HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil Minutes - March 19, 2025♦0%j R G,
� 9
0 (208) 359-3020
� 35 North 1" East
9e Z'SHED "$� Rexburg, ID 83440
Rexburg.org I Engage.Rexburg.org
•.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
City Council Minutes — March 19, 2025
Mayor Jerry Merrill
Council Members:
Bryanna Johnson Eric Erickson
Robert Chambers David Reeser
Colin Erickson Mikel Walker
City Staff:
Stephen Zollinger — City Attorney
Matt Nielson — Finance Officer
Keith Davidson — Public Works Director
Alan Parkinson — Planning & Zoning Administrator
Scott Johnson — Economic Development Director
Deborah Lovejoy — City Clerk
6•Ro P.M.
Council Member E. Erickson said the prayer.
Council Member Chambers led the pledge.
Roll Call of Council Members:
Attending: Council Member Johnson, Council Member Chambers, Council Member C. Erickson,
Council Member E. Erickson, Council Member Reeser, Council President Walker and Mayor Merrill
Welcome New Employees: Melissa Jensen — Information Technology Department
Melissa Jensen introduced herself and said she started with the city as a part-time IT employee in
2022; however, left because she needed full-time work. A full-time position became available, so she
decided to come back to work for the city's IT Department.
Presentation: Business Competition First Place Winner — Interval Al, Kaysen Klinger
Mayor Merrill and city Economic Development Assistant Aaron Denney presented the Business
Competition First Place Winner Kaysen Klinger with a $5,000 check. Mr. Klinger thanked the city for
sponsoring the business competition. He said it was exciting to be a part of the competition, especially
because he grew up and lives in Rexburg. He said he appreciates the city for investing in new up and
coming businesses. He said the name of his business is called Interval Al, and it is a software program
that helps businesses collect past due balances from clients owing them money. The software automates
the entire process of reaching out to clients that owe money to that company and collects those balances
owing.
Mr. Klinger said during his business pitch at the business competition last week he talked about the
best way they can help grow business here in Rexburg is not actually by helping businesses make more
money, but rather by helping them collect all the money that they have already earned. Interval AI has
helped businesses collect about $1oo,000. They have been in business for about eight months and with
the funds received from the competition, they can continue to build out their product and hopefully
collect millions of dollars for companies here in Rexburg.
Mayor Merrill said there were 23 business competition applicants and six of those applicants
presented their business proposals in front of a panel of judges. The business competition promotes
new ideas to encourage and help grow the city's business base in the community.
Public Comment: Items not on the agenda; limit of 3 minutes; issues may be considered for
discussion on a future agenda. Please keep comments on point and respectful. NONE
Items from Council: .
A. Committees: MEPI, Cultural Arts, Grants, School Board, MUSIC, MYAB, Emergency Services Board,
Beautification, Trails/Parks & Recreation, Urban Renewal, Airport, Golf Board, ADA Oversight Board,
Historical Preservation Committee, and Legacy Flight Museum
Council Member C. Erickson reported the Golf Board met and he had the opportunity to go to the
Teton Lakes club house to check the progress of the remodel. The work that has been completed looks
great. The carpet has been replaced, they are almost finished with the restrooms and the deck is being
reconstructed after it was hit by a vehicle during a traffic accident. They are also working on the
stormwater drainage issue in the parking lot at Teton Lakes. He said they are trying to complete all the
work before the golf season starts.
Council Member Johnson reported that the Trails Committee will meet next month. The
Beautification Committee will be meeting soon to plan a park cleanup event this spring.
Council President Walker reported the Mayor's Youth Advisory Board met last week and they will
be meeting again next week for their mock City Council Meeting. He said they will hold a mock City
Council to learn how city government functions. The ADA oversight Board will not meet until April.
Council Member Chambers reported the Urban Renewal Agency met today and was able to approve
a successful audit. The Urban Renewal Agency's accounting is accurate and there were no non-
compliance issues.
Council Member Chambers reported the Cultural Arts Department is hosting the Heritage Youth
Symphony performance on April9th at the Tabernacle starting at 7 o'clock in the evening. The cost of
the ticket is six dollars and can be purchased online. The Historical Preservation Committee did not
meet.
Council Member E. Erickson reported a situation arose with obtaining approval from the Army
Corps of Engineers to begin construction of the new Teton River Park. The Rexburg Canal may have
items of historical value; therefore, the Army Corps of Engineers requires an archaeological study of
that area which could cost the city more money.
Council Member Reeser reported that the Cultural Arts Department did not meet; however, he
invited Rexburg Museum Curator Alisha Tietjen into his classroom yesterday to discuss some of her
responsibilities as museum curator. He teaches an advanced Holocaust Class at the Madison High
school and his students are going to build a museum in one of the trailers the school owns.
Council Member Johnson asked for clarification regarding the archaeological study at the Teton
River Park. Mayor Merrill clarified the State Department has been sued by environmental groups and
historical groups because the federal code requirements for environmental and archaeological studies
were not met. An archaeological study determines if there are historical items present at certain
locations. An archeological study is required at Teton River Park because the Rexburg Canal was dug by
pioneers. The cost of the study is about $9,50o and it will cause a delay in the construction start date of
the park by several weeks because the study cannot be completed until the snow is melted off the
ground.
B. Other Reports:
Zoom Presentation 6:45 P.M.: Fiscal Year 2023 and 2024 Audit Report — Theresa Flannery, Rudd
& Company
Motion to Approve Restated/Reissued Fiscal Year 2023 Audit - Action Item
Theresa Flannery with Rudd & Company explained that the audit report was reviewed during the
Special City Council Meeting on March 14th, 2025. There are three parts of the audit report that belong
to Rudd and Company and the rest of the report belongs to the city. The first part of the audit is a letter
of the independent auditor's report, the item the City Council will want to focus on is Rudd &
Company's opinion on the financial statements. She said she believes the financial statements are
presented fairly in all material aspects. The Finance Department has completed a really good job of
keeping track of everything. There was dialogue back and forth between the city and auditor. The
auditor received all the material necessary to give their opinion free and clear.
Opinions
We have audited the accompan%ing Financial sta:cmcnts of the goNcmmental acti%ities. the business -
type actkAics. the diccreteh presented component unit. each maior fund. and the aggngatc remainint,
fiord information of City of ReNburg. Idaho (ate CAN'). as of and for the Near etxled Septemivr 10,
2024, and the related notes to the tinancial statements. %{Inch collectively comprise the City of
Rexburg. Idaho's basic financial statements as listed in the table of cont:nrs
In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above p:escnt fair:•, in all material respects, the
respective financial position of the governmental activities. the business -type acti%itics. the discrete]}
presented component unit, each major fund. and the aggro<gaie remaining fund infi)rmation of -City of
Rexburg., Idaho as of'Septentber 30. 2024. and the changes in financial position and, where applicable.
cash Cows thereof for the year then ended in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted
in the United States of America,
Ms. Flannery pointed out there is good information in the MDNA which Finance Officer Nielson put
together. The MDNA has some comparisons between this year and last year. The city has increased in
current assets across both the business type activities which are mostly supported by property taxes.
Ms. Flannery said the statement of net position comparison (2024 vs 2023) report illustrates the
city's growth over time, both in the assets and the liabilities. The report also illustrates how well those
two items are progressing. The liabilities have grown as well as the short-term payments that are
waiting to be made and other items in the city's books.
2
NtatQ1114:111 of Net PoNition Comparison (2024 vs. 2023):
.. . .... ....
1.11 AL3,1w
ia•
:.,.57
S 2t,,;j609
%
m
5�.414
:4 �.- 22 t
I
1
4 44,j :194
'j r, 4! 1
2
0,11 V4
10,512 "ton
9,1 A i
2u.U.'.
16,9211.731
A.Z*iXu
26,14.1.,Q,
2,2f,"St. 11
Rd.1, I It_x
- -; Vwc,
1%, 1
:1 14-,
2 74 4-ti-
17 6, 4
,,j 1'..
-4,5114,344
5 6&646,264
S 62,658. 15
17-..-.2W1
n 13.W.T47
1,
NOV, W
the 1-talent'"I
111 %et Paiiii,in
i 11 3Itev'sti incrva�.d srCIA..'fird.v :I Jx -.ry ntcwiv rro, [.,cuctcd "iete ir'rrml
4�1 We F;-An" 11) 1 ) tl:c W:c,.rWatcl 1-1: It C1,nmr-Xim-i 1--ard n.1 firrcra_' F,id f-1.1t 1i,_,T -- laqv rtlrltm 'If"Ic it
;I We w%%rdl Leve cap;".11 J-njcLr?t ir, k.rkog. the ]aSerra"At. and N1a r, : J,,! :Ird
(_, I TI-rcily 5mnldears nr '�_--Ioa: urn! b, :,V:. 51 =Vinr. in FY 2,024 :wid tic L;,Jcj :1, P5 _',.-i :=}mvt�r r:--,z7wrd-Hs te.ir
Because the City has not bccn required b» the Go% ernmental Accounting Standaids Board ((TASI3 * )10
list streets and storm sewers acquired Oc7ober 1. 2003. those iterns are not included in -he
Beginning Net Asset amounts under (iovernnicniai Activities. All acquisitions ofsireets and storm
sewers on or after that date will be included. The City inay decide in the future to estimate the
historical cost of those previously acquired streCtNand storm sewcr,,- and ad -lust the beginning halaanccs
at that time.
Ms. Flannery explained page nine of the report is good information on the revenues and
expenditures. She clarified that this is the accrual basis and not the day-to-day operations.
Statement of Changes in Net
Position Comparison (2024 vs. 2023):
-4
C but. I—s— A I-
C,-., -d Aa:::.r,. — .
% �_,;: .,"2 S
4.141c1
4 :."6!. 1
77kA I
1.7 't,
I :75.;Aj
:W:r.!t
4
.-Ah I.M.. IN NMI
$
UI 1,11
4 I : .. I
-4".
