Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - April 9, 2026 1 (208) 359-3020 35 North 1st East Rexburg, ID 83440 Rexburg.org | Engage.Rexburg.org Local Improvement District (LID) Advisory Committee Minutes - April 9, 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: Bart Stevens 1. Discussion regarding the pros and cons of other funding options : Public Works Director Davidson explained that they will discuss a couple of options and talk through the pros and cons of each. They will review those options and develop ideas about what they want to do next. He acknowledged that they do not have as much public input as they would have liked. One point that came to mind during the conversation is related to enforcement. They considered the logistical challenges for the city, including cost per foot and other factors. Discussion, how the city addressed different areas rather than focusing on a single reconstruction street, could create complications. Instead of having city Compliance Officer Natalie Powell to go around identifying isolated issues—such as a sidewalk with a four-inch bump or a damaged curb—they questioned what kind of problems that approach might create for staff. They noted that residents might see relatively well-maintained concrete being torn out and feel frustrated, especially if they have seen worse conditions in other parts of town. Residents might wonder why their area is being targeted. They compared this to an alternative approach of starting with the worst concrete in town and addressing those areas first, even though that method might result in more scattered or inconsistent work. Public Works Director Davidson acknowledged that this approach would likely appear spotty. They also recognized that the city sometimes received calls about concerning areas, which Natalie would respond to. After assessing the situation, staff would determine if it was a trip hazard and notify the party responsible that repairs needed to be made. Discussion regarding the options available, such as using LID financing, which could help property owners by allowing them to pay overtime. This approach could be presented as a benefit, since it provided a financing option. The city received calls about trip hazards, and in those cases, staff would notify 2 the property owner of concerns about the condition. Typically, these calls occur when there is significant elevation difference, rather than minor cracking or surface issues. The city’s standards are set primarily to address safety concerns, such as trip hazards, and to ensure that infrastructure is improved because the city would likely not return to that area for 30 to 50 years. Recent changes, such as the city covering the cost of curbs, have generally been well received by the public, especially since property owners are no longer responsible for that portion of the cost. Compared to current costs, noting that property owners used to pay for sidewalk, curb, and gutter, which is significantly more expensive. While costs are still substantial today. The total cost is still concerning to residents, especially when additional expenses are involved. Discussion how sewer line requirements have increased overall costs. If older sewer lines, such as Orangeburg pipes, are present, the city requires them to be replaced during road reconstruction to prevent future damage to new roads. This requirement has raised costs from a few hundred dollars in the past to approximately $3,000 – $3,500, adding to the financial burden on property owners. While replacing the service lines is necessary to protect city infrastructure, it contributed to higher overall project costs. Public Works Director Davidson clarified that sewer lateral lines remained the responsibility of the property owner, and the city did not intend to take over that responsibility. In contrast, the city is responsible for water lines up to the property line, typically near the meter. This division of responsibility is standard practice in most cities. Council Member Johnson asked whether anyone had attended the Planning and Zoning joint meeting the previous week. Discussion shifted to challenges that arose from that meeting, particularly regarding a proposal to eliminate the RR1 zoning designation. The proposal involved removing RR1 and possibly renaming or restructuring the zoning categories, with alternatives such as “Estates” being considered to represent half -acre and larger lots. Discussion regarding these zoning changes would impact sidewalk requirements. They acknowledge that sidewalk connectivity is important, even though concerns about cost have been raised. As annexation continued, they anticipate potential problems if sidewalks are not required, as this could lead to gaps in infrastructure. However, they recognized that requiring sidewalks in newly annexed areas, especially for larger lots of one to two acres, could result in extremely high costs for property owners, potentially around $40,000 to $45,000. This was seen as unreasonable, particularly in cases of forced annexation, where residents would already be subject to city taxes in addition to these new expenses. They noted an inconsistency in perspective, as some individuals supported LIDs in general. This contradiction made it difficult to reconcile policy approaches. The current recommendation appeared to be allowing annexation without requiring sidewalks, though no final vote ha s been taken. They expressed concern that this approach would create gaps in sidewalk infrastructure and questioned how those gaps would eventually be addressed. Ultimately, the discussion emphasized that the issue largely came down to financial constraints, with no clear or easy solution identified. Discussion regarding the possibility of pursuing grants as one potential solution, noting that the city had previously secured a grant to install sidewalks along 7th South. However, they recognized that adding curb and gutter is a separate and significant expense. They acknowledged that many annexed areas, particularly former county properties with large lots—still lacked sidewalks, curb, and gutter, and that these areas would need to be identified and evaluated separately from standard LID projects. They considered that these annexed properties presented a unique challenge due to the high cost of improvements. They noted that similar concerns have led to certain areas being excluded from previous LIDs. The difficulty of treating these properties differently from others, as it could be hard to justify or defend paying for sidewalks in some cases but not others, especially compared to new developments where such infrastructure is required. They also explored alternative approaches, such as requiring sidewalks when properties changed ownership so the cost could be incorporated into the sale. This has been used in the past and is seen as a more gradual and less burdensome solution for residents. However, this approach would not always align with the city’s timeline for road reconstruction projects. They acknowledged that costs for sidewalk installation could be extremely high, often around $25,000 or more, which created a significant burden for residents, particularly those who are not expecting such expenses. While new developments typically included these costs in the purchase price of homes, existing residents faced them as unexpected out-of-pocket expenses. 