HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil Minutes - January 21, 2026 (208) 359-3020
35 North 1st East
Rexburg, ID 83440
Rexburg.org | Engage.Rexburg.org
City Council Minutes – January 21, 2026
Mayor Jerry Merrill
Council Members:
Bryanna Johnson David Reeser
Colin Erickson Bill Riggins
Eric Erickson Alisha Tietjen
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 Reeser said the prayer.
Council President E. Erickson led the pledge.
Roll Call of Council Members:
Attending: Council Member Johnson (via Zoom), Council Member Tietjen, Council Member C. Erickson, Council Member Reeser, Council Member Riggins, Council President E. Erickson, and Mayor
Merrill.
Welcome New Employee: None
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.
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 C. Erickson reported the Golf Board and Airport Board have not met. He shared an update from the School Board, noting that Superintendent Randy Lords received the Idaho
Superintendent Award. Superintendent Lords was selected to represent Idaho at the national level, and they hope that he will return as the National Superintendent of the Year, bringing
that recognition to the State of Idaho.
Council Member Tietjen reported the Mayor Youth Advisory Board met in December for their Christmas party. The group also visited the Neutral Zone, where they spent time ice skating.
They will be completing a service project in February to benefit the residents at the Homestead. The ADA Board did not meet; she noted that additional members are being sought for that
board.
Council Member Tietjen also reported that the Historical Preservation Committee did not meet; however, members reported that they are designing vinyl medallions for the 50th anniversary
of the Teton Dam flood. These medallions will be available for businesses and homes to place in their windows to signify that they were present at the time of the flood. The medallions
would note “50 Years” so that visitors could easily identify which buildings survived the flood. Council Member Tietjen mentioned that the Historical Preservation Committee completed
all the required paperwork for the city to become a Certified Local Government (CLG) and the city received the CLG certification. This designation makes the city eligible for more grant
opportunities.
Council Member Johnson reported that the city’s Parks and Recreation Department have mostly been focused on the skating rink for the past month, which they will discuss later in the
meeting. She noted that the Trails/Parks and Recreation Committee is scheduled to meet tomorrow.
Council President E. Erickson reported that the Madison Economic Partners Inc. committee recently met. During the meeting, they discussed potentially partnering with BYU–Idaho and the
Idaho National Laboratory (INL) to develop an entrepreneurial center. Colleges and universities have expressed a need for such a center. There was discussion about the possibility of
technology transfer as part of that effort. While there is broad support for the idea, they identified funding as the primary challenge. He reported that no single entity currently has
sufficient funding, but that both the
committee and its partners are working on pursuing grant opportunities. They are optimistic that something could be put together soon.
Council President E. Erickson also reported that the city could be involved in a study related to the development of a small nuclear reactor. The INL, and one of its contractors, is
seeking cities to partner with, and the city is in the process of working through qualification requirements. While the process is extensive, the opportunity would be of benefit to the
city, particularly in connection with the new transfer station and the airport. Overall, the committee expressed excitement about the many possibilities that could be forthcoming.
Council Member Reeser reported that the Legacy Flight Museum Committee has not met for some time, and therefore there was nothing new to report. Regarding the Police Department, he
noted that a discussion would be held later in the meeting concerning the survey that was conducted on the bond results. That discussion is intended to guide decisions on how to move
forward.
Council Member Riggins reported the Urban Renewal Board met earlier today. During the meeting, several items were discussed. One of those items was the widening of Yellowstone Highway
just north of McDonald’s. The second item they discussed was the downtown district and the request for proposals (RFPs) that were solicited. Although no decisions have been made, the
agency is continuing to review and work through those proposals.
Council Member Riggins reported the Urban Renewal Agency also discussed the purchase of the old junior high building. He noted that the Urban Renewal Agency purchased the property,
with the closing scheduled for April 30 of this year. Further discussion focused on the free clinic currently housed in the building, as well as a request from Madison Grid Kid Football
to continue using the space. He explained that a firm deadline of June 1 was established for occupants to vacate the building due to the need for asbestos abatement. Additionally, he
requested an item on a future City Council agenda to discuss the Free Clinic and explore ways the city might be able to assist on a location to house the clinic. Mayor Merrill suggested
scheduling a work meeting and inviting representatives from the Free Clinic and other nonprofit organizations to meet with the City Council to discuss potential options.
Mayor Merrill recommended the appointment of a new Urban Renewal Agency member and mentioned the Urban Renewal Agency members have approved of that appointment.
Council Member Riggins moved to ratify the appointment of Kyle Rawson to the Rexburg Urban Renewal Agency; Council Member C. Erickson seconded the motion; Mayor Merrill asked for a
vote:
Those voting aye Those voting nay
Council Member Johnson none
Council Member Tietjen
Council Member C. Erickson
Council Member Reeser
Council Member Riggins
Council President E. Erickson
The motion carried.
Other Reports: None
Staff Reports:
Finance: - Matt Nielson
Financial Reports
Finance Officer Nielson explained that in accordance with state law, the city’s financial reports are published quarterly on the city’s website. He reported that the fiscal year has
been closed and that the audit process is complete. As a result, the report now reflects the fund balance and cash investments for each fund, providing additional detail.
Finance Officer Nielson noted that the city is approximately 25 percent through the current fiscal year. Upon review of the expenditure, a few items appear higher than the expected
25 percent; however, these are attributed to projects such as the pickleball courts and the park shop, which were completed after the closing of the previous fiscal year. He stated that
overall expenditures were approximately 12.1 percent of the budget to date.
Ice Rink Facility Discussion and approval of Budget Adjustment – Matt Nielson and Jon Lewis
Action Item
Finance Officer Nielson explained in 2024 the city entered a public-private partnership (PPP) agreement. Under that agreement, a private individual agreed to construct an approximately
35,000-square-foot ice facility on city-owned land. In exchange, the individual was granted the right to operate the facility for up to 25 years, with the requirement that at least four
percent of the total investment be donated back to the city each year as a contributed asset, with the option to contribute more. Nearly two years later, the facility has been in operation
for approximately four and a half months. The private partner elected to fully donate the facility to the city and provided formal notification allowing the city to take over operations.
As a result, city staff are presenting a proposed budget to operate the facility for the remaining eight months of the current fiscal year.
Parks and Recreation Director Lewis explained that the budget proposal is based on three months of actual revenue from the prior operator, which were considered the peak operating months.
Revenue projections doubled those figures for peak season and reduced estimates for slower summer months, forming an eight-month operating budget. The transition of the ice rink facility
to city operation occurred sooner than expected. City staff planned to operate the facility year-round if feasible, maximize ice usage, and work with local organizations, while closely
monitoring expenses and operating efficiently.
Finance Officer Nielson reviewed the Neutral Zone Ice Rink Facility Budget Projections Report and some of the key points of taking over the operations of the facility.
Staff interviews were conducted with existing employees, with the intent of retaining as many experienced staff as possible. City employee, Parker Anderson was designated to manage the
facility and has relevant winter sports and facility management experience.
