Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil Minutes - July 16, 2025 (208) 359-3020 35 North 1st East Rexburg, ID 83440 Rexburg.org | Engage.Rexburg.org City Council Minutes – July 16, 2025 Mayor Jerry Merrill Council Members: Bryanna Johnson Eric Erickson Robert Chambers David Reeser Colin Erickson Mikel Walker City Staff: Spencer Rammell – 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 5:30 P.M. City Hall Council Chambers – City Council Town Hall Q&A Meeting regarding the Rexburg Police Station Facility. Economic Development Director Johnson presented the following slides during the City Council Town Hall Q&A Meeting regarding the Rexburg Police Station Facility.     6:30 P.M. Council Member Johnson said the prayer. Council President Walker led the pledge. Roll Call of Council Members: Attending: Council Member Johnson, Council Member C. Erickson, Council Member E. Erickson (joined via Zoom; however, he had the mute button on for most of the meeting so he did not vote on the first six motions), Council Member Reeser and Council President Walker. Mayor Merrill and Council Member Chambers did not attend the meeting. Public Comment: Items not on the agenda; limit 3 minutes; issues may be considered for discussion on a future agenda. Please keep comments on point and respectful. Calendared Bills: Tabled Items: Approval for budget adjustment in Mayor/City Council Department to book artist for Stadium 250 Event - Action Item Council Member Johnson asked to remove from the table the budget adjustment in Mayor/City Council Department to book artist for Stadium 250 Event Council Member Johnson moved to remove from the table the Budget Adjustment in Mayor/City Council Department to book artist for Stadium 250 Event; Council Member Reeser seconded the motion; Council President Walker asked for a vote: Those voting aye Those voting nay Council Member Johnson none Council Member C. Erickson Council Member Reeser Council President Walker The motion carried. Economic Development Director Johnson explained that the item had been brought forward early to secure an artist, but that four groups were currently interested in sponsoring the event. He stated that if sponsorships were confirmed, a budget adjustment request would be brought back at a future meeting. Council Member Johnson asked whether the standard $7,500 budget for fireworks would remain. Economic Development Director Johnson confirmed that the amount would stay, noting that the county typically matches it and that additional funding comes from sponsors like Stones Toyota. Council Member C. Erickson noted that the state was encouraging communities to support the 250th celebration and suggested coordinating with the City of Sugar City and Madison County for shared funding. Economic Development Director Johnson recommended that the City Council vote to deny the current request with the intention of revisiting it later. Council Member C. Erickson moved to deny the Budget Adjustment in Mayor/City Council Department to book artist for Stadium 250 Event; Council Member Johnson seconded the motion; Council President Walker asked for a vote: Those voting aye Those voting nay Council Member Johnson none Council Member C. Erickson Council Member Reeser Council President Walker The motion carried. Second Reading: Those items which have been first read: NONE Third Reading: Those items which have been second read: Ordinance No 1332 Annexation of 1036 McJon Ln into the City of Rexburg #25-00318 – Alan Parkinson Action Item ORDINANCE NO. 1332 Annexing 1036 McJon Ln in the Impact Area for the City of Rexburg into the City of Rexburg, Madison, Idaho AN ORDINANCE ANNEXING CERTAIN LANDS TO THE CITY OF REXBURG, IDAHO; DESCRIBING SAID LANDS AND DECLARING SAME A PART OF THE CITY OF REXBURG, IDAHO; AND PROVIDING WHEN THIS ORDINANCE SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE.  Council Member Reeser moved to approve Ordinance No 1332 the annexation of 1036 McJon Ln into the City of Rexburg and consider third read; Council Member C. Erickson seconded the motion; Council President Walker asked for a vote: Those voting aye Those voting nay Council Member Johnson none Council Member C. Erickson Council Member Reeser Council President Walker The motion carried. Public Hearing 6:30 PM – Fiscal Year 2026 Budget Appropriation. Designated as Ordinance No 1333 if motion passes and considered first read – Scott Miller Action Item Finance Controller Miller said there had already been considerable discussion regarding the Fiscal Year 2026 Budget and he did not have anything new to report. He stated that the ordinance reflected what staff had suggested and emphasized that the numbers presented were the same figures the City Council had reviewed for several weeks. ORDINANCE NO. 1333 FISCAL YEAR 2026 BUDGET APPROPRIATION AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED THE ANNUAL APPROPRIATION ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF REXBURG, IDAHO, FOR THE FISCAL YEAR OCTOBER 1, 2025, TO SEPTEMBER 30, 2026, AND APPROPRIATING TO THE SEVERAL DEPARTMENTS, OFFICES AND FUNDS OF THE SAID CITY GOVERNMENT FROM THE REVENUE DERIVED FROM TAXES LEVIED FOR SAID FISCAL YEAR, AND ALL OTHER SOURCES, SUCH SUMS AS MAY BE NECESSARY OR DEEMED NECESSARY BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL TO DEFRAY THE EXPENSES AND LIABILITIES OF SAID CITY FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2026; AND PROVIDING FOR THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF ORDINANCE. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REXBURG, IDAHO: SECTION I. This ordinance shall be and is hereby termed the Annual Appropriation Ordinance of the City of Rexburg, Idaho, for the fiscal year October 1, 2025, to September 30, 2026. SECTION II. The revenue, fund balance carry-overs and transfers of the City of Rexburg, Idaho, for the fiscal year October 1, 2025 to September 30 2026, derived from taxes levied for said year, and all other sources, in the amount in total of $111,543,500, as shown below by the budget of the City of Rexburg, Idaho, adopted and approved by the City Council on the 20th day of August, 2025, and duly printed and published as provided by law, is hereby appropriated to the several funds and purposes which are hereby declared to be necessary to defray all necessary expenses and liabilities of said City as shown by said Budget as hereinafter set forth. The City Treasurer is hereby authorized and directed to apportion all monies received on account of taxes on property within the City or Rexburg, Idaho, and from all other sources to the several funds as shown in said Budget and as hereinafter set forth. All other revenue of the City of Rexburg, Idaho, received during the fiscal year ending September 30, 2026, not hereby otherwise appropriated, is hereby appropriated to the General Fund of the City. SECTION III. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force from and after its passage and publication as required by law. PASSED AND APPROVED this ___ day of August, 2025. ____________________________ Jerry L. Merrill, Mayor ATTEST _________________________ Deborah Lovejoy, City Clerk             Council Member Johnson asked for clarification, confirming that—aside from the Stadium 250 item—no changes had occurred since their most recent work meeting. Controller Miller responded no changes had occurred since their most recent work meeting. Council President Walker opened the public hearing. Public Testimony in favor of the proposal (5-minute limit): None Public Testimony neutral to the proposal (5-minute limit): None Public Testimony opposed to the proposal (5-minute limit): None Council President Walker closed the public hearing. Council Member C. Erickson moved to approve Ordinance No 1333 Fiscal Year 2026 Budget Appropriation Budget and consider first read; Council Member Reeser seconded the motion; Council President Walker asked for a vote: Those voting aye Those voting nay Council Member Johnson none Council Member C. Erickson Council Member Reeser Council President Walker The motion carried. Public Hearing 6:30 PM – Use of forgone tax levying authority and passage for Fiscal Year 2026. Designated as Resolution No 2025 – 06 if motion passes – Scott Miller Action Item Controller Miller reviewed Resolution No 2025 – 06 Use of forgone tax levying authority and passage for Fiscal Year 2026. RESOLUTION NUMBER 2025-06 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF REXBURG, IDAHO, TO UTILIZE AND INCLUDE IN THE BUDGET A PORTION OF FORGONE PROPERTY TAXES WHEREAS, the City Council desires to maintain the overall quality of life experienced by its constituents; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to utilize in the Fiscal Year 2026 budget a portion of forgone property taxes in the amount of $26,959 to cover the cost of the services provided by the City. The City will utilize the increase in the budget from utilizing a portion of foregone property tax for maintenance and operations, specifically to help cover the additional expenses proposed in the budget to add Public Safety personnel. WHEREAS, the City Council has provided the required notice and held a public hearing regarding increasing the budget to use a portion of the forgone property tax. NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Mayor and the Council of the City of Rexburg, effective July 16, 2025, that $26,959 of forgone property tax will be utilized and added to the Fiscal Year 2026 budget through its property tax levying authority. The City is required as per House Bill 474 to publish notice and hold a public hearing and adopt a resolution stating the governing board’s intent to use the foregone levying authority, the amount of forgone revenue to be included in the tax levy for that fiscal year, and the purpose for which the forgone revenue will be used. A copy of such resolution must be filed with the County Clerk and the Idaho Tax Commission when certifying its property tax levy to the county using forgone levying authority. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AND APPROVED BY THE MAYOR THIS __ DAY OF JULY, 2025. CITY OF REXBURG Madison County, Idaho By _________________________________ Jerry L. Merrill, Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________________ Deborah Lovejoy, City Clerk Council Member Johnson noted that this was the final year of the forgone property taxes. Controller Miller confirmed that was correct. He explained that this appropriation would use up the remaining forgone funds. Council President Walker opened the public hearing. Public Testimony in favor of the proposal (5-minute limit): None Public Testimony neutral to the proposal (5-minute limit): None Public Testimony opposed to the proposal (5-minute limit): None Council President Walker closed the public hearing. Council Member Johnson moved to