?71
6471.11h
f 17 k,
!k_JIOJU
MAAM
WMAIJ
211,134'"1
79jWIA*I
f645.10!
-Z%
Op .. 6-z G*t W C
767.443
j j 34(
(4s 1.":
-16-1
Nhb,
1,714 A -A
u: 4 8-7(
-97.-F.-
1:1'.
P.4
14
3M6_4".
A.A44 R0
W .1.
Itv
C.piW Gu ..d -Wku -
7!
1 -16, h4l
7- 1'1
-7111
:4:
NNA, 11
1
:!:
I UM
!42 414
',,:
S24) 7it
Sarftncn
Ged" ftd'.a'inin:
3.:13.122
IM
IAIA I (K
2.;,. 1 U
W
1 11 1 42R
1;1 09
M. I I I
1-7
P—A. A,
ILJT3_11-7
tc.49._<29
444.1.1.
51Y.N13
1$.R214,K41
1,41 J.40
Jjj.'?I
*511i,
5 44.452J59 5
3 _.42k'i L;
1A.A0,04 S
L.P__
UO
A, 4 5 A 3W,
9,WW', ;R,4
A
t rRX
11.12N
!AJ 46,
114
kil 1, K not A.1,
11: i{ P:d
'A 1, 97'
4.1 W.'
2� q2�
-
1 ;4-". OW,
1,14
A- 4761
:44.M1
-A:- A
11-t7.194
4N.417 9"
44.$.A.7, A-
3.575.211
#'!.
K.11314441
S 6'r41a,U4
1441..
9 4 1 :1
S
1.0.10.1E
1 13,1444,7158
V....
3
Ms. Flannery reviewed the statement of activities report which is a different version of the statement
of changes in net position comparison. The expenditures are side to side with the direct revenues to
support those expenitures. The net overall cost of different pieces of government and how those are
supported. She said for example, in the water fund the city's expenses are 4.o6 million dollars and the
charges for those expenses are 4.05 million dollars which illustrate how much those charges are going
to support those actual costs.
Cl I Y OF RUXnLIRG, IDAI I0
STATF.MFNTOF AC"I'IVITIES
60VERNMENT' WIDIi
For the year ended September 30, 2024
Program Revenues Net (Expense) Revenue and Changes in Net Position
Charges Operating Capital
for Servicos Grants and Grants and Governmental Business -Type Component
FUNCTIONSIPROGRAMS Expenses and Taxes Contributions Contributions Activities Activities Total unit
PRIMARY GOVERNMENT:
GOVERNMENTAL. ACTIVITIES:
General and Admmrsrrahtir 5 8,8W,069 S 6.912.972 S 262.443 S 523.375 S (1-191.279) S - S (1,191.279) S -
Pcnhc Sateh' 16.176.642 3,421.776 3,312.141 40,000 (9.402.725) - (9,402 725)
Paf;s, Golf, Recreation and Ads 5,03a,894 2,455,966 251.975 311.888 12.01E.065) - (2,019. D65)
Streets 5,44Q060 2.757.459 5,832,247 314C,646 - 3,140.646
Interest experrsu (ur aliocated) 3a 957 (3F 95 7 )
Total Gmemmenta' Activities 35 593 622 15 548 173 3,826,559 6 707 516 (9 51' 380) (9,472,423)
BUSINESS -TYPE ACTIVITIES
Water 4.064,630 4,056.599 - 1,717,627 - 1709,696 1.700.696 -
Waste Water 5.617.505 5.974.960 - 3,248,453 - 3.605,628 3.605.628
Sanitalion 3,142.041 3,356 040 - 2 13999 213.999
Tolar lousiness -type Activ ties 12 674 376 13,387,619 - 4 966 080 5,529,323 - 5 529 323
TOTAL PRIMARY GOVERNMENT 5 48.4t',998 S 26,935 792 S 3.626.5S9 5 11,673.590 E (9 511 380) S 5 529 323 S (3 943 100)
COMPONENT UNIT
Rexburg Urbal Renewal Disttict S 908 BCO S - $ 5 i9C8 BCOi
GENERAL REVENUES:
Property Taxes Levied for Gereral Purposes 7,804.168 - 7,804,168 2.270,628
Slate Taxes 8,207 338 - 8.2C2.338 -
investment Earnings 1.811,426 1,220,730 3,032,156 405.556
tdiscet+aneous 153,657 124.328 778,225 111531
Promens from (I ass on) sale of Gapaal assets i 101 '1T (886 3331 (988."
I oW Genera; Revenve 10,370,117 458 '25 18,828,842 2,594,715
Change in Nei Pos,wn 5,856.737 5,988.048 14,846,785 1,785.915
NET POSITION - BEGINNING BALANCE 98 504 358 62 658 156 S 161.162.514 5 453 884
Prior period adiuslmert 1.1.0co CCO) - i1,000,000) -
NET POSITION -BEGINNING BALANCE, as restated 97.504 358 57.558156 S 160,162.514 5 463 884
NET POSITION - ENDING BALANCE $ 106.363 095 S 58,646.204 S 175 009 299 S 7 249 799
Ms. Flannery reviewed the budgetary comparison schedule general fund. The general fund is the city's
flexible funding for the city and flexible is a loose term because usually the general fund has a lot of
places where those funds are trying to go to at the same time. She suggested looking at the general fund
to actual comparison to determine how much the city intends to spend, how much is intended to be
receive and where those numbers actually fell for the year. The overall intent for the final budget
amount was 1.3 million dollars out of the coffers to be spent 1.3 over what the city was going to receive
for the year and the actual came in just under that 1.o or 1.1 million dollars. The amout of variance is
$292,000 compared with the budget, which means your were under budget, which is required by the
state requirements. The Finance Department did a good job of managing where those expenses were.
The line items also line up well which suggests highly of the people in charge of setting those budgets
and watching over those budgets throughout the year. She said it is important to watch over those
budgets because setting the budget is only step one of the process.
CITY UP RGXItI1RG. IDAI10
BUDGFTARV COMPARISON SCHFDULF
GENERAI,FUND
For the yew ended September 30, 2024
Actual
Variance to
Original
Final
Anillunts
Final Budget
Budget
Budget
BudgOary
(Deficiency)/
Amount
Amount
Basis
Excess
REVFNI)ES;
Taxes
S 11.071.500 S
11.071,500 $
10.698.062 $
(373.438)
Grants and Contributions
1,434,5(N)
1.434.500
883.212
(551.288)
17ees mitt Charles
4.646.600
4.640.(0)
4,634.183
(12.417)
Investrncnl%Interest Income
670,000
670000
1.124.410
454.410
1'ranstcrs in from Other Funds
10,000
10.000
371465
27.465
Ivlisccllancous
14?00
14.200
209,756
195.556
TOTAL REVENUES
17.846,800
17.846.800
17 587 088
(259 712)
EXPENDITURES:
Current:
General and Administrativee
5,506,400
5156L900
5.546.399
15.501
Public Safety
6,8260)0
7.002.600
7,038,694
(360)1)
Parks and Recreation and Arts
1.279.500
1.300.0(A)
1,389.302
(89,302)
Capital Improvements:
1.199.600
1.199.600
530.813
068,787
Translcrs Out
3,858 200
4.161.100
4,173.021
(11,921)
Contingency
41 + 00O
5.100
5,100
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
19,081700
19.230.300
18.678.229
552,071
EXCESS OF REVENUES OVER
(UNDER) EXPENDITURES
(1 235 900)
(1,383.500)
(1.091.141)
292-354
FEND BALANCE, BEGINNING OF YEAR
6.951,332
6.951,332
6.951.332
FUND BALANCE.. END OF YEAR
S 5,715.432 $
5.567.832 S
5,8C10,191 $
292.359
Ms. Flannery pointed out the last two letters of the three that belong to Rudd & Company, the
reporting of the internal controls of the city. When an audit is completed, they spend time
understanding how the expenditures and revenues flow through the organization. They looked at who
I41
in the city is in charge of receiving, depositing, cutting checks, and approving invoices. She said if the
auditor finds anything glaringly to them about the internal controls that information would be located
in the auditors report.
Ms. Flannery explained there was one finding that the auditors found related to the COVID money
the city received. The COVID money was received by the city fast for a while. Those funds were
budgeted to be used and because those funds were not fully used, they were missed in the reporting a
couple years ago. The reporting was corrected this year so those funds were finalized and they were
cleaned up at the end. This was the only issue that the auditor found in the internal controls. Over all
the city received a good score. The last item in the audit report describes; since the city received federal
funding and received over the $750,000 threshold, the city was required to have a single audit. The
threshold is moving up to one million dollars next year.
Ms. Flannery mentioned as the audit looked at those federal dollars, they picked two programs to
test. One was related to the Community Improvement Block Grant and the other was the COVID
funding. The auditor looked at those for any issues in compliance and internal controls related to the
use of those funds and the proper adherence to the agreements the city must follow to receive those
funds and there were no issues found. The city received another perfect score as far as the major funds
are concerned.
Mayor Merrill expressed his appreciation for the city's Finance Department and auditor Theresa
Flannery with Rudd & Company. Council Member E. Erickson added he attended the City Council
Meeting on March 14, where the audit was reviewed in greater detail.
Finance Officer Nielson recommended the City Council to officially adopt the audit and adopt a
restated fiscal year 2023 audit. There were changes made when they moved items out of the combining
statements into the governmental as a major fund.
Council President Walker moved to approve the Restated/Reissued Fiscal Year 2023
Audit; Council Member C. Erickson seconded the motion; Mayor Merrill asked for a vote:
Those voting aye
Council Member Johnson
Council Member Chambers
Council Member C. Erickson
Council Member E. Erickson
Council Member Reeser
Council President Walker
The motion carried.