The previous operator had one full-time and approximately twelve part-time employees. A second maintenance position has already been budgeted, with electrical expertise to support the
ice rink and other city facilities and is expected to be hired around March.
No new full-time positions are being proposed. Instead, existing staff would share responsibilities, including allocating portions of Parker Anderson’s time and another golf course
employee’s time to the ice rink. Part-time staff would be hired as needed, with projected personnel costs of approximately $58,000 for eight months.
A conservative budgeting approach is being used, with modest revenue projections and higher-end expense estimates to avoid overstating profitability.
The ice rink will operate as a separate fund so that any surplus revenue can be tracked and reserved for future needs.
Future discussions are expected to consider a small general fund transfer to establish capital reserves for long-term maintenance and potential alternative off-season uses.
Primary revenue sources are public skating admissions and ice rink rentals, both of which performed well during the initial operating period from October through December.
Council Member Tietjen expressed concerns when a new business opens, initial interest is often high because people want to see the new facility, but that level of attendance might not
be sustained over time. She noted that this could make early projections appear higher than what might occur long term. Finance Officer Nielson stated that the ice facility has not been
heavily advertised and did not hold a grand opening, and that many residents were not yet aware of its existence.
Council Member Riggins shared similar concerns but suggested that the lack of advertising also represented an opportunity. He asked how soon the facility could be added to the city’s
website and promoted through elementary, middle, and junior high schools. Parks and Recreation Director Lewis responded that planning for marketing and outreach is underway. A grand
opening will be held around Presidents Day. He also noted that they have strong connections with local programs, the school district, and BYU–Idaho, which would help promote partnerships
and facility use.
Council President E. Erickson reported having toured the facility with Parks and Recreation staff and described the donation as an unexpected but significant benefit to the city. Although
there would be a learning curve, he expressed confidence in city staff’s ability to manage the facility effectively. He described the facility as a world-class asset that would be a
valuable addition to the city.
City Attorney Rammell addressed concerns regarding the donation and transfer agreement, stating that after careful review there were no legal issues or hidden conditions. He said the
donation included not only the building but equipment such as skates and kitchen assets that could benefit other city facilities. He characterized the donation as substantial and meaningful,
with no ownership cuts or legal complications.
Council Member Johnson said she agrees with the concerns Council Member Tietjen expressed. She said she wants to ensure that they carefully evaluate the operation expenses of the ice
rink in eight months. She added it is important to remember that the city does not have to continue operating the ice rink if it is losing money. This public-private partnership was
a learning experience in that any future partnerships would include a more comprehensive contract, possibly addressing operating costs if the facility were to be donated. She explained
it is challenging to have this type of donation unexpectedly transferred to the city in the middle of a fiscal year. She said she has other priorities that also require funding.
Mayor Merrill said he agrees with Council Member Johnson and emphasized that for all city programs and facilities, the goal is to break even whenever possible while evaluating their
value to the community. Some programs did not make money, but they are still considered valuable. This facility would be evaluated on the same basis as they move forward.
Council Member Tietjen echoed Council Member Johnson’s concerns, noting that while the donation is exciting, they need to consider the long-term responsibilities. She emphasized that
in eight months, they will need to reevaluate whether the city could continue supporting the ice rink, considering labor, operating costs, training, and all other associated expenses.
Council Member Reeser asked for clarification regarding the budget for the ice rink. Finance Officer Nielson explained that the current budget covered the next eight months, and additional
data from the rest of the winter would be used to forecast the following year’s budget. The City Council will have the opportunity to make annual decisions during the budget process.
Additionally, a line item for the contributed capital of the asset each year. He said he budgeted that contribution at 4% because the facility could potentially operate for 25 years.
The facility is estimated to be worth over five million dollars and including it as contributed capital in the budget is necessary for accounting purposes.
Council Member C. Erickson emphasized that a full year of evaluation would provide a better understanding of the facility’s performance, capturing both summer and winter operations.
He acknowledged that the donation was unexpected but noted that the facility is built well, with new equipment and a design that reflected significant effort and dedication. He expressed
optimism that, with proper management, the facility could succeed and provide a valuable community resource.
Council Member Riggins explained that from a business perspective, if someone offered them a $5,000,000 building with all new equipment to run as a business, they would take it immediately.
He believes it would come down to the Recreation Department to operate the facility correctly. Given the number of potential users, including children and local programs, they could
not imagine it failing financially if it is managed properly. Overall, he concluded that the facility was handed to the city in an excellent package and presented a rare and valuable
opportunity.
Council President E. Erickson moved to approve the Budget Adjustment for the Ice Rink Facility; Council Member Reeser seconded the motion; Mayor Merrill asked for a vote:
Those voting aye Those voting nay
Council Member Johnson none
Council Member Tietjen
Council Member C. Erickson
Council Member Reeser
Council Member Riggins
Council President E. Erickson
The motion carried.
Review of Police Bond Survey and decision whether to move forward with the May 19, 2026, election – Matt Nielson and Josh Rhodes Action Item
Finance Officer Nielson reminded the City Council that at the December City Council Meeting they approved sending out a Police Bond Survey. Amy Holly from the Square Group, conducted
the survey. She has joined this meeting via Zoom and will review the survey results.
Amy Holly explained that the city, the Police Department, and the Oversight Committee developed the survey. She pointed out that Michael Keith with Zions is also participating in the
meeting via Zoom. The purpose of the survey was to gather input from residents and voters. She said she will present the information collected from the survey. Their first key finding
is that residents broadly recognize the underlying need for a new police facility. About three-quarters of respondents agreed that Rexburg needed a new or updated police facility. Their
second key finding is that concerns revolve around taxes and trust. Property tax concerns are high, with about three-quarters of respondents reporting they are very or somewhat concerned.
The survey results indicate that property tax burdens strongly influenced voter behavior, with the other respondents saying that taxes influenced their vote either greatly or somewhat.
Their third key finding is that residents generally rate the Police Department positively, which is notable because not all public safety surveys produce this result. The Rexburg Police
Department has a solid reputation within the community. However, confidence in the city’s ability to manage a major project is more mixed. Based on what residents knew at the time of
the survey, support for a future bond is around 60%, which is meaningful but fell short of the supermajority requirement of 66 2/3 percent. The survey results indicated that residents
needed more information and assurances from the city, which could help bridge the gap between the 60% support and the supermajority threshold.
Ms. Holly reviewed the survey overview.
Ms. Holly reviewed the Community Awareness charts, which addressed familiarity with the police facilities bond that went out in the November election. Awareness among residents was
very high. This reflectes positively on the Police Department, the Oversight Committee, and the city’s ability to share information in advance of the November election. As a result,
residents were aware of the need for the project and understood the bond rate. She reported that approximately 75 percent of respondents agreed that Rexburg needed a new police facility.
This is considered an important finding because it indicates that residents understand what is being proposed. Since they recognized and agreed with the need for a new facility, concerns
could potentially be mitigated through additional information and communication.