3 Discussion regarding situations where the city might cover infrastructure costs in exchange for right-of-way, though it was noted that this has not been commonly seen in recent City Council experience. Overall, they recognized that balancing infrastructure needs with affordability remained a difficult and unresolved challenge, especially for annexed and existing properties without sidewalks. Discussion regarding past instances where the city traded right-of-way in exchange for installing sidewalk, curb, and gutter, noting examples such as 7th North, areas near Jordan Busby’s property, and near Pinebrook. However, these situations are exceptions rather than the norm, since in many cases the city already has the necessary right-of-way. They agreed that it would be helpful to create a map identifying properties within current city limits—and possibly within the impact area—that lacked sidewalks, curb, and gutter. This would allow for better planning and a clearer understanding of the scope of the issue, including both existing gaps and future needs. They also discussed categorizing these areas, such as older subdivisions or annexed properties, to guide future decision-making. The idea of allocating funds specifically for sidewalk repair, like what the City of Caldwell does. They reviewed information gathered from Caldwell, noting that property owners are responsible for curb and gutter, as well as improvements when properties are annexed. Their city allocated approximately $150,000 annually from street funds for sidewalk repairs. Discussion regarding the potential pros and cons of a similar approach. One advantage would be that residents would no longer bear the cost of sidewalk replacement directly, which could reduce resistance and make projects easier to implement. However, they also recognized that this would shift the financial burden to all taxpayers, raising concerns about fairness, since residents across the city would be paying for improvements that benefit specific properties. They clarified that even under such a model, certain costs—such as sewer line replacements—would likely still need to be included in LIDs due to their importance in protecting infrastructure. Reallocating funds rather than increasing the budget could be one way to support this approach, though it would still require careful consideration of overall impacts on city finances and equity among residents. Discussion about how fairness depended largely on perspective, and the difficulty of creating a solution that feels fair to everyone. Council Member Johnson compared sidewalks to other public goods, such as streets and parks, noting that residents contributed to those through taxes regardless of direct use. From that viewpoint, sidewalks could also be considered a shared community benefit. However, they also recognize that sidewalks feel more individualized to many residents, since they are directly adjacent to private property. Committee Member Stevens noted that there are differing perspectives within the group, and that any solution would likely require a compromise that balanced these viewpoints. Some of the members expressed that a shared-cost model, like a levy, might align with what many community members are looking for. They reviewed the financial trade-offs of reallocating funds. The group emphasized that using street or general fund money for sidewalk improvements would reduce the amount available for other priorities, such as road reconstruction or general city services. They discussed current cost figures, noting that curb and gutter expenses averaged around $295,000 per LID in some years and had reached over $500,000 in more recent years, depending on neighborhood conditions. They also considered operational approaches, such as continuing spot repairs versus coordinating work with LID projects. They agreed that aligning sidewalk work with larger construction projects would be more efficient and cost-effective, rather than addressing scattered locations across the city. The current approach as a potential compromise, where the city covered curb and gutter costs while property owners paid for sidewalks. This is seen as more balanced compared to past practices when property owners were responsible for all improvements. They briefly considered alternative cost-sharing options, such as prorating sidewalk costs between the city and property owners. They discussed that the city had shifted its approach and no longer contributed to sidewalk costs, instead covering the full cost of curb and gutter. Previously, the city had shared both sidewalk and curb expenses, but that policy had changed. They considered a compromise approach where property owners would contribute a portion of the sidewalk cost rather than bearing the full expense. This was seen to ensure residents had some financial responsibility—or “skin in the game”—while still reducing the overall burden. It was also noted that these improvements increased property values, which supported the idea of sharing responsibility. 4 They acknowledged, however, that even with financing options, it is still difficult to ask residents to take on large costs, sometimes as high as $40,000. A proportional cost-sharing model, such as a 50-50 or 60-40 split, was discussed as a more balanced alternative. Public Works Director Davidson mentioned that when the city decided to take over curb and gutter costs, there had been interest in maintaining a partial contribution—around 30%—for sidewalks, rather than eliminating the city’s share entirely. There was concern that making large policy shifts too quickly could create frustration, especially among residents who have recently paid under previous LIDs. They discussed how a gradual approach, such as incrementally adjusting the city’s contribution over time, could help ease the transition. For example, increasing the city’s share in phases over several years might be more acceptable to the public. Public Works Director Davidson recognized that some ADA-related improvements, such as cross slopes, might appear minor but could significantly impact usability for people in wheelchairs or with injuries. Additional concerns were raised about obstacles like mailboxes placed within sidewalks, which created safety hazards and reduced accessibility. They agreed that designing pathways around such obstacles would improve safety, especially for children and individuals with limited mobility. They revisited the pros and cons of different approaches to sidewalk repair. A spot -repair or code enforcement model was discussed, where the most hazardous areas would be addressed first . While this could