Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil Minutes - September 3, 2025 1 (208) 359-3020 35 North 1st East Rexburg, ID 83440 Rexburg.org | Engage.Rexburg.org City Council Minutes – September 3, 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 6:30 P.M. Council Member Johnson said the prayer. Council Member C. Erickson 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, and Council President Walker. Mayor Merrill did not attend the meeting. 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 Public Hearing 6:30 P.M. – Fiscal Year 2026 Utility Rate Change. Designated as Resolution No 2025 – 08 if motion passes – Matt Nielson Action Item City Clerk Lovejoy reviewed Resolution No 2025 – 08 Fiscal Year 2026 Utility Rate Change. There was no change to water and sewer rates. The garbage rate reflected the additional costs attributed to recycling pick up for residential customers. The safety lighting fee was removed. Resolution to Adopt a New Utility Rate Schedule for Fiscal Year 2026 Resolution 2025-08 A resolution of the City of Rexburg, Idaho, adopting a new rate schedule for water, sewer, garbage, and safety lighting fees. WHEREAS, the City Council desires to maintain the overall quality of life experienced by its constituents; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to collect from all water, sewer, and garbage users an equitable user fee that reflects their appropriate share of operating costs, depreciation and debt service; NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Mayor and the Council of the City of Rexburg, effective October 1, 2025, the water, sewer, and garbage fees to be charged shall be as follows: New Monthly Cost: Garbage 90 Gallon Bin Weekly Pickup $ 28.03 90 Gallon Bin Every 2nd week Pickup $ 19.86 1.5 Yard Bin Weekly Pickup $ 49.08 2.0 Yard Bin Weekly Pickup $ 59.93 3.0 Yard Bin Weekly Pickup $ 81.67 Water Base Fee for .75” Equivalent & SF 1” Meter No Change (Other Meters to increase proportionately based on factor rating) Usage Fee per 1,000 Gallons over 6,000 No Change Wastewater Base Fee for .75” Equivalent & SF 1” Meter No Change (Other Meters to increase proportionately based on factor rating) Usage Fee per 1,000 Gallons No Change Other City Usage Fee per 1,000 Gallon No Change Out of City Limits 30% Surcharge for Water or Sewer update all fees 30% No Change Stop Billing Residential and Non-Residential Safety Lighting Fees as set forth in ordinance 2 1025 and resolutions 2009-08 and 2018-08 Safety Lighting Fees Residential and Non-Residential Remove Fees Passed by the City Council and Approved by the Mayor this __ Day of ___ 2025. Jerry L. Merrill, Mayor ATTEST: Deborah Lovejoy, City Clerk Council Member E. Erickson said after reviewing the Rexburg Utilities Sample Bills, it was his understanding that the commercial garbage rates would increase slightly because of the shift of the recycling fees. City Clerk Lovejoy explained the commercial garbage rates decreased because the cost of the recycling shifted to residential customers only. The asset security and right of way change also attributed to the decrease in the commercial garbage rates. City Clerk Lovejoy said the safety lighting fee was removed from the utility bill. City Clerk Lovejoy explained the residential garbage increased by 3.8% to cover recycling costs. The recycling services are attributed to residential customers, so they pay the share needed to support the service. Apartment complexes did not have recycling. That was why most of the costs shifted back to residential customers, since 90% of the customers were residential. 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. 3 Council Member E. Erickson moved to approve Resolution No 2025 – 08 Fiscal Year 2026 Utility Rate Change; 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 Chambers Council Member C. Erickson Council Member E. Erickson Council Member Reeser Council President Walker The motion carried. Staff Reports: A. Finance: - Matt Nielson 1. 2026 Health and other employee benefits discussion and approval – Terri Hill & Matt Nielson - Action Item Finance Officer Nielson presented the 2026 Health and other employee benefits report. He said he and HR Director Hill have been working with the city’s insurance broker AJ Argyle. Mr. Argyle provided them with an experience report for the first six months of the calendar year from January through June. Finance Officer Nielson explained the report showed many large claims. In comparison to the prior year, the city’s experience rate was 77%, which means the insurance company had made money during that period. For the current year, the city’s experience rate is at 119%, meaning the insurance company is losing money. When renewal options with Select Health were considered, the company initially proposed nearly a 30% increase. Finance Officer Nielson mentioned Mr. Argyle was able to negotiate the increase down to approximately 12.6%. The significant increases were noted in utilization of both pharmacy and medical services, much of it tied to dependents on the plan. Many of the claims