governing body. The City Council has the opportunity to take into account the politics of the recommendation. Should a neighborhood be allowed to make a special neighborhood agreement with the City? This agreement may delineate the special conditions and terns for the development of the neighborhood under an annexation proposal. The City Council will make the final decision on the annexation proposal. It becomes a matter of law afterthe City Council approves or denies the request. Kurt Hibbert - Explained the Proposal to annex 10 tracts of property. The City is planning an RR2 zone to annex existing subdivisions to be annexed in an `as is' condition. Kurt reviewed the annexation proposal on the overhead screen. The land has been labeled as tracts because there are multiple parcels included in some of the tracts. He reviewed planned future annexations in areas where the City of Rexburg services are currently being provided to the property owner. In the past the City has annexed one parcel at a time. This creates islands in the City limits. These islands have access to City services. Kurt indicated that it is not cost effective to move City services around these properties. It is better planning to bring larger tracts of property into the City as needed. 11 This allows the infrastructure to be evaluated and extended in a least cost method. Winston Dyer - Asked for questions of a general nature. Discussion on the costs for receiving City services. The City will provide these costs to neighborhoods in neighborhood meetings. The RR2 zone was discussed as a zone to be used for the annexed neighborhoods. John Millar - The new RR2 zone will be available before the annexation is completed. Kurt Hibbert - The Commission will review and,accept RR2 - The definition of RR2 zoning was read and discussed by Kurt. The new zone was compared to the existing RR zone as it exists in the impact area for the City of Rexburg. Kurt and Winston reviewed the RR zone in the impact area. Winston Dyer - Recommended that Mr. Erickson give public testimony on his concerns with the RR2 zoning being a condition of annexation for their subdivision. Discussion on being required to connect to City of Rexburg services if the annexation proposal is approved. John Millar - Reviewed the locations where City of Rexburg services will be available in future. The City is in the process of extending backbone services West of U.S. Highway 20. A 12" water line will be installed through Widdison Addition. The waste water system along 2000 West (12`s West) is planned for the spring of 2003. The Madison Coop development will receive water and sewer services by May, 2003, John reviewed the conditions that may exist that would prompt a resident to connect to City services. If a septic sewer system fails, the Health Department may require the location to be connected to City services'. It may be a least cost decision for the property owner to connect to the City of Rexburg sewer system verses updating their current septic system. Winston Dyer - Opened the meeting for Public Testimony Winston Dyer - Reviewed the Public Testimony format for the meeting. Everyone has a voice. We agree to disagree. Winston asked those present to refrain from any heckling, cat calls, or applause. Winston was appreciative of the people attending the meeting to voice their concerns. Those in favor of the proposal: DaNiel Jose - Madison County Planning and Zoning Coordinator - 134 East Main Street - She mentioned that she is not a proponent of tax increases. DaNiel gave comments on the requests that the County Planning and Zoning Commission receive monthly for new subdivisions in Madison County. The County is concerned with preserving the quality of the ground water. This is a desirable area. DaNiel mentioned that areas 7, 6, 4, 2, and 1 are areas of concern for ground water contamination. There seems to be a lot of growth in these areas. It is the opinion of the Madison County Planning and Zoning Commission and Departments that these areas need to be annexed into the City of Rexburg. Kirby Forbush - 3800 West 1000 North - He owns Parcel #6 which is a 40 acre piece. Kirby reviewed his parcel on the overhead screen. He asked the County to approve a 32 lot development. His request was denied for County development. He is requesting an RR2 Zoning for this property. He indicated that RR2 would work for lots in the Willowbrook subdivision. The Willowbrook lots are about 3/4 of an acre. Boyd Cardon - 1535 West 190 South - Widdison Edition - He indicated that it is best to prepare and preventforfuture use. In the best interest of the residents in his area and to maintain the quality of life, Boyd recommended City services for his area. A master plan is needed for lighting safety. He recommended having a planned development with the appropriate lighting, water, and sewer connections. He would prefer to prepare and prevent instead of `repair'. The water and sewer lines should be installed at the same time. Jean Erickson - 100 Tamarack - Is in favor of annexation. They are planning to build a home in the spring. They are paying City taxes. They are afraid of future costs associated with developing City services in the future. She would prefer to have the water and sewer available for her lot before they begin construction of their new home. It is the logical choice to do it now. There was no written input in favor. Those neutral to the proposal - neither for nor against: Brent Harris - 1903 West 190 South -Widdison addition - Asked about parcel #2 - Brent is concerned with a zone change in the future. He does not want to be rezoned later away from the RR2 zone. Brent recommended having a master plan for stable development. He asked if a well fails or a septic system fails, would everyone in the subdivision be required to hookup to City services? He was also concerned with the length of time for the installation of the sewer system on 7" South. fie does not want the Widdison Edition torn up for a year like 7" South. Brent would like the City of Rexburg to respond to the reason 7h South was torn up for a year. Brent has requested a copy of the minutes for his records. The 300 foot rule does not hold up in a court of law for connecting to the City services. Brent indicated that the City could require connections to water and sewer if the location is within 300 feet of City services. Eric Erickson - 1573 West 190 South - He is neutral however he wants consistency. The new Cenex building needs services. Eric indicated that a particular project should not drive an annexation proposal. The City needs to supply services and Eric wants an overall comprehensive plan to drive development. He is concerned about the sidewalk issue. Eric would prefer to have RR2 in place before annexation is approved. Bill Miller - 1730 South 1000 West - Winston Dyer read a statement concerning his feelings on the current and recent -past Planning and Zoning decisions. He is in favor of preserving the small town atmosphere for the City of Rexburg. He is in favor of updating the Planning and Zoning Ordinance to meet the current needs of the City. Those Against this proposal: Bill Tietjen - 1612 West 930 South - Rexburg Acres Subdivision - He has a community well with 10 other homes. He is against the annexation of his neighborhood. They feel that their water and septic systems are adequate. They are monitored by District 7 Health Department. Their Community well is monitored monthly by District 7 Health. Their inspection tract record show that their system works. They believe that they could stay the way they are without getting City services. They do not want to pay additional taxes for any City of Rexburg services. Bill indicated that developers are developing the land by rezoning for financial reasons. They were.told earlier that if annexation was going to take place, it would be 3-5 years down the road. Mindi Lucas - 950 South 2000 West — Provided a petition listing residents who are opposed to the annexation request. Mindi indicated that they have lived in the area for about seven years. She is opposed to the annexation proposal. There are people in these areas that do have livestock that is used for their livelihood. She did not understand how the City water line would affect the sub -water. She mentioned that County Residents do not pay for City services. She commented on the countless hours of service donated to the City by young children of County residents who have planted flowers for the City of Rexburg. It takes away from the dignity of the volunteer work that has been donated to the City. Mindi asked why the City of Rexburg streets are in such bad shape all winter. The elderly can not go into town. She would like to see improvement in the City of Rexburg street maintenance in the winter. Scott Lucas - 950 South 2000 West - Requested real test data for pollutants in the ground water and how they are moving underground. He requested the data from the City or the County. He would like to see real hard test data on water pollutants. He is an Engineer at the Site. Scott gave examples of studies conducted at the Site to tract ground water pollutants. He does not want to pay more taxes. He is concerned with the extra costs to supply City of Rexburg services to his subdivision. Russ VanAllen - 932 South 1560 West - Russ agreed with the others. He is concerned with the 30% increase in taxes. He is requesting more data on the cost for water and sewer connections. Russ feels he was misled two months ago when he was told he would not be annexed into the city. They were told it would not be a question of "If' but "When" they would be annexed into the City of Rexburg. They were told their taxes would increase roughly 1%. The information that was mailed to the residents from the City of Rexburg indicated almost 23% increase in taxes over the current County taxes. Russ reviewed the cost for City water and sewer that was mailed to the residents. He requested more information on the actual cost for water, sewer, and everything else that might come down the road for a $120,000 home. Russ does not want to be misled with partial data. 7 Dean Kunz -161 South 2000 West - Dean asked who would maintain 2000 West. Is 2000 West in the City or the County? Also, Dean asked if the City is going to annex a proposed development West of 2000 West. What is going to prevent the City of Rexburg from annexing that property? Where is the City of Rexburg going to stop annexing property? Dean asked if the City of Rexburg is going to spot zone and annex property just because someone wants to develop it. Larry Saunders - 190 South 1559 West - If we are in the City, will we loose more control of our neighborhood. When does the City of Rexburg services require connection? Larry is concerned with the changes that come with annexation. The residents do not need the extra expenses that come with annexation. Eric Erickson - Requested that the Widdison Addition and existing neighborhoods be annexed into the City of Rexburg as an RR -2 Zone if the annexation proposal is approved. Paula Harris - 190 South 1903 West - She is concerned with the trust level. She requested that the Planning and Zoning Commission allow more time to provide the needed cost information to the residents on City of Rexburg services. She does not trust the City's facts on the costs of City of Rexburg services. Kirby Forbush - Discussed the need to have an annexation agreement for existing subdivisions to explain the exact requirements for the neighborhoods. Will they be required to have a sidewalk, curb and gutter, water connection, or sewer connection? Winston Dyer - Reviewed the process to obtain an annexation agreement. The City Council would make the final determination. Kurt Hibbert and John Millar can help residents with these agreements. It would be appropriate to have the negotiations completed with the City of Rexburg before the City Council Public Hearing is held. Winston Dyer - Referenced the written documents presented to the City by residents who object to the annexation plan for their neighborhoods. There was an unsigned letter stating that this is how we currently feel. "Our representatives will be more than willing to listen to the proposals". Winston read a petition that stated "As residents of Madison County living in parcels 1-7 as designated by the City of Rexburg we the undersigned do object to the proposal to annex the said land parcels to City property as indicated in the proposed annexation plan of October 21, 2002". There was 2 % pages of signatures with names and addresses. A letter from John and Judy Steiner - 612 South 2000 West - The letter indicated a protest to the annexation proposal of their property. They were offended with the degrading tone and content of the annexation proposal letter from the City Offices. The letter states that by joining the City, the Steiners would be able to save money on their sewer and water and garbage services. "I don't know how you can save us money when we already have our own service in place that is of minimal cost". They are opposed to the annexation proposal and feel that annexation will cause a hardship on their family. The Steiners are concerned with being the next victims of a forced change. They requested that U.S. Highway 20 be the annexation line instead of 2000 West. They asked the City to listen to the voice of the people who are actually being affected by this change. The Steiners letter stated "Please don't make us feel that joining the City would be equal to contracting the Black Plague". Winston Dyer - Offered an official apology from the City to the residents who received the annexation letter. The City officially apologizes for the comments in the ad for annexation with reference to the "Black Plague". Winston did not know exactly how that comment was included in the letter. It was a mistake and the City of Rexburg apologizes for any offense it may have created. Winston Dyer read a letter from Fenton Broadhead - 190 South 1888 West - Fenton referred to parcels 1, 2, 4, 6, & 7 on the proposed annexation map. He is concerned with spot zoning next to U.S. Highway 20. "There has no proactive planning and decision making based on original plans for an area". He is opposed to developments with smaller lot restrictions and apartments in this rural area. He mentioned the annexation of a narrow strip of property on the West side of U.S. Highway 20. This is the parcel adjacent to numbers 7, 6, and 4. There is no road frontage for this parcel. "That is unreal to think that it was annexed". Another consideration for denying this annexation proposal is the weed patches and open areas that will be created. The City is driving the market by encouraging the development of lower priced land to the West of the freeway. Fenton indicated that the fees from water and sewer hookups would subsidize the commercial development on Highway 33 and any other residential development. Fenton speculated that the City of Rexburg would allow this technique to avoid collecting impact fees for new developments. Fenton is not interested in subsidizing other developments. He requested that the existing subdivisions would be free from the curb and gutter requirement in these rural areas. Fenton commented on Madison County's ability to maintain the roads in his area. He expects a decrease in winter maintenance services if his property is annexed into the City. Fenton summarized with this comment: "In summary I have concerns about the planning decisions being made. I watched the construction of a gas station that will cater to trucks with the use of 2000 West. 2000 West has a restriction on truck traffic. I see a gerrymandering plan for annexation where you don't include property to the North of Highway 33, even though there is a commercial business on the North side. I would encourage you to plan and implement the plan. Let the plan drive the development. If I could have confidence in your plan and consistency, I would feel better about the proposal." All written comments were reviewed and they are on file with the City of Rexburg. Public Input was closed The Commissioners discussed the comments directed to the City of Rexburg concerning the Tax increase due to the annexation proposal. Winston Dyer - The utility services are maintained by monthly user fees. None of the property taxes that are collected go towards water and sewer services. Kurt Hibbert - The increase in taxes does vary between residents. Circuit breakers and home owner's exemptions are examples that will cause some variation in the 30% tax increase that has been discussed at this meeting. Kurt mentioned that he had calculated a 28% increase in taxes for an annexed home. Winston Dyer — Reviewed the 22.9% tax increase that was mentioned in the flyer that was published. That amount represent the City's portion of the total tax bill for a residence. Winston gave reference to a document "Madison County/Rexburg Comprehensive Plan 2000". This document was prepared in 1977. It gave provision for the Community to the year 2000 as to how in the planners best vision the Community would grow and develop. A copy of this map was entered into the record. Winston reviewed the map that showed City of Rexburg expansion to the West of U.S. Highway 20. Winston _ commented on the concerns of the residents with this annexation proposal. He shared their concerns about the impact and changes that this proposal would create. Winston commented or discussions he has had with residents over this expansion issue. He commented that almost everyone he has visited with has readily admitted that they knew the day would come when Rexburg would grow and expand. Winston indicated that the day has come to properly plan for this expansion in an orderly plan. He recommended that the Planning Commission give serious consideration to this annexation proposal. Doug Smith - Commented on the vision of past developers that provided housing for residents in the area. He commented on some serious nitrate underground water contamination in the Hibbard area. He did not know the source of the contamination. Doug commented that "We. are all lucky to be here"; "We are all benefactors of developers". Doug recommended that the residential areas be maintained as rural residential. He indicated that there is wisdom in the annexation proposal. Winston Dyer - Reviewed the makeup of the Commission. Three of the Commissioners live in the County. One County resident is appointed by the City of Rexburg to the Planning Commission and one is appointed by the Madison County Commissioners and the third one is appointed jointly by the City and County. Mike Ricks, Doug Smith and David Stein are representatives of the County area. David Stein - Commented on the existing Planning and Zoning Ordinance and the existing Comprehensive Plan for the City of Rexburg. He was concerned with the timing of the proposal. Robert Schwartz - He is concerned with requiring sidewalks in the Rural Residential zones. He commented on the need to have zoning laws for the protection of the neighborhoods. Discussed the density of septic systems in the area that will cause pollutants in the environment. Ted Whyte — Commented on the four-plexes that are being built on the West side of U.S. Highway 20. These permits were granted by the County. There are multiple units planned for that development. Ted indicated that it was prudent to annex them and have them on City water and Sewer. The alternative would be to have hundreds of units with 10 septic systems adjacent to the City limits. This could impact the City of Rexburg for the development of infrastructure in 5, 10, or 20 years down the road. He indicated that it was good planning to provide City services to developments that have developed adjacent to the City limits. When septic systems fail, the residents will come to the City and ask for water and sewer services. Ted is on a task force that gathered data on Rural Residential housing developments. He has spent time with towns and Cities to the South of Rexburg. One half acre lots are consistent in adjoining areas. The City of Ammon would prefer to have sidewalks to keep the school children off of the roadways in the winter time. Ted commented that there are many issues to review, however RR2 zoning fits well for rural single family housing. DaVawn Beattie - Reviewed the old businesses that were in Rexburg a few years ago. He indicated that it would be impossible to avoid change in the Community. DaVawn recommended that the City meet with residents to work