Ms. Holly reviewed the community sentiment Police Department performance. She noted that this finding also highlighted one of the first issues that would need to be addressed if the
City Council decided to move forward with an engagement campaign. The survey results showed a degree of division among respondents. Approximately 13 percent of voters were neutral, while
the remaining respondents were evenly split between those who were confident or somewhat confident and those who were not very confident or not confident at all in the city’s ability
to manage a project of this size.
Ms. Holly emphasized that this skepticism is not directed at the Police Department, but rather at the city’s ability to manage a large-scale project. They discussed this concern during
the Oversight Committee meeting the previous day. She said this issue is not unique to the City of Rexburg or to police facility bonds specifically. Instead, it reflects a broader trend
seen in survey results at both the state and national levels, as public skepticism toward government and its role is increasing.
Ms. Holly reported that the survey results were very strong, with approximately 80 percent of voters expressing somewhat positive or very positive confidence in the Police Department.
This is considered highly favorable foundational data and provides the city with a strong starting point. The results indicated that residents held a high level of confidence in the
Police Department and the services it provided, which she described as an exceptional position from which to move forward.
Ms. Holly reviewed the participation in previous election charts. The survey asked respondents about their participation in the November election. The results showed strong voter turnout,
and many of those voters were captured in the survey responses. According to the data, approximately one-third of respondents who voted in the fall election reported voting in favor
of the measure, while another one-third reported voting against it. Respondents were also given the option to decline to answer or indicated that they preferred not to say, to ensure
they did not feel pressured to respond to that question.
Ms. Holly reviewed the answers regarding why the voters said no to the police bond. She explained that unsurprisingly, tax impact came up again as a key reason. Project scale was also
identified as a primary concern, along with several other issues. The tax impact, which appeared in the far-left column at 53 percent, aligned with the 41 to nearly 42 percent shown
in purple in the middle of the chart. This reflected concerns about debt and property taxes related to the overall cost. The far-right bar represented “other.” Respondents had the opportunity
to provide written comments explaining why they voted no.
Council President E. Erickson questioned whether concerns related to cost and property taxes could be attributed to the broader economic environment, including inflation, politics,
and the rising cost of living. Ms. Holly noted that these factors were closely related. People tended to feel these concerns most acutely when property tax bills arrived, but the issue
also reflected a broader concern about affordability because this theme appeared again in later survey results. Respondents were asked whether scaling back the project to reduce financial
impact would increase support, and there was some indication of support for that approach. She said that the survey did not specifically ask respondents to distinguish between economic
conditions and tax concerns because it was often difficult for people to separate those factors. Overall, the feedback reflected a widespread concern about affordability that many people
are experiencing.
Council Member Tietjen asked for clarification regarding the number of survey responses needed. Ms. Holly explained that, based on the most conservative estimate, 377 responses were
required. However, only 315 people answered this question because it was limited to respondents who had voted no in November.
Mayor Merrill noted that over many decades and numerous bond elections, tax consequences have always been a concern for voters. People generally did not want to pay higher taxes, and
that concern is understandable. He said the issue is largely an educational matter rather than a new or unusual reaction.
Ms. Holly said she is preparing a full report that would include all the comments so the City Council could see everything residents shared in their responses. She noted that when she
reviewed the written comments in detail, they closely reflected what appeared in the data from the predefined response options, such as property taxes, project scope, and reducing existing
debt. While there were a few individual responses that stood out as outliers, the comments overall closely mirrored the trends shown in the charts.
Ms. Holly reviewed the current support charts. She explained that even though only about one-third of voters in the November election voted yes, current support for a future bond was
close to 60 percent, which is encouraging. This suggests that individuals who did not participate in the November election, which typically have a much smaller turnout than an even-year
primary or general election, already represented a base level of support.
Ms. Holly also noted that an important feature of the chart on the left was the bright pink slice of the pie, representing 15.41 percent of respondents who were neutral. When combined
with some of the respondents in the purple slice, who somewhat opposed the bond, these voters were considered the “movable middle.” These are voters who could potentially be persuaded
to support the bond with assurances from the city about its ability to manage the project, consideration of a smaller bond request, and strong public education efforts. This group is
viewed as an encouraging segment.
She explained that when the movable middle is small, it becomes much more difficult to move a project like this forward, particularly given Idaho’s requirement for a supermajority to
pass a bond.
Ms. Holly said the survey also explored whether a project of a different scale might generate greater support, which is reflected in the chart shown below. If the city were to scale
the project back, about 24 percent of respondents indicated they would be somewhat more likely or much more likely to support a potential bond if a phased approach were used. Interestingly,
36 percent said there would be no change in their vote, which included individuals who would have voted either yes or no in the prior election.
Ms. Holly reported a question raised during the Oversight Committee meeting, if reducing the scale of the project might cause some yes voters to change their vote. While it was impossible
to say definitively; however, with effective communication, the city could maintain support. She noted that voters who were supportive overall would likely remain supportive if the city
clearly communicated that there would be no change in service and no adverse outcomes resulting from a modest reduction in project scope.
Ms. Holly reviewed the property tax burden chart and explained that it reinforces what they have seen in earlier slides: property taxes are the primary concern for voters. Seventy-five
percent of respondents say they are very or somewhat concerned about their overall property tax burden, and roughly three-quarters report that taxes influence how they vote. As previously
discussed, this underscores the importance of educating residents about property tax burden. Those that work closely with finance, budgeting, and property taxes experience this differently
than most residents. It’s critical to clearly distinguish what this specific property tax ask represents compared to other taxing districts that appear on a typical property tax bill—such
as school levies, bonds, or other assessments—so voters understand exactly what they are being asked to support.
Ms Holly reviewed the chart indicating the voters top concerns. This slide further confirms that property tax is the most impactful concern for respondents. As discussed previously,
this continues to rise to the top when voters are asked about their primary issues. About 11% of respondents took the opportunity to provide open-ended comments. Not surprisingly, those
comments largely align with the concerns identified in the structured response options. There were a few outlier comments—such as references to local improvement districts and a handful
of other issues—but these represent a very small share when viewed in the context of the full universe of respondents. She also reviewed the chart indicating how residents prefer to
receive information about any future proposals that apply. Unsurprisingly, residents are asking for more information—specifically, to understand what the city is doing, how it is doing
it, and that their feedback is being heard. If the City Council decides to move forward with another bond, it will be especially important to communicate that decision broadly and
transparently. Residents want to know how the decision was made and what information was used in reaching it.
Ms. Holly explained the chart below reinforces that residents want information directly from the city and through a variety of channels. A multi-channel approach is important so people
can receive information in the ways they are most comfortable—whether through mail, email, the city website, text outreach (if appropriate), or short explainer videos. Using multiple
channels allows residents to hear the message more than once, which is especially important in a media environment where people consume information across phones and computers. Repetition
helps clarify the message and ensures it is understood and retained.