were related to cancers and heart conditions, which are difficult to prevent. About 98% of employees and their spouse complete wellness exams, since HRA funding is withheld if they do not. Finance Officer Nielson said pharmacy costs were also reviewed. Brand-name prescriptions accounted for only 8.3% of prescriptions but represented 85% of the total pharmacy costs. The three largest expenses were tied to medications for rheumatoid arthritis. Select Health continued to encourage employees to use generics whenever possible. Finance Officer Nielson also noted that 27 employees would leave the plan with the Fire Department’s transition to the Fire District. Despite the 12.6% increase, city staff did not recommend any changes to the existing plan design, such as higher deductibles or co-pays. The Employee Committee reviewed the recommendations earlier today and expressed support. They recommended a 7% increase in employer contributions, which had already been budgeted, and an average 12% increase in employee contributions. For family coverage, the increase translated to approximately $2,400 more annually for the employer and about $500 more annually for the employee. This kept the 85% employer /15% employee cost split intact. Finance Officer Nielson said, based on the current experience, Mr. Argyle recommended budgeting up to a 30% increase in 2027. However, that projection did not necessarily mean the city’s budget would increase at that level, since the deductions also covered HRAs, dental, and vision insurance. HRAs have not changed in about 18 years. Dental and vision renewals had not yet been received, but a 6% increase was estimated for dental and 5% for vision. He said the Employee Committee requested the City Council to consider approval to absorb those increases if they came in at 10% or less without returning for further approval. For example, a 10% dental increase would move the cost from $167,000 to about $184,000 annually, while vision at a 5% increase would increase cost from $36,200 to about $38,000. The financial impact on employees was also discussed. With the 2.42% cost of living adjustment that had been approved, an employee earning $50,000 would see about $1,200 more in pay per year. With the $500 increase in family coverage deductions, the net increase would be about $710 annually. 4 Finance Officer Nielson explained the recommendation to the City Council to continue with the existing health, dental, and vision plans, apply the 7% employer contribution increase already in the budget, and implement the 12% average employee increase. No further adjustments to the budget or contingency funds would be needed. Open enrollment would take place in November, and employees would have about 10 days to complete the process. Finance Officer Nielson noted that the city had been saving money to explore a self-funded option for insurance. However, losing 27 employees with the Fire Department’s transition would not help that effort. Other options are also being explored. One possibility is with IIIA, a group of cities in Idaho. The city was told last year to return in about four years to see if membership would be considered, so it was expected that it would be at least four years before the city could be quoted. Finance Officer Nielson said HR Director Hill had mentioned that the City of Pocatello had attempted to pursue an option like what school districts had done a few years ago by joining the state insurance plan, which was a very large pool. However, the proposal for cities did not make it out of committee. It was noted that if cities could eventually join the state plan, it would be a significant benefit for both employers and employees, just as it had been for school districts. Council Member Reeser asked whether the size of the city would affect premiums if entry into the state plan became an option, noting that smaller school districts had benefited immediately, while larger school districts initially paid higher premiums before savings appeared. Finance Officer Nielson responded that it was not possible to know the impact for the city at this time, but having the ability to shop and compare would be a positive step. He mentioned another option is exploring partnerships with local entities, such as Madison County and other larger organizations, to see if pooling resources would bring benefits. However, he acknowledged that with approximately 121 people currently on the city’s insurance plan, pursuing self-funding or major pooling would likely need to be postponed for several years. Council Member E. Erickson asked if the reason the city can stay at the 7% increase in insurance premiums is because of the loss of the 27 employees from the Fire Department. Finance Officer Nielson clarified that the 7% increase on the city side was not tied to the loss of 27 fire employees. Instead, the overall health insurance cost had increased by 12.6%. To cover this, the city increased its contribution by 7% and required employees to contribute 12%. Together, this generated enough cash to pay for the higher health insurance