result in quicker fixes for the worst conditions, it was noted that this approach would likely require additional staff resources to inspect and monitor sidewalks, increasing overall costs. The potential for inconsistency and public frustration with a spot -repair approach, as residents might compare their situations to others and question why certain areas were prioritized. In contrast, completing entire blocks or project areas at once was seen as more consistent and easier to manage, though it might delay repairs in critical areas. Overall, they acknowledged that each approach involved trade-offs between efficiency, fairness, cost, and public perception. Discussion regarding the idea of a permanent levy override to allocate additional funds for sidewalks. While this option is appealing, they recognized that it could lead to increased public expectations, with residents asking when their streets would be improved since they have voted and are paying for it. They compared this to the lighting fund, where public reactions varied significantly. There could be confusion among residents about what the levy would cover. It was emphasized that even with a levy, property owners would still be responsible for costs such as sewer line replacements and, in some cases, new sidewalk installations. They agreed that clear public education would be necessary to explain what the levy included and what it did not. They also discussed the uncertainty about how much funding should be requested and acknowledged that public perception of road conditions varied widely. While some residents complained about poor roads, others did not seem to notice issues as much, and recent conditions have improved with fewer potholes. They reviewed the financial impacts of a levy, noting that while homeowners would likely pay less over time, higher-value properties such as businesses and apartment complexes would pay more due to valuation-based assessments. This could indirectly affect renters, as increased costs might be passed on to them. Overall, they emphasized the importance of clearly communicating these impacts to the public before moving forward with any levy proposal. Discussion regarding increased costs from a levy would likely be passed on to renters, as property owners would raise rent to maintain their income. They acknowledged that this is common and expected outcome. It was noted that higher-value properties, such as apartment complexes and large businesses, would bear a greater share of the cost due to valuation-based assessments. Examples were provided to illustrate the impact. A typical homeowner with an 1,800-square-foot home might pay around $5,400 over 30 years, which is considered relatively affordable. In contrast, large apartment complexes could pay $442,000 over the same period, with some paying more than major retailers due to higher property valuations. They discussed how these costs could influence business decisions, as higher taxes might deter new development or impact economic growth. There is also skepticism about whether a levy could pass, as it would depend heavily on how residents perceived the current condition of roads and infrastructure. They recognized that public perception would play a key role in determining support for a levy, and that a failed vote could still provide direction for the City Council to continue with existing approaches. 5 Discussion regarding the idea of conducting a survey to gather public input before moving forward with any potential changes. They agreed that a survey could help gauge resident opinions and provide better insight into how the community felt about sidewalks and funding options. They emphasized the importance of clearly explaining what the survey is about, including what would and would not be covered, such as distinguishing between sidewalk repairs, new construction, and sewer line responsibilities. It was suggested that the survey target likely voters, as they would ultimately determine the outcome of any levy or funding proposal. They discussed keeping the survey short and simple to encourage participation, noting that longer surveys tended to discourage responses. There was consideration of including different options, such as maintaining the current approach, introducing partial cost-sharing, or exploring a levy override. At the same time, they recognized the need to carefully frame questions to avoid bias, since options like having the city pay for everything would likely be the most appealing but not necessarily realistic. They also discussed helping residents understand trade-offs, such as how shifting costs to the city could result in fewer projects being completed or require reallocating funds from other areas. Overall, they agreed that a well-designed, concise survey could be a valuable tool to guide decision-making and better understand community priorities. Discussion concerning using surveys might not provide an accurate representation of the overall population. It was pointed out that responses often came from individuals with strong opinions, either very dissatisfied or very satisfied, while most residents who felt neutral or content are less likely to participate. They acknowledged that this imbalance could skew results, as those who are frustrated tended to be more vocal. Examples were shared illustrating how negative feedback could persist even when improvements are made, highlighting the challenge of relying on public responses for decision -making. Despite these concerns, it was suggested that a well-designed survey could still be useful. It was noted that surveys could be structured in a way that guided responses and gathered meaningful insights without directly prompting biased or extreme answers. Careful wording and design were seen as key to obtaining more balanced and valuable feedback. Surveys are more effective when they are targeted toward registered voters and distributed through methods like text messaging, which increases participation. They agreed that relying on social media surveys would not provide reliable or representative feedback. Discussion regarding the next steps, including creating a map to identify properties without sidewalk, curb, and gutter and gathering additional data to support decision -making. There was interest in developing a survey to help guide City Council direction, along with providing clear cost estimates—such as what it would look like if the city covered 30% of sidewalk costs. They identified three main options to explore further: having the city contribute a portion toward sidewalks, implementing a levy override, and allocating a set annual amount (such as $150,000) for repairs. It was noted that a shared-cost approach could provide a reasonable compromise between the city and property owners. They agreed to reconvene at a future meeting to review the information gathered and continue the discussion, with the goal of presenting a clear direction to the City Council. Next meeting for May 7th at 5:00 p.m. Adjournment: 6:05 P.M.