out issues and concerns with the cost of City services and other annexation questions. Doug Smith — Recommended that the Rural Residential areas maintain the rural setting with a rural zone. Jerry Hastings - Discussion on the proposed annexation zones being set up to reflect current use. Winston Dyer - The proposed zones for the areas under consideration to be annexed have been set up with zones to reflect the current use. Mary Haley - Indicated some concerns with the water quality associated with the four-plexes on the West side of U.S. Highway 20. Winston and Kurt explained the location of the water and sewer lines that will be installed by next spring for the City. The four-plexes are currently on City water. Discussion on land parcels and lot sizes in the area. Jerry Hastings - Inquired about Impact fees for new developments. Winston indicated that the City of Rexburg does require the developers of sizable developments to extend water and sewer lines for the City in lieu of impact fees. DaVawn Beattie - The reason for zoning is to protect existing property owners. Winston explained the differences between City and County zoning laws. The County zoning is a little more wide open and less comprehensive than the appropriate City zoning for a location. Winston Dyer - Indicated that past discussions from the Planning and Zoning Commission on the expansion of the Impact Zone in this area favored single family residential development with the possible exception of apparent commercial locations like Mother Hibbard's Country Store. Winston favored the concept of a residential area. Robert Schwartz - He has been a victim of being forced by government. Robert indicated that the County Planning and Zoning requirements are different than the City Zoning requirements. A lack of the proper controls have caused problems. Roberts's comments 11 favored putting the proper controls in place to protect existing land uses. He reviewed the changes that occur in our society and in Government. Ted Whyte - Reviewed the proposed zoning for each tract of land that the City of Rexburg is proposing to annex into the City. Discussion on how to proceed with the motion to annex the different tracts of land with the associated City of Rexburg zones. Ted Whyte - Recommended annexation of the following tracts of property into the City of Rexburg with the associated zones is proposed by the Planning Commission: Tract #1 - Widdison Addition with the recommended zone of RR2. Tract #2 - Agricultural area recommended zone is RR2. Tract #4 - Agricultural area recommended zone is RR2. Tract #6 - Agricultural, area recommended zone is RR2. Tract #7 - Residential area recommended zone is RR2. Tract #8 - Residential area recommended zone is RR2. Tract #9 - Agricultural area recommended zone is RR2. Tract #3A - Henderson property recommended zone is LDRl . Tract #313 - Peterson property recommended zone is NMR - existing use grandfathered. Tract #I I - Residential area recommended zone is LDR - Consider 5h South boundary. Tract #14 - Commercial area recommended zone is HBD. David Stein - Commented on his concerns of the lack of an RR2 zone for the City of Rexburg. He recommended that future annexation proposals include existing zoning options. Winston Dyer - Reviewed the reasoning for doing this during the Zoning change process. The Planning Commission is in the process on adding the RR2 zone to the Zoning Ordinance. Due to timing and workload, the proposed changes to the Zoning Ordinance have not been completed in a timely manner. Winston recommended that the annexation proposal be contingent upon the RR2 zone being adopted by the City of Rexburg. Kurt Hibbert - Reviewed the RR2 zoning proposal discussion that was held in a joint City Council and Planning and Zoning meeting on September 25, 2002. Note: Legal Council indicated that the City Council must approve the RR2 Zone as an amendment to the current Planning and Zoning Ordinance #725 before it will be available to use in the Rexburg Zoning Ordinance. Winston Dyer - The Chairman's recommendation stands that the annexations must be contingent on the inclusion of the RR2 zone into the City of Rexburg Zoning Ordinance. Discussed the long term use of property with storage units. The property could be redeveloped at a later date. 12 Winston Dyer - Reviewed the property East of tract 14. It borders the City of Rexburg water tank. Residential property is farther East. There are no residences in this annexation area. Jerry Hastings - Reviewed the City of Rexburg well that sits on the East portion of tract 14. Jerry commented on the zoning in other Cities. They have put public services in almost every zone in their Cities. Kurt Hibbert - Reviewed the Smith property on the overhead screen. Richard would prefer to have 5`" South as the annexation boundary for his property. Winston Dyer - After discussion on splitting Tract 11 at 5`h South, the Planning Commission decided to have the City Council make the decision on the Southern boundary for that Tract. Ted Whyte - Reviewed the existing businesses in Tract 14 which is proposed to be HBD. Ted asked if Rexburg Plumbing and Heating, Leishman Electric, and other businesses being annexed would be required to connect to City water and sewer. Discussion on the reasons that a site would be required to connect to the City water and sewer systems. Winston indicated that failing systems may be a reason or a majority of sites in a location are requesting a connection. Jerry Hastings - Recommended that residents get with City Staff in neighborhood meetings to resolve any issues and clarify any questions that they may have concerning this annexation proposal. Jerry recommended annexation agreements for these neighborhoods. Doug Smith made a motion to annex parcels (Tracts) 1,2,3,4,6, 7, 8, 9, 11, & 14 as was proposed with appropriate Rexburg City Zones attached, Conditional upon the City of Rexburg adopting the Rural Residential 2 Zone (RR2); Jerry Hastings seconded the motion. Discussion on having the City initiate contact with residents to have a neighborhood meeting. Doug Smith recommended having District 7 Health Department at the community meetings. Jerry Hastings referenced the need to have an annexation agreement crafted at these meetings. Doug Smith amended his motion to include the neighborhood meetings to develop an annexation agreement before the City Council Public Hearing on the 18th of December, 2002. Jerry Hastings seconded the amended Motion. All voted aye, none opposed. The motion carried. Kurt Hibbert - The City of Rexburg will organize two neighborhood meetings to address residents' concerns over the annexation proposals. Kurt mentioned the testimony of the County Planning and Zoning Coordinator was an indication of the concerns the County has with rural developments being developed adjacent to the City of Rexburg. He indicated that her testimony was unprecedented in the City of Rexburg Planning and Zoning Public Hearing. Kurt mentioned the concerns of the District 7 Health Department with the development of rural subdivisions. Kurt commented on a City Council meeting where the Council recommended that the P&Z Commission address the annexation issue. 13 City Staff will attend to address the issues of the neighborhoods. Winston Dyer - Commented for the record that the City did not make the statement that a neighborhood would not be annexed for 3 to 5 years. He was present at the conversation and clarified the conversation. Winston indicated that it was not a City Council person in the discussion as reported. The annexation was already being considered when the conversation took place. Site Plan Review - South Hampton Apartments - Corner of 6h South and 3`d West - Scott Spaulding Scott Spaulding - Reviewed the proposal on the overhead screen. Scott reviewed the changes to the parking by shifting the buildings to the West. Snow storage is beyond the 10% of parking requirement. John Millar indicated to Scott that the City will not allow a direct tap into the storm sewer system at this location. There will be a swale detention area in the snow storage area that is about 3-4 feet in depth for storm water detention. The detention area will serve as a play area the development. Discussion on the reason for needing a retention pond. The Storm sewer pipe is at capacity from locations above this location. Parking is at 40% for compact cars and 60% for full size cars. There are 128 parking stalls for the development. Kurt Hibbert - Staff is recommending moving the curb to the south on the curved portion of the roadway. That will add capacity to the storm detention area. Scott Spaulding - The surveyor made the curved road into a continuous curve to smooth out the line going around the corner. Discussion on how 6d' South connects to the development. Kurt Hibbert - Chris Huskinson recommended that the fire hydrant needs to be elevated or moved. Winston indicated that it is not on the property and probably should be moved by the City. DaVawn Beattie moved to accept the site plan with the following conditions: 1) Approval of City Staff Departments 2) Conform to all of the applicable Ordinance requirements Mary Haley seconded the motion, all voted aye, none opposed. The motion carried. Site Plan Review -Paddington Court - Off Mariah Ave - Westates Subdivision -Schiess and Associates - Badham Construction Dave Montgomery - 125 N. 640 West, North Salt Lake City, Utah - This development 14 Neighborhood Meetings on Annexation Due to the rapid growth in the City, it has been proposed that certain areas adjacent to the City of Rexburg be annexed. Both the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council feel that for organized growth and planning to exist, this annexation is important to the community. The City would like to further address questions that may not have been answered during the public hearing process. The Planning and Zoning Commission has greatly appreciated the sound input of concerned citizens and many questions and issues have been addressed as a result. It is the desire of the City to meet individually with the Neighborhoods to further address questions and concerns. The City of Rexburg therefore invites you to a neighborhood meeting to discuss the annexations as proposed. There will be two separate meetings that cover two major geographical regions: NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING 1 For the Widdison Addition and the properties between 475 South and Main Street: • December, 10, 2002 • At Rexburg City Hall, 12 N. Center, Rexburg Idaho • Meeting time 5:00 P.M. to 6:00 P.M. NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING 2 For the Willowbrook and Rexburg Acres Additions and properties between 7th South (1000 S.) and 500 South: • December, 11, 2002 • At Rexburg City Hall, 12 N. Center, Rexburg Idaho • Meeting time 5:00 P.M. to 6:00 P.M. Please plan on attending the meeting applicable to your neighborhood. Sincerely, The City of Rexburg cc: Richard Horner, Bruce Sutherland, John Millar,�eve Zollinger, Kurt Hibbert, Blair Kay What will NOT being annexed coo for you? People living on the fringes of Madison County are already benefitting from: (These items are already paid for by current county residents.) 1. Access to county streets to get to work, school, and other businesses, etc. 2. County Police protection because county police patrols on the county's fringes directly benefit city fringe neighborhoods. 3. Availability of a Madison County Park, recreational areas, rivers, etc. 4. A thriving, economically vital agricultural area, possibly 2nd only to BYU-1 in keeping the city of Rexburg in business. You will have the added benefit of: 1. Access to dependable and much less expensive water & sewer services, along with non -chlorinated water (which is forthcoming for city water users). 2. Garbage pick-up: we are allowed to choose the best service for our needs. City garbage fee is $14.00/month, so a few of us will have to pay $1. - $4. more per month! However, some county residents pay only $9.00/month at this time. 3. Very adequate police protection. 4. We get to vote in county elections. 5. Recreation Programs: agreeably the city beats us on this one—county residents have to pay an additional $5.00 per child to sign up for recreation programs! What will happen to your property taxes? 1. There will not be an immediate tax increase of 30%. 9 County nrnnarfv fnvaz are annm» jmafa>ly %101 lace than rite La^e OC ..y N..,r,.. ., ... ...�,. ,....,.....�..,.J .. _ ...., .... . What will hammen to aaneee hFaelrsa4 J rr....._ F-...... -y_... Most importantly, it will remain intact! (See below - Costs based on one home with 200 frontage feet) S Hook i in fn wnfar/caviar ling mafar narFc n in %raafar/ca%mar nines from hnma ca%naar rnnnarfinn fn .. ........ _r -.. C_...., ..,,............... r.r....................._.._. ........_.,.1011 ... road; repair underground sprinkler system; landscape repair:--------------------------------$ 11,635.00 9AAA Cirizkun]ke rrl 19 nn/linear ftY. 9nn it• ------------------------------------------------------------9 A -nn nn -. 1111 .........�.... U .r....., ... 1111.. ,1111 1011.. ... , 1111..... 3. Add interest for life of €oan from the city to finance forced annexation: figure 5% on an average incl of 5"1d Mn fnr 9n vaal•c'------------------------------------------------------------------------------8,1 74.51 4. Add curb & gutters (if required later) $16.50/linear ft.: ---------------------------------------------- 3,300.00 5 AAA ami frr3a rommini nr Ancfri irfinn'-----------------------------------------------------------------tnnrarfninl _.. .......... , .1 e- ......... -.. _. ......... ............ I.................1 6. Repair underground sprinkler system after sidewalks are installed: --------------------------{uncertain} MTAI DZn 1Gr°Tr-M C.LV Al6_'G IAIM-InF [T FilJljPyA rIr%le€'---------------------------------- 4", Ir gno k4 7 4-_I If ,!a: AAl .rF kn i«i.t ssrs:a :.. ace. ..e......, e.»..rovem 'ae' x ------------------ I 1§' - v .c a eacw uc.ee.eev ev ::vc::c: vvv^ •eee ., ,eaera P "' "'�"Iill 1 nrnma.Fnes �cr.u, w _ . � p uo per c ece :eeecu a�+Neurove VP:LPI V CAtF€ IM- rikJ l:<nkITWI V CECQ: I fn4mr Ca:ga r rtarhry nol----------------------__C 5 IzAn Cin .�....r. ....s. ,..0-- `.k... , .,.....,.........."I -I V .,.,.�....... YEARLY SAVINGS CN' GiT1` TA :ES (Est€mate)-------------------------------------------------- $ 300.00 The consensus of 72 families (on the West side of Rexburg) involved in this forced annexation is the obvious iiveithood of overwhelming deist With a non -recoupable, diminishing return can our total investmend! (in response to "What sloes annexation do for you?" sent to county residents by City Hall; Nov & Dec 02) {Alae and h4arlann Ralmap December 11, 2002 Dear Blair D. Kay, Rexburg City Clerk, Please find attached a copy of an original petition delivered to the Rexburg City Office on November 20, 2002. The original petition is on file with the City Planning and Zoning Committee. The signatures of the following citizens on the petition states we do not want to be annexed into the city. ,,�\ C-Vra;_\ 21 November 2002 As residents of Madison County living in Parcels 1 through 7 as designated by the City of Rexburg, we the undersigned do object to the proposal to annex the said land parcel to city property as indicated in the proposed Annexation Plan of October 21, 2002. M N O b�0 O O O Cel (-75 ` -�9 S 8 &'J X6)6 ( -2S &- &))/ JO f5` — o VJifiw rniz- H. ?)j'- o -552q e, qg`I Wl�o4S� vv // . %7J70 9a Ll�\�-�Ic- YOL- a 1'0f f iil l min G '2' ;1` t- de- - C 9 I Jl 2r ' I zz Wl0 vS• 3�c�.--195 N O 21 November 2002 As residents of Madison County living in Parcels 1 through 7 as designated by the City of Rexburg, we the undersigned do object to the proposal to annex the said land parcel to city property as indicated in the proposed Annexation Plan of October 21, 2002. �R�•ECr2i<,,,, r.k LuS �-�I` S �✓O d tJ 5 L -J,�z -- S` So V3 taco J- hL �� l�os r - c.� � La+ -cmc._ (% � � GU 1 � d � /ti • ..(G.. .Qc2 7 �.- - 6 G b' S r �90s o L 6 S ZCOCi tt P 27 (`� r - ��L��.2�cv�zoCC,L �-5 /�1f�,��a�71 ��.I;c-ie• ij �l 21 November 2002 As residents of Madison County living in Parcels 1 through 7 as designated by the City of Rexburg, we the undersigned do object to the proposal to annex the said land parcel to city property as indicated in the proposed Annexation Plan of October 21, 2002. MW 7 ?� v 15 —6-Y,- �( S. //fi�r timt2l9c� <" S uv=• 36`k-710�i a of Cir_4�oa °111 o ", v' ` V -8SZx 7 Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council: December 13, 2002 Be it known to the Rexburg City Council that we the undersigned residents of Widdison Addition (both east and west of US Highway 20) have not requested nor desired that our properties be annexed into the City of Rexburg. We do, however, hope for mutual benefit should our neighborhood eventually be annexed. In general we appreciate the intent of the city to create an RR2 zone for new development in our area. In light of the fact that the Widdison Addition has been developed over 30 years, some of the RR2 restrictions seem inappropriate or unnecessary for an established neighborhood. In order to maintain the "rural isolated nature" (from the proposed RR2 zone recommendation) which exists in our neighborhood, we request the following conditions be included (Grandfathered)in any annexation: 1. Preserving the well maintained and established landscaping. 2. Keeping the road, Widdison Street in the Lorin Widdison Addition Plat (Instrument No. 152265, filed in 1974 with City Council and Madison County approval), as a 60 ft. wide dedicated street right-of-way as currently established. There does not appear need for a 70 ft. right-of-way because: • US Highway 20 divides Widdison Street., creating dead ends on both sides of the "freeway" so there is no through traffic. • The current road sections have very low traffic volume with no unusual traffic safety hazards. Requiring the 70 ft. road cross-section associated with the RR2 Zone would require destruction of landscaping, circular drives, etc. The current pavement width is approximately 22 ft. 3. Because it would significantly detract from the rural residential nature we have established and because of the afore mentioned (#3) reasons, we desire no curb, gutter or sidewalk requirements and request no LID be established for at least 15 years that would require such amenities. 4. Domestic animals properly domiciled and not causing a nuisance be allowed. 5. Since it seems evident that running water and/or sewer through our neighborhood is being driven by commercial and business development west of US Highway 20, we ask: • If either water or sewer is provided on the street, both be placed simultaneously to avoid the added expense and inconvenience of tearing up and resurfacing the road more than once. • That the business ventures requesting these utilities pay the a major proportion of the per/foot charge on our larger than normal city frontage and that hook-up fees be waived for those who desire to connect to sewer and/or water immediately. • For those who do not want or need to connect immediately, both water and sewer connection be on an as - needed basis, not an 18 month requirement. 6. We be given adequate time to research and request appropriate actions for other matters that are of concern such as : • No Jake Breaks on roadways within city jurisdiction, including the off -ramps on U.S. Highway 20. • Adequately signing our street as "Dead End" or "No Through Traffic". • Reducing speed limits on both 2000 West and Main Street in the vicinity of 2000 West intersection • Traffic light at the intersection of 2000 West and Main Street Please help us retain the integrity of the established rural residential atmosphere of Widdison Addition. We would like to know that the City of Rexburg is interested in maintaining a good relationship with established community residents as well as bringing in new development. �� § §;! g § �~ I ( � b m � � § 4 \| 0 k ! / | \ { /|! !! k Fre9waY Highway s \(010 � b m , |,, � � ( Mao k ! Fre9waY Highway s 0 \ ;lE ° � b m , |,, � � ( : k ! \ ' § \)\\) k \ § §q / 0 \ ;lE ° , |,, : ; § \| -,-,.- ' § \)\\) !;\\)\ .!§)§k§)\j§)§ §!,!