approve Resolution No 2025 – 06 Use of forgone tax levying authority and passage for Fiscal Year 2026; Council Member C. Erickson seconded the motion; Council President Walker asked for a vote: Those voting aye Those voting nay Council Member Johnson none Council Member C. Erickson Council Member Reeser Council President Walker The motion carried. Items from Council: 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 Reeser reported the Legacy Flight Museum has not met. The Police Department continues to be diligent in informing the public regarding the new police station. The project remains on schedule, and there was excitement about sharing additional information with the city and gathering feedback on the proposals. Other than that, operations remained routine. Council Member Johnson reported the Trails/Parks and Recreation Committee has not met; however, she spoke with Recreation Director Lewis to discuss his proposed fee changes. That information was expected to be shared later in the meeting. Council Member C. Erickson reported that since the previous City Council meeting, there were no additional updates from the Madison School District Board. The Golf Board did meet; however, he was not able to attend the meeting. Council Member Walker reported the ADA Oversight Board, and the Mayor’s Youth Advisory Board have not met. Other Reports: Staff Reports: Finance: – Scott Miller Financial Reports Controller Miller reviewed the Treasure’s Expenditure Report, with no substantial changes to the expenditure report.   Controller Miller noted that there was little new information to cover; however, the cash balance remained around $51 million. That amount continued to be invested as much as possible. Council Member C. Erickson pointed out that some departments were approaching 75% of their budget usage and emphasized the importance of monitoring those figures to avoid exceeding their budgets by the end of the fiscal year.  Controller Miller confirmed that several areas were around 75% spent, with golf course operations already over budget. He also noted that fiber construction expenditures were higher than expected due to additional work being completed sooner than originally anticipated. Council President Walker clarified that in some cases, entire project amounts had been spent upfront, which skewed the percentage spent to appear higher. Budget Adjustment for Police Patrol Laptops to utilize grant to purchase laptops that are compatible with the State’s ticketing system - Action Item Controller Miller explained this budget adjustment involves a $50,000 grant received for police use, specifically to purchase computer equipment such as laptops. The total cost of the equipment amounts to about $98,000, requiring an additional $48,000 to be covered by the general fund contingency. This expenditure left a balance of $85,500 in the contingency fund, keeping the city well within budget limits.  Council Member C. Erickson asked if the grant came with a specific time frame for spending, especially since the next fiscal year would begin in October. Controller Miller responded that he was unsure of any such requirement. Police Lieutenant Whetten explained that the urgency did not stem from a grant deadline, but from the vendor’s pricing. The Panasonic representative had warned that tariffs were expected to increase, and locking in the current pricing was critical. Waiting would likely lead to significantly higher costs. Police Lieutenant Whetten mentioned that the current laptops in patrol vehicles were about a decade old and no longer met operational needs. The purchase would provide updated laptops for the entire patrol division. Although there would be no extras, the department planned to hire a new officer in October, bringing the total number of laptops needed to 23. Additionally, the new laptops would support a system that allowed them to plug into the network and function like desktops if needed, making the upgrade even more valuable. Council Member C. Erickson moved to approve the Budget Adjustment for Police Patrol Laptops to utilize grant to purchase laptops that are compatible with the State’s ticketing system; Council Member Reeser seconded the motion; Council President Walker asked for a vote: Those voting aye Those voting nay Council Member Johnson none Council Member C. Erickson Council Member Reeser Council President Walker The motion carried Monthly Police Facility project update - Action Item Review of Headwaters Construction Rexburg Police Station Construction Cost Option Summaries Controller Miller reviewed the construction costs summary from Headwaters Construction. He directed attention to a grid showing four primary construction options:  Build for current need – designed to accommodate the city’s requirements for the next 10 years. Build for current need with a shell – the same as option one, but with additional unfinished space that would allow future expansion, covering approximately 20 years of growth. Build for 20-year needs now – a full build-out to meet long-term needs immediately. Build a two-story structure for current need – not preferred due to limitations related to the space available. Controller Miller explained that the committee recommended option two, which included the expandable shell. He noted that this approach provided flexibility to accommodate future growth while keeping construction costs down by including unfinished space