premium as well as portions of dental and vision. Finance Officer Nielson further explained in 2025; the city had set aside nearly $500,000 in reserves for insurance. For the following year, the city is going to utilize the funds in the reserve which will reduce the reserve to about $367,000, with a shortfall offset by 7% departmental increase and the 12% employee increase. This combination ensures sufficient inflows to cover premiums for health, dental, vision, and the employee assistance program (EAP). Council Member E. Erickson asked if the health insurance budget include the 27 Fire Department employees. Finance Officer Nielson explained that the budget had included the 27 Fire Department employees. In the past, the city made a transfer from the general fund to Fund 17 to pay for fire services. Going forward, those employees would be covered by the fire district’s own insurance plan, and the city’s books would reflect a direct expense in the general fund for its share of the Fire District costs rather than transfer. The joint venture agreement with the fire district had not yet been fully updated, but city staff noted that budgeting for insurance contributions would need close review in future revisions. 5 HR Director Hill explained that although this year’s renewal rate did not reflect the loss of the 27 employees, next year’s renewal will reflect that loss. Combined with the city’s experience rating, this could lead to a significant increase in the following year. By raising the employee contribution more this year, the city hoped to lessen the severity of next year’s impact. Council Member Reeser clarified that even with the loss of the 27 employees and the city’s high experience, the ratio of cost-sharing remained unchanged, with the city covering 85% and employees 15%. Council Member Johnson asked if the city will still be paying a third of the costs for the Fire Department as a partner. She wondered if the Fire Departments insurance costs will be divided between the partners. Finance Officer Nielson explained that the city will still be paying the Fire Department in the same way; however, instead of a transfer it will show up as an expense. The Finance Department still needs to create that fund. The fund will be shown as Fire Department in the general fund with the city’s contribution to that joint venture. Council Member Johnson said the city would have an interest in the Fire Department’s insurance rates because the city is going to be paying a portion of those services. Finance Officer Nielson explained that the budget process is the way to control those costs each year. The Fire Department has not updated the joint venture agreement. They have only updated name of the employer to the Fire District as of October 1st. He said as the City Council reviews adjustments to the Fire Department joint venture agreement, the budget is a section he recommends the City Council look closely at to determine how the city is going to budget that venture going forward. Council Member Johnson questioned the uses of the name brand drugs. She wondered if those name brand drugs do not have a generic. HR Director Hill explained that Select Health encouraged the use of generics whenever possible, but in some cases, patients required name-brand drugs due to lack of effective alternatives or better medical outcomes. Council President Walker noted not all generic drugs are created equal. Council President Walker asked if city staff has contacted other insurance brokers to see if they could possibly obtain a better price. HR Director Hill noted that the city had issued a request for proposals (RFP) for insurance brokers about five or six years ago, and while Gallagher and GBS were both strong options, the city chose GBS for its local presence. She explained that the City Council could consider submitting RFPs for an insurance broker at the same time as the city completes the salary study as standard practice. HR Director Hill noted that some brokerages had better negotiation skills because they had been in the industry longer. At the current time, the city cannot shop around because of its experience rating and large claimants on the books. Finance Officer Nielson explained that he has worked with several insurance brokers over the years and believes the city’s current broker, Mr. Argyle, does a tremendous job. He said Mr. Argyle represents clients such as the cities of Pocatello; Idaho Falls and Madison Memorial, giving him significant experience. The city heavily relies on Mr. Argyle and values his strong negotiating abilities. This year, the city cannot shop for other options. However, if next year’s increase came back at 30 to 35%, they would likely shop around. Currently, the city is facing a 12.6% increase but given that the prior year’s increase had been 0%, they felt the position was reasonable. Council Member C. Erickson expressed his concerns that employees might view the 12.6% increase as being passed on to them. Finance Officer Nielson responded that he and HR Director Hill explained the increase percentages to