(; ~ § -}\ ��. \ \\§,® �� � )\\[ ® « y , \\§\\} \ \ § \/`\� / . ,` . . December 16, 2002 Dear Mayor and City Council: My reason for writing this letter has to do with concerns I have concerning development and annexation. I live in the Widdison Addition and have done so for approximately 16 years. I have watched the movement west on the east side of Highway 20. I watched spot zoning and the destruction of value of some areas. I mentioned last summer to the Planning and Zoning Committee that I didn't have a lot of confidence in their movement to the west if past performance was an indicator of their ability. I wasn't being vindictive but stating a concept that planning and zoning is a proactive responsibility that doesn't function weekly by meeting and reacting to the constant list of developers. Currently I find myself in a situation similar to what has occurred before and continues to happen. The background: Last Spring at a BYU-Idaho and Chamber of Commerce luncheon I sat at the same table as the finance person for co-op. I asked him about plans for development. He led me to believe that they were going to build something similar to Mother Hibbard's. Each time I saw him or others I talked to, the plan changed. and the size enlarged. He continued to assure me that it wasn't a truck stop. I now look out my back window with a truck island located directly north. I didn't attend the hearing with the co-op people because the mail for that went to a post office box that I only check occasionally. The notice wasn't sent to my home. When I confronted the same gentleman (at their office) about the meeting, he said he had been out of town and didn't even know they had had a meeting. I was treated very closed and evasive. I decided, well, it is going forward and certainly the city will require a buffer and will use proper means to protect residential. Recently Mr. Hibbert (Planning & Zoning) told me that nothing had been required. My thought returned to zoning which protects and enhances. I envisioned a commercial area developed with grass areas, trees, etc. to enhance an area. But I had resigned myself to accepting commercial development. The second part occurs as I see an intense, fast effort to annex our area into the city. Why? So that the commercial development can have sewer and water. And so that the residential can subsidize the development of co-op and other residential areas to the south. Any commercial development should bear the cost of providing services when locating in an undeveloped area. They may receive compensation and a rebate in the future but they are the ones bringing an impact and are the ones standing to gain revenue. We now have a panic because the commercial wants the services. So now we need to annex in a hurry so that the Widdison Street can pay for the line to go to the development. Now I have a lowering of my property value from the commercial development on the north and I have a number of fixed costs that I have to pay and at the same time destroy the area in front of our home. Some of those costs are: Sewer Hookups Sewer line - front of property • Water hookups • Water line - front of property • Hookups from property lines into the home (sewer and water) • Repair of asphalt circular driveway • Redo sprinkler system • Replacement of sod These are out-of-pocket - up -front costs which could range from $3-7000. Some of the other costs: • Increased property tax • Monthly sewer and water charges. • Destruction of existing curbs. • Destruction and modification of fully developed front yard. • Inconvenience of construction • Loss for investment in drain field (due] system) and new pump (well) - $3,000 Possible benefits: • Hook up to city water and sewer In summary, I find this to be a situation where I see a no-win situation. I see the property value decreasing because of commercial development. I see a new investment of money for which I will not see a return. I see destruction of a nice, fully developed neighborhood unless you handle the situation with some wisdom and planning. You are not dealing with a new development. You are working with established, well -kept homes and yards. It has been an ideal area to live in. We take great pride in our homes and neighborhood. We receive many positive externalities because of the inherent characteristics we have. In conclusion, we see a few things that need to happen: • Buffer zone with commercial (including a row of large type trees) to protect deterioration of the value of existing residential. • Plans and requirements in the development of commercial that creates an asset for the city. (Lawns, landscaping - similar to Erickson Pontiac) that enhances all areas. • Impact fees on development projects (commercial and residential) compensation given as others add onto the lines. They are the ones standing to have immediate benefit and should pay immediate impact for construction. Time and wisdom - examine the plan and look at the costibenefit analysis in what should be done in all areas of annexation and in particular in the Widdison Addition. This would include a minimum impact on previously developed and existing areas. This should also include adjustment on hookup fees. These are not areas with new construction - new loans to pay the costs. If we plan - with development, zoning can be a tool to bless an area. I have mentioned philosophy and direction in zoning in order to obtain an end result. Please use good judgment, fairness and openness as you look at the cost/benefit analysis of this project. Please be sensitive to existing residences and long-time community and area residents. The only panic that exists is in the minds of developers. I realize that your service requires much time and effort. Thank you for your work. Sincerely, Fenton and Carol Broadhead MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL December 18, 2002 7:30 A.M. STATE OF IDAHO, ) County of Madison ) SS. City of Rexburg ) Present were the following: Mayor: Mayor Bruce Sutherland Council Members: Glen Pond Shawn Larsen Marsha Bjomn Paul Pugmire Donna Benfield Nyle Fullmer P&Z Administrator: Kurt Hibbert City Clerk: Blair D. Kay PFC: John Millar City Attorney: Stephen Zollinger Pledge to the Flag 1.. Consent Calendar: The consent calendar includes items which require formal City Council action, however they are typically routine or not of great controversy. Individual Councilmemhersmay ask that any specific item he removed from the consent calendar for discussion in greater detail. Explanatory information is includedin the City CounciPs agenda packet regarding these items. a. Minutes from the November 26, 2002 meeting b. Approve City of Rexburg bills C. Approve Amended Plat for Parkside Planned Residential Development Lots 1-7(Adding zero lot line duplexes Approved by Planning & Zoning) Donna Benfield moved to approve the Consent Calendar as presented to the Council; Paul Pugmire seconded the motion; all voted aye, none opposed. The motion carried Non Controversial Items Added to the Agenda — None added Stephen Zollinger — Asked the Council to take action on the property exchange to allow the proposal to go forward. This issue has been under review for the past two years. Paul Pugmire moved to authorized Legal Council enter into an agreement with the owner, Burton Donahoo Properties to bring into City of Rexburg ownership of green way access along the Teton River and quit claim back to the Burton Donahoo Properties those parcels necessary to clean up the boundary line; Nyle Fullmer seconded the motion; all voted aye, none opposed. The motion carried. Rexburg Emplovee Committee — Request a Holiday exchange - Toni Coronado/Todd Davison Todd Davison — Requested a Holiday swap with Veterans Day and Martin Luther King Day. Glen Pond — Requested if this affects the Emergency Services group contract? Stephen Zollinger — Mentioned that Emergency Services do not have Holidays. They do receive Holiday pay. Marsha Bjornn moved to exchange Veterans Day for Martin Luther King Day as proposed; Donna Benfield seconded the motion; Those Voting Ave Those Voting Nay Nyle Fullmer Paul Pugmire Glen Pond Marsha Bjornn Donna Benfield Shawn Larsen The motion carried. Public Hearings: Mayor Sutherland introduced the Public Hearing to the public. A two minute limit was requested for testimonies. The Mayor indicated that applause is not appropriate. 7:35 p.m. - Annexation and a zone change from Madison County zoning to Rexburg zoning for ten properties. Area One: Annexation of Properties between US Highway 20 and 2000 West in Section 25 with some properties located on the East side of US Highway 20. Area Two: Annexation of Property at 1647 West 1000 South Area Three: Annexation of Properties on both sides of South Millhollow Road from 350 — 700 South Millhollow Road Area Four: Annexation of Properties at 1050 North 2nd East Brent G. Harris —1903 West 190 South - Read a statement from both residents on the East and West side of Highway 20. There are only three families that did not sign the petition which indicated a negative response to the annexation proposal for the Widdison Subdivision. These three families are out of town. Brent read the statement from the neighborhood. The letter will be on file. The tone of the letter indicated a desire to post pone the annexation of their properties. The neighborhood requested a response from the City of Rexburg on the following issues: 1) Preserve the well maintained and established landscaping. 2) Keeping the Widdison Street at 60 ft. to avoid destroying landscaping. 3) Eliminate curb, gutter, sidewalk and City LID improvements for 15 years. 4) Allow domestic animals that do not cause a nuisance. 5) Install both water and sewer lines at the same time and have the developer pay for the frontage fees. Water and sewer connections need to be on an as needed basis. (Avoid the 18 month connection requirement for sewer) 6) Allow research on other matters listed below: a) Jake brake restrictions b) Signage of a dead-end street c) Reduce speed limit on 2000 West and Main street d) Traffic light at the intersection of 2000 West and Main Street. Brent concluded his remarks. Russ Van Allen — 932 South 1560 West — or the new address — 635 Casper Ave. Russ agreed with Brent Harris and his comments. Russ complained about the long time period to install facilities in his area. His footage along the street will cause excessive costs for front footage fees. He commented on some of the reasons for the City of Rexburg wanting to annex the land in his area. Russ requested information on a report that the City of Rexburg has referred. to in previous planning meetings concerning the Health Department requiring a central sewer system in his area. He is opposed to this annexation due to the lack of valid information. Kirby Forbush —3800 West 1000 North - Commented on his proposal to annex his Property. Kirby commented on the area West of Hwy 20. District Seven Health Department will not allow septic systems in that area of concern unless they are upgraded to an enhanced septic system. These new systems are extremely expensive. Kirby commented on the reasons why the area needs to be put under a central septic system. The County denied his request to put individual wells and enhanced septic systems on one acre lots in his development. This refusal by the County was primarily on the recommendation of District Seven Health Dept. Madison County asked him to approach the City of Rexburg to obtain City services for a proposed development on his 40 acre piece of land. He commented on the Willow brook Subdivision not being required to connect to the City of Rexburg services at this time. Kirby agreed with the comments given by Brent Harris. He agreed that a that a new development can install services easier than an existing subdivision. Kent Johnson — Rexburg Plumbing and Heating — They are in area four of this annexation proposal. Kent commented on a private property easement that has been given the name of American Way. He is opposed to that street name. Kent indicated that Rexburg Plumbing and Heating does not want to change their business practices due to the annexation proposal. U. S. Welding provided comments to Kent that their tanks are safe and they want to continue to operate their business at the current location if annexed. Eric Erickson — 1573 West 190 South - He agreed with the comments of Brent Harris. Eric indicated that the information has changed from the Planning and Zoning meeting to this meeting. He indicated that there is not enough information to make a decision. Eric would like the annexation process to go at a slower pace. He would prefer individual property annexations instead of larger parcels. Barrett McCoy — 882 Willow Brook Circle — Read a statement from the Willow Brook residents. They would prefer not to be annexed. They requested more information on the RR2 Zone. They would like to keep a rural setting. They requested a 15 year moratorium on connecting to City of Rexburg services. Their request was similar to the Widdison Addition resident's requests given by Brent Harris. They are concerned with the access for a new development in their area. They have concerns with City snow removal for their neighborhood. Mayor Sutherland — Commented on two letters given to the City Council from Fenton & Carol Broadhead at 1888 West 190 South and Kent Johnson. Mindi Lucas — 950 South 2000 West in the Willow Brook Subdivision — They are requesting more time and more details on the costs for annexation. She asked if this is part of an overall annexation plan. The group would like to see the long range plans for annexation. Mayor Sutherland — Applauded the residents for their attitudes and behavior. Mayor Sutherland discussed the long range plans for annexations into the City of Rexburg. Mayor commented to the public on the need for Rexburg to change and make the necessary changes to accommodate growth. Mayor thanked everyone for their courtesy and politeness. Public Testimony was closed. Marsha Bjomn — Reviewed the time frame for proceeding with two more readings of the annexation proposal. Mayor Sutherland — Reviewed the process of reading the Ordinance three times before any official action on the proposed Annexation Ordinance can be taken. The third reading would have the final changes included before a vote is taken on the proposal. Paul Pugmire — Commented on the review needed to be done on the proposed draft Ordinance before the third reading. Paul Pugmire moved that the draft Ordinance for annexation of ten properties into the City of Rexburg has its first reading; Glen Pond seconded the motion; Those Votine Ave Those Votine Nay Nyle Fullmer None Glen Pond Marsha Bjornn Donna Benfield Paul Pugmire Shawn Larsen The motion carried. Paul Pugmire — Agreed with the Mayors comments on the tone of the meeting. He thanked Brent G. Harris for his input in the meeting. Paul indicated that it is vitally important to consider what the Council and residents want their town to be like in 20 years. Paul indicated that would include what the boundaries for the City will be like in 20 years and what the infrastructure of the City will be in 20 years. Also, what the composition of the Community will be in 20 years. Paul reviewed the animosity that can be created which could last 20 years if the City of Rexburg does not act appropriately and think the process through carefully. Paul thanked everyone who gave thoughtful input into the meeting. 10 December 18, 2002 Honorable Mayor and Rexburg City Council 12 North Center Rexburg, ID 83440 RE: Annexation of Properties in Area 4 (1050 North 2' East) Dear Sirs and Madams: We the undersigned are the owners of tracts of land identified above which the City of Rexburg desires to annex. We have not petitioned to be annexed, we don't want to be annexed at this time, but we realize that we are commercial businesses which have operated outside of the city limits for a number of years and it is only a matter of time until we are annexed. However, there are a few issues we would like an understanding of before we are annexed. They are as follows: 1. We are currently using our individual wells and septic systems. We would like to continue to use our present utilities until such time as the septic systems or the wells fail. 2. We would like assurances that we can continue to operate our businesses as they are presently operated. We are concerned that our buildings my be located to close to the property lines of one another or are setbacks from the roads may not comply with existing city ordinances. We want to make sure are businesses are protected by the grand father provisions of the city ordinances. We are also concerned about being in compliance with the city's life safety ordinance. 3. All of our addresses are presently on Highway 33 or the Salem Highway. We understand that this has changed to North Highway 20. Some of us have been told that a new street or avenue is being created called American Avenue which is on our property. We have granted the storage units a right-of-way ingress and egress easement. We are opposed to this right of way being turned into a city street or avenue, and not even being given the opportunity to have any dialog with the city about it. Our businesses face Highway 33 and we want to keep the same address. And if the address changes, we at least want a say in what the name is. 4. We are concerned that we will be paying for the water and sewer lines which run through our property to that of another namely being the storage units. 5. We are opposed to paying increased taxes for which there is no benefit. If we cannot receive written assurances from the city for items 1-4 above, we unitedly oppose the annexation of our property at this time. Thank you for the opportunity to express our concerns Very truly yours, H—'L'"'_ Kent Jo son Rexburg Plumbing and Heating, LLC r� Chris Leishman Leishman Electric, Inc. Stacy Jens i, Pr6Aent Cowboy Feed and Supply, Inc. 2 mailbox:///Cl/Documents%20and%20Settings/blairk/Application%... Subject: annexation From: "Ferron Sonderegger" <sonderegger@emstar2'.net> Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 00:52:34 -0600 To: <blairk@ci.rexburg.id.us> Dec. 20, 2002 Dear City Council, I would like to express a few concerns before it is to late to do so. First I would like to invite any or all of you to come out to the Widdison Addition and look at all the landscaping that has taken years to do that would be torn out with a sidewalk. The sidewalks in many cases would be very close to a number of the homes. In my case, we have planted trees to try and block the ever increasing traffic from highway 20 and to have them ripped out makes no sense to me. A sidewalk in front of our house leads to where? It leads to the high fence to keep people off of the freeway. There is an empty county lot across from us also and so sidewalks for me mean nothing but disaster. PLEASE DO NOT PUT SIDEWALKS IN, THEY MAKE ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. Come out and look at this and you will see for yourselves. I was disturbed at the Wed. Dec. 18th meeting. It seemed that every comment after the public meeting was directed to Brent Harris (who was my bishop and also a good friend). There were no questions or comments for Russ VanAllen and Barry McCoy. In fact, during Barry's reading, there was a lot of whispering going on and not much attention being paid to him. It is also disturbing to see a city council making decisions that will have an extreme effect on us financially and not one of you seemed to know what the cost would be to our subdivision. I would think that when government decides to place such a burden on people, they first ought to calculate what that burden will be. But again, I can't see that any effort has been made by the Planning and Zoning Commission or the City Council to 'FIRST' take a look at the consequences of your vote. If I am wrong on that I apologize, and please correct me if you indeed had already taken that into consideration. The last thing is that I am concerned about has to do with the cost of being annexed. There are a number of elderly people who simply will not be able to afford the high cost. Most of our homes have the existing sewer outlet at the back of our homes. We also have much bigger yards and wider frontages and so our cost will be much greater than that of someone already in the city on a small lot. We chose our lots because of the rural setting, we did not choose to be annexed. Many of us will have to take out 2nd mortgage on our homes to pay all the costs and for what??? I have two septic systems and my well has worked well for 30 years. There may come a time when those things will fail, but the city also has parts of it's system that fail and have to be repaired at regular intervals My family has had very high medical bills to