during initial construction. Brian Coleman, an architect with Humel Architects, further clarified that the shell would be a large, unfinished, conditioned space without interior finishes. This space could later be fitted for offices or other department needs depending on future city growth. He emphasized that building the shell now would be the most cost-effective way to ensure adaptability later. Council Member C. Erickson noted that while they are planning for a 20-year horizon, if the need arose sooner—say in 15 or even 12 years, the city could make use of the space immediately without needing to add on to the building. Mr. Coleman confirmed that this was correct. He explained that because the shell was already incorporated into the building design, it represented the most cost-effective square footage to construct. Then, when the space was needed, it could simply be finished and used. IT Administrator Jared Martin said there was a person viewing the meeting online that wanted to make a comment. Council President Walker responded the appropriate time to make a comment regarding this item would have been at the City Council Town Hall Q&A Meeting regarding the Rexburg Police Station Facility held earlier before the start of the City Council meeting. Council President Walker invited anyone online who wished to make a comment to attend one of the upcoming open houses or town hall events, where their concerns or questions could be addressed during those sessions. Council Member C. Erickson noted the next open house would be held on August 11th with the Police Department, and a Town Hall Meeting at City Hall would follow on August 20th. Economic Development Director Johnson invited all members of the public to visit the city’s website, where a great deal of additional information is available. He informed the public that the site would be updated frequently as new information became available. Council Member C. Erickson emphasized that the city is making a strong effort to be transparent and to share all possible information with the public. He said the city’s goal is to help the community make an informed decision regarding the future of the Police Department. Economic Development Director Johnson encouraged everyone to go online and review the materials they have provided. He also mentioned that the public could submit questions directly through the website. Any questions submitted would be added to the frequently asked questions section, and they would respond to them accordingly. Council President Walker strongly encouraged members of the public to attend the open houses if possible. That way, they could see what was planned and have their questions answered in person. Council Member C. Erickson said this facility would be a Police Station designed specifically for that purpose from start to finish. It would not involve repurposing an existing office building or piece patch things together, as had been done in the past. If an individual needed to be detained, that would still occur at the Madison County Jail. The new police station will not be used as a jail. This facility would be designated strictly for administrative work, interviews, and related functions. Council Member Johnson asked about the animal shelter and if it would remain at the current location. Controller Miller confirmed that the animal shelter would remain at its current location. Review of Zions Tax Impact of Proposed Bonds Analysis-15-, 20- and 25-Year Term Options Controller Miller reviewed the tax impact of the proposed bonds. He explained that the city was considering a 15-year bond for $16,750,000 at an interest rate of 3.92%. He provided an example showing the estimated tax impact per $100,000 of taxable value—$61.51 annually. He illustrated this further using a home with a taxable value of $290,000, which would result in an estimated tax increase of around $178 per year, or about $15 per month.   Council Member C. Erickson emphasized that these figures were based on assessed taxable values, not real estate market estimates such as those found on Zillow. This clarification was important to ensure the public understood the real tax implications using their actual assessment notices. Council Member Reeser pointed out that choosing a 15-year bond over a 20-year or 25-year bond would save taxpayers approximately $3 million in interest, without reducing the quality or scope of the facility. He stressed the importance of fiscal responsibility, noting that the shorter bond term came with a significantly lower interest rate. Council Member E. Erickson attended the meeting from the start; however, was unable to unmute until this point of the meeting. Council Member E. Erickson asked whether the cost estimates included land acquisition. Controller Miller responded that the land had already been purchased with previously saved funds and was not part of the bond amount. Council Member E. Erickson expressed concern that the full cost of the project should still be transparent to the public. Controller Miller pointed out that a full breakdown was available in the council packet and would be added to the city’s website. Controller Miller reviewed the total estimated expenses for the Police Station project: The total estimated expenses are $19,625,000, with $16,750,000 to be covered by the bond. The remainder would come from city savings and proceeds from the eventual sale of the current police facility, accounting for roughly 15% of the total cost.  