HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil Minutes - April 1, 2026 (208) 359-3020
35 North 1st East
Rexburg, ID 83440
Rexburg.org | Engage.Rexburg.org
City Council Minutes – April 1, 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
5:00 P.M. Combined City Council and Planning & Zoning Meeting to review proposed updates to the Rexburg Development Code
Planning and Zoning Administrator Parkinson explained a brief history of rezones and annexation over the past 11 years. In the year 2025 the city only had one annexation. The chart
illustrates the number of zone changes and the total acres. In the last column of the chart, it shows how many acres have been annexed each year. The highlighted yellow sections represented
the totals for each of the five-year periods. These numbers represent the total acreages. The figures also included totals for each year for categories such as public facilities, LDR
1-2, and others, to give a clearer idea of what is taking place. The purpose of the chart is to identify the types of zones developers have requested and the types of developments they
are building. By doing this, he was able to get a clearer picture that will help him to explain the proposed changes.
P & Z Administrator Parkinson continued to explain that over an eleven-year period, the city has rezoned over 1,000 acres in total and has annexed more than 513 acres. City Staff are
currently working on a couple of annexations that will likely match that number in a single application, later in the year.
Discussion regarding the overall trend has shown a decrease in high-density rezoning in recent years, with more movement toward medium and lower-density zoning. Density per acre has
been an important factor, as high-density zones produced far more units per acre than low-density zones. From 2015–2019, over 100 acres were rezoned to high density, compared to fewer
than 10 acres from 2020–2024. The data reflects acreage, not total housing units; unit estimates depended on applying density assumptions. Some recent developments still appear high
density because it has been built on land zoned in earlier years. The increase in apartment construction could have created a misleading perception that high-density zones are still
increasing. A key takeaway to consider both what zoning types are increasing and which are not occurring at all, while maintaining a balanced mix of zoning types.
P&Z Administrator Parkinson reviewed a section of the code that showed zoning designations and how each classification fits within the comprehensive plan. The items that are crossed
out are identified as the ones being proposed for discussion this evening. He mentioned the Residential Business District (RBD) zone, noting that only two properties in the entire city
have used that designation which was
created to allow a mix of residential and commercial uses. A previous attempt to remove this zoning and convert it to commercial has been strongly opposed by citizens. As a result, the
new proposal is to replace it with a mixed-use zone requiring both residential and commercial components.
Discussion regarding Low Density Residential 3 (LDR3). P & Z Administrator Parkinson said that in a prior meeting, it was suggested that LDR3 should be moved into low residential zoning
instead of intermediate to help establish a clearer density transition. Council Member Johnson noted in prior discussions when considering moving LDR3 zone to low residential zone,
it created challenges, particularly by limiting unattached housing options and encouraging more townhouse-style development. There were prior considerations for placing LDR3 within medium
density instead. She said that both approaches have created issues and that careful consideration is needed.
P&Z Administrator Parkinson explained that one proposal is to remove RR1 and to modify R2 into “Residential Estate,” with a minimum lot size of half an acre. He emphasized that this
is only a minimum, and property owners could build larger lots if they chose, such as one or two acres. Council Member C. Erickson expressed his concerns about losing R2 zone, with not
much of that type of zone available. He noted that many people want this type of zone for larger lots that allowed for features like shops and gardens, and there are limited opportunities
for that kind of development. P&Z Administrator Parkinson clarified that their goal is to preserve this option for residents who want larger lots while also allowing flexibility for
even larger parcels. He also explained that all lot sizes in the code are minimums, not maximums, meaning developers could always build on larger parcels if desired.
Commissioner Richards expressed his concerns with the costs of developing these types of neighborhoods, noting that infrastructure requirements like curb, gutter, sidewalk, and storm
drainage can significantly increase costs. P&Z Administrator Parkinson said that the proposal will include ribbon curb and sidewalks.
Discussion regarding some hesitation about requiring sidewalks in these larger-lot areas; however, sidewalks improve safety for pedestrians, such as people walking or children riding
bikes, by keeping them out of the roadway. There were a few areas in the city without sidewalks, such as Willow Brook and Pine Brook.
Discussion regarding the proposed “Residential Estate” designation will serve as the next lowest zoning category, effectively combining elements of R1 and R2 while keeping other zones,
like TAG, unchanged. P&Z Administrator Parkinson clarified that TAG would remain the same and does not require sidewalks, although some adjustments might be proposed. He explained that
the change is being
considered because there is no demand for R1 zoning. The city has not rezoned any property to R1, and the only existing R1 areas were inherited from the county.
Council President E. Erickson expressed his concerns about how that change might affect existing or future neighborhoods with larger, one-acre lots, especially those that could eventually
be annexed into the city. P & Z Administrator Parkinson noted that these areas would likely be classified as Residential Estate and would be grandfathered so they would not be forced
to immediately make changes. However, he clarified that when a property is sold, it would then need to be brought up to current standards, which could include requirements like sidewalks.
This raised concerns about the potential cost burden, particularly for properties with large frontage, as adding sidewalks, curbs, and gutters could be expensive.
P&Z Administrator Parkinson explained that the residential designation changes are shown as being removed from certain zones within the districts if the proposal moves forward. The
purpose is to show all the permitted uses that would be affected by these changes. As he scrolled through the document, he clarified that most uses would remain the same, with only specific
adjustments, such as livestock being allowed in LDR3 but not in medium-density zones.
P&Z Administrator Parkinson continued to review the proposed changes and said if they were to adopt the changes, R1 zoning would be removed entirely from the code. Discussion whether
there are any reasons to keep R1. He noted that one of the main distinctions for R1 is that it did not require sidewalks, although future developments will still require curb. The primary
difference between R1 and the proposed Residential Estate zone would be the sidewalk requirement. P&Z Administrator Parkinson clarified that under the new Residential Estate designation,
developments would be required to install ribbon curbs and sidewalks, whereas R1 did not require sidewalks. Other than that, there are few differences between the two zones.