pay for a number of years. Of course this is true for many families in the whole county and city, but for us right now, it represents the reality of our financial situation. These bills were so high that even with our insurance we got hit hard. We have tried hard to get these bills paid for years without assistence from anyone or any gov't agency. When BYU-I lost it's athletic program, my salary went down, not up as some suppose. With another thing like this to worry about, it just seems like we can't win. I just -don't know how we are going to do all this and it is very discouraging to me. We don't have to always do what other cities do; we don't have to annex all properties within the impact zone. What advantages are we receiving? To summarize, this has been an awful thing to have to deal with right before Christmas. Things have moved so fast that it appears that their is a lot of confusion with the citizens as well as the city. We have been given so many differing opinions from the Planning and Zoning Committee that frankly we don't believe what anybody says to us. It is a hopeless feeling. You are all good people and I believe we all recognize that. Please put yourselves in our position and take a serious look at our neighborhood both with your eyes and your mind. If we do get annexed, we will do the best we can I can promise that, but please consider seriously the physical and 1 of 2 12/20/2002 11:09 AM Dear Mayor Sutherland and Council Members, Our concern is the annexation. Why do we have the be annexed into the city? Can we just be left as is and let the new development be annexed. We feel the only reason we are being annexed is because of the apartment complex that just came into our neighborhood. First we were told that only our taxes would go up. Then we find out that we will be required to hook into the city systems, that we don't have a choice in the matter. That we will have to come up with thousands of dollars, $14,000 here and another $1800 to $6000 for sidewalks depending on how big our property is. Have you had the chance to come walk my property. Talk to me about my feelings even though we are told this isn't suppose to be based on feeling. Woud you? As a sole property owner, not in a developed subdivision, we have concerns that we feel you may not even be aware of. Take a look at our lot which is 3 acres of land with a pasture and not just a small city lot. We know this isn't suppose to be a money issue, that letters aren't suppose to be based on feelings. We don't have a solution, only concerns but they are real concerns, valid concerns and if the shoe was on the other foot how do you think you would "feel". This talk about having to put in sidewalks on a rural lot concerns us. Who is going to benefit from this?, except for those who are making us put them in. We are lucky that we haven't put in any landscaping yet, except sprinkler system, and that we wouldn't have to pull out large trees or redo our landscraping. We don't have the kind of money you are talking about, thousands of dollars, to put in a sidewalk. We five in a rural area, on a dead end street. We don't feel there is a need for sidewalks. We also heard that sidewalks only apply to new construction. We are already built and established. When we bought our property it was because of it being in the county, and the covenants allowed us to have an animal or two, such as a cow, horse, pigs, etc. It allows us to have a pasture area along with a nice landscaped area around our home. We would hope that all those covenants and issues can be grandfathered in so that we can still enjoy what we bought the property for in the first place. We were already here before the announcement of BYU-I or any talk of annexation. We felt sure that the west side of Hwy. 20 wouldn't be annexed for many years to come. The city should respect the lifestyle of existing neighborhoods and enter into grandfather agreements to not require annexation. Other cities have done so, Rexburg should also. We have only lived in our home a year. We followed all the rules required for putting in water, sewer and septic systems. We haven't even had a chance to use our systems and now you say we will have to remove these and hook into the city system coming to our area. We are still paying for this system we put in and will be for years to come and now you want us to pay again, double our cost, to hook into the city. We have heard and been told not to make this a personal issue, not to cry financial hardship. That it isn't a financial issue. We say it is. If the shoe was on the other foot would you have this kind of money to do what you are asking us to do. To expect us to pay the city hook-up fees and usage of city sewer and water systems is a huge financial hardship on us. We don't have $14,000 nor can we afford the extra monthly costs, approx. $150 to $200. We live on a fixed budget as do our neighbors. We can't imagine that our city leaders wouldn't care about us or our neighborhood. What if we cannot come up with the money to conform to these regulations? What is we can't get an LID or pay for one even if we can. We would be forced out of our home and then what? It took us five years after buying the property to bring in sewer, water, septic and move our home. It's ok for growth, new development etc. but why do we as existing homeowners have to foot the bin for the new developement coming into our area. When we bought our homes we weren't told that we were going to have a huge apartment complex development going in or a new Co-op development. We were not told that we would have to foot the bill for this. Why can't the city just leave us out of the annexation and develop the new areas with an annexation that would bring them into the city, leaving us alone. Let them foot the bill for their sewers, water, etc. We feel that developers are benefitting out our expense and should be required to pay an impact fee for each lot developed and sold or each business built for which city mayor From: Eric Erickson [edce@edcksonet.com] Sent: Friday, December 20, 2002 2:42 PM To: 'Bruce Sutherland'; 'Donna Benfield'; 'Glen Pond'; 'Kurt Hibbert; 'Marsha Bjorn'; 'Nyle Fullmer'; 'Paul Pugmire'; 'Richard Horner; 'Shawn Larsen'; 'Stephen Zollinger' Subject: Annexation concerns Mayor Bruce Sutherland Councilman Nyle Fullmer Councilman Shawn Larsen Councilman Glen Pond Councilman Paul Pugmire Councilman Donna Benfield Councilman Marsha Bjorn City Attorney Stephen Zollinger City Clerk Blair Kay First of all, let me say that I am not one to put my name to a letter and have it published in the paper, unless I feel very strongly about an issue. That said, I am writing the letter. Some months ago, Valley Wide Co -Op submitted a site plan to the Rexburg City Council for approval of their plans to build a new facility west of Rexburg. At that time they also requested annexation to the city. They desired and needed access to city sewer and water facilities. The annexation took place along with the site plan approval. That approval set in motion a series of events and decisions that have culminated in an oxymoron of huge proportions. It is amazing how quickly shortsighted individuals can suddenly profess a great deal of foresight and planning ability when confronted with the enormous expense of providing services to one single, isolated entity. I have been involved in the meetings of Planning and Zoning, and now the City Council, regarding the proposed annexation of large areas of property west of Rexburg. From the outset, it has been reiterated many times that this proposed annexation was needed for controlled growth of the city to the west. "This has been in the works for years." "The city planners envisioned the proposed city boundaries as far back as 1976.", "It was just a matter of time.", were some of the remarks made by city planners in the various meetings. These remarks, though true, glossed over the reality that perhaps someone (or some many) might have made a serious mistake in approving a project without a thorough analysis of the implications to the city infrastructure. If a suggestion was made that this latest annexation was made necessary because of the Valley Wide development, that thought was quickly passed over in favor of the much more cerebral idea that the city planners had suddenly "seen the light" and that an annexation of hundreds of acres and dozens of homes was now an immediate necessity for the City of Rexburg. I have a great deal of respect for those dedicated individuals who serve on the various committees and councils charged with planning for the growth of our city. But, somebody screwed up, and now my neighbors and I get to pay for it. It has just now come to our attention just how much we get to pay. I have no problem paying the increased taxes involved_ with becoming a citizen of Rexburg. If I am to use city facilities, I should pay just like everyone else. In fact, I will feel it a privilege to be able to vote in city elections and help elect responsible city officials. I will gladly pay increased water and sewer fees. What I am concerned about is the $12000 - $15000 it will cost me to decommission my perfectly good and functioning septic and water systems and pay the city all the costs and fees necessary to be able to hook up to their systems. So, if annex we must, let's get on with it. Let's do it right; respecting the desires and wishes of the overwhelming majority of home and property owners who will be annexed against their wills. But, please, no 1 pats -on -the -back and atta-boys to the planners who seem to want to turn a colossal mistake into the planning accomplishment of the century. I have not, as yet, sent this to the papers. If the city continues to throw up smoke screens, such as the one published in the Post Register on December 20th, implying our septic systems are the reason for your annexation proposals, I can guarantee it will be. This attempt to divert attention from the actual reason for annexation is simply another example of trying to turn this into a real coup for the city planners. I am not trying to pick a fight. I do feel that due to the miscalculations made and the need for the city to annex our neighborhoods to cover up their mistakes, that it is only right that the city help mitigate the impact on those homeowners opposed to the proposal by participating financially towards the costs we will be required to bear. Specifically, I feel it is fair that the city (and/or the developers pushing for the annexation) waive both the front -foot charges of $10 per running foot for both water and sewer and the connection charges for both sewer and water. That cost is less than half of the costs associated with sewer and water connections that we will be required to pay. I would also like council members to address the sidewalk issue in the existing neighborhoods. I can't see how sidewalks will work as they have been proposed in the new RR2 zone. I am not opposed to having sidewalks, but I would appreciate your specifically addressing how they will be applied to our individual neighborhoods. Certain existing features (driveways, lamp posts, landscaping features) will be directly impacted and we need to know specifically where sidewalks will need to be placed if required. For example, the existing road in the Widdison Addition averages 22' wide. If the city were to use the entire 60' right of way for pavement, collector, and sidewalk, the sidewalks would be placed approximately 19' into our existing yards. That seems to be an unnecessary waste of unusable property. Due to the nature of the Widdison Addition (i.e. two dead-end, low traffic roads) I feel that sidewalks are entirely unnecessary. If they will be required, I would like to see the city use the existing road width with a seven foot collector and place the sidewalks approximately 18' from the center line of the existing road. I would appreciate a quick response to this letter. If I am totally off base in my contentions, I would appreciate your backing up your response with facts, not smoke and mirrors. We are trying to be fair and responsive to the city's needs. We would hope that you will do everything in your power to respond in a like manner. Thank you for your consideration, Eric Erickson 1573 W 190 S Rexburg, Idaho 83440 erice@ericksonet.com <mailto:erice@ericksonet.com> 2 Dear Mayor Sutherland and Council Members, Our concern is the annexation. Why do we have the be annexed into the city? Can we just be left as is and let the new development be annexed. We feel the only reason we are being annexed is because of the apartment complex that just came into our neighborhood. First we were told that only our taxes would go up. Then we find out that we will be required to hook into the city systems, that we don't have a choice in the matter. That we will have to come up with thousands of dollars, $14,000 here and another $1800 to $6000 for sidewalks depending on how big our property is. Have you had the chance to come walk my property. Talk to me about my feelings even though we are told this isn't suppose to be based on feeling. Woud you? As a sole property owner, not in a developed subdivision, we have concerns that we feel you may not even be aware of. Take a look at our lot which is 3 acres of land with a pasture and not just a small city lot. We know this isn't suppose to be a money issue, that letters aren't suppose to be based on feelings. We don't have a solution, only concerns but they are real concerns, valid concerns and if the shoe was on the other foot how do you think you would "feel". This talk about having to put in sidewalks on a rural lot concerns us. Who is going to benefit from this?, except for those who are making us put them in. We are lucky that we haven't put in any landscaping yet, except sprinkler system, and that we wouldn't have to pull out large trees or redo our landscraping. We don't have the kind of money you are talking about, thousands of dollars, to put in a sidewalk. We live in a rural area, on a dead end street. We don't feel there is a need for sidewalks. We also heard that sidewalks only apply to new construction. We are already built and established. When we bought our property it was because of it being in the county, and the covenants allowed us to have an animal or two, such as a cow, horse, pigs, etc. It allows us to have a pasture area along with a nice landscaped area around our home. We would hope that all those covenants and issues can be grandfathered in so that we can still enjoy what we bought the property for in the fust place. We were already here before the announcement of BYU-I or any talk of annexation. We felt sure that the west side of Hwy. 20 wouldn't be annexed for many years to come. The city should respect the lifestyle of existing neighborhoods and enter into grandfather agreements to not require annexation. Other cities have done so, Rexburg should also. We have only lived in our home a year. We followed all the rules required for putting in water, sewer and septic systems. We haven't even had a chance to use our systems and now you say we will have to remove these and hook into the city system coming to our area. We are still paying for this system we put in and will be for years to come and now you want us to pay again, double our cost, to hook into the city. We have heard and been told not to make this a personal issue, not to cry financial hardship. That it isn't a financial issue. We say it is. If the shoe was on the other foot would you have this kind of money to do what you are asking us to do. To expect us to pay the city hook-up fees and usage of city sewer and water systems is a huge financial hardship on us. We don't have $14,000 nor can we afford the extra monthly costs, approx. $150 to $200. We live on a fixed budget as do our neighbors. We can't imagine that our city leaders wouldn't care about us or our neighborhood. What if we cannot come up with the money to conform to these regulations? What is we can't get an LID or pay for one even if we can. We would be forced out of our home and then what? It took us five years after buying the property to bring in sewer, water, septic and move our home. I s ok for growth new development etc. but why do we as existing homeowners have to foot the Dili for the new developement coming into our area. When we bought our homes we weren't told that we were going to have a huge apartment complex development going in or a new Co-op development. We were not told that we would have to foot the bill for this. Why can't the city just leave us out of the annexation and develop the new areas with an annexation that would bring them into the city, leaving us alone. Let them foot the bill for their sewers, water, etc. We feel that developers are benefitting out our expense and should be required to pay an impact fee for each lot developed and sold or each business built for which city services are given. City has spot -annexed, made promises to developers without considering existing neighborhoods. We support Rexburg and our community. We care about it and want it to be successful. We are not against growth, however, we believe that the city along with the county should work together to defray as much of the cost to us if we are required to hook into the city systems or leave us be as already established areas. These new developers can pass these costs on to the apartment owners in rent, or in cost of new homes. Who can we pass our costs on to? One thing we may suggest is that we have an option to hook into the sewer system later, pay our taxes now and have that extra money set aside for the day when we may need to hook up then pay that money back to us in order for us the afford the cost of hooking into the system. Please take our thoughts into consideration. We know they are ONLY feelings and financial concerns. We feel they are valid and legitimate concerns however. We believe it is only fair that you should be fully informed and hope that as city council members that you will take these into consideration for a positive result. Sincerely, Gabriel and RuthLee Hemandez 1068 W. 7th S. 356-5140 January 6, 2003 Mr. Mayor and members of the City Council, On December 18 at the Rexburg City Council meeting, I stated that I was opposed to the possiblity of our neighborhood being annexed to the City of Rexburg. In this letter we will not belabor the past; except to say that there are people in our neighborhoods, who are frustrated. We hope the relationship between our neighborhoods and the. City Council will improve and there will be cooperation. We realize that things need to be done according to the law. But, we do not think the intent of the state law on annexation was to place an unreasonable burden on its citizens. If the city does annex our neighborhoods, here are some concerns and suggestions . 1) Concern: We have been informed that the city will charge us $ 10 per foot on frontage on the water and the sewer lines which run down our street. Since we have about 172 feet in our frontage, the cost would be $ 1,720 for the water line and another $ 1,720 for the sewer line. Suggestion: The City of Rexburg and Madison Country establish a plan to ease the the financial burden caused by annexation. Both the city and the county could set aside funds for current and future annexations. This money could come from developers, businesses, and others who profit from annexation and/or desired city services such as water and sewer. These funds could be used to pay for such things as the water and the sewer lines running down streets and connections to such services. 2) Concern: The homes on the westside of the county have their own wells and septic systems, which have cost thousands of dollars per home. We have been informed that the city will give us 18 months to hook up to the city sewer system. Our current septic system is only five years old and we estimated that it well cost us $ 4,520 to hook up to the city sewer system. Also, we have been informed that hooking up to the city water system is optional. If we did hook up to the city water system, we estimated that the cost would be $ 3,407. Further more, the information we are able to find concerning the problems of ground water and nitrates in our area does not seem to warrant immediate concern. A couple wells in our neighborhoods have recently been tasted and the results were good. One of these wells is tested periodically for more than just nitrates and has not failed the test for three years. Suggestion: There could be a gradual switch over to the city water and sewer system. This would allow individuals in the neighborhoods to hook up to the services on an "as needed basis, " if such services are warranted. 