Economic Development Director Johnson reassured the public that all relevant details, including a tax calculator, would be available on the city website. This tool would allow residents to input their actual assessed values and see personalized estimates of the potential tax impact. Additionally, open houses and town hall meetings were scheduled to provide further information and answer public questions directly. Review of Rexburg Police Station Project Estimated Expenses and Square Footage Analysis Council President Walker asked Controller Miller to return to the previous spreadsheet and show the square footage. He noted that people would likely want to know how large the new building would be.  Controller Miller presented the square footage breakdown. He stated that the finished space within the new facility would include 24,206 square feet. An additional 5,545 square feet would come from the gray shell space. There would also be an outbuilding that would provide another 3,445 square feet, along with 759 square feet of additional space. Controller Miller explained that the existing facility is about 20,460 square feet, but not all that space was usable for police purposes. The current building had originally been a repurposed facility, from the power company, and had undergone many adjustments over time. Council Member C. Erickson pointed out that although the new building would only be about 7,000 square feet larger than the current one (including the outbuilding), the key difference was that every square foot of the new space would be purpose-built and usable as a police department, unlike the current piece- together set-up. Police Chief Rhodes added that 9,500 square feet of the existing police training/storage space was the old city shop, which was currently being used for vehicle storage. Council President Walker asked about the middle outbuilding—specifically, how it would be used. Mr. Coleman explained that the middle outbuilding would be designated for storage and non-essential police programs. According to the International Building Code, the main police facility needed to be constructed to Risk Category IV, which included high standards due to its designation as an essential facility. However, items housed in the outbuilding were not required to meet those strict code requirements. As a result, building the outbuilding separately allowed cost savings, since it could be constructed to lower specifications. The intention was to move non-programmatic police operations items, such as storage, a training room, or a conference space, out of the main building and into the outbuilding. This practice aligned with how other police departments across the state and country had approached similar challenges. Council Member C. Erickson added the committee members felt that was a smarter and more cost-effective use of funds. Council Member Reeser asked about the high price per square feet of the project—specifically the figure of $578 per square foot, which was significantly higher than that of a standard office or residential building. Mr. Coleman clarified that this was not a standard office or residential project. The new police department was being built to Risk Category IV standards under the International Building Code, meaning it had to remain operational during emergencies, such as severe weather or seismic events. The building would feature seismic bracing, reinforced structural systems, and redundant infrastructure, such as a backup generator. Additionally, as a police station, the facility required advanced technology and security, including surveillance systems and access controls. These features contributed to the higher cost per square feet. Mr. Coleman also confirmed that the building was being constructed to meet standards for national accreditation, which added to the project’s rigor and cost. Council Member Johnson asked whether the middle outbuilding would offer protection for officers, like features observed at other stations like the one in Idaho Falls. Mr. Colemen responded the middle outbuilding would be located behind a secure fence, within the protected perimeter of the facility. It would not be accessible to the public and would remain behind all secure access points. Review of proposed Ordinance No. 1334 for Rexburg Police Facility Bond Election Controller Miller reviewed the highlighted sections of the proposed ordinance to place a bond measure on the ballot for public vote. The bond amount presented referred specifically to the bond and not the total cost of the entire facility.  Controller Miller emphasized the bond measure would be subject to the approval of two-thirds of qualified electors. Controller Miller continued to review the proposed ordinance. The language that would appear on the ballot was also presented. He said a 15-year bond, the projected interest rate, and the principal bond amount. The interest rate of 3.92%. The bond amount was stated as $16,750,000, with anticipated interest totaling $5,839,638. The combined total of principal and interest came to $22,589,638. He noted that, based on this bond, taxpayers would pay $61.51 per $100,000 of taxable property value each year.    