Discussion regarding concerns about the requirement to install sidewalks once a property is sold and brought under new zoning standards. There is concern that this requirement could
create frustration for property owners, although a grandfathering clause could be added to avoid forcing existing properties to install sidewalks. There was hesitation about removing
sidewalk requirements entirely because sidewalks are generally expected within the city. Commissioner Geddes emphasized that sidewalks are important for safety, especially for children
and pedestrians, and that many residents expected them. Council Member E. Erickson expressed his concerns that requiring sidewalks, curbs, and other infrastructure could significantly
increase development costs. Some argued that these added costs could make large-lot developments within the city less feasible, effectively eliminating the possibility of “estate-style”
neighborhoods due to affordability issues.
Council Member Johnson pointed out that the city requires sidewalks in some larger-lot developments in the past and that maintaining sidewalk connectivity is important for long-term
city planning and growth. She said removing R1 zoning could create resistance from existing or future neighborhoods during annexation, particularly those with larger lots.
Council Member C. Erickson suggested that keeping R1 in place might avoid unnecessary conflict, since it did not negatively impact the city if it remained unused. Mayor Merrill suggested
that there might be a standard to determine when sidewalks are necessary, such as using traffic counts, especially in low-traffic areas like cul-de-sacs or small loop subdivisions. He
questioned whether sidewalks were always needed in these situations or if safety concerns might sometimes be overstated.
Council President E. Erickson explained that in areas with higher density, such as half-acre lots, sidewalks might be more justified due to increased pedestrian activity. However, in
areas with one-acre or larger lots, the lower density might reduce the need for sidewalks.
P&Z Administrator Parkinson asked who is purchasing larger lots within the city, noting that recent development of such properties. He suggested that one reason for this is that available
lots have been built out. He also pointed out that many people chose to build outside city limits where land was cheaper and regulations were less restrictive.
Council Member C. Erickson expressed his concern that removing R1 zoning could create resistance during annexation, as property owners might object to new requirements being imposed.
He argued that keeping R1 would not cause harm and could help avoid pushbacks from future annexed areas.
Discussion regarding requiring ribbon curbs in R1 zoning. P&Z Administrator Parkinson explained that ribbon curbs are used to help protect roads by preventing grass from growing into
them and stopping the edges from deteriorating. Commissioner Smith expressed her opposition to adding curbs in certain areas, particularly on hills, as it could require additional infrastructure
like drainage systems. P&Z Administrator Parkinson clarified that R1 currently did not require ribbon curb, although in some cases it is added later when roads are rebuilt, with the
cost ultimately falling on residents.
Council President E. Erickson expressed that R1 should simply remain as an option, even if it is rarely used, as it provides flexibility for future development or annexation. P&Z Administrator
Parkinson questioned the value of keeping a zoning designation that has never been used.
Council Member Johnson expressed her agreement with keeping R1, noting that requiring sidewalks for large, one-acre lots—especially during annexation—could create significant financial
burdens for property owners. She also pointed out that there is a meaningful difference between half-acre and one-acre lots, particularly in lower-traffic areas where sidewalks might
be less necessary.
P&Z Administrator Parkinson said these decisions ultimately fall to the City Council, who are responsible for addressing public concerns about such requirements. He said based on the
discussion; there is support for leaving R1 unchanged.
Discission whether R2 should be renamed “Residential Estate” to better reflect the character of larger-lot developments, as the term “rural” is no longer seen as fitting for the city.
They also discussed the possibility of using grandfathering provisions, like those used in business regulations, so that existing properties would not be required to meet new standards
unless significant changes or redevelopment occurred. P&Z Administrator Parkinson explained that a previously rezoned property near Moody Road developed into smaller lots and later rezoned
again to allow for townhomes under LDR3, which required sidewalks regardless of the original lot size.
Commissioner Geddes explained the broader purpose of sidewalks in city planning. She shared that, based on input from a consultant during the comprehensive plan process, a well-functioning
city should have interconnected sidewalks to allow people to walk or bike between neighborhoods and destinations. Sidewalks are seen as an important element of city infrastructure that
could improve safety and reduce reliance on roads. She also noted that encouraging walkability could help preserve roads and provide residents with safer alternatives for transportation,
such as walking to stores or other destinations.
Additionally, housing trends in the city show a high percentage of rental properties compared to owner-occupied homes. Approximately 75% of single-family homes are rentals, while only
about 25% are owner-occupied, which is the opposite of trends seen in other cities. She said this imbalance is identified as a potential reason why there is less demand for larger-lot,
single-family housing, as much of the development geared toward rental properties.
Commissioner Geddes explained that for community stability, it is important to have a mix of zone types within a one-mile area so that residents can move between different housing options
while staying in the same neighborhood. P&Z Administrator Parkinson used developments like Summerfield as an example, where a variety of housing types are included. Commissioner Geddes
noted that the lack of
demand for larger-lot zoning, such as R1 or R2, is not necessarily because people do not want that type of zone, but because developers are not building it. P&Z Administrator Parkinson
said developers tended to build what is most financially feasible, and larger lots often do not “pencil out” within the city due to higher infrastructure costs.
Commissioner Geddes noted the importance of sidewalks, particularly for connectivity and safety. She noted that some areas lacked safe walking routes, such as routes to schools, and
that adding sidewalks could improve safety for children and pedestrians. She suggested using grandfathering provisions to protect existing properties while still allowing for future
improvements like sidewalks where needed.
Discussion continued regarding requiring sidewalks on large one acre or larger lots.
Growth around Pine Brook is accelerating Development is expanding to the west and northwest of Pine Brook, and these surrounding areas are expected to become much larger over time.
County standards allowed smaller lots than the city Nearby county developments are being approved at one acre or less (some at ¾ acre), and the county allows road acreage to count toward
lot size. The city did not allow the smaller lots in Pine Brook.
Pine Brook will not stay isolated P&Z Administrator Parkinson expected future residents north of Pine Brook to walk through the subdivision to reach places like the golf course or visit
neighbors, making Pine Brook less of an “enclave.”