the employee committee with the hope that the committee members would share it with the rest of the employees. The explanation highlighted that the employer paid 85% of the $2.8 million annual medical insurance cost. If the employer always matched increases equally with employees, over time the employer would end up paying more than 90% of the cost, leaving employees paying very little. He noted that simply raising the employee share by 7% would not generate enough revenue to cover the premium increase. The employee committee unanimously agreed with the approach taken. Council Member Johnson moved to approve the 2026 Health and Other Employee Benefits; 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 Chambers Council Member C. Erickson Council Member E. Erickson Council Member Reeser Council President Walker The motion carried. 6 B. Public Works: - Keith Davidson 1. Bid approval for the Riverside Lift Station and Gravity Sewer - Action Item Public Works Director Davidson explained he is looking for ways to save costs on that lift station. He is waiting for some of the costs to come back before presenting those bids to the City Council. 2. Surplus Yellow 1984 Dodge Ram Charger from the Parks Department - Action Item Public Works Director Davidson explained that there is a request to surplus a Yellow 1984 Dodge Ram Charger. The vehicle had been with the city for over 30 years, and the Parks Department had been using the vehicle. Discussion regarding the odometer reading of 81,000 miles was accurate or if it had flipped over when the picture was taken of the odometer. Council Member C. Erickson moved to approve the Surplus of a Yellow 1984 Dodge Ram Charger from the Parks Department; Council Member E. Erickson seconded the motion; Council President Walker 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 Council Member Reeser Council President Walker The motion carried. 3. Discussion regarding the sidewalk on Salem Street Public Works Director Davidson explained that the city’s policy requires sidewalks to be installed when properties change ownership. A recent case involve s a property on Salem Avenue at the end of the street. The concern raised by the property owner was that a vehicle parked in the driveway would extend over the sidewalk because the homes in that development had originally been allowed closer to the property line without the required distance. Current standards required a 20-foot setback from the property line to the garage or building, but this home did not meet that standard. The property owner worried that parking in the driveway would block the sidewalk. He noted city staff reviewed other similar areas, such as Bear Street, where sidewalks had been required. On that street, property owners created longer driveways along the side of their homes to accommodate parking. Although it was not an ideal layout, the Bear Street property owners installed the required sidewalks. 7 Public Works Director Davidson noted that in some areas, such as Founder Square, which was a Planned Unit Development (PUD), homes were allowed within 10 feet of the property line. In those cases, parking across sidewalks had not been permitted, and the city had been clear about not allowing vehicles to block sidewalks. Council Member E. Erickson asked about the city’s variance procedure because he believes requests such as this should go through the variance process rather than making piecemeal exceptions. He said he agrees requiring a sidewalk in that particular property does not make a lot of sense; however, he prefers to keep the ordinance requiring sidewalks to be constructed. Public Works Director Davidson explained he is not aware of any variances to the installation of sidewalks. He recommended a change in the policy if the City Council desires to move in that direction. Public Works Director Davidson asked the City Council to consider whether sidewalks should be required at this location and the property owner look at an alternate way to park because if sidewalks are not required then theoretically the road becomes the sidewalk. Council Member C. Erickson said he preferred to maintain sidewalk requirements for consistency and to ensure eventual continuity along the street, even if sidewalks were installed one property at a time. Council Member Johnson asked if the property owner had contacted the city to inform them, they were interested in installing the sidewalk on their property. Public Works Director Davidson responded no, the property owner did not contact the city. The city policy requires the installation of the sidewalk when the property changes hands. The property owner is petitioning the city to not require them to install the sidewalk because the sidewalk would create parking issues for potential renters. The property owner could park in their garage to avoid blocking the sidewalk with their vehicle; however, their tenants would not be able to park in the driveway without blocking the sidewalk. Council Member Reeser asked if the snowplows and garbage trucks have issues turning around since Salem Avenue