Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRFD - 26-00321 – Basic American – 80 E 7th N – AnnexationReason for Decision 26-00321 – Basic American – 80 E 7th N – Annexation March 18, 2026, an application was created to annex property located at 80 E 7th N March 18, 2026, Application paperwork was completed. March 18,2026 Staff reviews were assigned. May 14, 2026, Staff reviews were approved. May 14, 2026, Staff Report was completed. May 14, 2026, Notice was sent to the newspaper for P&Z hearing to be published May 19, June 2, 2026 May 27, 2026, Notice was sent to the newspaper for City Council to be published June 2 and 16, 2026 May 19 & 27, 2026, Notice was mailed to surrounding property owners within 350’ for the hearings June 9, 2026, Notice was posted on the property for the hearings. June 18, 2026, the application was presented to the Planning & Zoning Commission. Public Hearing – (26-00321) Basic American – Annexation – Located at approximately 80 E 7th N, the application is to amend the city boundaries. – City of Rexburg (Action) Presentation: Randll Kempton introduced the first public hearing regarding an annexation – Located at approximately 80 E 7th N, the application is to amend the city boundaries. Planning and Zoning Administrator Parkinson presented a proposed annexation of the Basic American property located at approximately 80 East 7th North. Administrator Parkinson explained that recent changes to annexation laws limited involuntary annexations to properties that were either surrounded by the city or receiving city services. Administrator Parkinson stated that the proposed annexation qualified under the implied consent provision because the property was currently utilizing city sewer, water, and fire suppression services. Administrator Parkinson reported that the annexation request had been reviewed and recommended that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval to the City Council. Administrator Parkinson identified the parcels included in the annexation area and noted that all of the affected parcels were owned by Basic American. During discussion, Administrator Parkinson advised that any future motion could reference all parcels included in the application rather than listing each parcel individually. City Attorney Spencer Rammell addressed the Commission regarding a formal objection submitted by counsel for Basic American Foods concerning the proposed annexation (see attachment). The City Attorney explained that he had reviewed the objection and the applicable provisions of Idaho Code governing annexations based on implied consent. He outlined the statutory requirements, noting that implied consent may be established when a property is connected to a city-owned and operated water or wastewater system and the connection was completed before July 1, 2008. The City Attorney reported that the property was connected to the city’s sewer and fire suppression water systems and that documentation had been obtained confirming the connection existed prior to July 1, 2008. Work orders from 1999 and 2007 were presented for the record as evidence supporting the city’s position. Based on his review, the City Attorney concluded that the statutory requirements for implied consent had been met and advised that the city had legal authority to proceed with the annexation process. The City Attorney further explained that, because the annexation qualified under the implied consent provisions of state law, the portions of the statute cited in the objection did not apply. He noted that Basic American Foods retained the right to challenge the annexation but stated that, in his legal opinion, the city could lawfully continue with the annexation proceedings. The City Attorney then offered to answer questions from the Commission. Commissioner Casper discussed the purpose of the proposed annexation and asked why the city was pursuing the annexation at this time. Administrator Parkinson explained that previous discussions regarding annexation had occurred in connection with a community block grant project several years earlier, but no formal agreement had been executed. Administrator Parkinson stated that the property was a significant community asset that generated impacts on city infrastructure, particularly city streets used by truck traffic accessing the facility. Staff noted that annexation would allow the city to receive property tax revenue that could help support the maintenance and improvement of infrastructure serving the area. The City Attorney added that the property had been utilizing city services, including sewer, water for fire suppression, and access via city-maintained roads, while not currently contributing property taxes to the city. He explained that annexation would allow the city to collect property tax revenue associated with the property while continuing to provide those services. Commissioner Thackery asked questions regarding the history of the utility connections and whether the property owners had requested service from the city. The City Attorney and Administrator Parkinson indicated that they believed the utility connections had been requested by the property owner, although documentation confirming that detail was not immediately available. The City Attorney noted that property owners are generally required to request such services and that additional information could be provided during the City Council review process. Further discussion addressed the property’s wastewater disposal operations and water supply. Administrator Parkinson explained that Basic American Foods utilized several pivot-irrigated fields to disperse wastewater generated by its processing facility and that the company also owned additional land in the Salem area for the same purpose. Administrator Parkinson stated that the wastewater disposal fields were an important component of the company’s operations and would remain under the company’s ownership. Staff further clarified that, aside from the fire suppression connection, the facility relied on its own wells for culinary and industrial water needs and that annexation would not affect the company’s ownership or use of those wells. After all questions had been addressed, the Commission proceeded to the public hearing. Vice Chair Kempton opened the public hearing at 6:58 PM on Basic American Foods property and invited testimony from those in favor, neutral, or opposed to the proposed comprehensive plan amendment. No comments were offered in support of the proposal. Terrell Westover – 994 Russell Rd., Rexburg. A neighboring property owner spoke in a neutral capacity and asked whether the annexation would have any impact on his property, which borders Basic American Foods. He also expressed concerns regarding odors associated with the facility’s wastewater disposal operations and asked whether annexation would result in changes to those operations or make the issue the responsibility of the city. Administrator Parkinson responded that the annexation would not result in