Main roads are seen as the priority for sidewalks There is agreement that sidewalks are important on high-traffic connector roads (like 12th West), especially for walking and biking.
Debate centered on sidewalks inside low-traffic subdivisions Mayor Merrill questioned whether sidewalks are necessary inside quiet subdivision loops with little traffic, while others
argued traffic patterns could change and become busier over time.
Future connectivity vs. current cost is a major concern Council Member Tietjen explained that sidewalks should be required now because construction costs would only rise, and delaying
will make future connectivity harder and more expensive.
Neighborhoods can become busier unexpectedly Council Member Tietjen highlighted on example of a once-quiet street that became a common cut-through route in just a few years, supporting
the argument for planning ahead.
Lot size and neighborhood type influence opinions Council President E. Erickson said he believes the larger-lot areas (half-acre to one-acre lots) should be treated differently than
denser neighborhoods, since sidewalk costs rise significantly with lot size.
Rexburg’s identity as a university community shaped the discussion Council Member Riggins emphasized that the city should plan around student and pedestrian movement but also noted that
Rexburg is not a large metro area and should make decisions that fit local conditions.
Final decision: no sidewalk change for R1, zoning names updated The group voted to keep R1 unchanged (no sidewalk requirement changes), rename it Residential Estate 1, and rename R2
to Residential Estate 2. They also agreed to add the comprehensive plan designation to each zoning section heading for clarity.
P&Z Administrator Parkinson explained that the purpose section had been cleaned up and rewritten to better fit the intent of the zone. The changes improved the language but do not alter
any code or regulations. He noted that similar edits were made to other zones as well and that the comprehensive plan designation is clearly shown. He also mentioned that LDR2 is rewritten
in the same way, and that when the document is brought back, they will be able to review all the changes made during the meeting.
Council President E. Erickson asked about pending state legislation regarding duplexes. P&Z Administrator Parkinson said the legislation had not passed the bill, but it is still under
consideration. He noted that if the bill passes, the city will lose much of its authority over zoning decisions, including density limits, lot size distinctions, and parking requirements.
He said that any zone could potentially be developed to maximum density with minimal regulation, which would significantly impact how the city managed growth.
P&Z Administrator Parkinson explained that there is a proposal to move R3 into the low residential category, which is intended for single-family housing.
Council Member Johnson explained that she lived in the Summerfield Subdivision and appreciated having a mix of housing types in a neighborhood. However, the issue she has seen is that
developers will propose projects that technically fit within the comprehensive plan but are trending heavily toward townhomes. She said developers typically try to maximize profit, which
leads to more attached housing. This creates a problem because the city has no reliable way to ensure balance, and there is a risk of ending up with mostly town homes and not enough
detached housing, which the community also needs. She acknowledged that state legislation might override these efforts anyway, and she noted that no solution would fix every issue.
P&Z Administrator Parkinson responded that he agreed with much of Council Member Johnson’s concerns but pointed out that the city still has authority. He explained that even if a proposal
fit within the Comprehensive Plan, the City Council and Planning and Zoning could still deny townhome developments if they determined they are not appropriate for a specific area. He
gave an example of a previous decision where a townhome proposal was denied because it did not fit in with a single-family neighborhood. Council Member Johnson replied that while that
authority existed, it becomes much harder to deny projects when they aligned with the Comprehensive Plan.
Discussion continued with concerns that if LDR3 remained in a higher-density category, developers might default to higher-density projects, reducing opportunities for lower-density
housing. P&Z Administrator Parkinson pointed out that the City Council has the authority, such as denying projects due to incompatibility or spot zoning, if a proposal did not fit the
surrounding area.
Council Member C. Erickson raised a concern that developers could potentially propose entire projects like LDR3 with only attached housing, leaving no detached homes. P&Z Administrator
Parkinson responded that the City Council could still reject such proposals if they did not fit the location or community design.
P&Z Administrator Parkinson added that demand would continue to support LDR1 and LDR2 housing. He noted if there is demand, those types of homes will continue to sell. He said the situation
is a “quandary” and argued that placing LDR3 in an intermediate category is riskier because the intermediate designation could mix LDR3 (townhomes or similar housing) with higher-density
multifamily developments, such as apartment complexes. This could create incompatible housing mixes within the same area.
Mayor Merrill pointed out that the Comprehensive Plan is intended for a “step down/step up” transition between housing types, allowing a gradual mix of densities. He argued that mixed
housing types could benefit communities by allowing residents to move within the same neighborhood as their needs changed, for example, starting in a townhome and later purchasing a
single-family home.
Discussion regarding Planned Unit Developments (PUDs). P&Z Administrator Parkinson explained that PUDs allowed a mix of housing types—ranging from LDR1 through medium-density zones—within
a single development. This meant developers could combine apartments, townhomes, duplexes, and single-family homes in one community.
P&Z Administrator Parkinson noted that developments like Summerfield used this model, incorporating a mix of housing types along with features like green space and adjusted lot sizes.
He clarified that green space is required only when developers request higher densities. Otherwise, standard requirements applied.
P&Z Administrator Parkinson explained that a Planned Unit Development (PUD) application is reviewed using a scoring system. Developers complete a spreadsheet and earn points if they
want allowances such as reduced setbacks or increased density. To qualify, they must meet specific standards, such as providing better-quality construction, additional green space, improved
landscaping, parks, and shared community features. There are five different categories they must address, and they are required to meet at least one criterion in each category and achieve
a total of 100 points to be eligible for those incentives. The proposal would then come before the Planning and Zoning Commissioners to review the PUD application and decide whether
it meets the requirements.
Council President E. Erickson said he is comfortable with moving LDR3 for a specific reason. He said that since it is labeled “low density residential 3,” keeping it in a medium-density
category would require renaming it to avoid confusion. He believes it makes more sense to keep it within the low-density category because it aligned better with single-family housing
distinctions. He also noted that the previous setup was confusing for both the public and decision-makers. P&Z Administrator Parkinson
added that for that reason he is proposing moving LDR3 into the low-density category, to keep similar housing types grouped together.