is not a proper cul-de-sac. Public Works Director Davidson explained that although it was not an ideal setup, the city already dealt with similar situations and would plow to the edges, even if sidewalks were against the curb. Council Member C. Erickson said he feels that maintaining the sidewalk requirement is the best long-term solution, especially given the potential for the property to become a rental with multiple tenants and vehicles. Council Member Johnson emphasized that creating exceptions could lead to problems and that uniformity in policy is important. Council President Walker said the consensus of the City Council is to have the property owner install the sidewalk. Council President Walker asked for an update on the construction work being completed on Local Improvement District 54 (LID 54). Public Works Director Davidson reported that the work on LID 54 is progressing, and paving on 5th West is expected to begin soon. On 1st West, from Main Street down to 1st South, it was discovered that the road had good gravel and fabric underneath, so the gravel would not need to be removed. That portion of the project was expected to move more quickly. Public Works Director Davidson continued to report that the crew are also working on the sewer line replacements. The old lines were Orangeburg pipes, a type known to fail, so replacements were underway on 1st South. Construction was also active on 2nd East, where sewer lines had caused issues 8 in the past and are being replaced by Vanguard. The city Street Department had already torn out a section at 2nd East and 2nd South because of rutting, and with sewer work scheduled there, it was considered the right time to make those improvements before repaving. They hope to complete the work before the university students return at the end of the following week. He acknowledged that unexpected underground conditions, such as rock removal, had slowed progress. Contractors had been forced to jackhammer through rock where the original clay pipe had been jogged around obstacles using short sections. Council Member E. Erickson commented on the timing of the 1st South project, since the return of 15,000 students would create traffic congestion and complaints. Public Works Director Davidson said that ideally the work would have been completed earlier in the summer, but delays from contractor schedules, material availability, and the short construction season have made that difficult. Council Member C. Erickson emphasized the importance of reopening 2nd East quickly, since 1st South was less heavily traveled but would still have an impact. He noted additional concerns regarding traffic with the Madison High School’s upcoming homecoming parade. City Attorney Rammell explained that Public Works Director Davidson mentioned that the previous attorney had not been a supporter of variances. He stated that he felt the same way. He explained that there is a general rule with variances when it comes to government entities and municipalities where variances are constructive in theory but destructive in practice. While they allowed case-by-case decision making, they also opened the door for legal challenges that went beyond the usual standard of whether an ordinance was arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion. Instead, variances focused on the individual facts of each case, which made them more vulnerable to dispute. City Attorney Rammell emphasized that well-written ordinances and clear standards were preferable. He noted that he and Planning and Zoning Administrator Parkinson had worked together to refine language in ordinances this year to remove ambiguities and have a clear standard. He added that once exceptions were made, they often created problems later when the same leniency was not extended in future cases. He clarified that while there were processes in place for appeals—such as contesting a parking ticket—variances from ordinances were generally avoided. Department heads like Public Works Director Davidson or Planning and Zoning Administrator Parkinson typically reviewed unique situations and sought guidance when needed. City Attorney Rammell stressed that ordinances should be applied uniformly whenever possible. Council Member E. Erickson asked whether a different City Council decision on the sidewalk issue would have created a variance. Public Works Director Davidson clarified that it would not have been a variance but rather a policy or code change. City Attorney Rammell said such a change, however, would be difficult to write since it would attempt to address a very specific circumstance without necessarily applying well to future situations. Council Member Johnson said she agreed that requiring sidewalks uniformly, even when unpopular, was the fairest approach. Mayor’s Business: A. Ratify Proclamation No 2025 – 05 Constitution Week September 17th - 23rd, 2025 Council President Walker read Proclamation No 2025 – 05 Constitution Week September 17th – 23rd, 2025. PROCLAMATION No. 2025-05 Proclaiming September 17th – 23rd as Constitution Week WHEREAS, September 