Motion to Approve Fiscal Year 2024 Audit - Action Item
Those voting nay
none
Council Member Chambers moved to approve Fiscal Year 2024 Audit; Council Member E.
Erickson seconded the motion; Mayor Merrill asked for a vote:
Those voting aye
Council Member Johnson
Council Member Chambers
Council Member C. Erickson
Council Member E. Erickson
Council Member Reeser
Council President Walker
The motion carried.
Those voting nay
none
Public Hearing 7:00 P.M. Creation of Local Improvement District 54 (LID 54). Designated as
Ordinance No 1330 if motion passes and considered first read — Keith Davidson - Action Item
Mayor Merrill opened the public hearing.
Public Works Director Davidson reviewed the locations included in the proposed Local
Improvement District 54 (LID 54)
Mayor Merrill said he and the City Council have received written input pertaining to the proposed
creation of Local Improvement Distract 54 (LID 54) public hearing. He asked the Councilmembers to
declare any conversations that took place outside of the public hearing regarding the consideration to
create Local Improvement District 54. Open Meeting laws require transparency, and everyone has the
same information discussed outside of the public hearing.
Council Member E. Erickson declared he discussed the city's Local Improvement District policy
with Todd Grant, Mr. Grant participated in LID 50 which was on Park Street. They discussed the pros
and cons of LID's and the costs that LIDs impose on homeowners.
Council Member Reeser said he had a conversation with several colleagues at work, particularly
Ryan Snellgrove because he participated in the Park Street LID 50. He said he asked Mr. Snellgrove
about his perspective regarding the city's LID Ordinance.
Council Member Reeser said he also spoke with Dan Stewart, Logan Romney, Zach Lambs because
they were curious about his thoughts regarding LIDs. They discussed the pros and cons of LIDs and
received insight from their perspectives as city residents.
Public Testimony in favor of the proposal (5-minute limit):
Steve Oakey stated he has a property on vt West and is in favor of the creation of LID 54 because the
work completed in LID 54 will greatly enhance his property and his surrounding neighbor's properties.
Public Testimony neutral to the proposal (5-minute limit):
Aaron Denney said he is excited to see S 5th W reconstructed because the road is in bad condition;
however, it is unfair for the city to make home and business owners install and repair their own
sidewalks. He said the city is not making improvements to increase property values, which to him
would be narrowing the road and making the neighborhood more walkable.
Mr. Denney asked the City Council to consider redesigning the road to a safer more livable street for
his neighborhood. First, safety by narrowing the lanes would slow the traffic speed and lessen severe
vehicular accidents. Currently, the traffic moves at an incredibly fast speed on S 5th W. The narrowing of
roads would create cost savings for the city because it would reduce paving materials and future
maintenance costs. There are organizations like Redfin and Zillow that have found statistically
significant correlations between walkability and home values, he believes it is especially important for
Rexburg because there is a university in the city.
Public Testimony opposed to the proposal (5-minute limit):
Todd Grant stated he owns a house on Park Street and the proposed LID 54 is impacting him
financially and unfairly; therefore, he is opposed to LID 54. The house he owns is not his primary
residence and he paid over $4,000 in property tax last year. He believes the Road and Bridge tax should
cover the cost of LIDs and if there is not enough money from those taxes to cover the costs of LIDs, the
City Council needs to petition the state for an increase in the road tax. He said he learned the city spent
$56,000 to subsidize Rexburg Rapids, $80,000 was spent and wasted on a feasibility study for a
Madison County Recreation Center. The city also subsidizes the Romance Theater, Tabernacle, Legacy
Flight Museum, etc., he does not believe this is the proper role of government.
Mr. Grant read a section on the proper role of government by Ezra Taft Benson. He questioned the
$4,269 estimated LID cost for his property because he received a quote from a private contractor for
$2,600 for the entire footage of sidewalk, curb and gutter in front of his house that needs to be
replaced. He wondered why the city's estimate is 40% higher than the quote he received from the
private contractor. He said if this LID is approved, he will pay over $8,000 this year in property taxes
and LID costs.
Mr. Grant urged the Mayor and City Council to vote no to create LID 54 based on the reasons he has
described. He said as an overtaxed and over regulated Idahoan; he asked the Mayor and City Council to
re-examine the way money is being spent in Rexburg and stop competing with private enterprises.
Larry Rigby stated he is here tonight representing the Continental Park HOA. He received the letter
the city mailed to the property owners included in LID 54 a week ago because it was sent to Karchner
Homes of Idaho, they have owned this property for over 20 years. They are in the process of forwarding
the LID letter to their unit owners. There are 49-unit owners in that complex and about 2/3 of them live
out of town. He said he is the property manager and owns several units; therefore, he is not necessarily
opposed to the project because it would be nice to see that road reconstructed.
Mr. Rigby said the LID letter he received states the allocation of the project cost is based on linear
square footage. There is about 18 feet of the total 18o square feet of linear curve that needs to be
replaced, the rest is still in great condition. The two driveways that the assessment is proposing to be
replaced have a few cracks; however, they are in good condition. The sidewalk behind the driveways is
perfect. The square footage the assessment is proposing to be replaced is estimated at $32,0oo; the
HOA is allocating the $32,000 costs to the unit owners; it represents about a $2,400 cost per unit.
CI
There is, however, a portion of sidewalk and curb the assessment indicates needs to be replaced that he
does not believe needs replaced.
Nathan Blumenberg stated he echoes some of those same issues that have already been expressed.
When he reviewed his assessment, he noticed that there is a fair amount of sidewalk on his property in
fair condition and does not need to be replaced. There is curbing that needs to be replaced. There is no
debate about whether the city needs to reconstruct the road on 5t' W.
Mr. Blumenberg expressed his concerns about the economic impact the cost of the LID will have on
the homeowners, especially when there is talk about a recession. He urged the City Council to consider
the lives the proposed LID will have on homeowners and the impact of having a lien on their property.
A lien on a property prohibits the property owner to refinance their home for the next io years. He
asked the City Council to keep in mind the residents will have less money because of the LIDs costs;
therefore, they will have less money to spend in the city which equals less tax revenue coming into the
city.
Bill Johnson said he and his wife Tammy have owned two properties in Rexburg for several years.
These two properties are rentals. Their concerns are the prohibitive costs LIDs cause. The estimated
LID cost for their two properties is about $ii,000 for each property; however, this is not the only LID
he has participated in, the last LID was in 2008 and the cost for that LID was about $8,000.
Mr. Johnson expressed his concerns about the way LIDs are managed. On his first LID he opted to
have the city contractor install the sidewalk and driveway apron because he wanted to make sure the
work was completed correctly; however, issues arose with the driveways. The work was not completed
correctly but he was told he needed to cover those costs, which seems ridiculous. He said between the
previous LID and the two proposed LIDs; the costs are close to $30,000. The LID costs are an over
burden on property owners.
Mr. Johnson said he is in favor of improvements; however, he does not think the property owners
should be funding those improvements. The money to fund the LIDs should come from taxes. Mr.
Johnson wondered why there is a vast difference in costs between the previous LID and the proposed
LIDs for his properties. The costs have doubled in price.
Chase Spackman said his property is not included in the proposed LID 54; however, his property
could be included in an LID in the future. He asked the City Council to consider completing a study on
how to more equitably distribute the LID costs among the property owners. There are a couple of
studies stating that 30 % of Americans cannot handle a $500 financial emergency and 60 % of
Americans cannot handle a $1000 emergency. In the city there are about 50% of the citizens that are
going to have to take out a loan to pay for their LID assessment.
Michael Thompson said he is the facility manager for Melaleuca and is opposed to the LID cost;
however, he is not opposed to the upgrades. The business owners pay an additional share above and
beyond what they pay in taxes. He stated Melaleuca owns a building on both sides of the street;
therefore, Melaleuca will have to pay for two LID assessments, totaling about $80,000.
Mr. Thompson asked if city staff apply for grants to offset the costs of LIDs. Mayor Merrill explained
the city staff often apply for grants for street repairs and reconstruction and the city is awarded some of
those grants; however, the city is still about 20 years behind on street repairs. The city's tax levy is the
third lowest in the State of Idaho, if the city's levy were higher the city could afford to pay for more of
the share to reconstruct a road. Over 8o years ago the past City Councilmembers passed a city
ordinance to allocate the expenses of sidewalks, curb and gutter improvements to the property owners.
There have been changes to the policy; some of those changes include the city funding 30% of the curb
and gutter improvement costs to be able to stretch out the street reconstruction budget. Mr. Thompson
suggested cutting out other budget items to increase the street budget.
Trevor Plastow asked the City Council to increase the base tax rate, so the LID costs are spread out to
all property owners at the same time. He said his opposition is not towards improving the road, it is
i00% towards the burden LIDs cause to families. The fact that the city government is relying on 80
years' worth of history to be able to say that this is how the city operates is archaic and the City Council
should revamp how LID assessments are funded. He added the principle that city government is using
legal code for LID assessments, there are many things that are legal that government should not do, LID
assessments are one of those items.
Rob Wilson stated his property is not included in the proposed creation of LID 54; however, he t00%
concurs with Mr. Plastow. The 8o years of precedent does not mean that is the way city government
should be going forward. He suggested the City Council look at different ways to spread the load the
LID assessments cause to property owners. The purpose of saying Rexburg is a family community
means that citizens look after each other. He wondered if the City Council has considered the tax load
put on city residents. He asked the City Council to consider looking at different options to help with
7
funding street reconstruction other than LIDS. There are other cities in Idaho that fund street
improvements differently than Rexburg to spread the load and allow for growth in their cities.