Commissioner Kempton raised concern about how this change will affect developers. He asked whether a developer working within a medium-density Comprehensive Plan would then need to
request a plan amendment to build LDR3 (such as townhomes).
Discussion regarding allowing LDR3 in both low-density and medium-density categories. He explained that LDR3 functioned as a flexible “in-between” zone that could fit naturally with
both lower-density housing (like twin homes) and higher-density developments. He felt that allowing it in both categories would reduce unnecessary barriers, such as requiring Comprehensive
Plan changes. He noted that this approach could blur strict zoning lines but argued that some flexibility (or “ambiguity”) could be beneficial. P&Z Administrator Parkinson agreed and
said he did not see a disadvantage and thought it could be a practical solution.
Discussion regarding allowing LDR3 to be used in both low-density and medium-density zones to provide more flexibility. Currently, when developers request zoning changes (such as MDR1),
the decision-makers must consider the maximum density allowed and whether they are comfortable with that level of development. Commissioner Kempton clarified that LDR3 itself would not
change in density—it would still allow up to 10 units per acre. The proposal is simply to allow it in both low-density and medium-density comprehensive plan areas.
P&Z Administrator Parkinson gave an example involving the Birch property, where a request for LDR3 was denied because it is not allowed under the existing Comprehensive Plan. He said
that if LDR3 is permitted in both categories, the City Council could approve such requests without requiring a Comprehensive Plan amendment. He explained that the Comprehensive Plan
designation would remain the same, but the zoning code will specify that LDR3 is allowed in both low residential and medium residential areas. There was a consensus to include LDR3 to
be used in both low-density and medium-density zones both options.
P&Z Administrator Parkinson explained that in some of the low-density zones, currently 70% of the lot can be covered, while 30% must be landscaped. One of the challenges the city is
facing as well as the state and the nation, is the availability of water. Requiring people to maintain 30% landscaping is difficult. However, that does not mean they have to plant trees
and grass, as they could use xeriscaping.
The city is considering reducing the requirement to an 80/20 split, which matches their current medium-density standard. He said he also encountered situations, such as cul-de-sacs,
where it is nearly impossible to meet the 70/30 requirement because the front yard is often entirely concrete. Another issue is only 40% of the front yard can be covered with concrete,
which is not working well. The city consistently runs into problems, so he proposed changing it to a 50/50 split, where 50% could be concrete or asphalt and the other 50% allow water
to penetrate.
P&Z Administrator Parkinson explained in addition to the proposed changes, along with an additional adjustment in LDR3. If townhomes are built in MDR1 and MDR2 and parking is in place
behind the units, the setback could be reduced from 20 feet to 15 feet from the property line. They are trying to encourage developers to place parking in the back so that vehicles will
not line up the street. The proposal allowed buildings to be five feet closer to the street if parking is at the rear. Overall, these are the three main changes being proposed beyond
the comprehensive plan.
Council President E. Erickson expressed his concerns about building coverage. The proposal allows 80% impervious surface and requires at least 20% landscaping, but there appears to
be a 10% gap that
raises questions about how that space will be used. He is concerned that it might be neglected or left unmanaged. P&Z Administrator Parkinson clarified that the 80/20 rule applied to
the overall lot, not just the front yard. He further clarified that 50% referred specifically to the front yard coverage. Council President E. Erickson suggested limiting impervious
surfaces to total building coverage and requiring the rest to be landscaped. P&Z Administrator Parkinson explained that this approach created a problem because the city did not want
front yards to become entirely concrete. They wanted to maintain some level of landscaping to keep the city visually appealing. By limiting how much concrete could be used, property
owners would be required to include some type of landscaping, even if it was xeriscaping with minimal or no plant life, such as decorative rock.
Discussion regarding what xeriscaping meant, emphasizing that it involved using very little water rather than no water at all. Examples were given of yards that used only rocks and
decorative elements to minimize water use. P&Z Administrator Parkinson confirmed that the proposal aimed to encourage that type of approach. He clarified that any portion of the yard
that is not building coverage or impervious surface must be landscaped.
Discussion regarding water concerns in the western region. Commissioner Kempton asked about when the city should begin encouraging more water-efficient landscaping practices, such as
using native plants like approaches seen in places like Arizona. P&Z Administrator Parkinson suggested that the city could go even further by promoting more efficient irrigation methods,
such as drip irrigation for trees, shrubs, and flower beds instead of traditional sprinklers, which often wasted water through evaporation. He noted that the city’s highest water usage
occurred in July and August, primarily due to landscape irrigation. P&Z Administrator Parkinson suggested that these are good opportunities for the city to begin encouraging water conservation
practices.
P&Z Administrator Parkinson clarified that MDR1 and MDR2 still allowed townhomes, and even in HDR zones, townhomes are permitted. However, single-family detached homes and duplexes
are not allowed, and only three or more attached units could be built in those zones. Commissioner Richards noted that townhomes served as a gateway to homeownership and that there were
good examples of mixed developments with townhomes and apartments, allowing residents to transition from apartments to ownership.
P&Z Administrator Parkinson reviewed medium-density standards and confirmed that similar changes, including the 50% rule, had been applied across those zones. He clarified that no changes
were made to parking requirements. The only adjustments involved determining lot and parking sizes, without increasing or decreasing the required number of spaces.
P&Z Administrator Parkinson reviewed the changes to the TAG zone, which previously allowed one house per acre. Most TAG areas are in the impact area, and a new approach is proposed.
If someone wants to develop, they will be required to work with a minimum of five acres. For example, if a property owner has 40 acres, they can either divide it into large five-acre
lots or cluster development into smaller one-acre lots by setting aside the remaining land. This would allow development in one portion while preserving the rest for future development
after rezoning. This approach is intended to prevent scattered development and address issues such as large unused parcels becoming difficult to maintain due to water limitations and
upkeep challenges.
P&Z Administrator Parkinson continued to explain that clustering smaller lots will allow property owners to maximize land value while keeping the remaining land restricted until rezoning
occurred. Once rezone, the remaining land could then be developed. He clarified that this proposal acted as an incentive rather than a restriction, since property owners can still choose
to create five-acre lots if they preferred.
