HomeMy WebLinkAboutChade Spackman RE LIDs Deborah Lovejoy
From: Chade Spackman <cnspackman@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2025 8:32 AM
To: Deborah Lovejoy
Subject: Local Improvement District (LID) Protest
Need to Discontinue Rexburg's Local Improvement District(LID) Program
Introduction
The Local Improvement District(LID) program in Rexburg, Idaho, is intended to fund public infrastructure
improvements by distributing the costs among property owners who directly benefit from these projects.
While this may seem like a fair system, the LID program presents several issues that warrant its
reconsideration and discontinuation. These include financial burdens on residents, lack of transparency,
questionable necessity, and potential inequities in its application.
1. Financial Burden on Property Owners
One of the most pressing concerns with the LID program is the financial strain it places on property
owners. These assessments can be substantial, creating unexpected financial hardships for
homeowners, landlords, and small businesses. Many residents are already struggling with rising property
taxes, increased cost of living, and inflation.Additional LID assessments only compound these financial
pressures, making homeownership less affordable.
Unfair Cost Distribution
• The LID program disproportionately affects property owners within designated improvement areas,
forcing a small group to bear costs that should be a shared community responsibility.
• Unlike general city-funded infrastructure projects, which are covered through broader taxation, LIDs
shift the financial burden onto a limited number of individuals, creating an unfair system.
2. Lack of Transparency and Public Involvement
There is a growing concern that LID projects are implemented without sufficient transparency or public
input. Property owners may not always be fully aware of proposed improvements, their associated costs,
or their ability to oppose these projects.
Issues with Public Awareness
• Many residents only learn about LID assessments after they have already been approved, leaving them
with little recourse.
• The decision-making process often lacks clear, widespread communication, leading to frustration and
distrust among affected citizens.
i
• Public hearings and notifications are often insufficient, preventing meaningful community engagement.
3. Questionable Necessity and Efficiency
While infrastructure improvements are necessary, the LID program may not always allocate funds
efficiently. The program may prioritize projects that are unnecessary or lower in priority compared to
other pressing city needs.
Potential Waste of Resources
• Some property owners feel that the improvements they are being forced to pay for do not significantly
benefit them.
• The city may be using the LID system to push forward projects that would not otherwise receive public
support.
• LID-funded improvements, such as sidewalk replacements, should be covered by general city funds
rather than placing the financial burden on specific property owners.
4. Inequitable Implementation and Enforcement
Not all property owners are affected equally by the LID program, leading to concerns about inequitable
enforcement. Certain areas may be targeted for improvements while others, with similar infrastructure
needs, are ignored.
Unfair Targeting of Certain Neighborhoods
• Some communities may be disproportionately impacted by LIDs, particularly older neighborhoods that
require more infrastructure updates.
• Commercial property owners may be hit harder than residential homeowners, making it more
expensive to operate small businesses in Rexburg.
• The selective nature of LID projects raises concerns about favoritism or biased decision-making in
project selection.
Conclusion
While the LID program is designed to fund necessary infrastructure improvements, its drawbacks
outweigh its benefits. The financial burden on property owners, lack of transparency, questionable
efficiency, and inequitable application make it an unjust and problematic system. The City of Rexburg
should explore alternative funding mechanisms—such as allocating general tax revenue, pursuing state
or federal grants, or implementing citywide infrastructure bonds—to ensure that public improvements
are funded fairly and equitably.
Recommendation: The City of Rexburg should immediately halt the LID program and seek community-
driven alternatives to finance infrastructure projects in a way that is transparent, fair, and does not
impose undue financial strain on property owners.
2