Katie Watson stated her property is not included in the proposed LID 54; however, her property
could be included in a future LID. She questioned if it has been 8o years since the city government
passed the city ordinance pertaining to LIDs, it has been a long time ago. She asked if a group of
residents show up every time an LID is proposed? She said her guess is that many residents that show
up are against the creation of the LIDs. She wondered why LIDs are still being created if many residents
are against the LIDS. Mayor Merril explained the city could change the city ordinance pertaining to
LIDS to fund street reconstruction through passing a bond; however, all the property owner's taxes
would increase substantially and the property owners that have already paid for an LID would pay again
through taxes.
Mayor Merrill explained the reason the city cannot raise taxes by more than 3% is because the state
legislature limited the city to a 3% maximum each year. When the legislature set the city's levy, they
intentionally set it low because they desired to be responsible government and not tax the citizens too
much. He said the City Council and city residents could lobby the legislature to allow cities to raise taxes
more than the current 3% cap. The LIDS allow the city to take care of the streets and partner with the
property owners to improve their property with new sidewalks, curb and gutter.
Discussion regarding the LID on Park Street, they were able to narrow the road to lower the property
owner's assessments. The new sidewalks were moved away from the curb to make it easier to keep the
sidewalks clear from snow during the winter. The narrow road also keeps vehicles speed lower than a
wider road.
Mayor Merrill said he, the City Council and city staff are working on ways to lower the costs of LID
assessments by lowering the interest rate to finance the LID, increasing the city's participation
percentage, and narrowing the road so there is less asphalt. LID provides a method for the property
owners to pay for their assessments over a io-year period, if a bond were to be passed, it would raise
taxes to cover the street reconstruction in perpetuity.
Krista Flamm said she does not believe anyone who has been through an LID desires it to happen to
somebody else. There are 199 municipalities within the State of Idaho, there are only seven cities that
use LID assessments. She said she believes there are other ways to fund LID assessments.
Mrs. Flamm shared the following experience regarding her grandparents' LID assessment; they were
quoted a $2,5oo assessment, when they received their final assessment, it was $1o,000. It was
discovered that her sidewalk was a fraction of an inch off according to ADA compliance, so they wanted
to tear up that section of sidewalk. When the construction workers showed up to tear out
her 8o-year-old grandmother stood in the driveway for hours until they left. She said there are ithe driveway,
other municipalities that are not using LIDS, there are better ways the city could fund LIDs.
Matt Miles suggested creating a task force to find other options to replace the LIDs. The Rexburg
Community is raising money to fix the Tabernacle. There are charitable people who live in the
community. He said he is opposed to LIDS and is in favor of finding a better way to fund street
reconstruction.
Gracie Ferguson asked if it was possible for the citizens to vote for other options to fund LID
improvements. Most people are opposed to LIDs because they have a big impact on property owners.
She asked if it is possible to have other options and have all the citizens vote on what they feel more
comfortable doing. She said she understands the money must come from somewhere so raising taxes
would be one option. By raising taxes, the money would be collected over time instead of in a large sum.
Public Works Director Davidson explained generally for street bonds the city would have to
specifically layout where the bond payment is going directly. A permanent levy override could be placed
in perpetuity. The street levy override election would raise every property owner's taxes. He asked all to
keep in mind that bonds and levies are difficult to pass.
Lisa Tanner said she has driven, and her kids ride their bicycles on the sidewalks on Park Street. She
expressed her appreciation for the sidewalks and said she would be happy to help lift her neighbor's
burden of their LID assessment.
Aaron Denney said he used the Madison County / Rexburg parcel viewer and measured the lane
width of one of the highway's lanes, it is 12 feet with a standard speed limit of �o miles per hour. The
lane width on 5a' W is an a -foot lane width. He asked the City Council to consider narrowing roads to
save on costs.
Melissa Allen said she lives on Park Street and there are many children, college students, etc. that use
the sidewalks daily. There is a city ordinance pertaining to sidewalks and the property owner's
responsibility of keeping the sidewalks walkable. One of the reasons she is opposed to LIDs is the lien
that is placed on the house. She is highly against the city narrowing the road because the narrowing of
Park Street has created a hazard. When there are cars, parked on both sides of the road it is impossible
for two cars to pass each other. She asked the City Council to consider not narrowing the roads. Mayor
Merrill said the narrowing of the road creates slower traffic speed.
Bill Johnson reiterated the point that he went through one LID in 2018 and paid it off in to years
through the loan option and now he is going through another LID. The concept of not having to go
through two LIDs in a ten-year time frame is incorrect. Mayor Merrill asked if the LIDs were on the
same property. Mr. Johnson said it was two separate properties on S 5th W.
Nathaniel Rowden said he is representing a client that owns property on S 5th W. He indicated that if
the property owner uses a different contractor than the contractor the city is using, the property owner
has to pay that contractor up front and will not be able to use the io-year loan option. Mayor Merrill
said if the property owner received a lower price bill, they can still put those costs in the io-year
financing plan. Mr. Rowden asked that property owners receive notice several years in advance when a
LID assessment is being considered on their property. Finance Officer Nielson said if the property
owner is going to finance the LID assessment through the io-year loan, their first payment would not be
due until the final closed date of the LID which is generally a year from when the LID was created.
Mr. Rigby asked the City Council to consider patching the road as that would save a lot of money
versus tearing up the road. Another option would be to defer the work of this LID. The road is not going
to get worse, and it is not going to get better. He said he is not against LIDs; he is against the allocation
of the costs of the LIDs. A dollar deferred is a dollar saved. Mayor Merrill expressed caution when
deferring LIDs because the construction costs continue to increase each year. The last LID the City
Council deferred; the costs increased three times more than what was quoted the year the LID was
considered.
Mr. Denney said he measured both lanes of N 5th W and they measure 111/2 feet, when the lanes are
this wide no driver is going to travel at 20 miles per hour, they will drive at higher speeds. On S 5th W
where his house is located, he would like the traffic to move slower. There are sections on that road that
do not have sidewalks. He suggested narrowing the road and making the lanes less wide by putting in
the curb.
Gracie Ferguson asked for the interest rate to finance the LID over the io-year period. Finance
Officer Nielson said the interest rate is set on the final assessment which is about a year from when the
LID was created. The city's policy has been to charge what the market rate is on a io-year bond treasury
and then it is generally about 1% higher than that rate. The last couple of years the interest rate has
ranged from 5 to 51/2 percent. The City Council has been discussing whether to lower the interest rate
more so that is helpful for the citizens.
William Clements expressed his concerns with LIDs. The LID improves the property value of the said
property; therefore, increases the property taxes. The property owner is being double charged, one for
the LID fee and the other in increased taxes. He said he would rather have the tax spread throughout all
property owners. The sidewalks improve safety for all pedestrians.
An audience member asked if a street bond has been voted upon. Staff Accountant Phethean said in
2000 the City Council tried to pass a street bond; however, it only received a 25% vote. Finance Officer
Nielson added that the city tried to pass a bond specifically for street improvements and not sidewalks,
curb and gutter. There are two bond options the City Council could try to pass, one is a two-year
override which is temporary, and the second option is called a permanent override. The permanent
override needs a 2/3 majority to pass.
Rachel Mullins said she would rather have the taxes she pays go to Rexburg. She added she does not
mind beautifying the city by putting in new sidewalks and making the infrastructure great. The paying
of higher taxes to help take care of neighborhoods needing new sidewalk, curb and gutter is not a
burden. When paying ten thousand dollars in LIDs, which could increase to twenty thousand dollars
with inflation, is a burden.
Mayor Merrill closed the public hearing.
Deliberation:
Council Member Johnson explained since becoming a City Council Member, she has disagreed with
the LID policy. The purpose of LIDs has been cited over and over that they are "a benefit to the
homeowner", she said she disagrees with that idea because the reason property owners pay taxes is so
that the city can subsidize things everyone uses. The sidewalks are not different than the other things
the city subsidizes. The city does not need to raise taxes because the City Council sets the budget by
prioritizing the part of the budget that pays for LIDs. There are nine to eleven million dollars in the
street budget and every year there are carryover funds. Some of the funds in the street budget are
E
earmarked; however, there is a big street budget. The money in the General Fund can also be used to
fund LIDs by cutting or changing the amount of funds allocated to other accounts.
Council Member Johnson said it is disingenuous for anyone to say it is impossible for the city to
completely fund LIDS because the City Council can
change residents budget. She afford ded shat high of a is not comfortable
giving property owners a $15,000 bill because a to
Council Member Reeser said he agrees that the curbing and gutters
eed to figurbe covree the cites b by the city. g
He added he is open to working with Councilmember Johnson on trying
for the city to cover the sidewalks. The tax dollars that property owners pay takes care of the roads, and
the curb and gutter are part of the road. He said he feels comfortable advocating for increased funding
through the city budget or collectively through increased taxes rather than the increased LID
assessments.
Mayor Merrill mentioned the City Council budget meetings will begin soon. He said they can
certainly discuss allocating more of the tax dollars towards LIDs. When the City Council is setting the
city's budget during those meetings the budget is generally two million dollars over budget. They will
need to figure out what items to cut out of the budget. There have been suggestions during this meeting
to cut out subsidies like Rexburg Rapids, a ey may have to cut out parks and tra s ns as w need to budget cut to allocate more fundsdtothe street ese
are some of the types of items that they y
budget.
Council Member E. Erickson said not all resident are in favor of raising taxes and they are not in
favor of paying their portion of the LID. He explained two point to consider; the first point is the city is
limited on what items they can raise taxes for, and the state legislature has limited that raising of taxes
to 3% of the city's budget. The second point is if the City Council reallocates funds towards the street,
sidewalk, curb and gutter, they will need to make difficult decisions about what services the city is going
to limit or eliminate to move those funds into other places. There are many purposes and cannot be reallocated to the s feet fund because of oars that flow into the
city that are earmarked for specific
state laws.