3) Concern: According to the 21 October 2002 public notice from the City of Rexburg and accompanied information "What does annexation do for you?," our taxes would increase 22.9 %. At the 21 November 2002 planning and zoning meeting, we were told that our taxes might increase 30 %. Since then there is a rumor that the taxes may increase 40 %. One reasons for this increase may be that our lots appear bigger than most current city lots, since the impact zone currently requires each new house be on one acre lots. Suggestion: The city taxes could be deferred for a few years to give the annexed citizens an opportunity to budget for the increase in their taxes. The monthly cost for city water , sewer and garbage services of $45 - $50 is another expense. If we were tosetaside $45 per month for ten years, we would have $5,400. This amount would go a long ways to repair a pump, drill a new well or replace a septic system. This was our plan to cover future cost when we moved to the Rexburg area. We would like to invite each one,of you to visit with us and discuss our concerns We, too, are concerned about Rexburg and our neighborhood twenty years from now. We hope an agreement, which is fair and reasonable, can be reached. Thank you, Russ and Shana Van Allen 932 South 1560 West Rexburg, Idaho 83440 Phone: 655-9021 Date: January 7, 2003 To: Rexburg City Mayor, City Council, City Clerk From: Ron & Joan Martin Subject: Annexation of Widdison Addition by Rexburg City Since the residents of the Widdison Addition were first notified by the city approximately 60 days ago of the city's plans to annex this street into the city, friends and neighbors have rallied together to understand just what the Planning Committee and City Council have in mind for us. We are concerned that an issue of this magnitude is being proposed and resolved in two months instead of on a two-year time table. Discussions have taken place all around us concerning annexation for other locations, but we are unaware of any specific interaction with residents on our street until the past few days as the annexation was proposed to be imposed upon us without due process. Public officials and planners are elected by the people to act as representatives in behalf of individuals and to provide leadership for the good of the community. This is an awesome responsibility—one that requires time for deliberation, understanding the facts, and the impact of the decision making. As we have tried to gather information and understand the annexation requirement during the few days that we have been made aware of the matter, the following issues are important: 1. The decision to expand Ricks College to a four-year university and name the school BYU-Idaho has created a boom -town atmosphere. The private sector has bought up property and started building housing units to accommodate housing requirements. 2. Owners of rural farm land west of the Rexburg city limits have sold land to developers who have proceeded to build apartment complexes and subdivisions. 3. The City of Rexburg has expanded the sewer and water system into the county to accommodate the desires of developers. 4. Long-time residents who have established homes, landscaped yards and planted trees have been caught up in the growth process promoted by developers without proper consideration being given to their needs. - __ City andcounty planners are usin • - g the approach that -if samething �s good -for one if -- is good for all. 6. Annexation of the Widdison Addition is driven by developers and business owners who have had the ear of public officials from the beginning of the movement. 7. Developers, business entities, and city officials have begun projects in the county requiring city services without proper involvement of local residents. S. Cenex and city officials have agreed to move Cenex, which requires city services, into the county. The city purchased the Cenex property within the city prior to firming up the route to deliver the sewer and water to Cenex or before understanding the impact of the transaction upon local residents. 9. It appears that planners have worked with developers to expand the residental area without the City Council members understanding the specifics of what they are approving. Where is the Madison County Commission in all of this? Are they anxious to turn this all over to the City Council? 10. The water for Cenex is planned to be routed down Widdison Street, and the cost passed on to the residents because of lack of planning for use of Highway 33. 11. In order to gain support for water and sewer being supplied by the city to the residents, the city planners have lobbied the District 7 Health Department to designate the drain fields and well water supplies west of the City of Rexburg health concerns. 12. The cost of annexation to the residents of Widdison Street is unrealistic and should be stood by city budgets, developers, and businesses who are pushing this proposal. 13. Our home sits on a one -acre lot with approximately 139 ft. frontage. We also own a one -acre lot adjacent to this lot on the east with 139 ft. frontage. As a family we decided that either we or our son would build a home on this property. Now we understand that the city has influenced the Health Department to put a hold on installing drain fields, and we do not have sewer service from the city. This devaluates the property and stops our plans. We have respect for members of the City Council and feel the weight of your responsibilities for the short and long-term decisions. Please put yourself in our position. Consider how you would feel if this were to happen to you, your family, and your neighborhood. We have heard it said that most people like to be treated about like you do. What is the solution to this matter? First: Think carefully about your neighbors west of Rexburg who requested no annexation_. - —T -his -means -that -these good citizens are happy. Don't annex. - Second: Figure out a way to accomplish the annexation, provide the sewer and water services, and meet the requests already presented to you by the residents of Widdison Street. Third: Pass the costs to the developers and businesses driving the annexation. They should already be expecting those costs and should ultimately be planning for them in their business ventures. If you do these things you will inherit a street of good citizens prepared to make Rexburg a better place to live, and the door will be open to the developers to continue with their ventures around us. Rotary International recommends a four-way test of things we think, say or do. Is it the truth? Is it fair to all concerned? Will it build good will and better friendships? Will it be beneficial to all concerned? We will be unable to attend the next two meetings, but we have confidence that our trust is in good hands. To: City of Rexburg City Council From: Mary Ann Beck 1442 West 1000 South Rexburg, Idaho 83440 Dear Mayor & Council Members, I have been in a few of the meetings on annexation. Because the annexation process is going to cause additional taxes for my property, I have decided to sell some of my ground. The reason I am writing this letter, is to ask your permission to have my garbage collected monthly. I do not need weekly or biweekly garbage collection. Evan though the annexation will cause me an additional burden, I would go with the flow and do what is needed to survive. My plans are to build a new home. The older home will be used for storage and will not need a sewer connection. I do not plan to have the old home connected. Please understand that I do not want to be annexed, however I would appreciate getting the least cost to comply with the annexation requirements. Respectfully, Mary Ann Beck �I To members of the city council Concerning annexation of the Rexburg Acres subdivision, I am single, totally supporting myself. I don't know how I can ever pay the large amount of hookup fees to connect to city sewer and water. It isn't a necessity for me right now, but I'm glad to know it's an option if something goes wrong with my septic tank or our community well. Right now, I'm barely able to keep my head above water just making a living. Because of the economy, I haven't had a raise for 2 years. Living expenses have gone up drastically since Sept. 11, 2001 and my wage hasn't. My only expenses are a house payment (which is less than rent is now), a very small car payment, groceries and utilities. If we are annexed and forced to go. on city sewer and water, I will have a hard time just paying the increase in water, sewer, garbage, and the extra amount in property tax from what I'm paying now. My understanding is that other cities usually pay the hookup fees from the added amount of taxes received from annexation. I also understand that an L.I.D. is a lien on the homeowners' houses. I wouldn't want to lose my home because I couldn't pay the high hookup fees. I think my neighbors are facing the same basic problems with the economy. Please consider our finances when deciding on these issues. Thank You, , Colleen Rogers Dear Mayor Sutherland and City Counsel Members, January 7, 2003 Before you make the final decision on whether to annex the north side of W 71h S, aka W 1000 S, please take into consideration the feelings of all residents there. I do not want to be annexed for the plane and simple fact that I can't afford to live in the city. The cost to hook up to your sewer and water if it runs down the middle of the road will cost me approximately $11,000 and at least triple that if it runs thru Mr. Forbush's property as I have two acres of pasture behind me that I would have to come thru. Also the cost of monthly city services are an extra possible $200.00 plus a month that I, as`a single mom already pushed to limit financially and can't afford any more bills. I honestly feel that if it's the developers that have pushed for this annexation, they should pay for all expenses as they are the ones to profit from all this. Even though we've heard that financial hardship is not an issue it seems to be that this is the #1 issue. The second issue I think is sidewalks. Why do we need them out here? Have you been to our neighborhood to see what will happen if we are forced to put in sidewalks? I get to fill in half my front yard to make it level enough for sidewalks and create a great "jump" into my driveway. At almost $3,000 for just sidewalks, no fill and leveling, what do I benefit???? If the apartment development wants sidewalks, let them have them. If Mr. Forbush wants sidewalks in his new development, let him have them. I don't think we need to be punished for wanting to live in a rural setting. The unreasonable restrictions that the city would impose on what we can and do with our own property that we all are and will be paying on for many years would not only be extremely costly but ruin the rural effect. Please every one of you come out and take a look at what is going on here. Trade us places, financially and domestically and see how you would feel if all of a sudden the city wants to come in and dictate what will happen if you want to add a garage or and extra room to accommodate your families growth. The extra cost is ridiculous. Don't annex us. We don't want it. If Mr Forbush and you have a deal that was made prior to the big push to annex us in, so be it. Annex his land, Lameroux's land and Valleywide and give the rest of 20 years to get the use out. of our existing systems. If we are annexed, why not Grand other clause us into not having to hook on to sewer or water until our existing systems fail, no sidewalks until we sell, don't penalize us for improvements. No one likes to be told what to do especially if it hits their pocket book to the tune of 15 to 20 thousand or more to conform. We are not "fat cats" out here, just the working class trying to give our kids a roof over their heads. I was born and raised here and kind of like this valley, but to, think we have no "plan" for 20 years down the road let alone next week really bothers me. Blackfoot announced a comprehensive 20 year plan this morning on the news and has made it very public and accessible for the public to review. Where's ours.??? Your going to fast and not really thinking a lot about the people here, only the developers. Please stop and reconsider not annexing us. We don't want it. Sorry this is so long ,but there is a lot of things to be said and a lot of research to do on our part and the Citys part before we should be annexed. Thank you for your time Lisa Ellis 1042 w Tb s, aka 1778 w 1000 s Rexburg, Idaho 208-351-3233 January 8, 2003 Dear Mayor and City Council, I write this letter asking you to put on hold the proposed annexation. My reason is that we are not prepared with a plan for handling annexation. I would ask you to consider the following key points in the development of a plan. Impact fees for commercial developments that are imposing expansion costs on a community. Development of a plan for the expansion of services through a cooperation of city and county. 3. Decision on what type of zones will apply to annexed property. 4. Continued policy that has been used in other areas of the city that has not required the resident to connect to sewer and water as it passes in front. 5. Consistent policy of squaring up and including all areas to the west and south - rather than selecting only developing parcels. 6. Exemptions for developed subdivisions and properties - this would not require the destruction of trees, etc. which exist as part of developed landscaping. 7. Distinguishing between commercial developments that generate revenue (businesses and housing developments) and residential (owner occupied). The cost is totally different for a resident versus a commercial project or business. I ask for your consideration in putting things on hold until we have plans and have answered these questions. I would like to discuss the annexation and items presented in the letter with you in a positive manner. I would be willing as an economist to donate my service in helping develop a plan for the city. We are not answering any improvement on planning and zoning by simply annexing a big chunk of property. What we need is a comprehensive guide for development and annexation. The guide would provide the guiding principles for the future. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Fenton L. Broadhead CITY COUNCIL AGENDA CITY OF REXBURG City Hall Mission Statement: At Rexburg City Hall our goal is to improve the Community. We Serve the citizens by striving to understand their needs and by responding with quality work. January 08, 2003 7:30 P.M. 1. Pledge to the Flag z. Consent Calendar: The consent calendar includes items which require formal City Council action, however they are typically, routine or not ofgreat controversy. Individual Council members may ask that any speci$c item be removed from the consent calendar for discussion in greater detail. Explanatory information is included in the City Council's agenda packet regarding these items. a. Minutes from the December 18, 2002 meeting b. Approve City of Rexburg bills 3. Non Controversial Items Added to the Agenda Presentation of the City of Rexburg Financial Audit — RUDD & COMPANY, PLLC 4. New Business: 5. Old Business: • Zoning Ordinance 725 Amendments — Rural Residential Two (RR2) — 2nd Reading • Annexation and a zone change from Madison County zoning to Rexburg zoning for ten properties. — 2ad Reading Area One: Annexation of Properties between US Highway 20 and 2000 West in Section 25 with some properties located on the East side of US Highway 20. Area Two: Annexation of Property at 1647 West 1000 South Area Three: Annexation of Properties on both sides of South Millhollow Road from 350 — 700 South Millhollow Road Area Four: Annexation of Properties at 1050 North 2nd East The premise that Valley Wide Coop is the driving force behind the annexation of property west of the highway is incorrect. The request to expand our services out into the County has been an ongoing issue for the past several years. The City having determined that with a single line, a large portion of land could be serviced West of the Highway may have contributed to Coop's decision to locate where they have, but not the other way around, as the decision to attempt to service that area had been made prior to conversations with Coop. 2. Expansion to the West of the existing City is not being driven by a single development, but by numerous requests for developments of varying natures. (Commercial, Single Family Residential and High Density Residential). The Coop Development does not constitute a screw up on anybody's part. It was a decision made based upon the knowledge that the City had already budgeted funds for expanding infrastructure into the area, and that the location was consistent with the Planning and Zoning maps in existence. The neighbors are not being asked to pay for the infrastructure except as they request or take advantage of the services. 4. Costs associated with being annexed are those set forth in various ordinances. The cost of connecting is set by resolution, but would only be triggered upon connection. There are only 10 parcels along 12`" West that would be required under our current ordinances. Within the Widdison Addition, there are only 3 parcels. There have been no miscalculations with respect to this annexation relative to associated costs, but there were apparently misunderstandings between citizens and staff. Staff initially designed the system to serve the greater area, but no specific subdivisions. It was thought that while putting the water line through the Widdison addition, the offer should be extended to the citizens to install sewer at the same time. The problem was that it would trigger connection and costs. The City has no preference nor has staff intended to indicate that sewer would be a part of annexation unless the citizens request it. 6. Within existing subdivisions, the typical road cross section would be modified to fit within the existing rights-of-way. In the case of the Widdison Addition, the 60 foot right- of-way would most likely result in the drainage swell being reduced by 4 feet on either side. It has long been the attitude of the City to work with property owners in accommodating existing mature growth trees when placing sidewalks. 7. Animals not allowed under the new zone would be grandfathered to the extent that they exist on the date of annexation. The right to keep an animal on the property runs with the property, and until it is abandoned consistent with the City Ordinance, is allowed. District Seven Health has designated most of the Burton and Hibbard areas as areas of concern. This designation is driven by numerous factors, one of which is upstream septic systems. The area of proposed annexation is all upstream of the Burton area of concern.. . . . j~} A � k » . . {'! . ----------------- {«J X mailbox: ///C i/Documents%20and%20S ettings/blairk/Application%20Da... Subject: Annexation: Please Read and Respond at the Wednesday Night City Council Meeting From: "Wesley Belnap" <wmbelnap@hotmail.com> Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 19:44:10 -0700 To: blairk@ci.rexburg.id,us Blair Since you know the email addresses of all the City Council Members (Marsha Bjornn, Shawn Larsen, Donna Benfield, Nyle Fullmer, Glen Pond, Paul Pugmire), will you please send this to each of them ASAP so that they can review it before the Work/Council meeting on Wedneday. Thank You. -Marlena Belnap (STEP 1): MrQ1x1 Honorable Mayor Bruce Sutherland: If you could please answer these questions for those of us involved in the proposed annexation it would enable us to see the history of what has been transpiring that has facilitated all of this. It would also give us a chance to read and understand the laws governing this action, rather than always having to have someone interpret them for us. Please help us to be informed. Thank you for your help! Marlena Belnap 1. Where is the citation number of the law, along with chapter and phrases, that require that we have to pay $10.00 per foot each for water and sewer hook-up and that we will have to hook-up within 18 months? Could you make a copy available to us? 2. If I wanted to develop a piece of land in Rexburg, what would be the process I would follow? What process does the developer have to go through when developing property? What is the number of the Statute or the Ordinances of Statute that they follow to comply with rules of the county, city, and/or state? Where is the chapter, and clause? Could you make a copy available to us? 3. Who was the Real Estate agent/s who was involved in the last 2 years land sales of the Valley Wide Co-op property? Who bought it? When was it bought? Was it already properly zoned? When did the zoning of this property change? What is it currently zoned? In the Zoning process, which of these is the city involved in: utilities permits, building permits, road, water and sewer permits? Or is this done on one permit? How was the Co-op able to meet these requirements? Where is the plan for getting utilities to them? Who is to pay the costs of running a water/sewer line to the Co-op? Who is doing the building : Who are the contractors? Who is going to put in the roads? How is it determined who does what? Who pays for what? I of 4 1/21/2003 8:31 AM mailbox:///C I/Documents%20and%20Settings/blairk/Application%20Da... Minutes to Planning and Zoning Meetings: When was the Co-op voted on? Was there more than one reading? May we have a copy of the minutes of this meeting? Who approved the go ahead of the Co-op? 4. May we have a copy of the current Comprehensive Plan? 5. May we have a history of the Zoning changes on the actual plats of Valley Wide Co-op along with all the areas the city wants to annex? Are there maps to track the changes? 