Discussion regarding one-acre lots needing an appropriate zoning category, and R1 was identified as a suitable fit. P&Z Administrator Parkinson suggested removing the Residential Business
District (RBD) designation and rezoning those areas to mixed-use. There are concerns about mixed-use requirements, particularly in form-based zones, where certain standards such as building
height made development difficult. P&Z Administrator Parkinson clarified that the areas being discussed are not part of the form-based code and that mixed-use zoning will still allow
flexibility, including residential development.
P&Z Administrator Parkinson explained that the RBD designation only applied to two lots in the entire city and remained due to an oversight when other areas were rezoned. Because of
this, maintaining a full section of code for only two lots is unnecessary. The proposal is to remove the RBD
designation and rezone those properties to mixed-use while allowing existing uses to continue under grandfathering provisions.
P&Z Administrator Parkinson paused the discussion and suggested reviewing the remaining sections independently. He asked the City Council and Commissioners to provide comments later,
and noted that additional meetings can be scheduled, though upcoming budget meetings might limit availability.
Adjournment 6:27 P.M.
6:30 P.M.
Council Member C. Erickson said the prayer.
Council Member Reeser 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 Employees: Timothy Bowman – Building Maintenance Coordinator, Kelly Weathersby – City Electrician/Building Maintenance Coordinator
Timothy Bowman introduced himself and said that he has over 30 years of building maintenance experience. He stated that he is excited to be part of the City of Rexburg team and that
everyone has been extremely helpful and pleasant. He said it is an honor to serve. He also mentioned that he has been married for 30 years, which he described as a testament to his commitments.
Kelly Weathersby introduced himself as the new city electrician and building maintenance coordinator. He greeted everyone and shared that he grew up in Pocatello and has spent about
10 years in Pensacola, Florida. He said he later returned to Rexburg, where he met his wife, Darla, who is a schoolteacher in the Madison County School District. He mentioned that they
have been married for about 15 years. He explained that he has experience in many different types of electrical work and said he is very happy to have been hired and has enjoyed his
time so far.
Presentation: Rexburg Housing Demographic – Hilton Bates, BYUI Student
Hilton Bates introduced himself and said that he has lived in Madison County since first grade, which is about 17 to 18 years. He explained that he is studying sociology with a minor
in peace and conflict transformation at BYU-Idaho.
Ria introduced herself and said she is from Taiwan and is a nursing student at BYU-Idaho. She explained that she and Mr. Bates are taking a demography class from Dr. Brooks. She said
that one of their major projects for the semester is to create a demographic profile for their clients and that she is working with Aaron Ricks, who is interested in housing.
Mr. Bates explained that he contacted Council Member Tietjen in January, and they decided to compile data on Madison County from the U.S. Census Bureau to analyze the issue of affordable
housing. He added that Dr. Brooks has encouraged him and Ria to collaborate because their project goals overlap. He stated that they would first go over broad trends in population change,
followed by data on housing costs, poverty, and housing structure. He also noted that all their data came from the U.S. Census Bureau and the American Community Survey five-year estimates.
Mr. Bates reviewed a graph showing population changes from 1990 to 2024. He explained that the population has increased by 33,199 people over 34 years, which is a 149% increase. He
also noted a 47.75% increase from 2010 to 2024. He said that the growth of BYU-Idaho drove a large portion of the population increase. He explained that while people typically migrated
to areas with established businesses and job opportunities, in Rexburg, much of the migration occurred before those
opportunities were fully developed because of the presence of the college. He added that another reason people migrated to the area is the safety and stability of the community, as well
as the influence of Latter-day Saint culture.
Mr. Bates explained that the population pyramids showed changes in population by age and sex. From 2010 to 2024, Madison County experienced a 59.8% increase in women and a 29.6% increase
in men.
He noted that, as of 2024, females ages 15 to 19 made up the largest cohort at around 19%. He suggested that this could be due to BYU-Idaho admitting more female students than male students,
as well as a policy change by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that allowed young women to serve missions at age 18 instead of 19. He theorized that this policy may have
contributed to a more even distribution between sexes in the 15 to 29 age range.
Mr. Bates reviewed the housing costs from 2000 to 2024, and the median monthly housing costs for rental units increased by $281, which represented a 112% increase. Median monthly housing
costs for mortgage units increased by $829, representing a 94.7% increase. He pointed out that rental units experienced a slightly larger percentage increase than mortgage units. He
suggested that this trend could be due to construction focusing on new shared apartment complexes, and that there might be a need for more long-term housing options for young adults
in the region.
Mr. Bates reviewed the poverty data in Madison County from 2000 to 2024. In 2024, 24.5% of individuals and 12.9% of families were below the poverty line. They compared this to the state
of Idaho, where 12.4% of individuals and 7.1% of families were below the poverty line, indicating that Madison County had higher poverty levels than the state overall. He explained that
this was likely influenced by
BYU-Idaho students balancing tuition, living costs, and family responsibilities. He also noted that poverty rates were higher in 2010, likely due to recovery from the 2008 recession.
He emphasized that poverty is often temporary and that many individuals’ experiencing poverty would not remain below the poverty line long-term. They also noted that poverty levels in
Rexburg are likely inflated due to the high number of college students.
Ria reviewed the Percentage of Housing Structure by Family Type in Rexburg graph. She said they observed that over 60% of married couples lived in single-unit, freestanding homes. Most
single individuals lived in two- to three-bedroom units, often in shared housing arrangements, which reflected the student housing market at BYU-Idaho. She pointed out that single fathers
were more likely to live in single-unit, freestanding homes compared to single mothers. In contrast, single mothers were more likely to live in two- to three-unit housing, which suggested
they may have been part of shared living arrangements that provided additional support. She also noted that single fathers had the highest likelihood of living in mobile homes, which
allowed for greater mobility compared to single mothers.