17, 2025, marks the two hundred and thirty- eighth anniversary of the drafting of the Constitution of the United States of America by the Constitutional Convention; and WHEREAS, It is fitting and proper to accord official recognition to this magnificent document and its memorable anniversary and to the patriotic celebrations which will commemorate the occasion; and WHEREAS, Public Law 915 guarantees the issuing of a proclamation each year by the President of the United States of America designating September 17 through 23 as Constitution Week. NOW, THEREFORE, I Jerry Merrill, by virtue of the authority vested in me as Mayor of the City of Rexburg, do hereby proclaim the week of September 17 through 23 as 9 Constitution Week And ask our citizens to reaffirm the ideals the Framers of the Constitution had in 1787 by vigilantly protecting the freedoms guaranteed to us through this guardian of our liberties remembering that lost rights may never be regained. ADOPTED by the City of Rexburg, State of Idaho, on this __ day of ____ 2025. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal of the City of Rexburg to be affixed this 3rd day of September of the year of our Lord two thousand twenty-five. APPROVED: _____________________________ Jerry Merrill, Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ Deborah Lovejoy, City Clerk Council Member E. Erickson moved to ratify Proclamation No 2025 – 05 Constitution Week September 17th - 23rd, 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 Chambers Council Member C. Erickson Council Member E. Erickson Council Member Reeser Council President Walker The motion carried. Council Member C. Erickson mentioned at the last City Council meeting, citizens had come in to discuss overgrown weeds and dry grass issues on Yale Avenue. He said he had driven and walked the area, observed the houses, and spoken with city Compliance Officer Powell. In reviewing what the city already has in place to address those concerns, it was noted that citizens often did not understand that they could contact the City of Rexburg directly. He said Compliance Officer Powell had already been involved, visiting the area, speaking with neighbors, and beginning efforts to clean up some of the blocks. Council Member C. Erickson also mentioned that issues such as barking dogs were already covered by city ordinance. Citizens could call the Police Department, and the Animal Control Officer would respond, listen, and cite offenders if necessary. City Clerk Lovejoy referenced an email forwarded from Compliance Officer Powell detailing her work and explained that city staff are reviewing Pocatello’s code. Many provisions were already covered in Rexburg’s municipal code, but they were organized differently. Reorganization would not require a formal ordinance amendment, only renumbering and grouping sections differently. If actual changes were considered, those would be presented to the City Council. She said Compliance Officer Powell had suggested that clearer directions on issues like lawn length might be helpful, since she often had to answer questions about how long lawns or weeds could be. City Clerk Lovejoy suggested that this could be an amendment for the City Council to consider. Council Member C. Erickson shared that several people had spoken with him about “will serve” letters being promised by a jurisdiction to the north. He suggested the City Council should place this topic on a future agenda to discuss sewer and water line connections north of the city. He expressed concern about promises being made to connect to Rexburg’s systems without proper City Council discussion, emphasizing the need to protect the city’s taxpayers who had already invested in those systems. City Attorney Rammell agreed it would be more appropriate to put the issue on a future agenda rather than resolve it immediately. He explained that some of these matters had been litigated previously, with significant changes occurring around 2011–2012, and older records were not easily 10 available online. They were searching for all available resources and past documentation to ensure consistency in addressing such questions moving forward. Council Member C. Erickson clarified that the concern related to agreements between Rexburg and Sugar City. He emphasized that some promises being discussed had never been brought before the current City Council, since they predated all the present members. He stressed the importance of reviewing those agreements together as a City Council to clarify expectations and protect Rexburg’s citizens going forward. Items of Consideration: A. Planning & Zoning recommendation to approve a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow religious worship and meeting house in Low Density Residential 2 (LDR2) zone per the Rexburg Development Code at 2355 Summerfield Ln #25-00664 – Alan Parkinson Action Item P&Z Administrator Parkinson reviewed the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow religious worship and meeting house in Low Density Residential 2 (LDR2) zone per the Rexburg