HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity of Rexburg Police Facilities Bond Survey Report
City of Rexburg Police Facilities Bond
Survey Report
Prepared by Portman Square Group
January 2026
Executive Summary
In January 2026, the City of Rexburg conducted a community survey to assess public opinion
following the November 2025 bond election, in which a proposed general obligation bond
for police facilities received a majority vote but failed to reach Idaho's 66.67% threshold for
passage. The survey was designed to capture community views and to inform future planning
efforts by identifying the root causes of opposition, assessing public understanding, and
learning about what information residents need to make an informed decision.
The results reveal that the community generally supports the police department and
acknowledges the need for facility improvements, but it is also dealing with economic
pressures, questions of trust in city leadership, and a desire for greater clarity and
transparency. While support for a future bond measure is near 60%, these findings suggest
that a revised approach focused on cost, communication, and credibility could close the gap.
Key findings:
● Strong recognition of need: Three-quarters of respondents agree the City needs a new
or updated police facility.
● Affordability is a central issue: 70% cite property tax burden as a primary concern.
● Mixed trust in project delivery: Just under half (47%) express confidence in the City to
manage construction projects responsibly.
● Support for a future bond sits near 60%: Support is below the supermajority threshold,
but within reach with adjustments.
These insights provide a roadmap for refining the City’s approach and building the public trust
necessary to secure approval in a future bond election.
Methodology
The survey was open between January 5 and January 18, 2026. It was distributed digitally via
text message, social media, email, and partner organizations.
By the numbers:
● Total responses: 824 (538 completed, 286 partial)
● Voter representation: 96% of respondents are registered voters; 68% reported voting
in November 2025
● Homeownership: 84% of respondents
● Margin of error: ±4.1% at 95% confidence
The sample was heavily weighted toward likely voters and homeowners, making it a strong
representation of the constituency that will ultimately decide the outcome of a future bond
measure.
Community Awareness and Trust
Awareness of the failed November bond was widespread. Nearly 9 in 10 respondents were
familiar with the measure, and a similarly high percentage understood that it received majority
support but fell short of the supermajority requirement. More than 70% of respondents
expressed confidence in their understanding of general obligation bonds.
However, this familiarity has not translated into confidence in City management. Trust remains
a key barrier; only 47% of respondents expressed confidence in the City’s ability to manage a
major construction project, while 40% were not confident. This lack of trust, paired with
concerns about previous projects, appears to be fueling skepticism even among those who
are supportive of a new facility.
Notably, 75% of respondents reported concern about their current property tax burden, which
emerged as a dominant theme throughout the survey.
Recommendation: Future communications should include clear, concise explanations of tax
implications and repayment timelines, and offer tools (like a property tax calculator) to
demonstrate the financial implications for residents. Additionally, City communications should
aim to bridge the trust divide and illustrate how funding will be used and what transparency
mechanisms the City has or will put in place.
Sentiment Toward the Police Department
Despite financial concerns and skepticism about project management, public sentiment
toward the police department itself is overwhelmingly positive. Eight in ten respondents rate
the Rexburg Police Department’s performance as either "somewhat" or "very" positive.
This distinction is crucial; residents are not rejecting the bond because they oppose law
enforcement. Rather, they are expressing concern about how taxpayer funds are allocated and
managed. The path to a successful future bond will depend on restoring confidence in the
planning and oversight of major city projects.
November 2025 Voting Behavior
The survey successfully captured the perspectives of residents across the voting spectrum:
● 68% of respondents said they voted in the November 2025 election
● Of those, 34% voted Yes, 31% voted No, and 26% did not vote
This distribution affirms that the results are not skewed toward one side of the issue. Both
supporters and skeptics were well represented, and their open-ended comments provided
valuable insights into their decision-making.
Assessment: Many non-voters indicated they either missed the vote due to lack of awareness
or had questions that went unanswered. Targeted outreach and increased visibility during
future campaigns will be essential.
Why Voters Said "No"
Voters who opposed the bond cited several recurring concerns:
● Tax impact too high – 53%
● Should reduce existing debt first – 42%
● Project felt too large – 38%
● Oversight/accountability concerns – 33%
● BYU–Idaho should contribute – 32%
● Location/neighborhood concerns – 21%
The comments underscore financial worries, questions about fairness (e.g., perceived benefit
to the university without shared cost), dissatisfaction with the location, and general frustration
with City leadership and transparency. These critiques reflect a call for practical, actionable
responses from City officials.
Recommendation: A revised proposal should consider:
● A phased approach to reduce initial costs
● A detailed accountability and oversight plan
● A comprehensive description of the relationship between BYU-Idaho and the City
(cost-sharing, etc.)