Council Member E. Erickson said he is in favor of looking at different methods to fund LID
improvement; however, he doesn't know a more equitable way to fund those improvements than
through an LID. There are property owners against LIDs because they may have to borrow money
against their home to pay for the LID. LIDs are more directly attributed to the individuals who are
benefiting from the improvements. He said until the City Council can make some of those tough
decisions and decide what services that the city is no longer going to provide, he is going to support the
LID policy. He said he is in favor of increasing the city s participation percentage as can be afforded and
the cost of the curb. Increasing the city's participation percentage and covering the curb costs will help
to alleviate some of the LID cosh to the property owner.
Council Member C. Erickson explained that the City Council has discussed LIDs through many
meetings to determine how to make the LID policy better and fair. He said he walked through every
property included in this LID, there are some sidewalks that do not need to be replaced in his opinion.
The city staff need to work closely and have better communication with the property owners. City Staff
should also be notifying the property owners far in advance about proposed LIDs. He said city staff held
an open house last week to discuss LID 54 with the property owners and only some of the property
owners came to the open house, there are more property owners here tonight.
Council Member C. Erickson said he is in favor of increasing the city's participation cost for the
curb and gutter and letting the property owners cover the cost of the sidewalk. He added he would like
to form an LID taskforce to come up with better ideas to fund LIDs.
Council Member Chambers thanked the property owners for their comment, their civil conduct
and the ideas they have shared about LIDs. There are unknowns that still exist about those ideas. He
asked Public Works Director Davidson how soon the City Council must act upon these ideas and how
long is the bid for the LID good for? Public Works Director Davidson replied, the cost of the LID are
estimated costs; however, city Staff would like to move forward with obtaining the bids. The City
Council's determination of what policy they want to pursue for payment can come later. The City
Council could approve the creation of LID 54 and set the policy later or they can wait to approve LID
54; however, City Council approval to create LID 54 would authorize city staff to obtain bids for the LID
work. The actual cost of the LID comes back when the LID work is finished. After the LID work is
finished the property owners are sent a notice of their bill.
Public Works Director Davidson said his concerns are the street budget, the number of street the
city has, and the maintenance of those roads. The costs are a significant amount for the property owners
because of the cost escalation. He said he is in favor of the idea for a levy override to try and bolster the
city's street budget. There are meetings planned with the Madison County Commissioners to discuss the
decreased road and bridge tax. The road and bridge tax to the city has decreased by $700,000. He said
10
he is concerned with the amount of funds the City Council allocates to the street budget to complete
street projects.
Council Member Chambers expressed his concerns with the escalated costs on LID 54 compared to
the three previous LIDs. Public Works Director Davidson said he is hoping the actual costs are lower;
however, they will not know until the bids are received. Council Member Chambers asked to defer the
decision to approve LID 54 until they can look at the budget to determine if the city can pay for the
entire project or determine the city's cost share for the sidewalk, curb and gutter.
Council President Walker said he is in favor of the city participating in the costs of the curb and the
sidewalk. The interest rate of the LID loan could also be decreased.
Council Member Johnson said the City Council could delay an LID for an entire year. She suggested
looking at the carryover funds in the street budget. Sometimes there are too many projects that can be
completed within a year and sometimes there are too many funds earmarked than can be used in a year.
Council Member E. Erickson said he is in favor of delaying LID 54; however, he is not in favor of
postponing the LID for a year. The road surface, some sidewalks and curb are deteriorating.
Discussion regarding the different scenarios of city cost shares for LIDs.
Council President Walker explained all the City Council Members are homeowners as well and have
the same concerns regarding LIDS. They have the same cause as homeowners to keep their home up
and going. The City Council is in a tough position because they are fiscally responsible for taking care of
the taxpayers' money the best they can; however, the city needs to be able to provide the services
needed. He thanked everyone for their input and as Council Members they do listen to the resident's
concerns.
Council Member Reeser explained as citizens we are all going to pay for the street reconstruction
one way or another whether it is through an LID or increased taxes. He said he would like to see the
costs of an LID versus a street bond and information regarding the process to shift from using LIDs to
passing a street bond. The increase of the street bond per $1oo,000 of property value.
Discussion regarding the options for a levy override, the discretionary funds in the General Fund, and
less street reconstruction.
Discussion regarding how other cities not using the LID policy fund street reconstruction. City Attorney
Rammell said it is worth noting for the record that the city is a unique circumstance where the largest
property owner within city limits is tax exempt making Rexburg different than other municipalities.
City Attorney Rammell clarified the following for the record; the disclosures that were made by the
Council Member as to ex-parte communications, as they would be put legally. The Supreme Court of
Idaho prohibited so long as meaningful disclosure is made. The court has stated that it would require
the identity of who the conversation took place with for the record and a general description of the
conversation. He said he was comfortable with the disclosure made by City Council Member E.
Erickson.
City Attorney Rammell asked for clarification regarding the ex-parte communication City Council
Member Reeser had with two individuals and possibly more people that he spoke to regarding the
creation of LID 54. Council Member Reeser explained that he spoke with Ryan Snellgrove about the
Park Street LID he participated in. They did not discuss LID 54 specifically, they talked about Mr.
Snellgrove's experience with the last LID and the challenges and frustrations he had so that Council
Member Reeser had a better understanding, since this is the first time he is voting on an LID creation.
Council Member Reeser said he spoke with members of his department where he teaches, they were
Dan Stewart, Logan Romney, Alvaro Lanez, Zach Lamson and Jonathan Chavez. They asked questions
about the upcoming LID and his thoughts about the LID. He used that also as an opportunity to elicit
some responses and additional perspectives from them as to what they thought about LIDs versus
increased property taxes.
City Attorney Rammell said it is important to note for the welfare of the individuals present, the City
of Rexburg follows and is subject to open meeting laws.
Council Member Chambers moved to table the Creation of Local Improvement District 54
(LID 54); Council President Walker seconded the motion; Mayor Merrill asked for a vote:
Those voting aye Those voting nay
Council Member Johnson none
Council Member Chambers
Council Member C. Erickson
Council Member E. Erickson
11
Council Member Reeser
Council President Walker
The motion carried.
Staff Reports:
A. Finance: - Matt Nielson
i. Financial Reports
Finance Officer Nielson reviewed the Cash and Investment Report. The city's investment portfolio is
at about 52.E million dollars with about 15 million dollars of that in liquid assets. The Finance
Department is looking at 40 million dollars in the one -to -two-year term because there are large capital
improvement projects in water and wastewater. They will need to determine how much of those funds
they can reinvest in a two to three ladder in the four to five percent return.
CITY OF REXBURG
FY 2025
CASH S INVESTMENT
BALANCE REPORT
1,Gf TOta1
BALANCE
Portfolio
AS OF
CASH 6 INVESTMENTS Rate:Yield
1 YEAR
1-2 Years
2-3 Years
34 Yeats
4-5Years > 5 YEARS
2,282025
Cash On Faro
NA
14EF-,
'i,?9;
1.iEc
ZmS Bata'.:P1:E3" ^.heckmp
NA
4D612i
7m5 Bart PaYdl CIrcKi.r.9
NA
19.8T3
-04%
19 3T3
Zaps saes CN1al---ea A-
0n%
1.000.1E5
1-91%
1.R_•11_6
Key Bar*Chet mgIRLF--
0.01%
35017
0.07%
35017
WNls Falgo Drug Fed Chea rg
9.01%
13.133
0.03%
13.133
'A'6115 Fa�9m Fee Qstnct Banklrr9
0.03%
55- 28a
1.7%
567.284
Bank of Commerce Lesaci FI4
0.10%
212-530
041%
212.830
Total Cash Aeeount3
2256,675
4.32'e
2,256.675
Bank of Commerce BW?.. C-D
4 _1 %
250.OFJ
0.49%
2:5.Ow
A Mm3vk CID
5 08%
261.9E+1
v 10%
::1.954
Beehive fired¢ Lhwn CD
216%
250.1E-3
0.48%
250.153
FTX0 rCU ✓
A 73%
756.835
145%
758.805
kfaho Ce- N Gmd1 L1n.WI VD
4.09%
250,025
0.4895
250.025
Mdl.. AmenW Great lItm
4.89%
235.6ri!
0:5%
235.850
CAtmrs COmMtftvy Bank
4.50%
249.671
0.48%
249671
NaFd Bard
5.tn4
250.Dor,
0.48%
251D.000
CRY Go7 Cart CO- Mr. Man
3.0%
C
1Z24-7
0i3c.S
122.457
Total Certificate W Dc POSi! Inve�;ments
2,512,629
122.457
5.0V,
2.635.086
Moreton 455at
4.15%
3C--WU
5.913.939
2.3E-7559
1 4ZMS
237,155
28.0196
14.543.W2
Za S Ear* Capital Ad.;;Ors
444ti
823ac?
1-661422
452.563
751AM
10.eE4
5.688.76I
V on -Bd lnvetItorl
3.64%
2.DM87`i6
2.909.64R
2.321.079
3.0510.515
1144.474
2413'k
t2.514.552
V' -E-, lrr+eS-nt-Fre
4.80%
332.5E5
310181
123%
- 3=67
S.we LGiP-Gry
4.49%
12.6%,933
114.702
243,8%
Q.744. EAC
Sate LC'P-Ire 7lstict
i 4S%
15.--3
138
C. 13%
15361
E-7 a LGIP-FIF
4.48%
61-9.2`r4
6.t51
1 -15%
705548
Total Manapad htvestraents
23.4_92.151
tQ "6,"2
5.101.200
5.094.406
2,381.629 0
=- 02'.
47,0SG367
Rey; Esa'e Invest-WAs tstreets,
NA
327.334
0.63%
32i. Z34
Total Real Estate hlvesireents
327,334
0.631,
327.334
GRAND TOTAL
28.58B.788
10.990.982
5.101.200
5,2M.863
2.381.629 C,
1001.
