Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLID Committee Meeting Minutes - January 29, 2026 1 (208) 359-3020 35 North 1st East Rexburg, ID 83440 Rexburg.org | Engage.Rexburg.org Local Improvement District (LID) Advisory Committee Minutes - January 29, 2026 Committee Members: Kristi Thompson Tracy Wynn Nathan Blumenberg Glen Crawford Bart Stevens City Staff: Keith Davidson – Public Works Director Joel Gray – City Engineer Faron Young – Asset Management Matt Nielson – Finance Officer Noah Phethean – Staff Accountant Marianna Gonzalez – Deputy City Clerk 5:00 P.M. City Hall Roll Call of Council Liaison: Council Member Johnson and Council Member Tietjen Absent: Council Member Riggins Roll Call of Committee Members: Tracy Wynn, Nathan Blumenberg, and Glen Crawford 1. Introductions and LID Discussion: Public Works Director Davidson asked what concerns have led members to want to serve on the committee? One member explained that the increasing and burdensome costs to property owners have been a primary concern. Committee Member Wynn shared similar thoughts and said she had wanted to help provide information so residents could better understand what Local Improvement Districts (LIDs) are, how they function, and what costs are involved. Summary of key points during this section of the meeting. • A member recalled that residents on Sunset Circle were unhappy with the first LID assessment after the flood and would likely have been dissatisfied with a second one. • While residents supported road improvements, their primary concerns are how the projects are funded and who bore financial responsibility. • The group agreed that payment methods, not the improvements themselves, are the main issue. • Rising property taxes and overall living costs over the past 10–20 years had made additional assessments financially challenging for homeowners. • Most residents did not oppose paying for improvements but were concerned about payment structure, particularly interest charges. • A question was raised regarding sidewalk ownership and maintenance, noting that although sidewalks may be city-owned after installation, property owners were still responsible for paying for and maintaining them. A participant stated that he had a question regarding sidewalk ownership after it had been turned over to the city. The response acknowledged that it was a valid question and emphasized the importance of helping residents understand how Rexburg handled these matters. It was explained that the city was not a separate entity but rather 2 was made up of its residents. The City functioned through elected officials who established policy and then moved forward according to those policies. The discussion clarified that property boundaries could vary. In some cases, especially with annexed properties, parcel lines extend to the center of the road or even across it. However, in most developments, the city required a designated right-of-way, which typically extended from the back of one sidewalk to the back of the sidewalk on the opposite side. This area was held in trust by the city. While the sidewalk generally sat within the City’s right -of- way, each city determined how related costs are allocated and funded. Deputy City Clerk Gonzalez noted that the meeting is being transcribed to provide meeting minutes. Public Works Director Davidson said the purpose of this meeting is to gather input from residents and provide recommendations to the City Council based on that feedback. Council Member Johnson explained that over the past six years, she heard significant concerns from residents regarding LID assessments. She has seen individual bills ranging from $15,000 to $20,000 and witnessed residents on fixed incomes, including widows, struggle emotionally and financially with those costs. She stated that just because a process has been done a certain way in the past did not mean it could not be improved. She expressed a desire to hear ideas for potential changes moving forward. Council Member Tietjen echoed those sentiments, stating that she has observed similar concerns within her own neighborhood and wanted meaningful community input on an issue that directly impacted residents. Committee Member Blumenberg raised concerns about public awareness of the task force. He explained that he had only learned about the opportunity to participate after receiving a message directing him to sign up on the City’s website. He believed that many other residents are likely unaware of the meeting or the task force and suggested that greater outreach may be needed. Summary of key points during this section of the meeting. • Many residents are likely unaware of the opportunity to serve on the task force, and there is a desire for broader community representation. • The task force is intended to include a diverse cross-section of the community, including business owners, apartment owners, and residents with and without LID experience. • A resident shared that after purchasing his home in 2024, he faced a $149 monthly LID assessment the following year, creating financial strain. • The additional LID cost influenced his vote against the police station bond, despite supporting law enforcement, because the cumulative financial impact felt overwhelming. • Concerns were raised that continued reliance on LIDs without alternatives could weaken public trust, as residents are required to pay assessments once approved by the City Council. • There was worry about future unexpected assessments if road work failed beyond warranty periods. • Questions were raised about fairness in cost allocation, particularly for high traffic roads like 5 th W Street, with suggestions that the city should assume a greater share of costs for roads experiencing heavier public use. It was acknowledged that, in addition to vehicle traffic, pedestrian traffic also contributed to wear and impact on infrastructure. Committee Member Blumenberg emphasized that one of his main concerns is the lack of communication and education during LID projects. He described confusion about practical matters, such as where to place garbage cans, what to do about mailbox access when roads are removed, and being required to pick up mail at the post office. He noted that many residents did not know what is expected of them during construction, and he felt that better education and clearer notification are needed. Committee Member Blumenberg reiterated that these concerns are a significant reason he chose to participate in the discussion. He explained that he might have been more supportive of an LID if the cost had been lower, structured differently, or presented with less “sticker shock.” He stated that his vote against the police station bond was not due to opposition to law enforcement or the need for a new facility, but rather the cumulative financial burden of the additional LID assessment. 