Council Member Riggins indicated question 10 of the survey respondents were are informed that over the next three years several voter-approved bonds—two school district bonds and a
library bond—are scheduled to expire, and then asked how, if at all, that information would affect their support for a possible police facility bond. Nearly 59% said it would not affect
them at all. How should we interpret that? It seems like they’re saying that even if their taxes were reduced, it wouldn’t change their position. He asked Ms. Holly to clarify that information.
Ms. Holly responded her next step is to look more closely at the data through cross-tabulation—specifically, to see how those respondents answered other questions and whether they are
the same individuals who consistently opposed the proposal. Returning to voters with a proposal that reflects a potentially reduced scope—focused on what is needed right now—can make
a meaningful difference for voters who are persuadable. There will always be a portion of the electorate that is unlikely to support a bond measure regardless of tax implications. Those
voters are typically not the primary audience for messaging, as the message is unlikely to resonate. In some cases, their concerns may be less about the tax burden itself and more about
transparency or confidence in the City’s ability to manage the project effectively.
Council President E. Erickson asked whether the committee made a recommendation regarding moving the bond measure forward sooner rather than later. Finance Officer Nielson explained
that the
committee believes general support for the concept of a bond, with the primary concern continuing to be overall property tax burden and perceptions of city debt. While the City does
not carry general obligation debt, residents often view all taxing entities together on their property tax bill. One option discussed was returning a revised bond measure to the ballot—either
at the next opportunity or in November—with a reduced scope to address cost concerns. A key potential adjustment would be removing the planned “gray space” from the facility. That space
is intended to accommodate growth beyond 10 years, but will have required future buildout costs regardless. Removing it would still allow the facility to meet projected needs for approximately
10 years. The consultants estimated that eliminating the gray space could reduce project costs by approximately $1.7 million, bringing the total bond amount closer to $15 million. Updated
tax impact analysis showed that a $14.995 million bond over a 15-year term—combined with slightly improved interest rates—would reduce the tax impact from approximately $61.50 to $53.48
per $100,000 of assessed value per year. For a typical home, that equates to about $12.47 per month, compared to just under $15 per month under the previous proposal.
Additionally, the total cost including interest would decrease from roughly $22.5 million under the original proposal to approximately $19.3 million over the life of the bond. He said
this approach was discussed as a potential option to address voter concerns while preserving core project needs.
Finance Officer Nielson said another factor the committee discussed was timing. Even if a revised bond measure were placed on the ballot and approved, the project would still need to
move through final design, which is a lengthy process. One option discussed—after consultation with bond counsel—would be to structure the ballot measure so that the bond would not begin
until the 2028 tax year, with residents receiving notice in December 2027. The benefit of this approach is that several other voter-approved bonds, including school and library bonds,
are scheduled to expire before or during that same period. As those obligations roll off, the overall property tax burden would be reduced, helping to offset the impact of a new bond.
He indicated the timing and phasing options were discussed as potential ways to directly address the property tax concerns identified in the survey.
Council Member Riggins noted Question 5, which focused on residents’ confidence in the City’s ability to manage a project of this scale, is especially striking in that it may be easier
to address concerns about tax burden than to overcome issues of trust and confidence in the city. In this context, clearly communicating the City’s track record could help build confidence
among residents. He cited numerous successful projects as examples, including major infrastructure investments such as sewer system improvements to support new development, ongoing road
reconstruction, and other citywide capital projects. While these efforts are happening throughout the community, many residents may not be aware of them. He suggested that the city do
more to actively publicize these completed and ongoing projects; it could help residents better understand the city’s capacity to manage complex initiatives. This type of communication
could be especially important given that more than 50% of respondents expressed doubts about the City’s ability to manage a project of this magnitude.
Council Member Reeser shared that he attended the committee meeting and reiterated Finance Officer Nielson’s comments while also responding to Council President E. Erickson’s question.
They expressed confidence that if a revised bond measure were placed back on the ballot sooner rather than later, it would have a strong chance of success. He noted that, based on recent
figures, multiple bonds with a combined tax impact greater than the proposed police facility bond are scheduled to roll off the tax rolls. While the city does not control decisions made
by other taxing entities, residents experience their taxes as a single overall burden rather than distinguishing between jurisdictions.
Council Member Reeser added by clearly acknowledging voter concerns and demonstrating the steps taken to reduce financial impact, the city can show a good-faith effort to respond to
resident feedback.
Council Member C. Erickson shared that he also attended the committee meeting and came away with a similar impression. He said he agrees with the consultant’s findings that the city
missed opportunities to better educate residents and the survey addressed areas where communication could be improved. He suggested enhancing public education efforts, including developing
a flyer and potentially partnering with the local college or high school to produce a short video highlighting the Police Department and its current facility.
Council Member C. Erickson emphasized that the existing facility does not meet operational needs, a fact that is obvious to anyone who has toured the building. However, most residents
and voters have not had that opportunity. Making the condition and limitations of the current facility more visible to the public would help residents understand that the need will not
go away and that delaying action will only increase costs in the future. He stressed the importance of investing in public safety infrastructure to maintain the city’s reputation as
one of the safest communities in Idaho. He mentioned the steering committee spent the past year carefully evaluating cost-saving measures—including selecting a 15-year bond to reduce
interest costs—the survey results indicate that additional adjustments and clearer communication are needed.
Council President E. Erickson shared his perspective on timing for a potential revised bond measure. He expressed concern about placing it back on the ballot too soon—just six months
after the original vote. While acknowledging the urgency of the need, he emphasized that ensuring voter support is critical. He suggested that the best approach would be to build the
facility as originally designed, but with additional time to launch a comprehensive public outreach and educational campaign. With many upcoming community activities over the summer,
there are opportunities to increase public awareness and engagement, helping voters understand the need and the specifics of the project. He cautioned that a May vote might risk another
failure, which could set the project back significantly.
Council Member Johnson noted that even if the bond request is reduced to $14.9 million, the city could still construct the facility as originally planned by identifying the additional
$1.5 million needed over time. This would allow flexibility in funding without requiring the full amount immediately.
She said she understands Council President E. Erickson’s concerns regarding timing, but emphasized that the city has already built some momentum through the survey and educational efforts.
Waiting until later could risk losing that momentum. She added given these factors—and the reality that construction costs are continuing to rise—she expressed support for placing the
revised bond on the May ballot.
Mayor Merrill noted that the November election is uncertain, as it is unclear whether other entities, such as the school district, might propose additional measures. While acknowledging
that May is a relatively short timeline, he emphasized that five months would still provide sufficient time to conduct a robust informational and educational campaign. He expressed support
for pursuing a May vote as a more favorable timing option.
Council Member C. Erickson noted that the previous measure came close to passing, receiving approximately 63.7% support. He acknowledged that the city fell short in communicating effectively
with residents and that the survey results clearly highlighted gaps in outreach and education. He expressed confidence that the city could significantly improve its communication efforts
by more actively sharing information and encouraging discussion. He added that some City staff and officers felt constrained in their ability to talk about the project, even though informational
communication was permitted, and suggested that clearer guidance could help address that perception.