6. What exception in the law allows Ora Green's property to opt out of annexation? Can we see the law? Do some of us qualify for the same exceptions? 7. On the attached map, dated Oct. 22, 2002, will you explain the areas that are not proposed for annexation? Why is the city not including them? (STEP 2): 1-17-03 MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL: Each of us involved in this annexation proposal has a shared bottom-line concern: the 2kg we will have pay to facilitate this growth for the city of Rexburg. I believe we all welcome carefully planned and controlled growth so as to bring in the good elements without harming existing established residents. If this is to be fair for us we must at least be able to get the equal value of our investment added to the appraised prices of our homes and to also be able enjoy the immediate benefits from our expenditures. If we do not, the city of Rexburg is putting us in a NO-WIN situation. The city on the other hand will have the added revenue of our collective taxes and utility services which puts them in a WIN-WIN situation. Let's work on this together so that we can ALL win! Thanks for your consideration; Marlena Belnap Suq_pestions: 1. Assign 2 representatives per five affected areas: East Widdison, West Widdison, Willowbrook, 2000 West, and properties between 440 S. & Main St. 2. Have them study impact for their area: Report back to Mayor &/or Council: A. RR vs. RR1 vs. RR2 issues 1. Necessity of sidewalks 2 of 4 1/21/2003 8:31 Alba mailbox: ///C l/Document s%20and%20Settings/blairk/Application%20Da... 2. Tree removal 3. Animals (livestock) grandfathered on property B. Deeded Right -of -Way; Original vs.-: 1. Proposed road width by city 2. Necessity of same (# i.) 3. Costs to widen 4. How city will pay for this C. Water/Sewer Lines: 1. Necessity of . (Reports from Dist. 7 or DEQ showing groundwater contamination threat ) 2. Where will lines go—mid-road or on easement? 3. When homeowner will be forced to hook-up & under what conditions is this required. D. New cost analysis for each neighborhood - total out-of-pocket costs: 1. Calls to contractors, other professionals involved, etc. 2. Appraisal - homeowner's return on investment: Value increased? Or is there a loss? 3. Include yearly costs for monthly fees (water, sewer, garbage) 4. Include city tax increase - 30% E How a.. _i,..__ a_ t_- a C. now city plans to pay to this 1. L.I.D.'s explained clearly 2. Any Government grants? 3. Other ways to recoup costs to Individual Families - i.e. impact fees, etc. 3 of 4 1/21/2003 8:31 AM mailbox:11/Cl/Documents%20and%20Settings/blairVApplication%2oDa... .......... Subject: Atineaation in . iddison Addition From: "Colin Erickson" <Ericksoc@mail-021.k12.id.us> Date:``Tue, 21 Jan 2003 0&.56A9.-0700 To: <blairk ,ci.rexburb:id.us> Dear Mayor and City Council Members: 1-21-03 This letter is in reference to the upcoming decisions you are making regarding the annexation of the Widdison Addition into the city limits. We are property owners in that addition and would like to voice our opinion on the matter. We appreciate all of the time that you have put into these matters and know that you have taken the interest of the city as a whole into account as you make these important decisions. We feel like it would really be best to run the sewer at the same time that the water is done. Most of the people out there are upset because of the high up front cost that would be coming out of their own pockets. Maybe with figuring out a way to reduce those costs and make it comparable to a normal city lot then it could be a win-win situation for all of those involved. With the time and the involvement of tearing up roads, etc. it would seem to be the most logical thing to do. Thank you again for all that you do for the City of Rexburg. It is an exciting time with all of the growth and changes but we love it here and think its a wonderful place to live. Sincerely, Colin & Jean Erickson 1 of 1 1/21/2003 5:49 PM CITY COUNCIL MEETING - CITY OF REXBURG City Hall Mission Statement: At Rexburg City Hall our goal is to improve the Community. We serve the citizens by striving to understand their needs and by responding, with quality work, January 22, 2003 7:30 P.M. Fledge to the Flag The State of the City Address: - Mayor Bruce Sutherland State of the City Report 2003 Dear Friends, Well I am sure that I don't need to remind anyone in our good Community of all the changes and challenges that we have faced this last year! However, I feel that it's good to pause and review what our City has been doing in 2002. I hope that this information will provide you with a good overview of the various City Departments. Before I get started I want to visit a moment with you a bit before I make my official report, I mentioned last year that I learned quite a bit. Well, this year I came to the realization that I have a great deal more to learn. The City is growing like never before. We had a twelve fold increase in building permits in 2002 over an average year. That alone is a staggering statistic. Along with all this growth, there have been many changes that our community has faced. There have been many difficult zoning issues that the City Council and Planning and Zoning Commission have had to on the City agenda. It has not been easy and my hat is off to both the City Council Members and the hard working folks on the Planning and Zoning Commission. I have come to understand even more clearly than in any of the 17 years I have been serving in City Government, that the decisions we make today must consider more than the moment or what seems to he a good idea to solve the present problems. Our vision must be such that in the years ahead we can look back with satisfaction and not regret. This is not an easy challenge for sure. However, I believe that our good City is up to the challenge. That is just one of the many reasons that I feel our community is second to none. I feel so privileged to serve you. Rexburg is the greatest!! I love our Town with all my heart and am so glad I live here, Now on with the 2002 City report: I, STREETS: • A major street project during 2002 was the reconstruction of one block of 3`s North, one block of North 2°d West, and two blocks of West 2°d North adjacent to the railroad tracks. These road were completely reconstructed to replace roads that had reached the end of there useful life. • Rolling Hills Drive was also reconstructed from Shoshone to 4`h East. • City wide LID's replaced areas of curb, gutter, and sidewalk along with the addition of new sidewalks throughout the City. • A major accomplishment was the installation of an electrical and watering system along Main Street to provide power for new street lights, power for the overhead Iighting, and empty conduit for possible future fiber optic lines. This project included the installation of a water line to irrigate the trees and Public hearing: 7:40 p.m. - City of Rexburg - request a zone change of City of Rexburg property from Light Industrial (LI) to Open Space (OS). The property is located betfeen the Rail Road Tracks on the West and 1" East near 295 North V East. Kurt Hibbert — Reviewed the proposal on the overhead screen. It is an area planned for a future Recreational Center. Public Hearing was opened - No testimony was given Public Testimony was closed Kurt continued to discuss the boundaries of the property. There is a proposed development across the river in this area. Kurt indicated that there is a pedestrian bridge to cross the Teton River planned in this proposal. The Idaho State Parks and Recreation is helping fund the greenway project in this area. Paul Pugmire moved to approve the zone change from bight Industrial to Open Space; Nyle Fullmer seconded the motion; all voted aye, none opposed. The motion carried. Old Business: Zonin2 Ordinance 725 Amendments —Rural Residential Two — 3`d Readin Paul Pugmire - Requested more time to review the proposed RR2 Zone before the third reading. Stephen Zollinger —Recommended to postpone the Yd reading. This will allow time to review RR and make sure the City is comfortable with RR2. Annexation and a zone chap a from Madison County zoning to Rexburg zoning for tpn nrnm rt;ac —7nd T�anriinn Area One: Annexation of Properties between US Highway 20 and 2000 West in Section 25 with some properties located on the East side of US Highway 20. Area Two: Annexation of Property at 1647 West 1000 South Area Three: Annexation of Properties on both sides of South Millhollow Road from 350 — 700 South Millhollow Road Area Four: Annexation of Properties at 1050 North 2nd East Discussion on approving the 2" reading now or suspending the rules at the next meeting if the Council chooses to approve the Annexation proposal at that time. Nyle Fullmer moved to approve the 2nd reading of the Annexation proposal for the annexation of four areas; Marsha seconded the motion; all voted aye, none opposed. 6 The motion carried. Mayor Sutherland — Indicated that the 2nd reading does not speed up the annexation proposal. It is a formality to have the second reading now instead of suspending the rules in a latter meeting for a final vote. Update on Projects: John Millar — Discussed addressing Barney Dairy Road: There were three choices offered in the survey. The residents were split on the vote to select a different name for Barney Dairy Road. The road name will be extended to the Sugar City Cemetery. 1000 North is the County address after the Cemetery. City Staff recommend leaving the name as Barney Dairy Road because the residents did not have majority vote on a new name. The Council recommended that John proceed with the name of Barney Dairy Road. Artco has requested that Stationery Place be changed to Stationary Road to better fit the Addressing Committees' guidelines. The Council recommended that John proceed with the proposal to use Stationary Road. John Millar — Requested that the Council allow the Staff to move forward to initiate Local Improvement District 33 for 2003, John indicated that LIDs should be done every other year to allow larger projects that would be less costly to the City and the residents, Marsha Bjonm - Reviewed the sidewalks near the Cal Store on 2nd East. John indicated that the Cal Store does have either sidewalk or hard surface in place. Discussion on other locations in the City that may need sidewalks, Shawn Larsen - Asked where the LID for sidewalks would end on West Main Street. John Millar—Mentioned that the new Highway 33 Project will end on the East side of the old golf course. Stephen Zollinger — Indicated that a sidewalk could not be in a golf course due to a liability issue. Discussion on having a sidewalk to cross the canal on the South side of Highway 33 on West Main Street. Discussion on weeds across from Erickson Pontiac. Also, there is an abandoned house on West Main that needs cleaned up. Stephen Zollinger — Indicated that the City would have a Resolution for LID 33 prepared for the next meeting. John Millar — Reviewed the West side water and sewer projects and the timing for bidding the projects. John would like to dig the sewer trench in the spring when the sub water is lower than the proposed trench. John indicated that the current ground water is at 17 feet. It is cheaper to do the work in a dry trench on the sewer system extension. The City is looking at a lift station on the 12a' West line with a pressure line back to the East section of sewer lines. The Widdison Addition line would be bid as an 7 D Y E R G R O U P LIC ENGINEERING - PLANNING -MANAGEMENT MEMORANDUM To: Rexburg City Council, Planning and Zoning Commission, and City P&Z Staff From: Winston R. Dyer, PE, Chair, Planning and Zoning Commission Date: January 22, 2003 Re: Discussion of Proposed Annexation Introduction Ongoing debate over the proposed annexation of areas on the periphery of Rexburg suggests that I take the opportunity to provide some clarification, As with any issue deeply involving and impacting the public (financially and otherwise), the nature and intensity of debate has quickly drawn attention and discussion to facets of annexation well beyond the foundational reasons why this proposal is in the best interests of the community both now and certainly into the future. should be clear that in setting forth the information below I am speaking largely for myself and giving my take on the discussion and reasoning of the Planning and Zoning Commission with regard to the annexation. I have discussed the idea of writing this memo with a limited number of Commissioners, but certainly have not obtained official authority to speak in behalf of the Commission. Nevertheless, I am confident there would be general agreement with my statements among the members. Background State Code provides for annexation of areas contiguous to the City to promote the orderly growth and development of the community and its public services. Everyone recognizes the explosive growth of our community; this last year there was a tenfold increase in the construction value of building permits issued over previous years. I challenge anyone to demonstrate such an increase anywhere in this State or perhaps in the intermountain region. From the nature and volume of the requests coming before the Planning and Zoning Commission, it is clear that this trend will continue for some time. As I talk with residents in our area about growth issues, I hear concerns from them that the very character of the community they love is changing and most of the change is for the worse. Citizens see more people, more traffic, congestion, conversion of farmlands and open areas, cracker box style construction of housing, and fear that "helter-skelter" development will skip beyond presently developed areas and basically set the pattern for the type of growth that will "infill" the area between. When I inquire about the areas that most trouble them, invariably the response includes discussion of the areas proposed for annexation, particularly those west and southwest of Rexburg. THE DYER GROUP, LLC • 310 N 2NE1 EAST, SUITE 153 * REXBURG, ID 83440 -1607 208.656.8800 (VOICE) - 877.721.5025 (TOLL FREE) - 208.656.8808 (FAX) - 208.390.9700 (CELL) Example Development of the area between Main Street, the freeway, 7th South, and the Old Highway/5th West helps us see the point. That area will become a "sub -city" of Rexburg and will soon have a sizable population of its own (in the 1000's) placing demands on public infrastructure such as transportation networks and water and sewer systems. It will also spur significant secondary growth pressures for commercial development in that area. People will not be interested in getting in their car and driving completely across town (to the Albertson'sANal-Mart area) for their commerce. Thus it will almost become a community of its own within the larger framework of our City. Imagine what the growth of this area would have been like if there had been no plan and very little control over what types of uses were placed in which locations, and if the density of new developments were to occur at random. Fortunately, the vast majority of this area was already within the City of Rexburg and thus came under planning and zoning controls and scrutiny. It was hard enough for us as it was to make sure there was proper transitioning between differing land uses and densities, and that the layout of proposed streets and corresponding utility systems was consistent with economical development and ongoing operation maintenance costs for those systems. Although Madison County does have planning and zoning regulations, no one will argue that they are purposefully loose and flexible and have far less degree of control in comparison to the Rexburg's, The County does not have water and sewer systems and therefore gives little consideration to orderly growth and development with respect to public infrastructure, other than water quality issues (density of septic systems). Even transportation planning is minimal — as long as proposed roads and streets will somehow, some way connect to the one mile square grid of County road around an area, who cares whether that street layout will be conducive to economical layout and installation of municipal water and sewer systems in the future? Reasons for Annexation It is clear from this example and discussion that the foundational reasons why the City of Rexburg desires to annex the proposed areas include the following: • to obtain adequate planning and zoning control, which in turn will provide for and direct the orderly growth and development of the areas • to provide for the logical extension and economical implementation of transportation networks and utility systems that will be required to meet obvious growth demands • to supply additional areas under planning and zoning control to meet the growth needs of the community, allowing the orderly and efficient expansion of the urban community • to achieve the means to preserve and enhance community character and identity • to protect and preserve the environment, especially water quality In essence, we desire to gain control over the area to protect it — to see that existing land uses are preserved, that appropriate types of development and density are consistent with surrounding uses, and that the eventual growth and development of the area is orderly and economically consistent with expanding public infrastructure and utilities into the area. No one, 2 especially current residents, will appreciate what will happen to that area from current growth pressures without appropriate growth controls in place. Another indirect reason, but nevertheless one that needs to be discussed, is the concept of '"sprawl". Sprawl is a short word for long list of afflictions: rapid consumption of open space and farmland, traffic clogged highways, urban disinvestment (population flight to suburbs or rural areas), and corresponding loss of "community" and quality of life. It is most evident in scenes of cookie cutter style suburbs, fragmented communities, and degraded rural areas. An even bigger problem is providing municipal services and infrastructure (water and sewer systems, police and fire service, and public roads, to name a few) to such hopscotch, stretched out, helter-skelter development. Sprawl is expensive, wasteful, environmentally damaging, socially divisive, and usually just plain ugly. it is a serious threat to the area's natural beauty and distinctive community character, undermining our sense of place. This brand of headlong, poorly planned development is clearly not in the long-term interest of our community. The Lamaroux development is a perfect, small-scale example of the point I am trying to make. The area was not at all under City control, and was not even in the impact area a year ago when the developers approached the County about putting multi -family housing in immediately west of the freeway. Planning for that area was well underway with commitments made to developers by the County without any input on the part of the City concerning type of development, density