3 Committee Member Blumenberg suggested that the city consider conducting surveys to evaluate how LID assessments influenced residents’ votes on bond measures and other funding initiatives. He believed that while residents could not control LID assessments once approved, they could control bond measures through their vote, and that financial strain from LIDs likely impacted those decisions. The group agreed that brainstorming alternative approaches and improving communication would be important moving forward. Summary of key points during this section of the meeting. • The group planned to use the next meeting to openly brainstorm ideas, then evaluate them by reviewing pros, cons, impacts, and any state law limitations. • The goal is to develop thoughtful, realistic recommendations for improvement. • Increasing public awareness and participation is a priority, with suggestions to use social media, the mayor’s message, utility bill inserts, and other city communication channels. • It was acknowledged that community engagement is challenging, as many residents are busy and often only become involved when directly affected. • Outreach efforts, such as distributing flyers, had resulted in minimal response. • Many residents likely did not understand LIDs unless they had personally experienced one. • The group agreed that education and clear communication are essential, and that direct, in-person discussions are often more effective than social media alone. Review History of LID’s Public Works Director Davidson reviewed the pavement life cycle and explained that pavement conditions, measured by the Pavement Condition Index (PCI), declined over time as roads naturally deteriorated. Preventative maintenance treatments such as crack sealing, seal coating, and overlays are used to improve conditions, but pavement never returned to a full 100% condition. Roads are generally designed with a 20-year life cycle in mind, and based on 24 years of experience, that estimate has proven fairly accurate. The discussion then shifted to infrastructure costs. The city evaluated the total cost of reconstructing roads and determined how much funding should ideally be allocated each year. As construction costs increased over time, those figures are regularly updated. The City’s total street infrastructure is valued at approximately $131 million. However, the average annual street budget over the past five years has been about $2.5 million. Based on those figures, the city is effectively operating roughly a 50-year replacement cycle, rather than a 20-year cycle. As a result, neighborhood roads could deteriorate significantly before reconstruction occurred. It was noted that these figures accounted only for the road surface and did not include curb, gutter, or sidewalk. A question was raised about the impact of traffic volume on road deterioration. Public Works Director Davidson said roads with lighter traffic, such as Bear Street, would likely last longer than higher -traffic roads. He agreed that heavier traffic accelerated deterioration. On lower-volume residential streets, the garbage trucks are often the heaviest and most impactful to the road. In contrast, roads with higher traffic volumes would experience greater wear and may require more frequent maintenance or reconstruction. The concern was expressed that residents living on higher-traffic roads could face more frequent assessments over their lifetime, potentially even during retirement while on fixed incomes. Conversely, some roads might deteriorate for extended periods due to limited funding, delaying reconstruction until costs are even higher. Public Works Director Davidson explained that the purpose of the discussion is to help participants understand the City’s budget constraints and the challenge of stretching limited funds. Public Works Director Davidson further noted that while roads might require more frequent replacement, related infrastructure such as curb, gutter, and sidewalks typically had longer life cycles—provided they were properly aligned and constructed. Committee Member Blumenberg shared frustration over a lack of communication during construction, stating that he returned home one day to find his sidewalk had been removed without prior notice, highlighting ongoing concerns about communication during LID projects. Summary of key points during this section of the meeting. 4 • Sidewalk replacement costs are partially driven by updated federal ADA requirements, which require sidewalks and ramps to meet current standards during road projects, increasing overall costs. • The presentation aimed to highlight Rexburg’s infrastructure needs and budget constraints amid rising construction costs and population growth. • A suggestion was made to implement a flat annual citywide assessment (like a levy override) to create a dedicated road fund and reduce reliance on LIDs. • It was clarified that past levy overrides funded streets generally and were not specific to LIDs. • A resident expressed interest in paying gradually overtime to avoid large future assessments, though it was acknowledged that not all residents could plan or save in that way. • The City’s decision to cover curb and gutter costs was policy -based and could change, whereas the LID process was established in law. • A 30-year reconstruction map showed completed road projects, new growth areas, and grant- funded projects, with many unreconstructed streets located in older neighborhoods. Summary of key points during this section of the meeting. • LID construction costs have steadily increased since 2018, with a slight decrease from 2024 to 2025 due to contractor pricing, warranty adjustments, and market conditions. • Warranty requirements and replacement risks influenced contractor bids, though new measures such as sidewalk seal coating were implemented to help reduce future costs. • Homeowners have the option to hire their own contractors for sidewalk work, sometimes at lower prices. • Since 1995, the State had capped annual property tax budget increases for cities at 3%, limiting revenue growth. • Although cities could include new construction in revenue calculations, tax -exempt properties (such as churches and the university) reduced Rexburg’s taxable base. • Recent legislative changes further restricted how much revenue cities could capture from growth and annexations. • Compared to other cities, Rexburg collected significantly less in property and sales tax revenue, limiting its ability to fund infrastructure improvements. • Updated property tax information is available on the City’s website for public review. Public Works Director Davidson reviewed the City’s primary street revenue sources. These included franchise fees from Rocky Mountain Power and Intermountain Gas. The city previously had a right -of-way maintenance charge through utilities, but that fee had since been eliminated. The city also collected claw back reimbursements when new developments connected to or benefited from previously completed road improvements, allowing a portion of those costs to be recovered and reinvested into street projects. Additional funding sources included state fuel tax and sales tax revenues, which were distributed based on population. Because these funds are population-driven, accurate census counts are critical. He noted that counting students has historically been challenging, and the city believed it may have been undercounted in the past. Efforts have been made to improve census participation to ensure Rexburg received its full share of state - distributed funds. Public Works Director Davidson explained that the County Road and Bridge Tax is a significant revenue source. The county collected 100% of this tax within city limits but returned only 50% to the city, keeping the remaining half for county use. In prior years, the city had received between approximately $825,000 and $902,000 annually from this source. However, that amount had declined significantly, with current estimates around $350,000. The reduction was attributed to the county adjusting its levy rates and reallocating funds to other high-demand areas, such as the court system. The city had communicated concerns to the county about the impact these reductions had on street funding. While revenue from the state fuel tax had increased due to population growth, overall funding remained constrained. He also clarified that street revenues are not used solely for road reconstruction but also supported street crews, equipment, and ongoing maintenance operations. The graph illustrates where revenue sources have increased and where they had declined, providing context for the City’s financial challenges in maintaining and reconstructing streets. 5 One primary strategy was the use of LIDs, where property owners adjacent to projects paid for sidewalk costs (previously curb and gutter as well). Another approach involved requesting that the county increase its Road and Bridge levy rate; however, the county has been reluctant to do so because of its own budget constraints. It was clarified that the county collected 100% of the Road and Bridge tax within city limits but returned only 50% to cities such as Rexburg and Sugar City. The discussion emphasized that these revenues contributed to the overall street budget and are not exclusively dedicated to LIDs. Because the City was significantly behind in road reconstruction needs, identifying sustainable funding solutions remained a challenge. Additional strategies discussed included: • Higher density development without road expansion: Increasing density, particularly in existing developed areas, could generate more tax revenue without expanding the road network. However, concerns were raised about whether increased traffic might offset those financial gains. • Bond or levy overrides: These could provide additional funding but would require a two-thirds majority vote, making public support essential. • Narrower roads: Reducing Road width in new or reconstructed areas lowered long-term maintenance and reconstruction costs. While narrower roads reduced asphalt and future expenses, they also required trade-offs, such as reduced parking. The Council would need to revisit policies if incentives were to be reintroduced. • Grants: The city had secured significant grant funding in the past, including $2 million from the state, but grants were competitive, not guaranteed, and often came with additional requirements. • Special local option sales tax (like resort cities): The idea of pursuing legislative approval for a special sales tax in university towns was discussed. Such a tax could generate substantial revenue but would require state approval and could face political challenges. Concerns were raised about potential impacts on consumer behavior and competition with neighboring communities. Revenue from such a tax would also likely face competing demands (e.g., parks, public facilities, infrastructure). Public Works Director Davidson emphasized that each funding option came with trade-offs and potential consequences. The goal is to encourage open thinking and discussion about a wide range of possibilities while understanding the broader implications of each approach. The group discussed scheduling the next meeting on Thursday, March 5, at 5:00 p.m. Public Works Director Davidson encouraged the committee members to bring ideas to the next meeting. The discussion emphasized brainstorming a wide range of options, including researching what other communities are doing to fund street improvements and reduce long-term costs. Road narrowing was referenced as one example of a cost-saving strategy, with acknowledgment that while it slowed traffic and reduced long -term maintenance costs, it also generated mixed reactions from residents due to tighter driving and parking conditions. The importance of understanding trade-offs—lower long-term costs versus convenience—was highlighted. Discussion regarding the concept of building public support for funding mechanisms, such as a levy override, by clearly communicating long-term cost benefits and potential savings compared to larger future assessments. It was recognized that rising assessments have been difficult for residents and in some cases, reduced public trust. Rebuilding trust and improving communication were identified as important goals. They were encouraged to function as a “think tank,” gathering feedback not only from city residents but also from contacts in other communities. Members were asked to talk with neighbors and explore how other cities approached street funding, recognizing that revenue structures differed from city to city. Adjournment: 6:05 P.M.