Council Member C. Erickson suggested several outreach ideas, including developing informational flyers, partnering with local high schools or colleges to produce short informational
videos for platforms such as YouTube, and using digital tools so residents can learn about the Police Department and its facility without attending an open house. Additional ideas included
door hangers distributed citywide to clearly explain the need for the project.
City Attorney Rammell cautioned that there is an important legal distinction between educating the public and advocating for a ballot measure. He emphasized the need to ensure that
all outreach efforts remain informational in nature, noting that crossing into advocacy could risk invalidating the election results if the required 66.67% threshold were met but later
challenged. He reiterated that materials such as door hangers are permissible, provided the language is strictly educational once a measure is on the ballot.
An audience mbember asked how many votes the previous measure fell short. City Attorney Rammell clarified that the measure received approximately 63.5% support and missed passage by
roughly 95 votes.
Michael Keith with Zions addressed the City Council and shared his perspective based on prior experience. He noted that the project has been tested with voters and showed meaningful
support at the original $16.75 million level, with continued strong support reflected in the recent survey. The primary gap identified was not opposition to the project itself, but a
lack of information, indicating a significant share of persuadable voters. He emphasized that there is strong trust in the City’s Police Department and broad recognition of the need
for the facility. He suggested that success would largely depend on improving and expanding communication channels to better inform residents.
Mr. Keith also noted that higher voter turnout in a future election, combined with targeted communication, could further improve the measure’s chances. While property tax concerns remain
a consistent challenge, he observed that there are opportunities to better educate residents about how property taxes work, particularly misconceptions that rising home values automatically
translate to proportional tax increases. Based on the momentum shown in the data, he expressed confidence that with effective messaging and education, the City would have a strong chance
of success if the measure were placed on the May ballot.
Council Member C. Erickson proposed reducing the bond amount to approximately $15 million by removing the planned gray space, noting that this adjustment directly responds to resident
concerns expressed in the survey. He said he is in favor of moving forward with the revised amount and place the measure on the May 19, 2026 ballot.
Council President E. Erickson expressed concern that the monthly tax difference between the reduced and original proposal—approximately four to five dollars for the average homeowner—was
minimal. He suggested that if voters are willing to support the reduced amount, they might also support the full project as originally designed.
Council Member Tietjen responded that reducing the amount serves as an important good-faith gesture, demonstrating that the city listened to voter feedback. Even if the financial difference
appears small, she argued that the symbolic value of responding to concerns could help rebuild trust and improve voter confidence.
Council Member C. Erickson clarified that while the steering committee initially favored retaining the gray space, further discussion led to the conclusion that removing it was a reasonable
compromise. He noted that the facility could still meet approximately 10 years of needs and be designed to allow future expansion in a cost-effective way. He expressed concern that returning
to voters with the exact same proposal could be perceived as disregarding public input.
Council Member Riggins raised the question of whether voter concerns—particularly around trust, project management, and fiscal responsibility—could be addressed through improved communication
and transparency rather than by reducing the project scope or cost. He asked whether demonstrating the city’s capacity to manage the project effectively might allow the City to retain
the original design while still responding to survey feedback.
Council Member Tietjen explained that while extensive outreach efforts—such as door hangers and informational campaigns—are important, not all voters will be reached. Some voters may
only encounter the issue when they see the ballot itself. Seeing a reduced bond amount on the ballot could prompt some voters to support the measure who otherwise might vote no.
Council Member Johnson said she agrees with Council Member Tietjen that reducing the bond amount demonstrates that the City listened to residents. She noted uncertainty about when,
or if, the gray space would be needed—whether in 10 years or 20—and emphasized the psychological impact of the lower figure. The difference between $14.9 million and $16.7 million could
matter to voters, particularly given concerns about whether there would be another opportunity if the measure failed again.
Mayor Merrill acknowledged the tension between building the full facility now for long-term cost efficiency and responding to voter concerns. He noted that other public entities, such
as school districts, have successfully built facilities to meet current needs and expanded them later with manageable disruption.
Council Member Reeser shared a personal example from a high school expansion, noting that the addition was well integrated both aesthetically and functionally. While acknowledging that
a school and a police facility are not directly comparable, He suggested that thoughtful design could allow future expansion while meeting immediate needs. He emphasized that after an
unsuccessful first attempt, the city must adjust its approach to rebuild trust, address tax burden concerns, and respond to survey feedback. He supported eliminating the gray space,
strengthening education efforts, and moving forward with a May ballot.
Council Member C. Erickson added that he directly asked the project architects whether removing the gray space would compromise future expansion. The architects confirmed the facility
could be designed to allow future additions with minimal disruption. He concluded that the survey results clearly indicated the need to demonstrate responsiveness to voter concerns,
making this adjustment a reasonable and good-faith compromise.
Council Member C. Erickson moved to approve the reduced scope of the Police Facility project by removing the gray space; therefore, reducing the bond amount and placing the revised
measure on the ballot for May 19th, 2026, election date; Council Member Reeser seconded the motion; Mayor Merrill asked for a vote:
Those voting aye Those voting nay
Council Member Johnson none
Council Member Tietjen
Council Member C. Erickson
Council Member Reeser
Council Member Riggins
Council President E. Erickson
The motion carried.
Review and approval of CAA Contract and Budget Adjustment from America250 Celebration – Matt Nielson and Scott Johnson Action Item
Finance Officer Nielson provided an update on the America 250 celebration scheduled for July 3. The City Council previously approved a budget of approximately $225,000 to secure a headline
artist for the event. He identified Russell Dickerson as a potential option. He said City Staff reviewed several contract structures with the artist’s representatives, including ticket-sharing
and flat-fee arrangements. The proposed agreement is a flat fee of $200,000 with no ticket revenue split. Based on anticipated ticket capacity and pricing, City Staff expressed confidence
that ticket sales would be sufficient under this structure.
Finance Officer Nielson noted that there are a few minor items still to be resolved and that legal counsel is reviewing the agreement. He requested City Council authorization for Mayor
Merrill to work through the remaining minor contract issues in coordination with legal counsel and, once resolved, to proceed with executing the contract. Approval would allow the city
to formally book the artist and begin marketing the event.
Council Member Johnson asked whether the flat-fee contract structure would expose the City to greater financial risk if ticket sales were lower than anticipated, given the $200,000
payment would be owed regardless of sales. Finance Officer Nielson responded that the flat-fee option should be evaluated in comparison to the alternative proposal. Under the earlier
structure, the artist would have received a $170,000 base fee plus a percentage of ticket sales. While that approach could have reduced upfront cost by approximately $30,000, the artist
did not agree to those terms and would have required a revenue share. He explained that after analyzing expected ticket sales and average pricing, they concluded the $200,000 flat-fee
structure is the more favorable option. This approach limits the city’s obligation to a known amount while allowing the city to retain all ticket revenue, creating greater revenue potential
if ticket sales exceed projections.