of development, and logical extension of City services and transportation networks to the area in question. Only when we extended our impact zone into that area did we began to have a say in the matter and some degree of control over the situation. The problem was that by then there was little we could do other than implementing limited damage control and accommodating the cat that had already gotten out of the bag. As a Planning and Zoning Commission, we are not at all interested in further repeats of this sorry scenario. As it stands now, the County is very concerned (rightfully so) about density issues of new septic tanks and a corresponding degradation of groundwater quality in the annexation areas and beyond. Their response, as communicated to you by ©aNeil Jose, Madison County's Planning and Zoning Administrator, is to try and defer approval of new proposed developments in the area until they can be served by Rexburg's central wastewater collection and treatment systems. That is good planning on their part, but the result is that the City of Rexburg will be forced to be involved in the area in question whether we want to or not. We should just as well have the involvement and the proper degree of control since it will unquestionably have a significant impact on the remainder of our community in the long run. Solutions The solution to sprawl is "smart growth". Smart growth is a fight for growth that's done right -- figuring out what the community values in its environment, where we'd like to go, how growth should take place, what it should look like, and what areas should be off-limits and how they should be preserved. We are currently trying to fortify these visions by updating the Comprehensive Plan. 3 Admittedly, we have in the past been somewhat "reactive" rather than "proactive" in our approach to planning in an effort to promote private sector development of needed housing rather than having the University enter the market. Now that the University's decision has been made, we as a Planning and Zoning Commission have made a conscious determination to abandon the reactive approach and become thoroughly proactive in looking out for and providing what will be best for our community now and into the future. Annexing the proposed areas gives us the chance to do just that -- to provide for the orderly growth and development of these areas and provide them planning and zoning protection. To leave these areas in a lesser degree of planning and zoning control (i.e., with the County) is to invite a large share of the above described problems we would like to avoid, it is for this reason that the Planning and Zoning Commission, after thorough public input and long deliberation, wholeheartedly and unanimously decided to recommend the annexations to the City Council. Public Concerns Speaking personally from 25 years of experience in public involvement, particularly in the areas of acquisition of public rights-of-way for new highways and municipal increases in utility rates to support improved infrastructure, the response of the public to the annexation proposal was very predictable, consistent with human nature, and right down the lines of nearly all previous experience. People by nature are very resistant to change (especially in our conservative area) and will animate in response to threats of upsetting the status quo, and there is nothing like the idea of increased costs to individuals or families to ignite the fires of "civic passion", Experience has also shown that thoughtful planning and implementation clearly provides for the greater common good and improved quality of life in the long run. The example I often cite is the determined parent who takes the emotionally distraught, protesting child to the doctor for the painful treatment in the near-term that will provide well-being in the long run. As a Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council, we should have the same degree of determination in this matter of annexation — the concerns of the present are nothing compared to the problems we will be forced to live with in the long run without proper planning and control for the unquestionable growth that will come to these areas. As I have listened to the public in several meetings and have had personal feedback from affected individuals, it is clear that notwithstanding all the other political maneuverings and "issue buttons" being pushed, the underlying concern and motivation is that of cost. Admittedly, I myself would be concerned with some of the cost figures that have been discussed. It would be nice to see a clearer derivation of the costs, taking into account bona fide reductions that will occur such as the present value of not having to replace well and septic tank systems in the future, and also significant reductions in homeowner insurance policies for improved fire protection offered by City infrastructure systems, but such discussion diverts focus from the real reasons for annexation. Instead, I feel that discussion should center on what the City can do to help mitigate the impacts, particularly financial, of proposed annexation on area residents — especially those who have not requested annexation. This is what I was trying to get at when I brought up the concept of "annexation agreements" (admittedly, easily confused with what the City does for developers proposing new development, but similar in concept) in the P & Z public hearing on annexation. I further suggested that residents focus more on trying to develop agreement with the City on such mitigation issues rather than fighting what everyone will admit to being a question of "when will it be annexed" rather than "if it will be annexed." 4 Are there things that the City can do to mitigate the impacts of the proposed annexation? Ideas may include putting a maximum on the front footage utility fee since many properties in the countryside are significantly larger than atypical City lot, possibly waiving or significantly deferring (with a sunset clause) the connection fee, or perhaps setting up for partial reimbursement of utility costs by collecting from future developers who will also utilize those pipelines. Perhaps some other type of tiered cost approach can be developed where some costs are covered in the near-term and additional costs are covered as property subdivides and/or develops in the future. Conclusion There are very important foundational reasons why the annexation is being proposed and is in the best interests of the community. A myriad of related issues are being discussed that appear to be distracting focus from the "why" of the proposed annexation. While it is appropriate and well taken to discuss mitigation of impacts (particularly financial) to those involved, the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council should be unified and strongly supportive of the proposed annexation for the long-term well-being of our community. Governor Glendening of Maryland put it best a couple of years ago when he said, "We can stick our heads in the sand and pretend the growth will simply not happen. Likewise, we could pretend that when we D© grow it somehow will not affect us, it will not alter our landscape, it will not pollute our environment, it will not raise our taxes, and it will not change our quality of life. Or, we can plan for growth the best way we know how... this is the common sense approach to growth." Someone else expressed it this way, "Planning for the future of our community is not a loss of freedom, it is a growth toward maturity." The Planning and Zoning Commission has strongly recommended this annexation be accomplished for the good of the community both in the near-term and the long run. We stand ready to assist in whatever ways we can to achieve this worthy goal. 61 mailbox:///Cl/Documents%20and%20Settings/blairk/Apphcation%20Da... Will you please forward this message on to the mayor and the city council members? I would appreciate it very much. Sincerely, Paula Sonderegger ,Dear Mayor Sutherland and City Council members, I wanted to tell you that after the work meeting last night I came home feeling very hopeful about this whole procedure. I wasn't able to stay for the entire council meeting and I was disappointed today when I learned that the plans for the second reading went ahead as usual before everything was in place. I hope that it was merely a formality and that the topics discussed at the work meeting and the agreements will stand. I hope that my hopeful and encouraging feelings are not in vain. I hope that before you do the third reading that you will get all of the agreements written down, in legal form, so that there won't be any misunderstandings in the future. My husband and I are very interested in an incentive to hook up to city sewer. Our system is working properly now and we don't expect any problems in the future, but if the incentive is right we will be glad to hook up to city sewer. My understanding is that we will never be required to hook up to city water unless our well should go dry or become contaminated. This is what we have been told all along and I would like to see this put into writing for future reference. I do appreciate your willingness to work with us and to take our special circumstances into consideration. Sincerely, Paula Sonderegger 1 of 1 1/24/2003 1:32 PM January 31, 2003 Dear City Council, I have watched the debate over annexing my neighborhood with increasing despair. It seems the city has already decided for us that the inconvenience is minor and we should all be happy to contribute to the Greater Good of Rexburg. Over the past year, our streets have been torn up, access to our homes has been blocked without warning, and school buses have been unable to travel their normal route, causing our children to walk alongside a 15 -foot deep trench twice a day, all to accommodate the growth and development that is bringing so much economic benefit to the city. I'm happy for the city, really I am. I can deal with inconvenience and even safety problems, as long as they are temporary. But why are existing residents, those who provide stability and loyalty and character to our town, being asked to fund this growth? Yes, we are. Frontage fees and hook-up fees finance the installation of city water and sewer services. When city planners decide to annex a wheat field way out in the county because a developer wants to put in 80 houses with city water and sewer (cheaper to them than drilling wells and putting in septic systems), the city gets all excited at the thought of an added tax base. "Sure! We'll do that for you! Welcome to Rexburg!" And then they assume they will pay for getting those water and sewer lines to the new subdivision by annexing everything in between, forcing homeowners to abandon perfectly adequate systems in order to pay the frontage fees that bring those lines all the way out to said wheat field. Our rationality has been challenged ("You wouldn't want to leave holes of county property right in the middle of the city, would you?"), we have been accused of whining ("You guys just don't want to pay your fair share"), and our concerns have been dismissed as minor compared to the Big Picture. Some of my neighbors have been outright lied to, and information regarding the annexation issue has been hard to come by. Okay, so I feel myself beginning to whine, so I will stop. Here's the bottom line; Complying with city ordinances will cost my family $9,844 in one-time fees, and about $92 per month more for increased taxes and utilities. Yes, it's about the money. Because I can live with losing part of our yard to install sidewalks on a dead-end street, I can live with a change of address, I can live with digging up our landscaping to install water and sewer lines, I can live with tearing up our streets to run the main line through. But I live where I do because my quality of life is as good as it gets. I love Rexburg, I love the people, and I love my job raising seven children in a wonderful community full of good people and exciting activities, caring teachers, and a supportive atmosphere. However, the $92 will mean I have to adjust our budget. Should I cut piano lessons or the grocery bill? And the $9,844... now if I had that much money I could buy a new car, or add on to the house, or go on a real vacation. That's okay, though. I am asured that low-interest loans will be available. Hmmm, another $50, $10u, or $200 a month to squeeze into my budget? I might have to leave my children unsupervised at home and find a job somewhere, somehow. All for the Greater Good of Rexburg. Sincerely, -: Melissa Cameron 903 Elizabeth Street Estimated Cost of Complying with City Ordinances Upon Annexation One -Time Coasts: Frontage fees: Water $10 x 102 ft. = $1020 ($13.50) Sewer $10 x 102 ft. = $1020 Hook-up fees: !^eater $1100 $55.54 Meter and parts $307 Sewer $575 Water Line to house: $8 x 77 ft. _ $616 Backhoe for trench $400 Sewer line to house: $15 x 110 ft. = $1650 Septic tank: pump out tank $100 Fill with gravel/dirt $200 Curb, gutter, and sidewalk $28 x 102 ft. = $2856 (HK Const.: $12/ft if sidewalk only) $9844 Additional Monthly fees: Trash pickup $14 (cancel private pickup) ($13.50) 30% tax increase $17.20 Water bill $18-69 Sewer bill $55.54 $91.93 Dear Shawn, I know you are currently working with the city council on the issues of annexation. I was hoping you could bring the concerns of my neighborhood, Elizabeth Street, to the attention of those who are making decisions. Although the Widdison group has spearheaded the opposition to annexing existing neighborhoods, I'm afraid of getting caught up in a blanket compromise when my neighborhood's concerns may be quite different. For example, our lots are about a half acre, which might affect zoning loopholes, and whereas the Coop construction mandates the water/sewer lines going through Widdison properties, there is no one suggesting a line must go down our street. We also have a community well, rather than individual wells. I have spoken to some of my neighbors and these are the concerns expressed to me: Homeowner A: Why do we need to pay more taxes for no added benefit? Sidewalks on a dead-end street are ridiculous, considering the cost. Can't afford the fees and up -front costs. Can we wait to put in sewer and water until our community well fails or one of our septic systems needs to be replaced? Homeowner B: Likes the idea of sidewalks, curb and gutter, is fine with annexation, but just completed major renovations in his house and doesn't have the resources for more at this time. Homeowner C: Too much money. Does not see a need for sidewalks, curbs, or gutters on a dead-end street; current septic system is working fine. Even if it fails, the cost of replacing it is still less than hooking up to city water. Well is working great, want to keep it for watering purposes whatever is decided. Fees and added utility payments would cause a real financial hardship. Willing to be annexed if all one-time fees paid for by the city or a grant; absolutely cannot afford them even if offered low-interest loan. Partial waiver is not enough. Can we be annexed without requiring sidewalks, curb, gutters, city water, and city sewer? Homeowner D: Does not want to be annexed to the city under any circumstances. Has put their home up for sale and is looking for property without EI Ir eat of annexation. Homeowner E: Will not be able to afford even the slightest tax increase, much less theth II a ,frnn+ rnS+e of installinn UtilitinQ, frontage fees S nr monthly lip fl V! lk 4v is �� increase in utilities. Has been unable to find alternate housing she can afford in Rexburg. Homeowner F: Feels betrayed and taken advantage of. Not sure how they will come up with the money. Water and sewer are okay, but can't afford frontage fees. Homeowner G: Resigned to being annexed. They have been lied to by city officials continuously over the past two years, and at this point are waiting for the annexation to go through so they can begin voting out everyone currently in elected positions. However, the main person who they feel has deceived them, who is enjoying personal gain from development, and who has initiated this costly turn of events, is appointed, and we have no way to get him out. Homeowner H: Discussions in the past with various city officials led them to believe there was nothing to worry about as far as being annexed. Severely inconvenienced last year when the water/sewer line car -tie dawn Casper, feel they have been deceived and are thoroughly disgusted. I know you all have heard plenty, but I wanted to make sure my street was also represented. Please feel free to call me if you have questions. I look forward to seeing what is decided at the city council meeting. Sincerely, Melissa Cameron 359-2441 mailbox:l//Cl/Documents%20and%20S ettingslblairk/Application%20Da... Subject: work meeting From: "Ferron Sonderegger'csonderegger@emstar2.net> Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 00:59:25 -0600 To: Cblairk@drexburg id,us Mr. Kay, Will you please forward this message on to the city council members and the Mayor? Thanks a lot, Paula Sonderegger Dear Mr. Mayor and City Council members, Please consider the following before the work meeting tomorrow night. At the work meeting on Feb. 5th, one of the members of the council mentioned that the East side of Widdison and Elizabeth both be annexed under the RR2 zone since they are both on the East side of the highway. I would like you to be aware of some mai or differences between the East Widdison and Elizabeth neighborhoods and why the East Widdison should be brought into the city as RR the same as has been proposed for the West Widdison addition. Please note that just because the highway split our neighborhood 25 years ago, it did not change the way we are set up. First of all the East Widdison addition is laid out exactly like the West Widdison addition. There are no differences. The Widdison addition has lots one acre in size (our county assessment lists our lot as 1.1 acres, which probably includes the road easement), the Elizabeth neighborhood lots are 1/2 acre, which probably also includes their road easement. Secondly, the East Widdison addition has a private well on every lot just the same as the West Widdison addition. The Elizabeth neighborhood shares a community well. Thirdly, the homes in the Elizabeth neighborhood are positioned much closer to the road than the homes in the East Widdison addition. There is more of a city feel in the Elizabeth neighborhood than there is in the East Widdison addition. I appreciate your willingness to work with us on this very delicate issue. Sincerely, Paula Sonderegger 1 of 1 2/19/2003 12:14 PM Annexation Proposal 1, 1A t� The Rexburg lilty Council 1- s not accepted this proposal. 1t is a »'oraT'i; g 4�ciicilriiiiit help facilitate dto discussion con: �rnin the proposed area of anuiexation: ii iddisop. L,,mduiiivu MCS Cat of ffimJ 201 * Build a:ilyn�en any dun-,viffiing parcels, lines. LLLiId the syst6a11L •of grater pard sewer line/s7. {- T' (� boundaries y� �t�y ,j t p 4 Any property owner where the parcel is] cont, uoLl s.] to city LoLF114}{�,r1bJ could petition to be annexed into lilt' Giiy and hook onto city services. • Annexed property would be zoned Rural Residential One (RP1) which does not require varb; glitter, Cr sidewalks. • Property owners petitioning to annex and hook onto se,vices Pnor to January 1, 2004 would have their front foot fees cabped at S51D00.00 for water, and $1000.00 for sewer. m Connection fees for water: $1,100:00: r�rre would not requi c water connection lentil requested by the resident.. However; after January 1, 2004 going rate, would be charged: • Connection fees for sever: $575:00. However, after Januar=y 1; 2004 going rate would be charged. Widdiso I Addition (East of H—y,,y 20) Annex parcels based or responsible planning o Annexed. parcels would be zoned Rural Residential One (RR1) based on the larger lot sizes. RRl does not require Curb, guttLr, or sidewalks. p Property owners that hook Onto city water and sewer by January 1; 2004 would have their front foot fees capped at $1000.00 for water and $1000 for sewer. Connection fees for water; $1;10(1: 00. However, we would not require water connection. if they confine :ted to water after January 1, 2004 they would pay going rate for connection and water line front foot fees. Connection fees for sewer: $575,00. However, we would not require connection until List pct 7 Health condemnation. If they connect to sealer after January 1, 2010'4 they would pay going rate for connecti;,n and sew-.,— front foot fees. i 'exb—ur g X- tile's Annex parcels based on responsible planning. Annexed parcels would be zoned Rural Residential Two (RR2) which does not require curb and gutter, but does require sidewalks. • %aatvr and a`e,'wer lines would t I t 10 �y� f^ //�� !!