'12275.462
°e OF TOTAL PORTFOLIO
Sa,T',
21-0?<
9.85e
}O.Oc'c
4.6'!, -..
100>1
Finance Officer Nielson reviewed the Treasurer's Report. The city is about 41 % through the fiscal
year and currently at about 22 or 23% of actual expenditures.
CITY OF REXBURG
TREASURER'S EXPENDITURE REPORT BY FUND
YEAR-TO-DATE AS OF 2/28/2025 @ 41.796 OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2023 (OCT 24 - SEPT'251
41. A.
CASH/
PERSONNEL OPERATIONS OTHER CAPITAL TRANSFER TOTAL REVISED FUND INVESTMENT
s FUND EXPENSE EXPENSE EXPENSE EXPENSE EXPENSE EXPENSE BUDGET SPENT BALANCE BALANCE
7 GENERAL
4.738,368
_,_":.�_
112,-_�_.:.>._--
-.=7.6T2
:3,J35,207
3`.64
5,4-6,227
:._-..-
02 STREET OPERATION;
508,77-
2C3,353
-`i n9,
^�_.-..
-
_..-%1803
4 u36.600
3'_.8%
-6 407_=-
03 RECREATION PROGRAMS
18,471
67,737
C,
-
EP-..-
310,7T
2S,-.
LLt TABERNACLE OPERA710N5
32.337
21b24
75,533
___._
1,75334:.
7-
213,CY9
2''.'%=-:
07 POLICE IMPACT FEECAP-AL
0
0
C
2/0
'_i
75,DOv^
0.3%
3N_,693
375�-
N DA-R.E.TRUST FUND
0
11419
0
0
1,419
1S,CO0
7.9%
25.157
DRUG INTERDICTION/EDUCATION
CS DRUG
_
0
0
0
0
i9ACO
0. C,*
23,342:-
13 POLICE SMALL GRANTS
19,262
470
0
0
0
19,741
4,6,0CI0
42.-%
25 vIGH 5 GRANT
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.06
15 FIRE STATION 9LDG FUND
0
0
0
0
0
0
1-�Co,000
0.0%
1U.,530
58500
,7 EMERGENCY SERVICES
1277,93A
486,128.
LIL585
0
2,475,647
5,973,1.30
41.4%
222,331
403.575
18 JOINT FIRE EOUhMENT
O
0
0
0
Q
0
778,Wl'
O.Cd
515--.=SC
_.545.490
19 MADISON COUNTY FIRE :)IS-RICT
0
952
0
0
517,000
517,952
1,Z41,000
41.7%
1.515,34�
_ 54=.;_n
20 FIRE IMPACT FEE CAPITAL
0
0
0
0
17000
17,OCO
-21100
404%
--75
-175
Zl FIRE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE
-
C'
0
0
Q
0
31DOO
0-0%
27 -02
27 rCZ
22 REVOLVING LOAN
Q
3,574
0
0
0
3,574
73,S0O
4.5%
1,534,147
769,175
23 REXBLRC^ RAPIDS OPERATICN5
39,713
24ASO
1485
0
551283
583,100
11.2%
57,357
35,113
24 LEGACY FUG=T MUSEUM
0
9,>re
415
0
0
91419
213.600
1.4%
348,530
348,S2'
25 SANITATION OPERATIONS
228.442
777,787
375,053
37?AZ1
1,75.,724
3,509,500
50.2%
3.10ES15
L715,110
25 WATER CPERAT;ONS
517,979
491,545
445,601
77,015
_
1.532,245
5,"=21200
30.6%
22,44Z.729
6,937;744
27 WASTEWATER
584,E1C
570,4n-7
5721198
715.240
C
2,443,456
13,519.90C
1&1%
35.593,937
7.722,404
28 BUILDING SAFETY
316,089
55580
72,415
C.
0
445,093
1,210,✓30
36.8%
1,569,566
1,69'4;359
29 GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM
193,25E
61,226
0
0
0
254,455
567,200
44,3%
5,692
191830
30 DOWNTOWN REVITALrL4710*4
1
0
C•
_
7
0
0.c%
0_
31 5?0F BUILDING
0
_
O
0
•3
0
0.0%
32 NEW BLDG CITY PAU PC,
0
D
0
1,
G
0
365,Ur.
ox,56
1.S30,685
33 STREET IMPACT FEE CAPITAL
]
0
0
C
O
_
245,L170
0.0%
2,342,64e
_.- _,5 -
34 WATER CAPITAL RESERVE
0
0
0
0
.3
0
1,120,500
0.0%
3,170,435
3,372435
35 SEWERCAPITALRESERVE
]
2517
0
0
0
2,527
39H,_7C
C..1%
4,576,5?6
,.0-__3
35 ARTS PROMULGATION
0
0
0
0
2113O0
21,00)
1"P ;;_
20.0%
135,272
`35,270
37 PARAMEDIC CARE WILDLAND
369,215
3D373
0
75,432
77,SC0
453,570
1,c'3
36.7%
2E9,T 5
53,433
35 PARRS IMPACT FEE CAPITAL
O
r.
0
3.733
12,5C3
16,233
1.1_5 --..
'-3%
513.655
c131555
39 TRAI15 OF MADISOA COUNTY
0
0
0
9.458
0
3,45E
, - _ :. _
1S%
27e,593
23_,977
CO ROMANCE T=IEATER
27A*5
27,174
415
35,510
a
90,666
1-::;_
4S.-%
-32,557
-28,232
41 PARR CON•$TRUCTION
0
C.
0
112E-0
a
11,220
1=Zf ::
7.3%
365,675
355,575
42 WATER CAPITAL CONSTR',.KT
0
O
0
31.127
0
91,127
575,C00
14.1%
-81,127
_4,221
43 STREET REPA83/ILECONSTRUCTION
0
0
0
0
Q
0
3359,000
a-0%
3.940.c35
3440,S35
44 STREET NEW CONSTRI CTION
0
0
0
176ADS
0
17e.4CC:
3,775,C00
4.7%
A7A,382
539,627
47 AIRPORT OUPERAT ONS
7537
7.133
9A25
0
Q
23,795
62,400
38.196
_1.530
9,37n
12
CASH/
PERSONNEL OPERATIONS OTHER CAPITAL TRANSFER TOTAL REVISED FUND INVESTMENT
B FUND EXPENSE EXPENSE EXPENSE EXPENSE EXPENSE EXPENSE BUDGET SPENT BALANCE BALANCE
48
AIRPORT CONSTRUCTION
0
0
0
3,691
0
3,651
717,400
0.5'E
-7,=1i
! 7,415
49
AIRPORT RELOCATION RESERVE
0
0
0
0
0
0
45,000
0.0ct
1,112,653
1,112,653
50
GOLF COURSE OPERATIONS
203,756
111,059
25,410
220,272
45,000
605,508
1,641,500
36,5%
128,612
240,777
51
GOLF COURSE DEBT SERVICE
0
0
0
0
0
0
227,500
0.05x
111,601
71,601
52
SEWER CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION
0
0
0
49,851
0
49,951
2,650,000
1.S'1i
698,655
742,370
53-58
LID CONSTRUCTION FUNDS
0
298
0
77,355
0
77,653
3,995,200
1.551
-77,653
-77,590
59-79
LID DEBT SERVICE FUNDS
0
0
0
0
0
0
941,100
0.0ft
-1-44,177
-2,023,810
81
REXBURG CULTURAL ARTS
40,632
53,261
210
0
0
94,102
270,200
34.84
1,197
7,004
82
FIBER CONSTRUCTION
0
0
0
242,640
0
242,640
200,000
121.34
115,134
-96,692
83
ENTREPRENEURIAL PROGRAMS
0
1,698
0
0
0
1,698
35,000
4.5%
60,139
60,135
84
N INTERCHANGE CONSTRUCTIC N
0
0
0
325
0
325
2,931,000
0.0%
-3I5
-325
85
COMM. SAFETY LIGHTING
0
21,638
0
0
0
21,638
620,600
3.5%
258,229
238,290
86
FIBER OPERATING
0
5,078
0
0
42,000
47,078
123,300
0.0%
Z 85,663
75,774
51
SHOP WITH ACOP
0
17,090
0
0
0
17,050
18,200
93.9%
47,266
47,266
53
AMBULANCE CAPITAL REPLACEMENT
0
0
0
0
0
0
440,000
0.0%
436,316
436,316
54
REXBURG ARTS COUNCIL TRUST
0
0
0
0
0
0
G
0.0%
0
0
95
CITY 5016 FOUNDATION
0
0
0
0
1446
1,4P
5,100
28.356
5,144
5,144
TOTAL 59,725,949 $4,263,852 52,036,577 $2,995,251 $2,036,946 $21,OS6,476 $91,269,800 22.8% 594,365,344 552,375,462
CiBuns are invited to inspeel the detailed supporliny reeords of the ai_ fnaneW sCitemeni.
Thi9 repo can be found on our w tsileat vn::irexbura ora,fin-ce oan!Tinancial-rteorl;
2. Presentation of contracts for Construction Manager/General Contractor CM/GC and
Architect for the Police Station Facility - Action Item
Finance Officer Nielson explained that the committee tasked to provide oversight of obtaining a
Construction Manager/General Contractor CM/GC has selected Headwater Construction Company as
the CM/GC. The committee, prior to selecting the CM/GC, submitted Request for Qualifications
(RFQs), the RFQs received went through a selection -based process. They have negotiated a contract,
and the contract is available in the City Council Meeting Packets. Currently, they are in the pre -bond
phase and are offering a zero cost until the city reaches the bond phase. The bond phase would
determine the amount of funding available. He said assuming the bond phase is approved, the new
police station would enter the construction phase. The contract would be at 4.25% of the estimated
construction costs.