Council Member Reeser asked about the ticket capacity listed in the contract, noting it appeared to be 6,500. Finance Officer Nielson clarified that 6,500 refers to bleacher seats,
but additional tickets could be sold for on the field, bringing total potential attendance closer to 9,500. The exact number depends on how much space is allocated per person in the
standing area, with standard guidelines allowing flexibility.
Finance Officer Nielson added that approximately 4,700 tickets would need to be sold at an average price of $42 to cover costs. Final ticket pricing is still to be determined, with
a recommended range of $38–$42 for bleacher seats. The City Council will need to approve final ticket pricing, balancing potential volume against price. The $200,000 flat fee for the
artist includes all associated costs—performer, security, setup, and overhead. Additional revenue is expected from donations and sponsorships, which are already partially committed (estimated
in the $60,000–$70,000 range) and expected to increase once the artist is confirmed. The county has also committed $100,000 toward the event, reducing the financial burden on the City.
City Attorney Rammell noted that the contract for the America 250 celebration has been pre-negotiated and City Staff have reviewed the terms, including inclement weather provisions
and insurance requirements. He stated that the contract followed industry standards. A few minor contract language issues remained, but none were considered deal-breakers, and he anticipated
that they could be resolved without hesitation.
Council Member Johnson stated that she understands that she is in the minority on this issue. She said her opinion has not changed, in that she does not believe it’s the role of the
taxpayer to fund this event. She added she hopes the event is successful, but it’s not how she envisioned the event being handled. For those reasons, she will be voting no.
Council President E. Erickson moved to approve the CAA Contract and Budget Adjustment from America250; Council Member C. Erickson seconded the motion; Mayor Merrill asked for a vote:
Those voting aye Those voting nay
Council Member Tietjen Council Member Johnson
Council Member C. Erickson
Council Member Reeser
Council Member Riggins
Council President E. Erickson
The motion carried.
Public Works: - Keith Davison
Approval of Resolution No 2026-04 Notice of Intent to Create Local Improvement District 55 (LID 55) and set Public Hearing Date for February 18, 2026, at 6:30 pm Action Item
Public Works Assistant Director Beard explained that the Local Improvement District (LID) proposed for this year covers 7th South, west of US 20 to 4th Street West—that section along
the canal includes approximately three blocks, and the following streets, Ash Street and Birch Street. That should be the full extent of the project. The design work is already underway.
The property surveys have been completed, and the cost estimates are prepared to be sent out tomorrow, assuming the resolution passes tonight.
Public Works Assistant Director Beard noted they are planning an open house on February 11th at City Hall, which will take place about a week before the public hearing scheduled for
February 18th. He added that they have met with and spoken to many of the residents, particularly those on Birch Street. The discussions with the property owners have been productive
to help them understand what they are proposing and what the potential costs might be.
Council Member Tietjen mentioned the City Council discussed the importance of forming an LID Committee by February 14th—or no later than February 18th—so they can be included in the
discussion as well.
Council President E. Erickson asked who would be responsible for ensuring the formation of the LID committee. Mayor Merrill indicated he will follow up with Public Works Director Davidson
and confirmed that February 18 was identified as the target date for establishing the committee. He noted that four citizens have volunteered to serve, and efforts are underway to recruit
additional members to ensure representation from a broad cross-section of city property owners.
Council President E. Erickson indicated that it may be beneficial for the LID committee to meet prior to the hearing. Mayor Merrill responded that meeting before the hearing would likely
not impact the LID for the current year, as any substantive changes to the LID process or consideration of alternatives will require extensive research and could not reasonably be accomplished
within that timeframe.
Council Member Johnson expressed her concerns that nearly one year has passed since initial discussions about forming the LID committee. She emphasized the importance of demonstrating
progress to residents. She suggested scheduling a meeting with the committee members prior to the February 18 public hearing would signal good-faith efforts and help retain current volunteers
who have been waiting to participate.
Council Member Riggins moved to approve Resolution No 2026-04 Notice of Intent to Create Local Improvement District 55 (LID 55) and set a Public Hearing Date for February 18, 2026,
at 6:30 pm; Council Member Tietjen seconded the motion; Mayor Merrill asked for a vote:
Those voting aye Those voting nay
Council Member Johnson none
Council Member Tietjen
Council Member C. Erickson
Council Member Reeser
Council Member Riggins
Council President E. Erickson
The motion carried.
Mayor’s Report/Business:
Mayor Merrill noted that the City Council oversight and liaison assignment list has been revised to correct several errors. Updated copies were distributed to Council Members present.
Items for Consideration:
Planning & Zoning Recommendation to approve the Waterfall Townhomes Plat subdividing the parcel into 30 buildable lots, located at 795 S 5th W (25-00737) – Alan Parkinson Action Item
P&Z Administrator Parkinson explained that the project is located on 5th Street West, north of the university, and consisted of a townhome development. He stated that the applicant
had submitted all required information and met the plat requirements.
Council President E. Erickson moved to approve the Waterfall Townhomes Plat subdividing the parcel into 30 buildable lots, located at 795 S 5th W; Council Member C. Erickson seconded
the motion; Mayor Merrill asked for a vote:
Those voting aye Those voting nay
Council Member Johnson none
Council Member Tietjen
Council Member C. Erickson
Council Member Reeser
Council Member Riggins
Council President E. Erickson
The motion carried.
Planning & Zoning Recommendation to approve the Parkgreen Townhomes Plat subdividing the parcel into 30 buildable lots, located at 811 S 5th W (25-00738) – Alan Parkinson Action Item
P&Z Administrator Parkinson stated that the proposal is the mirror image of the development on the adjacent lot and involved the same developer, building design, and layout. He noted
that the developer owned two separate lots but proposed identical projects for each.
Council Member Reeser moved to approve the Parkgreen Townhomes Plat subdividing the parcel into 30 buildable lots, located at 811 S 5th W; Council Member Riggins seconded the motion;
Mayor Merrill asked for a vote:
Those voting aye Those voting nay
Council Member Johnson none
Council Member Tietjen
Council Member C. Erickson
Council Member Reeser
Council Member Riggins
Council President E. Erickson
The motion carried.
Planning & Zoning Recommendation to approve a Comprehensive Plan Map change from Commercial (C) and Intermediate Residential (IR) to Commercial (C) and Intermediate Residential (IR)
at approximately 801 S 12th W (25-01261). Designated as Resolution No 2026 – 05 if the motion passes – Alan Parkinson Action Item
P&Z Administrator Parkinson presented the Heinz property, located just east of the high school, noting its proximity to the fieldhouse and tennis courts. He explained that the developer
proposed a modification to the current comprehensive plan. The modification did not change the plan but involved shifting boundaries to reduce residential acreage by two acres and to
increase commercial acreage. He further described the proposal, noting that the property along Highway 20 would include partial commercial development, with low-density residential along
certain sections, and medium-density residential retained in other areas. The proposal also included additional commercial development along 12th Street West.