Ria reviewed the Percentage of Occupied Housing Units graph. She explaiend non-renters referred to individuals who own their homes. Nearly 60% of non-renters have four or more bedrooms
in their units, which is about six times higher than renters. In contrast, renters typically shared their space with others, which highlighted that larger families who are not ready
to afford a home faced challenges. It is more difficult for them to find a place to live with four or more bedrooms when they needed it.
Ria reviewed the Number of Bedrooms by Rent. She said they examined bedroom size by rent in Madison County. They observed that most rental options are shared rooms or two- to three-bedroom
units. The rent generally ranged from about $750 to $1,500 for community housing. This range mostly aligned with what BYU-Idaho students are looking for. However, it is also more difficult
for larger families. For example, when students start families, they are generally unable to find housing priced below $750 for larger units. This creates a clear barrier for larger
families. The data also highlighted that the housing market is heavily driven by the college student population.
Mr. Bates reviewed their summarized findings regarding Rexburg Housing Demographic.
Council President E. Erickson asked about the noticeable differences in housing between single fathers and single mothers, and whether those differences are more economic or social.
Ria explained that both factors likely played a role. Based on class insights, single mothers are more likely to seek help and live with others, such as friends or family, often due
to lower income and the need for childcare support. Cultural patterns may have also contributed, as women are more likely to leave school after marriage, which affected their income
stability. On the other hand, single fathers are less likely to lose their jobs after divorce and therefore are less dependent on others for support. They are also able to live independently
or move more easily. She said that is hypothesis based on observed patterns.
Council Member Johnson expressed curiosity about the findings and asked whether there is a specific number of single fathers in Rexburg, noting that single fathers are much less common
than single mothers. She asked if this has been examined in the research. Mr. Bates responded that the data did exist and will send the numbers to Council Member Tietjen once everything
has been finalized.
Public Comment: Items not on the agenda; limit of 3 minutes; issues may be considered for discussion on a future agenda. Please keep comments on point and respectful.
Vince Haley, a resident of Rexburg, addressed the Council and presented three items for consideration. First, he mentioned the condition of some city signage. He explained that several
signs, particularly those directing people to parks and museums, are faded and difficult to read. He specifically mentioned a sign near the Bell Black Insurance building on 2nd East,
stating that it is nearly impossible to read and therefore ineffective. He suggested that the city either remove such signs or replace them, as they did not reflect well on the city’s
dedication to its parks and museums. Second, he revisited the issue of installation fees associated with the city’s fiber network. He explained that he had previously raised concerns
about charging installation fees for newly constructed homes, warning that doing so could reduce the city’s competitive advantage. He shared a recent example of a buyer in the Summerfield
area who was charged a $350 installation fee for fiber service. He noted that competing providers, such as CenturyLink, did not charge installation fees for new construction, and he
warned that continuing this practice could result in lost business.
Public Works Director Davidson clarified that the fiber installation fee is not set by the city but by the service provider, Silver Star, which leases the city’s fiber ring and handles
final connections. He explained that while Silver Star has previously offered free connections up to a certain point, their pricing model may have changed. Mr. Haley reiterated that
this concern was raised before and that he understood there would be discussions about waving the fee to encourage broader fiber access. He emphasized that if the city’s goal is to expand
affordable fiber access, then such fees could be counterproductive.
Mayor Merrill responded that the city’s primary goal is to ensure that quality fiber service is available throughout the city, but pricing decisions ultimately rested with the provider.
He said he will pass along this feedback to Silver Star for consideration.
Mr. Haley presented his third item, which related to the city’s fiber system and its connection to traffic lights. He explained that he understood one of the main purposes of the fiber
ring was to connect city and county facilities, including traffic signals. He emphasized that traffic lights are a frequent concern among residents, noting that many people complain
to him about them. He described specific frustrations, including instances where lights appeared to function poorly. He questioned whether cameras are being used effectively or if the
system has shifted more toward timed signals.
Public Works Director Davidson clarified that cameras are still in use, but when signal timing systems are implemented, the reliance on cameras is reduced to keep traffic flowing in
a coordinated pattern. He explained that synchronized timing allows groups of vehicles to move efficiently along main roads, though this could result in longer wait times on side streets.
The fiber connection is necessary to keep all signals synchronized, as previous systems using independent clocks cause inconsistencies.
Mr. Haley provided two specific examples of problematic intersections. He described the light near Rexburg Motorsports as particularly frustrating, especially on Sunday mornings when
there is little traffic, yet drivers experience long waits. He also noted difficulty traveling through multiple lights near the interchange, stating that without accelerating significantly,
he is unable to pass through them without stopping.
Public Works Director Davidson explained that traffic signal timing could vary depending on traffic volume and time of day. He noted that adjustments could be made, such as using different
timing patterns during low-traffic periods like Sunday mornings. He also mentioned ongoing efforts to evaluate potential issues, including possible “ghost calls” from cameras that might
incorrectly detect vehicles.
Public Works Director Davidson agreed that there appears to be issues with certain intersections, particularly near Rexburg Motorsports, and stated that further evaluation is needed.
He noted that the city had approved plans to improve signal synchronization along major corridors such as Main Street and 2nd East, and that the next step would be to work with engineers
to implement and monitor those improvements.
Discussion regarding concerns about traffic flow near interchanges, with acknowledgment that performance varied depending on conditions. Council Member C. Erickson indicated that improving
traffic signal coordination remained an ongoing priority and that further adjustments would be made over time to improve overall traffic flow.
Staff Reports:
Finance: - Matt Nielson
Review and seeking approval on Recommendation for Budget and Funding Language in new Joint Venture Agreement for Madison Fire Department in FY2026 Action Item
Finance Officer Nielson explained that several individuals, including Council Member C. Erickson, Council President E. Erickson and Mayor Merrill are involved in recent Fire Department
meetings. He stated that the document included in the packet outlined the previous budgeting process, which is quite brief, only two paragraphs—and have left many unknowns throughout
the process. He noted that, in the past, the city had handled budgeting because it had been the employer of record. However, that responsibility has shifted to the Fire District the
previous year. As a result, he feels it is important to update the budgeting process to better reflect current needs and expectations.