Development Code at 2355 Summerfield Lane. The request was brought to the planning and zoning commission, which held a public hearing and made a unanimous decision to move the request forward for review. The P&Z Commission recommended approval of this CUP. Council President Walker commented that he read all the letters submitted regarding the CUP, they were in support, and no one opposed the request. P&Z Administrator Parkinson responded two people had attended the hearing and spoke in the positive of the CUP request, and four letters were submitted, all in favor. No neutral or negative feedback was received. Council Member Reeser asked if there would be adequate parking. P&Z Administrator Parkinson confirmed that a sketch had been provided showing the plan, which included sufficient parking. Council Member E. Erickson recalled that the land had originally been platted by Karchner’s for a church when the building on 12th West was constructed over 15 years ago. He noted it made sense to build a church on that property and expressed support. P&Z Administrator Parkinson clarified that the larger chapel nearby was intended for students to attend, while the proposed chapel would serve traditional wards. With the growing population in Summerfield and possible future expansion, it was believed to be the right time to establish another chapel in the area. 11 Council Member Reeser suggested that traffic would mostly be internal to the neighborhood and might even be reduced, since many residents currently traveled along 12th West to attend other chapels. Council Member Johnson added that she lives across the street and noted most of the residents presently had to leave the subdivision to attend church services. Council Member Johnson moved to approve a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow religious worship and meeting house in Low Density Residential 2 (LDR2) zone per the Rexburg Development Code at 2355 Summerfield Lane; 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 Chambers Council Member C. Erickson Council Member E. Erickson Council Member Reeser Council President Walker The motion carried. B. Planning & Zoning recommendation to approve an amendment to the current Development Code, Ordinance No 1200 for the City of Rexburg #25-00575. Designated as Ordinance No 1337 and considered first read if motion passes – Alan Parkinson Action Item P&Z Administrator Parkinson explained there were changes made in the following categories: Accessory Side Setbacks, Daycares, Landscaping, Family & Congregate Living, Parking, and Subdivision Names to the current Development Code, Ordinance No 1200 for the City of Rexburg. These items were previously reviewed in two separate City Council Work Meetings. The information was first presented, followed by discussion. Changes were then made based on the feedback from the first meeting and brought back to the City Council for further review. Additional suggestions were provided at the second meeting, and those changes were also made. No other revisions have been made since the second meeting. Council Member C. Erickson moved to approve Ordinance No 1337 an amendment to the current Development Code and consider first read; Council Member E. Erickson seconded the motion; Council President Walker 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 Council Member Reeser Council President Walker The motion carried. 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 1335 Fiscal Year 2025 Budget Amendment – Matt Nielson Action Item Ordinance No. 1335 Amend Ordinance 1316 Fiscal Year 2025 Appropriation Ordinance AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF REXBURG, IDAHO, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 1316, THE APPROPRIATION ORDINANCE FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING OCTOBER 1, 2024, AND ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2025: APPROPRIATING ADDITIONAL MONIES THAT HAVE BEEN OR ARE TO BE RECEIVED BY THE CITY OF REXBURG, IDAHO, AND BUDGET REDUCTIONS IN THE NET SUM OF ($2,138,700) AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 12 Council Member E. Erickson moved to approve Ordinance No. 1335 to Amend Ordinance 1316 Fiscal Year 2025 Appropriation Ordinance and consider third 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 Chambers Council Member C. Erickson Council Member E. Erickson Council Member Reeser Council President Walker The motion carried. 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 August 20, 2025, Meeting B. Approve the City of Rexburg Bills C. Approval of 2025 – 2026 Beer and Wine Licenses Council Member Reeser to approve the Consent Calendar containing the minutes, city bills and 2025-2026 Beer and Wine Licenses; 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 Chambers Council Member C. Erickson Council Member E. Erickson Council Member Reeser Council President Walker The motion carried. Adjournment 7:37 P.M. APPROVED: ________________________________ Mikel Walker, City Council President Attest: ________________________________ Marianna Gonzalez, City Deputy Clerk