What Voters Want to See in a Revised Proposal
When asked what information would be most helpful, respondents said:
● Explore cost-reduction options – 47%
● Clear explanation of current facility limitations – 44%
● Options analysis: renovate/repurpose vs build new – 36%
● Independent oversight plan and reporting – 32%
● Traffic and neighborhood impact plan – 32%
● Facility video tour – 22%
These preferences point to a clear mandate for transparency. Voters are not simply asking for
a cheaper project—they want to understand the tradeoffs and trust that decisions are being
made with fiscal responsibility and community impact in mind.
Recommendation: Create a public-facing education campaign that includes:
● Short video walkthrough of the existing facility
● Clear summary of operational impacts
● Oversight plan and reporting
Facility Priorities
Respondents identified the following as the most important features in a future facility:
● Adequate space for staffing and daily operations – 55%
● Capacity for future growth – 41%
● Private/confidential spaces for victims and the public – 35%
● Updated infrastructure and technology – 34%
● Secure evidence handling – 28%
Lower-priority elements included parking and vehicle functionality (17%), indicating residents
are more concerned with core operational capacity than amenities or logistical add-ons.
Assessment: A revised proposal should focus on explaining how the new facility would meet
operational needs in a functional manner without unnecessary additions.
Top Concerns for a Future Bond
When asked to name their top concerns for a future proposal, respondents selected:
● Property tax impact – 70%
● City debt and financial priorities – 50%
● Oversight and spending controls – 38%
● Location and neighborhood impact – 30%
These responses closely mirror the reasons cited by "No" voters, reinforcing that affordability,
trust, and transparency are non-negotiables.
Assessment: Residents are asking the City to explain more, spend wisely, and provide
assurances that their money will be used effectively.
Support for a Future Bond
Encouragingly, support for a revised bond is not out of reach:
● 54% agree that Rexburg needs a new or updated facility
● 60% say they would support a future bond (strongly or somewhat)
● 33% say they would be more likely to support it knowing other bonds will expire
● 43% say a phased approach would increase their support
Assessment: With targeted communication, cost containment, and structural accountability,
the City has a credible path to achieving the necessary two-thirds majority in a future election.
Comments and Qualitative Themes
Over 300 open-ended comments were submitted, many of which reinforced the quantitative
findings. Five themes emerged:
1. Affordability and tax fatigue – Residents cited property tax burden, overlapping bonds,
and cost-of-living pressure.
2. Project scope concerns – Belief that the proposed facility was too large or too
expensive.
3. Trust and transparency issues – Historical frustration with LIDs, recreation spending,
and unclear priorities.
4. BYU–Idaho's role – Frequent calls for the university to contribute to a project that many
feel serves its student population.
5. Desire for more clarity and engagement – Calls for better explanations, real examples,
and access to decision-makers.
Representative Quotes from Survey:
● “ Make sure that it is enough to build what is needed all at once. It will be hard to get
another bond in the future. I know how badly the facility needs a lot more space and
security.”
● “Our property taxes are already excessive. I don't want to add to my burden. Talk to
me when we have paid off the existing debt.”
● “I think just total transparency on what the plans are and where the money is going. I
agree we need a new facility, but I want more info available.”
● “While I did vote yes I don’t love the location of the proposed new facility. I still vote
yes again but would love to see it in a less residential area.”
● “I support the police 100% and their existing proposal and cost. I just can't afford it
with all the other city plans, projects, and taxes for other less important projects. They
should scrap some of those and go with the police station.”
● “We love the Rexburg police. We just can't afford our existing obligations due to
inflation. It's just a bad time economically to propose a bond measure.”
● “Housing is already expensive, this wasn't a problem that came out of nowhere, and
we shouldn't burden homeowners with even more expenses to pay for something that
should have been planned for better.”
● “LIDS expenses are already so high for citizens and they weren't managed well by the
city last year especially on Park St.”
● “I feel like the city can’t ask the community to pay for multiple bonds at once, and even
though others will expire- the school always asks for another bond. I would like to see
the plans. More transparency.”
● “The city legally must remain neutral on bonds. They did no studies on property
values, noise, or traffic and presented only pros. Provide pros and cons for each
location.”
● “Feel like we need a new facility, but the location should be central, not in residential,
university should contribute because of the percentage of calls responded to by city
police”
Conclusion & Recommendations
This survey offers a candid view into the concerns and expectations of Rexburg voters. The
results point not to rejection, but to conditional support—residents want a facility that meets
genuine needs, delivered with fiscal restraint and community accountability.
To move forward successfully, the City should:
● Address tax fatigue with cost-saving options, a phased strategy, and clarity about bond
expirations
● Build trust through independent oversight, detailed reporting, and transparent
budgeting
● Reframe the problem using simple visual tools that explain need and consequence
● Meet people where they are—in their inboxes, on social media, and in community
forums
With these elements in place, a revised bond proposal can align with community priorities
and stand a strong chance of passage.