Finance Officer Nielson explained that the updated process is designed to involve all three joint venture partners—the Fire District, the Ambulance District, and the city. The goal
is to ensure that each entity can review budget requests and provide feedback. The document establishes clear timelines, including deadlines for draft budgets, capital improvement plans,
and cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs). It also introduces a new approach called target-based budgeting. Under this approach, the Fire Department would be required to provide more detailed
reporting, including historical financial data, so that decision-makers can better understand budget trends. Additionally, the department would
need to specify both the percentage and dollar amount of any requested increase in funding from each joint partner. This allows each entity to take the proposal back to their respective
decision-makers and provide informed input. The process also requires each entity to designate a budget representative to collaborate throughout the budgeting cycle. If a proposed increase
exceeds what partners are willing to fund, for example, if a 10% increase is requested but only 5% is feasible—the department would be asked to revise the budget to meet that target
rather than having specific line items cut externally.
Another significant change involved how budget variances are handled. Previously, any overages in the operating fund are automatically subsidized. Under the new approach, any over-budget
spending will be incorporated into the following year’s budget process. Conversely, if the department came in under budget, those savings could be carried forward to help offset future
costs or inflation.
Finance Officer Nielson said he met with relevant stakeholders, including follow-up discussions, and that there is general support for the proposed process. The next step is for each
participating entity to formally approve or reject the proposal, with the hope that it will be adopted as an addendum to the existing joint operating agreement.
Council Member Reeser asked whether Madison County had been involved in the discussions and whether they supported the proposed budgeting approach. Finance Officer Nielson responded
that Madison County representatives attended the board meeting and did not express any opposition to the proposal. He added that he worked directly with the county’s budget representative,
specifically the county clerk at the time, to help draft the process. He also noted that Madison County has hired a finance professional, whom he met during a follow-up meeting at the
Fire Department the previous week.
Council Member Riggins asked what reference points the city will use to evaluate the proposed budgets and determine whether they are reasonable. He questioned how the city will assess
whether a budget aligned with financial expectations. Finance Officer Nielson explained that the city would rely on two main factors. First, they would review historical subsidy levels
and compare them to current budget requests. Second, they would consider revenue forecasts, particularly focusing on sales tax and property tax. They noted that property tax tended to
be stable, while sales tax could fluctuate and would likely serve as a key indicator in decision-making. He added that budget decisions will also involve prioritization. For example,
if additional funds are available, decision-makers will need to determine whether to allocate more resources to public safety, such as fire and police services, or to other areas like
parks and recreation.
Council Member C. Erickson expressed support for the updated budgeting approach, stating that it provided a more sustainable and structured method for managing the city’s finances.
He emphasized that without such an approach, it would be easy for spending to grow too quickly. He also asked when the full joint venture agreement would be finalized, noting that it
had been delayed and that it is important to complete and formalize the agreement rather than relying on interim updates. Finance Officer Nielson responded that the delay is largely
due to an upcoming referendum related to Social Security participation. He explained that the Fire Department is planning to hold a vote to determine whether to opt out of Social Security,
which could significantly impact the agreement. He noted that a similar vote has taken place over a decade earlier, resulting in a decision to remain in the program. The current plan
is to complete the referendum process first and then finalize the joint agreement.
Finance Officer Nielson said the City Council’s decision on the proposed budgeting changes will be reported back to the governing board overseeing the joint venture, which consists
of four members.
Council President E. Erickson moved to approve the Budget and Funding Language in new Joint Venture Agreement for Madison Fire Department; 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.
Police: - Gary Hagen
Police Facility Bond
Assistant Police Chief Hagen provided an update on the Police Facility Bond. A small group, including some Council Members and city leadership, meet regularly as a committee to work
on the new police facility bond. Their goal is to remain transparent and provide the City Council with bi-weekly updates on progress. He reported that a town hall meeting was held on
March 18 to engage community members and answer questions. However, attendance was low, with only a few people present. Similarly, an open house held at the Police Department on the
following Monday experienced low turnout, despite having command staff available to give tours and provide information. He said to improve community engagement, they announced several
upcoming events. Another open house had been scheduled for April 23 from 4:00 to 6:00 p.m., and an additional one for May 12 during the same hours. A town hall meeting has been tentatively
scheduled for Saturday, May 2, to allow residents to attend outside of normal work hours.
Assistant Police Chief Hagen explained that the committee is working to expand outreach efforts. A virtual video tour of the Police Department is being developed, featuring the police
chief explaining current limitations and needs. This video is intended to be shared on social media so residents can access the information remotely. They also noted that social media
engagement has increased, including efforts to organize neighborhood meetings like past community policing “block party” events. Several residents expressed interest in hosting these
meetings, which are intended to provide opportunities for direct conversation and questions about the bond. Additionally, the committee is working on a direct mail flyer that will be
sent specifically to Rexburg residents, rather than broader mailing routes that have previously included individuals outside city limits. He also mentioned a minor update to the site
plan, explaining that a previously labeled “shared space” has been renamed “community policing” to better reflect departmental structure. He noted that the parking lot entry has been
adjusted based on prior feedback.
Assistant Police Chief Hagen said more updates will be provided as the process continues, noting that the timeline is approaching the voting period in approximately a month and a half.
Council Member C. Erickson added that the Police Department received strong engagement during a recent community event, where many residents asked questions and received information.
Council Member Reeser praised the Police Department’s social media efforts, noting that they are engaging and effective. Mayor Merrill mentioned that the Police Department recently
received recognition for its social media presence at The Farmer’s Merchant Banquet event.
Council President E. Erickson expressed concern about public scrutiny related to the bond. He noted that there is careful attention being paid to how information about the bond is being
communicated. He cautioned that any materials shared with the public should be properly approved to ensure that the messaging remained appropriate and did not cross the line from education
into advocacy.
Assistant Police Chief Hagen explained that the committee is working with Portman Square to develop a script outlining what should and should not be said. The goal of this script is
to ensure that all communication remains focused on educating the public and not advocating for the bond. He added that the script was reviewed and approved by City Attorney Rammell,
and that the team would proceed cautiously to stay within those guidelines.