Council Member Johnson asked whether the city was required to disclose other outstanding debts. Controller Miller confirmed that such a disclosure was required. Initially, the Finance Department believed they could state that there was no other general obligation debt, which is true. However, bond counsel advised them that they must include information about the existing revenue bond for the water department, even though it was not a general obligation bond. They had debated whether to include a statement clarifying the lack of general obligation debt but ultimately decided it might confuse the public further. He emphasized that the city was required to show the existence of the water fund revenue bond as part of the bond disclosure process. Council Member C. Erickson suggested that Controller Miller provide background on how the process reached the point of requesting a bond. Economic Development Director Johnson explained that the city had been saving funds for several years, anticipating growth and the need to improve services for the community. These savings included impact fees and other resources. An official bid process had been completed to select both an architect and a general contractor. From the beginning, city staff and committee members worked closely with these professionals to determine the real costs of the project. They met for several months to go over space programming and facility requirements with the police department to ensure the design would serve the community's future needs. The design and financial planning process had been narrowed down through numerous meetings and discussions as well, resulting in the current bond proposal. The city has purchased the land for the facility, a process that required identifying a location that would best serve the community. Council Member C. Erickson added that this financial preparation had made it possible to purchase the land outright. Council Member Johnson raised a concern regarding the placement of the reference to the existing water bond in the middle of the ballot language. She said that it might confuse voters into thinking it was part of the proposed bond measure. Economic Development Director Johnson explained the bond counsel had required that specific language and placement, even though the bond was unrelated to the police department project. He acknowledged that the placement was confusing, they explained that full legal disclosure was required, even if the water fund revenue bond does not impact the proposed bond. Council Member Johnson mentioned adding a short clarifying line might help. Economic Development Director Johnson agreed they would work with bond counsel to see if the language could be revised or relocated to minimize confusion. Controller Miller emphasized again that while the city had no general obligation bond, the revenue bond for the water department had to be disclosed due to legal requirements.    Staff recommendation to approve the Rexburg Police Facility Bond Election Ordinance to seek funding for construction of a new police facility in the November 4, 2025, Municipal Election. Designated as Ordinance No 1334 if motion passes- Action Item Council Member Johnson moved to approve Ordinance No 1334 the Rexburg Police Facility Bond Election Ordinance to seek funding for construction of a new police facility in the November 4, 2025, Municipal Election and consider first read; Council Member C. Erickson seconded the motion; Council President Walker asked for a vote: Those voting aye Those voting nay Council Member Johnson none Council Member C. Erickson Council Member E. Erickson Council Member Reeser Council President Walker The motion carried Review Proposed Utility Fee Changes and set public hearing for August 6, 2025 - Action Item City Controller Miller reviewed the Proposed Utility Fee Changes.  Council Member C. Erickson explained that during a past discussion, city staff had discussed conducting a study of the utility rates with an independent contractor. Controller Miller explained that Finance Officer Nielson worked with the data they currently have and expected the study would be completed in a few months, at which adjustments could be made. Council Member C. Erickson said he would prefer to wait to vote until they had the study results and a better understanding of how these fees compare with other jurisdictions. He emphasized he would prefer to have the results of the study before deciding to increase or decrease the utility rates. Public Works Director Davidson explained that they used the current calculation methods for the utility rates. He stated that their approach was to continue with the existing process and make any necessary changes once the new study data became available. He felt it was better to maintain the usual schedule and re-evaluate in a few months when the data could be analyzed. Council President Walker noted that the proposed changes appeared to include a decrease for homeowners. Council Member Reeser agreed, adding that all but one of the categories showed a decrease—some significantly—and it would be beneficial to pass those savings on as soon as possible to the residents. After the study is completed, they could fine-tune the rates. Controller Miller acknowledged that the study was in progress but would take some time to finish. He explained that waiting for the study to conclude would delay the entire process. One of the changes noted was the removal of the street lighting charge. Controller Miller reviewed the Fiscal Year 2025 calculation recommendations and the city staff recommendations in the analysis. He explained