�� n�^��]aaid water ver# %}yx57/cytlip�vs� GfAYrlpr�c`3.{p�rtp3'l owners agree and piyt2t1L12 tl'lb bite tV provide YY Etter and sewer. I this petition is received before January 1, .''W04 the city agrees to cap water anld sower CU ont foot fees and connection fees at current rates. • Connection fees for water- S 1,100.010. Howe -ver, we, mould Piot require water connection: If they connected to water after January 1, 2004 they would pay going rate for �.'vruas�i'itiu n t`iiid 'rvatpI liiiav 1.s'orit foot fees. e Connection fees for sewer: $575.00. However, we would not rewire cormecction until District 7'Health condemnation, If they connect to sewer after January 1, 2004 they would pay going rate for connection and sewer front foot fees. rctir• �_- _ n _ ?Yill�-w Brook Subdivision ^annex parcels based on responsible planning. Annexed parcels would be zoned Rural Residential One (PR1O based on the large.- lot sizes, y�RR�11 does gnot prequire curb, gutter, or sidewalks. iD I eV2 nection were made to the water u,{le ithin on, year after nater I;n-%i is Placed, front foot fees for water would be ,capped. at $1000.00. And water connections fees would be $'11,100.00. After such tilne, going rate would be charged - ,a If connection were made to sower line within one yea-, atter sewer line is placed, front foot fees for sewer would be capped at $1000.00. And sewer connection fees would be $575.00. After such time, going rate would be chaarged- IPyIMEDIATE PLANS FOR WATER AND SEWER. 12"' West Residents Not annex any unwilling parcels. e_ wild the syst€,ni of water and sewer lines. ` Any property owner where the parcelis con - uous to city boundaries could petition to be annexed into the city and hook onto city services: 4 Annealed property would be zoned Rural E Residential One (RR 1� which does not require buA b, 5U erg or 7ib Y� .ItSs: • Property owner -,petitioning to annex and hook onto services prior to :� aiitlaF3% 1, 2004 would h` v—. their ft ont foot fees capped at $11000.001 -Bor (hater; and $1000.00 for sewer. After such time, going rate would be charged. o Connection fees for water: $14100:00. However, after January going rate would be charged. o Coilniection fees for sewer: $575.00. However, after Janluary 1, 2004 going rate would be charged. mailbox;///Cl/Documents%20and%20Settingslblairk/Application%24Da... Subject: work meeting From: "Ferron Sonderegger" <sonderegger@emstar2.net> Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 07:27:52 -0700 To: <blairk@ci.rexburgAd.us? Mr. Kay, I don't know if there is an agenda for the meeting tomorrow night or not, but I would appreciate it if I could have a few minutes at the beginning to "plead" our case for the East Widdison addition. We have separated ourselves from the West side and are in favor of the annexation but we would like to ask the council to hear our views separately from the other side. I have sent a letter to all of the council members that we have all signed so they should be aware of what has happened here. Will you please notify the mayor of my request. I probably need a total of 6 minutes. Thank you, Paula Sonderegger 1 of 1 3/7/2003 4:29 PM February 25, 2003 Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council: Be it known to the Rexburg City Council that we the undersigned residents of west Widdison Addition have not requested nor desired that our properties be annexed into the City of Rexburg. We have been very involved in this process and still hope for mutual benefit should our neighborhood eventually be annexed. In light of the fact that the Widdison Addition has been developed over 30 years, our situation is considerably different than a new subdivision. We held a neighborhood meeting on February 24, 2003 and feel strongly that the following conditions should be met prior to our agreement to annexation.. The west Widdison Addition be annexed as an RR1 Zone, which would not require curb and gutter or sidewalks, and would allow keeping of domestic animals. 2. The sewer line be installed at the same time as the water line. Residents not be required to connect to the sewer line until they need a new Health Department permit to repair a malfunctioning septic tank/drain field system. You have previously stated that there is no requirement to connect to city water. 4. For a period of 24 months from the time the sewer and water lines .are installed, a reduced rate be -offered to those who choose to connect to the city sewer and/or water. As a minimum, this reduced rate should include waiving the entire front footage fees for water and -sewer. Our residents have already -invested in personal water and sewer systems which are functioning. It is not fair to charge us the full fees for hookup. A list of the items, by description as a minimum, and including cost where available, for which residents will be responsible should they be annexed. For example: a. front foot fees, unless waived as requested b. city connection fees c. ninninig of the Iines from service stub -outs to their homes d. pumping and abandoning their septic tanks e. -increase in taxes f, monthly service fees g,. any others? 6. As discussed in the first work meeting, prior to presenting the proposal for annexation for a third reading at a City Council meeting, these issues should be addressed in writing, and residents of the west Widdison Addition given adequate time to review and comment on the document. We appreciate your consideration of these items. Page 1 of 3 Name 1. (smol a�f 2. __ /4p -4j 7. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. Address Date 114 5 03 b IV �42-_c A"Z-4, /0 C, -5 L✓, 6%,)r, 50,/ L_ ager 7S Yi 2_�5w�3 f P� � "�I � c( 15 Y7 � Lt ►? E A, &/ire �- j/,A5- Av=�, 23. to (/{ Q.C.LL 24. l �� I / i ( i26. Il �i[J IGi( 6-? Pale 2 of 3 D3 Name i 27. 28. i 29 30 31 32 33 34 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. Address Date /s-3/ ccs, Civ Page 3 of 3 M1 FED -26-03 03:16 PM VDSTRQM CONST Edstrom Construction, Inc. 2880 West 3200 South Rexburg, ID 83440 (208) 356-3577 NAME/ADDRESS City of Rexburg P.O. Box 280 Rexburg, ID 83440 2083563639 P. 02 Proposal DATE Proposal No. 2/26/2003 I 3 I 0 PROJECT I1ric Ericksen ITEM DESCRIPTION I QTY UNIT f UNIT COST TOTAL Water Water Service i I " Water Service I 65 f LF 1.3.00 0045.00 Other Costs Sod i 70' LF 7.50 525.00 Subtotal I 1,370.00 Excludes- Meter and box, permits, tie in to street main and plumbing inside of ;house Sewer '. Sewer Service New Sewer Service Installed 190 LF 8.90 1,691.00 Othcr Costs iSod 701 LF 1 7.50 525.00 i Other Costs j Disconnect. Septic System (Pump out, 1 : LS 550.00 550.00 j ° fill in) Subtotal 2,766.00 1:xcludes - permits, tie in to street main i i :and plumbing inside of' house work . i Notes �I 'Water service is from property line to bu ldin and, sewer sme is front— s propertyline to septic tank. i )'his ptvposal Aall become a contract atler it is, accepted and ��qq 1 OTA L TOTAL $4,13 6.00 signed by authorized agents of tx)th panties. Quantities arc not guaranteed. Billing will be far actual quantities required to complete hewtrk. SIGNATURES . �I�R M CQNS'rRl}CI'IUN --- - - -- — -- --� , froposaf i ZOLLINGER CONSTRUCTION, INC 4 West 2 North Rexburg, 1D 83440 Phone:208-356-5596 - Fax: 208-356-5392 An Equal Opportunity Employer Proposal Submitted to: ERIC ERICKSON Phone Bate 2/2612003 Street Joh Name WATER & SEWER SERVICE City, State and Zip Code Job Location REXBURG, IDAHO Architect Job Phone We hereby submit specification and estimates for: Unit Quantity Unit Price Total .......................................................................................................................................................................... Q.........................t......................,..,.,,............,.......,.................................,.......... ................................................................................. .......................,.,..........'.,............................ ,.,..,........... 'DRIVEWAY REPAIR WITH 314 ROAD BASE 100'X 20 LS --, ............................................................................................. 1 $550.00€ $550,00 .................................................................................................................--...... .................................................. LANDSCAPE REPAIR 1200 SQFT LS .................................................................................................................................................................... ....................................... ............... :.................................. 1 s $'1,200.00:... $9 200.00 ..................................................................................,...........................................,..•.,...............,...,...................... i..............-........ .... . .., - SEWER SERVICE LINE TWO CLEANOUTS LFT ...980. .... � .............. $8.00:.......,.'. ..........................................................................................................................................................................}......................... j......................... i................................. y.................................... $1•,440.00 ......................................................:..................•........................................................................,..,...................:...........................................................................................,....-......-................ WATER SERVICE...NE:..METER HOOKU.P...(METER&BOX BY CITY).......'...... LFT.. 8 $15:00- $9:200.00 -..................................................................................--.................,......,..........................................................$.-...-................... .......... ............... .......................... ...... ......................... U. - $0 We 2'ropose hereby to furnish material and labor - complete in accordance with above specification, for the sum of: 1/ K'1 11 'ayment to be made as All material is guaranteed to be as specified. All work to be completed in a workmanlike manner according to standard practices, Any aEteration or deviation from above specfications 1 involving extra costs will be executed only upon written orders, t£ will become an extra charge over & above the estimate. All agreements contingent upon strikes, accidents or delays j �beyon o�trol, Owner to carrynecessary insurance. Our workers are fully covered by Workmen's Compensation Insurance: - - -- — Note: This Proposal may be withdrawn if not accepted within 60 days. 4CCeptane Of ftOPOsaC - The above prices, specifications and conditions are satisfactory and are hereby accepted. You are uthorized to do the work as specified. Payment will be made as outlined above. 'ate of Acceptance: - P R 0 P 0 S A L 31i C4nfitruCtion LLC 5134 W. Hwy 33 Rqrxburg„ Id Phone: 355-2377 Fax: 3$5-1612 Cr?l.1: 31.9-7456 Submitted to: Eric Erickson 366-7?55 1.573 w. 199 5. nirii+li i'r�; Id a3;A@ Approximately 200 lineal feet :�f 4" SLR rs®war ovrvice. pips, Include; excavation, batvkfill, installation and materia. Unit price: 12.00 If 2400.00 Water service lire ,%sppj.oXim,yt:;HLy 9a'. Includes excavation, Uaokfiill, inst:Hllatlori of city suppliad motor and barrel. Meter ir:t.-a11 375,00 Cara ;Brill faundat tots 2s40.rb0 Unit Price: 10.0+0 if 900,00 on water line 147a.D�O Total butte svwar & water 3875.00 Owner is rosponrlble for azy restoration of eprinxiers or concrete, and all landscaping. Water oervice wi1.1 need to be connected insioe the homy. Owner wILI be responsible for arranging that hookup. Rsad H111 Annexation Process Page 1 of 1 mayor From: Harris, Brent [brent.harris@anlw.anl.gov] Sent: Friday, February 28, 2003 4:10 PM To: 'Benfield, Donna; 'Bjorn, Marsha; 'Fullmer, Nyle'; 'Larsen, Shawn'; 'Pond, Glen'; 'Sutherland, Bruce; Pugmire, Paul Subject: Annexation Process Honorable Mayor and City Council, I wanted to express my appreciation for your ongoing work. Although some may disagree, i feel you have certainly given us the opportunity to express our feelings and opinions concerning annexation. Although I do not kIAI agree with your final decision concerning the West Widdison Addition, I do believe you are doing what you feel is best for the community as a whole in the long run; and that is your responsibility. Mayor, I especially appreciate your efforts to allow everyone to comment. Paul, thanks for taking time from your trip to California to call in and participate. I have learned much during this process, and hopefully it has been beneficial to all of us and will help you in the future when you face similar tasks. Thanks again. Sincerely, Brent G. Harris 1125 Widdison Lane Rexburg, ID 83440 3/18/2003 mailbox:///Cf /Documents%20and%2OSettings/blairk/Application%2ODa... Subject: thank you From: "Ferron Sonderegger" <sonderegger@a emstar2.net> Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 15:28:29 -0700 To: <blairk@ci.rexburg.id.us> Mr. Kay, Thank you for all of your time and effort with the annexation. I appreciate your sending my emails to the city council members. Would you please send one more for me? Thank you. Paula Sonderegger To the Honorable Mayor and City Council Members: I just wanted to say thank you for your consideration of the East Widdison Addition. Our neighborhood is very happy with the RR1 zone, the window until 10131/04, the reduced frontage to 75' and the option of hooking up to city services or not. My guess is that by the end of the window most of us will be on city services, at least sewer, and some will hook up to everything. I know that this has been a very long, hard ordeal and I think that i am safe to say that we are all glad that it is almost over. I think that now we are down to the formalities of the final reading and the vote. It has been interesting to see how city government works. Once again, thanks for listening to us. Sincerely, Paula Sonderegger 1 of 1 3/7/2003 4:27 PM mailbox:///Cl/Documents%20and%20 Settings/blairk/Application%20Da... Subject: work meeting From: "'Perron Sonderegger" <sonderegger rr emstar2.net> Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 07:27:52 -0700 To: <blairk@ci.rexburg.id.us> Mr_ Kay, I don't know if there is an agenda for the meeting tomorrow night or not, but I would appreciate it if I could have a few minutes at the beginning to "plead" our case for the East Widdison addition. We have separated ourselves from the West side and are in favor of the annexation but we would like to ask the council to hear our views separately from the other side. I have sent a letter to all of the council members that we have all signed so they should be aware of what has happened here. Will you please notify the mayor of my request. I probably need a total of 6 minutes. Thank you, Paula Sonderegger 1 of 1 3/7/2003 4:29 PM AOL.COM I Message View Page 1 of 2 Attention Homeowners- Subj: [Fwd; annexation of Widdison addition] Date: 3/18/2003 12:48:18 PM Eastern Standard Time From: ❑Blair Kay <blairk@ci.rexburg.id.us> To: Bill Hamlin <billh cj.rexbur .id.us>, ElBruce Sutherland <bruces@ci.rexburg.id.us>, Donna Berfi <len. and a ificor .Com>, Huskinson Chris <huskinson hotmaij.com>, Kurt Hibbert ,-<kurthCc7 LINyle_Fullmer <ncfuiimera�hotrnaij.Com>, FlPaul Pugmire <paul.Dugmire anlw.anl.gov>, ORichard I <s1arsen30C5)gg.com>, Stephen Zollinger <ste henz ci.rexburg,id.us>_, Val Christensen <valca c Sent from the Internet (Details) Mayor Sutherland Council Members Staff FYI Thank you, Blair Dear city council & Mayor, When I first learned of the proposed annexation I was not opposed. we have lived in our present location for 32 years and anticipated that some day annexation would arrive. In fact, I was particularly pleased when I learned that the city was going to give sewer access. After I learned the costs of sewer and water I had some reservations. Nevertheless, I have found the city council to be flexible and willing to listen to our concerns. While we have not gotten everything we have asked for, I feel that the current proposal is an acceptable compromise and serves the greater needs of our community as well as the city. I am in favor of the proposed annexation and hope that the council will proceed with the planned annexation as outlined in the written proposal. I find annexation a benefit to us and the city for the following reasons: 1. sewer - protection of our community against sewer contamination 2. Planned growth and development - there needs to be better control of planning and zoning than the county provides. Currently the city has a better plan. 3. Timing - There is never a good time to spend money that has not been budgeted, but, as with marriage, if we wait until we have enough, we will never get married. The prices are better now than they will be in the future. Contingencies have been made for those who don't the financing to proceed now and it will not cost them any more in the future than it would if you postponed the inevitable annexation. http://webmaiI.aol.comlmsgview.adp?folder=SU5CTlg=&uid=5320461 3/18/2003 AOL.COM I Message View I feel that my thoughts may more accurately represent a silent majority than a vocal minority. I encourage the council to proceed with the planned annexation of the Widdison addition. Thank you for the time you have taken to consider and reconsider our concerns. It's time for the issue to be resolved. Karl L. Edwards Kien !ks tVew 11 Delete 1 f Print10 Al� F Indude original text in reply. Page 2 of 2 http://webmail.aol.com/msgview.adp?folder_=SU5CTIg=&uid=5320461 3/1812003 AOL.COM I Message View Subj: Annexation Page 1 of 1 Attention Homeowners; Date: 3/18/2003 12:47:12 PM Eastern Standard Time From: D`Thompson, Doug" <ThompsonDPbyui.edu> To: <slarsen30@�gc.corn-�., <paul.pugmireaanlw.anl.gau>>, �nctullmerCc hotmdil,corn>, <srb44@iune.com>, Ll-- len.pond( pacificarp.com>, <donna �.rexcc.com>, ❑<brucesAc_i. rexburg.id. us> Sent from the Internet (Details) wanted to let the City Council know that, under the conditions set forth, I am in favor of the annexation. There are a majority of people on the West side of Widdison Lane that are in favor However, there are few very vocal people that are taking it upon themselves to say otherwise. These few do not represent the interest of the silent majority. Doug Thompson Ftp tts ii_.elt l'rrf 'l F Include original text in reply. 1 of 87 (Next :- Re ply Add' Address Help., _i http://webmail.aol.corn/msgview.adp?folder=SU5CT1 g=&uid=5320515 3/18/2003 AOL.COM I Message View *- AOL Ma -IWr-, Attention Homeowners: Subj: Proposed Annexation of West Widdison Addition Date: 3118/2003 11:05:51 AM Eastern Standard Time From: 0 Harris, Brent" <bront.harris &Oanlw.anl.gov> To: ❑ Pugmire, Paul" <paul.pugmire anlw.anl. ov>; D"Pond, Glen`<glen. onda, pacif carp. com>, ❑"'Sutherland Bruce "'<bruces@ci D"Larsen, Shawn„' <slarscn30@ao.com>, ❑"'Fullmer, Nyle"' <ncfullme Q Bjorn, Marsha"': sr1?44 cr juno.corn>, ❑"'Benfield Donna"' <dan_na@_r Sent from fhe Internet (Details Honorable Mayor and City Council I understand there is a possiblilty that the proposal to annex the west Widdison Addition may be withdrawn, because of some public opposition to the proposal. Page 1 of 1 I feel that would be a mistake. The reasons for the annexation are valid and still exist even though. some have been outspoken in their opposition. I believe the conditions agreed upon in the last work meeting on 2/26/03 are reasonable. If you are considering not annexing our addition and not installing the sewer line, you should definitely allow time for additonal input from the residents before making a final decision. I believe the majority of the people in our neighborhood, including me, feel that annexation is the best option in the long run. That is evidenced by the statement presented by Karl Edwards at the last work meeting, which was signed by almost everyone on the street. Thank you for consideration of my input, Brent G. Harris 1125 Widdison Lane (West Widdison Additon) €pr#vu tte1�#e Pr.`.,`ant. Prev 4 of 87 Mex$ F F Include original text in reply. 9 Reply Fcm-Md Reply All Add Address Help. '. J http://webmail.aol.com/rnsgview.adp?foldef=SUSCTI g=&uid=5313845 3/18/2003