Mayor’s Report/Business:
Proclamation No 2026 – 01 April as Fair Housing Month Action Item
Mayor Merrill reported that at a previous Council meeting, it was suggested a letter be sent to Doug and Carol Ladle to thank them for organizing the Founders Day event. He explained
that he followed through on that suggestion and sent a letter expressing appreciation for their efforts.
Mayor Merrill provided an update on the America 250 concert, noting that ticket sales are open, approximately 400 to 500 tickets have been sold, indicating strong community interest
and excitement for the event.
Mayor Merrill also reported on a recent cloud seeding meeting he attended in Saint Anthony with the High-Country Committee. During that meeting, they discussed concerns about the regional
water supply. He emphasized the importance of encouraging residents to conserve water, especially given the early spring and the tendency for people to begin watering lawns sooner than
necessary. He explained
that current snowpack levels, measured by snow water equivalent, are significantly below average in many areas. Some locations are only at 15–16%, while others have no remaining snowpack.
This raised concerns about water availability later in the summer and the potential need for rationing if conservation measures are not followed.
Mayor Merrill encouraged residents not to begin watering too early. He suggested that if lawns appear dry, they should be watered once and then left alone, as most lawns would not require
regular watering until around Memorial Day. He warned that turning on sprinkler systems too early and leaving them on a regular schedule could result in unnecessary water usage. Mayor
Merrill reiterated that early-season watering is often unnecessary and wasteful, and that residents should wait until their lawns showed clear signs of dryness before watering. He explained
that April 15 is typically when sprinkler systems are turned on, as meters are read starting at that time. However, he stressed that even after that date, residents should remain cautious
about water use, since early overuse could impact water availability and costs later in the season.
Mayor Merrill asked Council Member Tietjen to read Proclamation No. 2026 – 01 April as Fair Housing Month.
Council Member Reeser moved to ratify Proclamation No. 2026 – 01 April as Fair Housing Month; 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.
B. Proclamation No 2026 – 02 April 24, 2026, as Arbor Day Action Item
Mayor Merrill read Proclamation No. 2026 – 02 April 24, 2026, as Arbor Day
Council Member Riggins moved to ratify Proclamation No. 2026 – 02 April 24, 2026, as Arbor Day; Council Member Tietjen seconded the motion; Council President E. Erickson 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 Merrill reported the city decided to hold both an Arbor Day celebration and a separate Flow-bor Day event this year. In the past, the two events were combined because April is
typically too early in the season to plant flowers. However, this year, they chose to separate them to better align with appropriate planting times. He noted that the city received a
$1,000,000 tree grant, which made it possible to move forward with a larger Arbor Day effort. As part of this initiative, a service project is scheduled for April 24 at Don Jo Field.
Approximately 65 mature trees will be planted.
Mayor Merrill explained that the Madison High School football team expressed interest in participating as a community service activity, and additional volunteers are invited through
the JustServe platform. He encouraged the City Council and community members to attend and help with planting and spreading mulch. He described the plan to plant a row of trees along
the open area near Don Jo Field, extending between the field and the medical clinic, and curving along the road. This would help create a visual buffer for nearby apartment complexes.
The project is scheduled to begin at 1:00 p.m. and continue until approximately 6:00 p.m., with the expectation that most of the work will begin later in the afternoon. Additionally,
he shared that the Parks Department was asked to select red, white, and blue flowers for Main Street in recognition of the America 250 celebration. He encouraged residents to adopt a
similar theme in their neighborhoods to help create a unified, patriotic appearance throughout the city.
Items for Consideration:
Planning & Zoning recommendation to approve a plat amendment for Yellowstone Heights Condominium Development located at 243 Ella Ln, amendment to add 6 condominium units to the existing
plat #25-01033 – Alan Parkinson Action Item
P&Z Administrator Parkinson explained that the original plans included two 12-unit buildings on one side, which have been constructed. On the other side of the development, the plan
initially included one 12-unit building and one 6-unit building. The developer had previously requested a zone change, which was approved, allowing them to modify the plan by replacing
the 6-unit building with another 12-unit building. This change added six additional units, resulting in two 12-unit condominium buildings on that side. To implement this change, the
developer needs to amend the plat. He noted that city staff reviewed the proposal and confirmed that it met all requirements. Much of the infrastructure, including roads and utility
approvals from the Idaho Transportation Department and city services, are complete.
Council President E. Erickson asked for clarification, noting that the current request did not involve a new zone change. P&Z Administrator Parkinson confirmed that the zone change
occurred earlier and that this request is solely for approval of the amended plat.
Council Member C. Erickson expressed concern about parking, specifically the requirement for seven parking spaces located across the street. He noted that the street is expected to
become a major thoroughfare as development expanded to the east, which could create safety concerns for residents crossing the street to access parking. P&Z Administrator Parkinson acknowledged
that a crosswalk will be installed where the sidewalk crosses the street and explained that the parking arrangement complied with code requirements. The code allows parking within 500
feet, and the lots are considered part of a single development, even though they are divided by the road. Council Member C. Erickson reiterated his concerns about future traffic and
the potential impact on safety, though he acknowledged that sufficient parking existed on the opposite side.
Mayor Merrill asked whether the street would connect across the railroad tracks or end as a cul-de-sac. P&Z Administrator Parkinson clarified that the street would eventually extend
eastward, connecting to future development, and that this extension could eventually require a traffic signal.
Council President E. Erickson moved to approve a plat amendment for Yellowstone Heights Condominium Development located at 243 Ella Ln, amendment to add 6 condominium units to the existing
plat; 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 March 9 and March 18th, 2026, Meeting - Action Item
Approve Payment of the City of Rexburg Bills - Action Item
Council Member C. Erickson moved to approve the Consent Calendar containing the minutes and city bills; 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.
Adjournment 7:42 P.M.
APPROVED:
________________________________
Jerry Merrill, Mayor
Attest:
________________________________
Marianna Gonzalez, City Deputy Clerk