Finance Officer Nielson asked the City Council to keep in mind the CM/GC has a line item that is
a part of that construction cost because they subcontract most of the work. The CM/GC bill their
direct time for their project manager and the 4.25% contract cost is added on top of those costs. He
said he asked other cities about the 4.25% contract amount and was informed that the contract
percentage is a fair contract price. He recommended the City Council move forward and authorize
Mayor Merrill to sign the contract. They are planning a kickoff meeting for the vt of April if the
contract is approved.
Council Member Johnson said as one of the oversight committee members she believes a
thorough job was completed during the CM/GC selection process. Mayor Merrill thanked the
oversight committee for thoroughly vetting the CM/GC and architect firm. He appreciates their efforts
in gathering the information and the selection process.
Council Member Johnson moved to approve the Contracts for Construction
Manager/General Contractor CM/GC for the Police Station Facility; Council Member
Chambers seconded the motion; Mayor Merrill asked for a vote:
Those voting ave
Council Member Johnson
Council Member Chambers
Council Member C. Erickson
Council Member E. Erickson
Council Member Reeser
Council President Walker
The motion carried.
Those voting naX
none
Finance Officer Nielson explained the oversight committee was also involved in the selection
process of the architect for the police facility building. City Staff submitted the Request for
Qualifications for the architect for the police facility building. There were six applicants that went
through the selection process; after narrowing down the applicants, they selected Hummel to negotiate
a contract. The oversight committee has been negotiating the contract over the last several weeks. They
received the initial contract price last week. The pre -bond services costs came in at $252,000 lump sum
and Hummel has asked for 9 % of construction costs. He asked the City Council to keep in mind the
architects generally cost more than the construction managers and they do not add that additional cost
of a subcontractor in the construction costs. The architect collects their costs up front in a lump sum
plus that percentage.
Finance Officer Nielson said he contacted other cities and was informed that school districts have
been able to negotiate a 5 1/2% construction fee on large projects like schools. He said he than inquired
specifically about construction fees for police facilities. They informed him the construction fees for
13
police facilities range between 12 % and 13 % . The most recently built police station was the Idaho Falls
Police Station, and their construction fee was 8 1/4%.
Finance Officer Nielson explained the oversight committee received Hummel's original offer in
May, it had too much conceptual design and more bond support than the city needed. The committee
members felt like some of the design and bond support could be completed in-house and Headwaters
could also assist with that work. They were able to negotiate with Hummel to complete the
programming, which is the evaluation of the square footage needed, costs, and schematic design. He
said the design is not a full building, it is more like an aerial view, where space is what is seen and how
the square footage is set on the site. They felt that programming was sufficient and were able to
negotiate the price down to $85,00o and were able to negotiate a 8 1/4% construction fee. He
recommended approval of the architect contract as negotiated.
Mayor Merrill offered the following explanation to the audience members regarding the contracts for
the Construction Manager/General Contractor CM/GC and Architect for the Police Station Facility. The
Rexburg Police Department has grown substantially along with the population of the city. They have
outgrown the police station; the building is old and no longer functional for their needs. The Police
Department has expressed their needs for a new police station. The oversight committee has stated the
process of obtaining a new building design to accommodate the police force for 30 to 50 years into the
future.
Council Member C. Erickson moved to approve the Architect Contract for the Police
Station Facility; Council Member Reeser seconded the motion; Mayor Merrill asked for a vote:
Those voting aye
Council Member Johnson
Council Member Chambers
Council Member C. Erickson
Council Member E. Erickson
Council Member Reeser
Council President Walker
The motion carried.
Those voting nay
none
B. Public Works: — Keith Davidson
1. Bid Approval for Wastewater Headworks Expansion Project - Action Item
Public Works Director Davidson reviewed the two bids received for the headworks expansion of
the wastewater treatment plant. The expansion of the headworks will double the capacity of what the
plant can currently handle from six million gallons roughly to 12 million gallons a day.
GSE Construction Company
Western Water Constructors
Bid Item 1 - Headworks
4,371,200
4,580,000
Bid Item 2-Septage Receiving
2,373,100
1,482,000
Total
6,744,300
6,062,000
Council Member Chambers asked how the bids compare with the city engineer estimates. Public
Works Director Davidson said the low bid is higher by about one million dollars than what the
engineers had estimated.
Council Member Chambers asked for the estimated start and completion date of the headworks
expansion. Public Works Director Davidson replied that Western Water Construction will begin the
work within a month after they submit their bonds and have other items in place.
Mayor Merrill explained the headworks system processes all the city's wastewater and at certain
points in the day, it is close to overflowing. The Headworks expansion is necessary, and, in the future,
there will be even more wastewater to process. They are trying to get ahead of the capacity to make sure
they do not have any issues with the Environmental Protection Agency or are fined.
Council President Walker moved to approve the low bid of $6,062,000 from Western
Water Construction for the Wastewater Headworks Expansion Project; Council Member C.
Erickson seconded the motion; Mayor Merrill asked for a vote:
Those voting aye
Council Member Johnson
Council Member Chambers
Council Member C. Erickson
Council Member E. Erickson
Those voting nay
none
14
Council Member Reeser
Council President Walker
The motion carried.
2. Approval for Spring Cleanup dates starting April 71h to April 28th - Action Item
Public Works Director Davidson recommended April 7th through April 28th as the Spring Clean-up
date. Council Member C. Erickson asked that city staff advertise the Spring Clean-up date on the city's
social media outlets, newsletters, and. electrical signs.
Council Member C. Erickson moved to approve the Spring Cleanup dates starting on April
nth to April 28th; Council Member E. Erickson seconded the motion; Mayor Merrill asked for a
vote:
Those voting ave
Council Member Johnson
Council Member Chambers
Council Member C. Erickson
Council Member E. Erickson
Council Member Reeser
Council President Walker
The motion carried.
Those voting nay
none
Discussion regarding the traffic signal on University and Yellowstone Highway. City Engineer Joel Gray
is working on the cameras in that traffic signal. The light is on max recall causing the traffic to wait
longer times. The Idaho Transportation Department is also working on the traffic signal cameras at the
intersection of Moody and end East by Wal-Mart.
Council Member E. Erickson asked how close they are to synchronizing the stop lights. Public
Works Director Davidson replied there is still more fiber work that needs to be completed before they
can synchronize all the traffic signal lights. One of the areas where a fiber line is needing to be installed
is Main Street and end E. The fiber company does not have an exact date when they will have the fiber
installed at that location.
Mayor's Report/Business:
A. Ratify Tammy Geddes as a member of the Planning & Zoning Commission - Action
Item
Mayor Merrill recommended ratifying Tammy Geddes as a member of the Planning and Zoning
Commission.
Council Member E. Erickson moved to ratify the appointment of Tammy Geddes as a
member of the Planning and Zoning Commission; Council Member Reeser seconded the
motion; Mayor Merrill asked for a vote:
Those voting aye
Council Member Johnson
Council Member Chambers
Council Member C. Erickson
Council Member E. Erickson
Council Member Reeser
Council President Walker
The motion carried.
Those voting nay
none
Items for Consideration:
A. Planning and Zoning recommendation to approve a rezone at approximately 238 & 243 Ella Lane
from Medium Density Residential 1 (MDRi) to Medium Density Residential 2 (MDR 2) 25-00039•
Designated as Ordinance No 1329 if motion passes and considered first read — Alan Parkinson -
Action Item
P&Z Administrator Parkinson reviewed the rezone at approximately 238 and 243 Ella Lane from
Medium Density Residential 1 (MDR1) to Medium Density Residential 2 (MDR 2). The developer is
requesting MDR 2 to be able to add two 12 plexes on the north side of the property making it a total of
15
24 units instead of the 20 it was previously platted for; they will need to amend the plat later. The plat
amendment requires City Council approval.
F')atylljn , anti ?I11111IL? Statt Repolt
CASE NUMBER:
24-i)1171
CASE NAME:
White Owl Business Park -4 W moody Rd - Remne it LI to MDR2
APPLICANT:
Brcn _eatham
PROPERTY oWNFRI"y
Ydhi'F r;w: Business Park PLC
PURPOSE:
Cha- ge the Zoning Mdap
PROPERTY UXAMN:
Aaprox. 4 W Moody Rd
t()rAPREH(NSIYE PLAN.
intermedeate Re5idrnteai
CURRENT ZONING:
Lig+,t I ndsstrtal (Ls)
PROPOSED ZONING' hledrjm Density Revde"Rral 2 4,WDR2)
AUTHOPITY_ 4:ase= s: "'r ov~. wi w r.r •aeiw.arcr r a-n;, rt �csrirr.�rn.+
Summary of Information to tonOder with this request:
+ i^e 27=��e€;y r5 tvirr_ntly J t:�'Ij.
• -eq:rrst applies'.= appMwirrateiy 1.6.9 acres of the 263, 5 acre panel..
• T^.e aJia_ent parccrls are zoned as'ransit canal Agriculture (TAG). There Ls a parcel tuned
as Mecium Density Residential 1 ih,'C-111j to the west, and a large condittcnal use project
to the east.
• A total cf 11 hF3ring nonft canar:s were !naII&J, ba surro.rna;irig prcper:y caw-lers.
• pFn4i ng pubir testirriony, staff asks that the Planning F. Zoning Gwmmissipr cons+der
r¢ccmmending that Cty Council apc rcves'he aaphcalian_
Council Member Chambers moved to approve Ordinance No. 1329 a rezone at
approximately 238 & 243 Ella Lane from Medium Density Residential 1(MDRi) to Medium
Density Residential 2 (MDR 2) and consider first read; Council President Walker seconded the
motion; Mayor Merrill asked for a vote:
Those voting aye
Council Member Johnson
Council Member Chambers
Council Member C. Erickson
Council Member E. Erickson
Council Member Reeser
Council President Walker
The motion carried.
Those voting nav
none
Discussion regarding a traffic light lying on the ground at 238 & 243 Ella Lane and it appears to have
never been installed.