that the proposed changes were similar across categories. He stated that these changes are what is reflected in the sample bills. Controller Miller reiterated that the purpose of this discussion was simply to set the public hearing. No final decisions are being made tonight. The proposed rates needed to be advertised in advance of the public hearing. If the study were completed sooner than expected, the findings could still be incorporated into the final budget and hearing materials. Council Member Johnson asked if these kinds of utility studies were typically done every five years and whether a study had been completed before. Public Works Director Davidson replied that the city had not completed an independent study during his time as Public Works Director. Previously, all rate calculations had been completed in-house. However, they now believed it was important to have an outside consultant review their methods to ensure they remained on the right track. Council Member Reeser moved to approve to set a Public Hearing for the Proposed Utility Fee Changes on August 6th, 2025; Council Member C. Erickson seconded the motion; Council President Walker asked for a vote: Those voting aye Those voting nay Council Member Johnson none Council Member C. Erickson Council Member E. Erickson Council Member Reeser Council President Walker The motion carried Review Proposed Fee Changes and set public hearing for August 6, 2025 - Action Item City Controller Miller reviewed the proposed fee changes.           Controller Miller reported one of the major changes involved the golf fees. Council Member C. Erickson shared that the entire golf board had thoroughly discussed the proposed changes and unanimously supported them. Contorller Miller said additional changes were made to the Rexburg Rapids fees. These changes were intended to better cover operating costs. Council Member Johnson began addressing those issues and explained that one of the longstanding problems, including with the golf program, was that fees had been kept too low for too long. As a result, both programs have become more competitive than necessary, attracting people from outside the area due to significantly lower prices. The golf fee changes aimed to address this imbalance. Similarly, Rexburg Rapids proposed adjustments. One suggestion involved creating a special card for county residents. Due to past urban renewal funding that may have included county money, it appeared necessary to offer county-wide discounts rather than limiting them to city residents. Council Member Johnson asked whether county-wide inclusion was required due to the past urban renewal funding since Madison County currently does not participate any of the operation expenses for Rexburg Rapids. Economic Development Director Johnson admitted they had not heard that explanation before. He agreed it would be helpful to check on that issue, especially since the city paid an annual subsidy. Council Member Johnson said according to city Recreation Director Lewis, general admission currently cost $8. Under the new proposal, county residents would pay $8.50, while non-county residents would pay $10. She explained that he proposed a resident card system with several thoughtful details. Residents could apply online and would need to renew their card every two years. This system would also help address concerns about long lines by creating a separate line for cardholders. The pricing differences would extend to punch passes, reflecting higher costs for non-county residents. Cardholders would need to prove county residency to receive the discount. Controller Miller noted that the types of documentation required could become burdensome. That concern led to the resident card idea, which would streamline the process and make it faster. Council Member Reeser asked where residents could obtain the resident card for Rexburg Rapids. Controller Miller clarified that residents would prove their Madison County residency once—likely at Rexburg Rapids—and then use that card moving forward. Controller Miller acknowledged that while rates needed to increase, the goal was to reduce the impact on local residents by offering targeted savings. Council Member C. Erickson moved to approve to set a Public Hearing for the Proposed Fee Changes on August 6th, 2025; Council Member Johnson seconded the motion; Council President Walker asked for a vote: Those voting aye Those voting nay Council Member Johnson none Council Member C. Erickson Council Member E. Erickson Council Member Reeser Council President Walker The motion carried Review Amended Budget for Fiscal Year 2025 and set public hearing for August 6, 2025- Action Item City Controller Miller reviewed the amended Budget for Fiscal Year 2025.   