any physical changes to the facility’s operations, wastewater disposal practices, or water application processes. The annexation was solely related to bringing the property within the city limits due to its use of city services and would not alter the company’s existing operations. The City Attorney Rammell explained that the issue of odors was not directly related to the annexation request before the Commission. He noted that the city has nuisance ordinances and encouraged the property owner to discuss the matter further with the city’s code compliance officer, Natalie. Attorney Rammell further explained that existing operations would likely be considered legal nonconforming uses, often referred to as being “grandfathered,” and that annexation alone would not provide authority to require changes to the facility’s current operations. Terrell Westover asked for clarification regarding the concept of grandfathered uses and whether the annexation would affect neighboring properties. The City Attorney provided a general explanation of legal nonconforming uses and indicated that additional analysis could be conducted if the annexation were approved. Staff concluded by stating that the annexation would have no direct effect on neighboring properties. The public comment was then concluded. During the public hearing, Doug Sakota – 1245 N 2nd E, in a neutral capacity asked whether annexation would affect the utility rates paid by Basic American Foods and whether the company would receive different water or sewer rates once annexed into the city. Administrator Parkinson indicated that they did not have that information available and stated that utility billing staff would be better equipped to answer the question. No further comments were offered. Vice Chairman Kempton then invited testimony from anyone opposed to the annexation. No one came forward to speak, and staff confirmed that there were no participants online wishing to provide comment. The Chairman noted that written correspondence opposing the annexation from Basic American Foods had previously been received and reviewed by the Commission. Randall Kempton then closed the public hearing at 7:06 PM and brought the item back to the Commission for discussion. Commissioner Discussion: Following closure of the public hearing, commissioners discussed the proposed annexation and sought clarification regarding its impacts. Administrator Parkinson confirmed that the annexation would not result in any physical changes to the facility, its operations, wastewater disposal practices, or surrounding properties. The primary effect of annexation would be the inclusion of the property within the City limits and the resulting change in property tax obligations. Commissioner Casper also confirmed that the annexation would not affect odor concerns raised during the public hearing. Administrator Parkinson then identified the location of the proposed revised City boundary as shown on the annexation map. Discussion occurred regarding a potential motion, with the Vice Chair indicating a motion would be appropriate if there were no further discussion. Commissioner Thackery expressed reservations about the proposal, stating that while he understood the city’s reasoning and acknowledged the logic behind it, they were uncomfortable with the concept of annexing property that was not yet an island. Commissioner Thackery noted concern from the property owner’s perspective but reiterated their understanding of the city’s position. In response, if a business was receiving city services, it was reasonable for it to be included within the city and contribute to the tax base. It was further noted that residents had expressed concerns about how tax dollars were being used, and situations where city services were provided without corresponding tax contributions could impact the city’s ability to fund improvements and services. Clarification was provided regarding utility payments and taxation. The City Attorney explained that while the property owner was paying for water and sewer services through utility bills, they were not contributing through property taxes, which fund other city services such as roads. Commissioner Thackery acknowledged this distinction and reiterated that while the annexation made sense for long-term planning and infrastructure funding, they remained personally uncomfortable with it. Administrator Parkinson provided additional information regarding the location of utility service lines and confirmed that documentation would be included in the record to show how water and sewer services were delivered to the property. Further discussion clarified the types of utility lines and their functions. Concerns were raised about future infrastructure impacts if services were extended further in the area. The City Attorney also addressed statements made in a letter regarding the city’s capacity to provide services, clarifying that while there would be capacity considerations, impact and capacity fees could be assessed to accommodate additional demand. It was noted that this issue was separate from the statutory provisions governing the annexation. The City Attorney cited the applicable Idaho Code sections related to implied consent annexation and noted recent legislative updates affecting annexation procedures. In response to a question about the origin of the proposal, staff explained that discussions with the property owner had been ongoing for several years. Administrator Parkinson also referenced a prior annexation completed under similar circumstances, where a property receiving city services was annexed despite not being surrounded by the city, in order to address inconsistencies in service and jurisdiction. It was noted that no other similar situations were currently being pursued. The Vice Chairman then indicated readiness to proceed with a motion. Following discussion, a motion was made. MOTION: Commissioner Franics makes a motion to recommend to city council the approval of the annexation of 80 East 7th North to amend city boundaries to include these unincorporated properties of the approximate address provided as the annexation meets legal bounds of usage according to section 50-222 and specifically section 2C relating to implied consent by using city services and therefore being annexed into the City of Rexburg. Seconded by Commissioner Casper. Action: Approve, Moved by McKay Francis, Seconded by Bruce Casper. VOTE: Motion carried. (Summary: Yes= 6, No= 0, Abstain= 0) Yes: Randall Kempton (Vice Chair), Bruce Casper, Brian Thackeray, Rick Robinson, McKay Francis, Vern Muir No: None Abstain: None Commissioner Discussion on the Motion: During discussion of the motion, a commissioner suggested including language referencing “implied consent” to strengthen the legal clarity. The motion was restated to reflect that the annexation qualified under Section 50-222, specifically Section 2C, relating to implied consent through the use of City services. The application was presented to council on July 1, 2026