B. Authorization to go forward with presentation and offer to purchase property from
Madison School District Action Item
Finance Officer Nielson explained the purchase of the property from the Madison School District
would be a combination offer between the city, county and the Urban Renewal Agency. As
representatives from the three entities reviewed the Envision Madison planning documents. The
Envision Madison was the largest effort the city/county has had to obtain input from citizens and how -
they desire to see Rexburg develop downtown.
Finance Officer Nielson reviewed the downtown redevelopment points in the Envision Madison
study.
16
Emision Madison
Jobs and Economy—
Infill and Redevelopment -
"Enhance our downtown through investment, by
encouraging businesses to locate there, and by locating
student housing near the area,"
City Ceider Vision 2050
Cit)T Center ViSi0n 2050
Objective 13 Create meaningful public spaces as well as gathering
places
Action 2: The City should build public space within the City Center
to support events and public gatherings
Objective 2.2 Within the City Center, consolidate government CltVCfl tfZl'IN0112050
entities where possible
• Action 1: The City should partner with other public entities to
consolidate services into a joint use Administrative Building. Objective 4.3 Reduce the number of tax-exempt properties in the
• Action 2: The City should sell public surplus land and buildings. City Center
• Action 3: Public entities should be encouraged to consolidate
and sell excess land and buildings.
Action 1. The City should encourage the relocation of low
• Action 4: The City should make publicly owned (underutilized) intensity public uses and promote the consolidation of parking.
parcels available and sell at nonspeculative prices.
Finance Officer Nielson explained the purpose of consolidating government entities where possible
is to partner on smaller acreage or footprint and then surplus other buildings or land. In this case, five
plus tax exempt acres right in our downtown that the school has owned for a long time. They hope to get
the majority of that property back into private development. They feel like this offer and partnering
together with these public entities could make that happen. Their desire is to have those six acres be on
the tax roll by redeveloping into private development.
Finance Officer Nielson said the city should encourage the relocation of low density public uses and
promote the consolidation of parking. The redevlopment plan, includes a parking garage which would
be a large benefit, not just for a potential administrative building in the future, but it could also be used
for private development. He added instead of having multiple parking structures, building a bigger
parking structure that is longer and taller. There are cost efficiencies that come to the public and to the
private sector when consolidating. The parking garage would be a benefit to the Tabernacle and library
for overflow parking. The propety is a great location for all of those aspects.
Finance Officer Nielson reviewed the list of interested entities. The reasons they are making the
proposal is because the Urban Renewal District, where that property is located, closes in 2027 with final
funding in 2028. He said it is important to know and understand as a city and county, if they were able
to get this project completed and private development comes in, then there is a tax benefit almost
immediately. The city, county, library, cemetery and all of the taxing districts would benefit from those
taxes.
Finance Officer Nielson explained the property in the green area on the map would be purchased by
the city and county. The property in the blue area is an acre and is the location of where the proposed
parking garage would be built. The Urban Renewal Agency would demolish the school located on the
property in the yellow area and would put that property on the market for redevelopment to a private
developer.
Wliy we are In-terested
i
'A lio is Interested
1. General Public
2, City Officials J
r.-
3. County Officials
4. Rexburg Urban Renewal Agency
17
Finance Officer Nielson reviewed the initial funding proposal. The Madison School District had the
property appraised and the appraisal was barely over eight million dollars.
IiAtial hI'Oposal R
Madison County -Land for Future Municipal Building $ 650,000
City of Rexburg -Land for Future Municipal Building $ 650,000
Urban Renevval (URA) -Parking Garage Lend $ 1.354,000
Urban Renewal (URA) -Land for Redevelopment $ 4,346.000
Offer $ 7,000,000
Split Cost of Demolition (the district's contribution
will be capped at $500,000); the current of estimate
of the cost of demolition is $950,000 $ 475,000
Estimated Net Offer $ 6,525,000
Finance Officer Nielson explained the revenue source to pay the city portion of the land. The city
has been saving for several years for a potential municipal building. In the beginning they did not
know if they should build a municipal building and move the Police Department into the current
city hall building or build a new police station. The decision has been made to move forward with a
new police station. He said he looked at how much money had been saved for the potential
municipal building, including police impact fee there is approximately 4.2 million dollars.
Council Member E. Erickson expressed his concerns with the purchase of this property from
the School District. The project itself is ambitions, and a lot of things would have to line up. The
School District has tried to sell the property, and they have not been able to sell that property. He
said he does not feel comfortable paying a premium for that property when the taxpayers bought the
property in the first place.
Mayor Merrill said if the city does not pay the School District market rates for the sale of that
property, it has the potential of becoming convoluted for both parties. The city, county and the
School District have made the decision that they would do their best to mitigate costs and give each
other the best deal they feasibly can; however, staying with the market rates..
Finance Officer Nielson added they have discussed the purchase of the property with the School
District superintendent, and he has expressed the responsibility of the School District to the
taxpayers to take their assets and sell at a fair rate. The money the School District receives from the
sale of their assets can be put into the cost to build a new administration building instead of going to
the taxpayers to obtain that funding.
Council Member Johnson said there are a lot of advantages to purchasing the property;
however, there are a few things she disagrees with, including the need for a new city hall. She also
disagrees with building a joint city/county administrative building. The police station is an actual
need and the 4.2 million could be used for the police station that would be less money the city would
ask to bond. She said having more money for the police station will increase the city's chances of
passing the bond. The School District's property is overpriced.
Council Member E. Erickson expressed the following concern regarding the purchase of the School
District property. The city, county and Urban Renewal are speculating that a developer is going to come
in and develop that property. He said if a developer does not come in and develop that land the three
entities are left with bare land.
Council Member Reeser asked what happens to the Urban Renewal Agency money if they do not
use it to purchase that property? Does that money go away? Finance Officer Nielson replied, with Urban
Renewal even after the district expires, they continue to own that land.
Discussion regarding the development scenarios for School District property. Finance Officer Nielson
said in his professional opinion the purchase of the School District property is a great deal for the city
and the county, it is good long-term planning.
Council Member Johnson said if the property was purchased by a private developer, the property
would go back on the tax rolls. Mayor Merrill said the opportunity the city may lose is to have a parking
structure at that location for the Tabernacle and library. The parking garage would give the city a more
usable and serviceable downtown.
Council Member Chambers stated the Urban Renewal Agency members were unanimous in
supporting the purchase of the School District Property for the reasons Finance Officer Nielson has
mentioned. The purchase of the property serves as a great long-term planning tool to have that property
set aside. The city may or may not need a new city hall in 20 years; however, eventually the city will
need a new city hall. He said to be able to purchase land at $650,000 is a great deal.
Council Member Chambers said if the Urban Renewal Agency were to purchases the frontage
portion of property, it would put Urban Renewal in control of the type of development that goes in,
which is appealing because they can pursue the highest and best use that will net the greatest amount of
tax revenue.
Discussion regarding the reason the School District property has not sold. Finance Officer Nielson said
he believes the size of the property is large for a single developer.
Council Member C. Erickson said he is in favor of purchasing the property as long it does not take
away funding from the new police station.
Council President Walker said the price of the property at $650,000 is a great deal; however, he is
also concerned about the purchase of that property taking away funding from the police station.
Discussion regarding the benefit of having a parking garage in the downtown area.
Council Member E. Erickson moved to approve Altura as the Grant Administrator for the
Tabernacle improvements; Council Member Chambers seconded the motion; Mayor Merrill
asked for a vote:
Those voting aye
Council Member Chambers
Council Member C. Erickson
Council Member E. Erickson
Council Member Reeser
Council President Walker
The motion carried.
Those voting nay
Council Member Johnson
Calendared Bills:
A. Second Reading: Those items which have been first read: NONE
B. Third Reading: Those items which have been second read:
1. Ordinance No 1328 Rezone at 4 W Moody Road from Light Industrial (LI) to
Medium Density Residential 2 (MDR2) #24-01171- Alan Parkinson - Action Item
ORDINANCE NO. 1328
Rezone 4 W Moody Rd from Light Industrial (LI) to Medium Density Residential 2
(MDR2) Zone
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING AND CHANGING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF
REXBURG, IDAHO, AND PROVIDING THAT THE ZONED DESIGNATION OF THAT
CERTAIN PROPERTY HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED, SITUATED IN REXBURG, MADISON
COUNTY, IDAHO, BE CHANGED AS HEREINAFTER DESIGNATED; AND PROVIDING
WHEN THIS ORDINANCE SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE.
wux
Proposed Rezone from
Light Industrial to Medium Density Residential 2
A
19
Discussion:
Council Member C. Erickson moved to approve Ordinance No 1328 the rezone at 4 W
Moody Road from Light Industrial (LI) to Medium Density Residential 2 (MDR2) and
consider third read; Council Member Johnson seconded the motion; Mayor Merrill asked for a
vote:
Those voting aye
Council Member Johnson
Council Member Chambers
Council Member C. Erickson
Council Member E. Erickson
Council Member Reeser
Council President Walker
The motion carried.
Those voting nay
none
Consent Calendar: The consent calendar includes items which require formal City Council
action, however, they are typically routine or not of great controversy. Individual Council
members may ask that any specific 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 March 5th, llth, 14th, 2025, Meetings - Action Item
B. Approve the City of Rexburg Bills - Action Item
Council President Walker moved to approve the Consent Calendar containing the minutes
and city bills; Council Member Reeser seconded the motion; Mayor Merrill for a vote:
Those voting ave
Council Member Johnson
Council Member Chambers
Council Member C. Erickson
Council Member E. Erickson
Council Member Reeser
Council President Walker
The motion carried.
Adjournment 9:58 P.M.
Attest:
arianna Gonzalez, Deputy City erk C
Those voting naX
none
A PROVED: t
rry Me ill, Mayor
20