Council Member Riggins inquired whether the residential area would have multiple access and egress points. P&Z Administrator Parkinson responded that there were currently no established
roads along the bottom side of the property and that access points would be determined during the plat process. He noted that the developer might include internal roads through the center
of the housing or along the ends of the property, but the final configuration had not yet been submitted. He clarified that the City Council would review and approve access as part of
the formal plat process, and staff confirmed that all applicable requirements would be addressed.
Council Member C. Erickson moved to approve the Resolution No 2026 – 05 a Comprehensive Plan Map change from Commercial (C) and Intermediate Residential (IR) to Commercial (C) and Intermediate
Residential (IR) at approximately 801 S 12th W; Council Member Riggins seconded the motion; Mayor Merrill asked for a vote:
Those voting aye Those voting nay
Council Member Johnson none
Council Member Tietjen
Council Member C. Erickson
Council Member Reeser
Council Member Riggins
Council President E. Erickson
The motion carried.
Planning & Zoning recommendation to approve a zone change from Rural Residential 1 (RR1) to Low Density Residential 3 (LDR3), Medium Density Residential 2 (MDR2), and Regional Business
Center (RBC) zones at approximately 801 S 12th W (25-01268). Designated as Ordinance No 1342 if the motion passes and considered 1st read – Alan Parkinson Action Item
P&Z Administrator Parkinson reviewed the proposed zoning map for the Heinz property, noting that the commercial areas along Highway 20 and 12th Street West were proposed as Regional
Business Center (RBC). The property further north was proposed as Medium-Density Residential 2 (MDR2), with Low-Density Residential 3 (LDR3) along 7th Street, which represents the lowest
density allowed in that zone.
Council Member Johnson expressed concern that the timing is not appropriate to increase the zoning density, citing potential traffic issues at intersections that could be impacted if
nearby developments, including the Gem Prep School, proceeded. She noted that the infrastructure is currently not adequate to support a higher-density development and that the proposed
changes could result in up to 365 units in the area.
Council Member C. Erickson commented that while there was initial hesitation about changing the zone from R1, the proposal aligned with the comprehensive plan, and the planning discussions
gave confidence in the overall approach. He emphasized the importance of reserving some RR1 areas in the city for future needs.
Council President E. Erickson said he would prefer Medium-Density Residential 1 (MDR1) rather than MDR2, noting the significant increase in density between the two designations. He
expressed confidence that the planning process, including review and the required traffic study, would ensure the development is appropriately scaled and would not overburden 12th Street
West.
P&Z Administrator Parkinson noted that the project would require improvements to 12th Street West from the intersection through to the university, including installation of sidewalks
to ensure pedestrian safety. He further explained that a traffic impact study would determine additional mitigation measures, such as the potential installation of a stoplight at 7th
and 12th Streets, to identify the best approach for managing traffic and safety.
Council Member Tietjen reiterated concerns regarding traffic congestion in the area, noting that residents have repeatedly expressed that the neighborhood is heavily impacted. She said
she agrees with Council Member Johnson that the proposed increase to Medium-Density Residential 2 (MDR2) would add a substantial number of units, further intensifying traffic concerns.
P&Z Administrator Parkinson responded that through the planning process, higher-density residential is typically located adjacent to commercial areas and then tapered down to lower-density
zones further away. He noted that this approach has been used successfully in other developments, including Trapper Landing, and that the current proposal aligned with these planning
principles.
Mayor Merrill acknowledged the anticipated traffic impacts and noted that a traffic impact study would be conducted to mitigate concerns. He also emphasized that such studies were necessary
to support infrastructure improvements, including potential overpasses or other mitigation measures. While some temporary congestion might occur before these improvements, City Staff
and City Council will work to demonstrate the need and implement mitigation as appropriate.
Council Member C. Erickson reported that the state is aware of traffic concerns in the area. He indicated that efforts are ongoing to advocate accelerated improvements, including potential
funding for additional lanes to improve traffic flow. P&Z Administrator Parkinson confirmed that traffic and development concerns at the intersection had been a regular topic of discussion
at RPO meetings, and additional meetings with the Idaho Transportation Department are planned to continue evaluating solutions and ensuring necessary improvements are addressed.
Council Member Tietjen commented that there is significant development occurring in the area, including Trapper’s Landing and Summerfield, and noted that some residents expressed concern
about the pace and volume of new development. She emphasized that the community felt “bombarded” and requested that the City Council consider resident concerns in planning.
Council Member Riggins asked whether developers are required to participate in infrastructure improvements, specifically road widening and upgrades to 12th West. P&Z Administrator Parkinson
confirmed that developers were responsible for their fair share of improvements, including pavement, sidewalks, landscape strips, curb and gutter, sewer, and water extensions. Additionally,
if traffic studies indicated a need for traffic control measures, such as stoplights, developers will be required to pay a proportionate share of the cost.
Council Member Johnson emphasized that developer contributions to infrastructure are only a portion of the total cost. She noted that, for example, the developer’s share of the 12th
West and Main Street intersection would be approximately 18%, meaning the remainder would need to be funded by the city, state or other developments. She expressed concern that it could
take many years before the intersection is fully improved, creating traffic challenges for residents. She also highlighted that 7th South is the primary access point for development
and that the comprehensive plan required walkability for intermediate residential areas, which is currently lacking. She expressed disagreement with approving higher-density zoning without
adequate infrastructure and sidewalks.
Council Member E. Erickson clarified that the priority for overpass improvements was 7th South, followed by Moody and Pole Line, and acknowledged that funding and construction timelines
could be long. Mayor Merrill noted that past projects, such as the diverging diamond interchange, were completed more quickly than expected through proactive coordination and expressed
optimism that a
similar approach could accelerate improvements for Main Street and 12th West. Mayor Merrill confirmed that developer participation in sidewalks, landscape strips, and other infrastructure
improvements will enhance walkability and safety for future residents.
Council President E. Erickson moved to approve Ordinance No 1342 a zone change from Rural Residential 1 (RR1) to Low Density Residential 3 (LDR3), Medium Density Residential 2 (MDR2),
and Regional Business Center (RBC) zones at approximately 801 S 12th W; Council Member C. Erickson seconded the motion; Mayor Merrill asked for a vote:
Those voting aye Those voting nay
Council Member C. Erickson Council Member Johnson
Council Member Reeser Council Member Tietjen
Council Member Riggins
Council President E. Erickson
The motion carried.
Planning & Zoning recommendation to approve a zone change from Low Density Residential 1 (LDR1) to Low Density Residential 2 (LDR2) at approximately 301 S 12th W (25-01158). Designated
as Ordinance No 1341 if the motion passes and considered 1st read – Alan Parkinson Action Item
P&Z Administrator Parkinson explained that the Birch property, located just east of the future Gym Prep School, was presented to the City Council approximately a month prior for a comprehensive
plan change. The applicant initially requested a split of LDR 3 and LDR 2 zoning, but later withdrew the comprehensive plan change and now requested that the entire 13-plus-acre parcel
be zoned LDR 2, aligning with adjacent areas. The portion under consideration for rezone currently is slightly over six acres.