Controller Miller reviewed the bottom section of the report. The original budget was $92 million. A budget adjustment of $2,138,700 had been proposed, which brought the total budget to $94,408,500. Controller Miller then reviewed the areas where adjustments needed to be made. He identified multiple items in the general fund, including police laptops that had been previously discussed, building maintenance and remodel expenses, and additional garden boxes funded through a contribution. There were several other items included as well. Controller Miller reviewed the streets fund; there was a $84,600 adjustment due to a grant received for traffic signal software. As with other adjustments, approval was required to spend the funds. A small adjustment was made to the recreation budget to account for Frisbee golf tournaments, which were offset by revenues. In emergency services, there was an adjustment for the purchase of small tools for the ambulance, funded through a private contribution. Council Member Johnson moved to approve the Amended Budget for Fiscal Year 2025 and set a Public Hearing for August 6, 2025; Council Member Reeser seconded the motion; Council President Walker asked for a vote: Those voting aye Those voting nay Council Member Johnson none Council Member C. Erickson Council Member E. Erickson Council Member Reeser Council President Walker The motion carried Public Works: – Keith Davidson Surplus 1999 Alliance Street Sweeper from the Street Department - Action Item Public Works Director Davidson stated that there were three street sweepers to be presented at the last City Council meeting; however, there were only two street sweepers on the surplus list. He is seeking City Council approval to declare the third street sweeper as surplus. Council Member C. Erickson moved to approve the Surplus of 1999 Alliance Street Sweeper from the Street Department; Council Member Johnson seconded the motion; Council President Walker asked for a vote: Those voting aye Those voting nay Council Member Johnson none Council Member C. Erickson Council Member E. Erickson Council Member Reeser Council President Walker The motion carried Federal Grant Application for Pavement Maintenance at the Airport - Action Item Public Works Director Davidson explained he is seeking City Council approval to apply for a federal grant through the FAA for airport pavement maintenance. He said some existing funds were about to expire, so they planned to use them for necessary pavement maintenance at the airport. The grant amount totaled $435,494, and the city's share of the cost, split with the county, would be approximately $10,887. Council President Walker clarified that the cost would be split with the county, meaning the city's portion would be roughly $5,000. Council Member Johnson moved to approve the Federal Grant Application for Pavement Maintenance at the Airport; Council Member C. Erickson seconded the motion; Council President Walker asked for a vote: Those voting aye Those voting nay Council Member Johnson none Council Member C. Erickson Council Member E. Erickson Council Member Reeser Council President Walker The motion carried Engineering Selection for the Comprehensive Safety Action Plan - Action Item Public Works Director Davidson explained that they had received a grant called “Safe Streets for All.” As part of that grant, funds were available to develop a comprehensive Safety Action Plan for the entire city. He said city staff had sent out a request for proposals and received several submissions from consulting firms. After reviewing the proposals, the committee recommended selecting Keller and Associates to complete the Safety Action Plan. He stated he is seeking Council approval to enter contract negotiations with Keller and Associates for that portion of the project. Council Member C. Erickson moved to approve the Engineering Selection for the Comprehensive Safety Action Plan; Council Member Reeser seconded the motion; Council President Walker asked for a vote: Those voting aye Those voting nay Council Member Johnson none Council Member C. Erickson Council Member E. Erickson Council Member Reeser Council President Walker The motion carried Council Member C. Erickson asked Public Works Director Davidson if there was any news or information regarding the $2,000,000 grant intended to help connect the community. Public Works Director Davidson responded a conversation had taken place with the granting agency the previous week. The grant had not been denied, but approval had also not yet been granted. The city remained in a holding pattern and was still waiting for a final decision. Public Works Director Davidson emphasized that the grant would help meet a real need in the community by improving connectivity, but as of this point, there was no update. Council President Walker asked for an update regarding the traffic light at the intersection of Trejo. Public Works Director Davidson explained that everything had been submitted to the Railroad Company, and they were now waiting on them to connect the traffic signal. The city had already transferred the necessary funds for the equipment needed to connect the railroad preempt system with the signal. This would ensure that when a train approached, the traffic signal would turn red, preventing a conflict between a green traffic light and a flashing railroad signal. Mayor’s Report/Business: NONE Items for Consideration: 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. Minutes from July 2nd, 2025, Meetings - Action Item Approve Payment of the City of Rexburg Bills - Action Item Council President Walker moved to approve the Consent Calendar containing the city bills and minutes; Council Member C. Erickson seconded the motion; Council President Walker asked for a vote: Those voting aye Those voting nay Council Member Johnson none Council Member C. Erickson Council Member E. Erickson Council Member Reeser Council President Walker The motion carried. Adjournment 7:58 P.M. APPROVED: ________________________________ Jerry Merrill, Mayor Attest: ________________________________ Marianna Gonzalez, City Deputy Clerk