Council Member C. Erickson noted that this property has been reviewed multiple times over the past four years. He emphasized that the zoning was lowered once, from R2 to LDR 1 and LDR
2, and expressed the need to protect remaining RR2 parcels as development continued. He acknowledged that he is not opposed to the current request, citing ongoing communication between
the developer and residents. He noted that residents have expressed appreciation for the developer’s willingness to engage and encouraged continued efforts to foster a good community
and neighborhood relationships.
Council Member C. Erickson moved to approve Ordinance No 1341 approve a zone change from Low Density Residential 1 (LDR1) to Low Density Residential 2 (LDR2) at approximately 301 S
12th W; Council Member Riggins seconded the motion; Mayor Merrill asked for a vote:
Those voting aye Those voting nay
Council Member Johnson none
Council Member Tietjen
Council Member C. Erickson
Council Member Reeser
Council Member Riggins
Council President E. Erickson
The motion carried.
Planning & Zoning recommendation to deny a Comprehensive Plan Map change from Low Residential (LR) to Intermediate Residential (IR) located at approximately 204 S 5th W (25-01318) –
Alan Parkinson Action Item
P&Z Administrator Parkinson explained that this property is located across the street from the Merrill’s landscape business. The applicant initially requested a change to the intermediate
comprehensive plan with the intent to later pursue a rezone to R3. During the public comment period, many residents provided input regarding the proposal. The Planning and Zoning Commission
recommended that the City Council deny the requested comprehensive plan amendment.
P&Z Administrator Parkinson mentioned that the applicant intended to develop townhomes on portions of the property. There are already two homes on the site, and they proposed adding
additional units throughout the remaining area. To accommodate the townhome development, the property needed to be zoned LDR 3.
P&Z Administrator Parkinson added they had planned a rezoning presentation; however, since the Planning and Zoning Commission denied the comprehensive plan change, the applicant could
potentially request a higher zoning designation in the future. He said City Attorney Rammell recommended adjusting the process so that the request would be presented to Planning and
Zoning for consideration. Planning and Zoning could also deny the request, which would allow the applicant the opportunity to pursue a comprehensive plan change later. They decided to
choose this process to avoid having to reverse the prior decision, repost, and restart the entire process.
Council Member C. Erickson moved to deny a Comprehensive Plan Map change from Low Residential (LR) to Intermediate Residential (IR) located at approximately 204 S 5th; Council Member
Tietjen seconded the motion; Mayor Merrill asked for a vote:
Those voting aye Those voting nay
Council Member Johnson none
Council Member Tietjen
Council Member C. Erickson
Council Member Reeser
Council Member Riggins
Council President E. Erickson
The motion carried.
G. Selection of Developer(s) for joint Rexburg City/Rexburg Urban Renewal City Center Downtown Properties RFP – Scott Miller Action Item
Finance Officer Nielson explained that this item involved discussion of an RFP process initiated several years ago, including properties owned by both the city and the Urban Renewal
Agency. Three sites were included: Lot #1 near the Porters, Lot #2 by Beehive Federal Credit Union, and Lot #3 by the movie theater. They released the RFP, and four proposals were received
for the three properties: Sundance proposed for Lots #2 and #3; Vision proposed for Lot #1; DPI submitted for all three lots; and Quill (Round House) proposed only for the movie theater
property. Nine evaluators reviewed and scored the proposals using rubric.
Finance Officer Nielson continued to explain that based on the evaluations, they recommended working with Sundance on Lots #2 and #3 and Vision on Lot #1. Urban Renewal sought approval
to enter into exclusive negotiation agreements with these developers to work toward potential disposition and development agreements. Council Member Riggins clarified that this step
did not commit the city to any final development but would allow Urban Renewal to negotiate terms. The proposed developments for Lots #2 and #3 primarily involved student housing, with
minimal commercial components.
Mayor Merrill expressed a desire to work with the developers to explore mixed-use options, particularly in the downtown area, to support growth and maintain the character of the community.
Council Members Tietjen emphasized preserving the historic character of downtown and ensuring that new development aligned with the master plan for walkability, housing variety, and
commercial integration.
Council Member Riggins noted the design and character of potential downtown developments. Mayor Merrill added that while the developer’s previous projects were well-built and well-designed,
downtown buildings should reflect a style that fits the historic character and overall feel of the area. Council Member Tietjen emphasized that incorporating elements that support a
historic or traditional downtown aesthetic could also enhance tourism, as visitors appreciate areas with a distinctive sense of history. The new developments should align with the existing
downtown character while providing functional and attractive spaces.
Finance Officer Nielson provided additional context regarding design standards for the downtown RFP properties. He noted that the city’s form-based code, which is available on the city’s
website, establishes the required design standards and includes examples of acceptable development. Staff stated that the developers were aware of these requirements, as the form-based
code was referenced in the RFP and would guide any future development. Examples such as Hemming Village were cited as developments built under this code.
City Attorney Rammell noted that the procurement process and RFP delivery system are allowed for negotiation at this stage. However, he emphasized that if negotiations resulted in a
substantial change to the project or fundamentally altered the nature of what is being requested in the RFP, the city would deny the proposal and issue a new RFP. He explained that bidders
who are not selected have associated rights, and the city remained mindful of those obligations. He advised the City Council that if negotiations reached a point requiring legal review
or procedural changes, they will be notified accordingly. He also clarified that any negotiations would remain substantially consistent with the original RFP requirements.
Council President E. Erickson moved to approve the Selection of Developer(s) for joint Rexburg City/Rexburg Urban Renewal City Center Downtown Properties RFP to Sundance and Vision;
Council Member C. Erickson seconded the motion; Mayor Merrill asked for a vote:
Those voting aye Those voting nay
Council Member Johnson none
Council Member Tietjen
Council Member C. Erickson
Council Member Reeser
Council Member Riggins
Council President E. Erickson
The motion carried.
Calendared Bills:
Second Reading: Those items which have been first read: NONE
Third Reading: Those items which have been second read: 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 January 7, 2026, Meeting - Action Item
Approve Payment of the City of Rexburg Bills - Action Item
Council Member Riggins left the meeting just prior to the approval of the consent calendar.
Council Member Reeser moved to approve the Consent Calendar containing the minutes and city bills; Council Member C. Erickson seconded the motion; Mayor Merrill asked for a vote:
Those voting aye Those voting nay
Council Member Johnson none
Council Member Tietjen
Council Member C. Erickson
Council Member Reeser
Council President E. Erickson
The motion carried.
Adjournment 9:23 P.M.
APPROVED:
________________________________
Jerry Merrill, Mayor
Attest:
________________________________
Marianna Gonzalez, City Deputy Clerk