Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil Minutes - May 20, 2026PMN +BURG, tp 9y .� o s � 9e��SMEO .88A City Council Minutes— May 20, 2026 Mayor Jerry Merrill Council Members: Bryanna Johnson David Reeser Colin Erickson Bill Riggins Eric Erickson Alisha Tietjen 6•ao P.M. Council Member Riggins said the prayer. Council Member Reeser led the pledge. (208)359-3020 35 North 1st East Rexburg, ID 83440 Rexburg.org I Engage.Rexburg.org 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 Roll Call of Council Members: Attending: Council Member Johnson, Council Member Tietjen, Council Member C. Erickson, Council Member Reeser, Council Member Riggins, and Mayor Merrill. Council President E. Erickson did not attend the meeting. Welcome New Employees: Mason Grundy — Street/Sanitation Depts, Joshua Heaton — Ice Rink Facility Manager, Jackson Likes moved from Streets to Building Inspection, Brandon Butikofer moved from Sanitation/Streets to Streets, and Katie Saurey moved from Planning & Zoning to HR Mason Grundy said he is from California and he recently moved to Rexburg. Joshua Heaton said he has lived in Rexburg since 2014. He introduced his wife Alexis and son Finn. Public Comment: Items not on the agenda; limit 3 minutes; issues may be considered for discussion on a future agenda. Please keep comments on point and respectful. Items from Council: A. Committees: MEPI, Cultural Arts, Grants, School Board, MUSIC, MYAB, Emergency Services Board, Beautification, Trails/Parks & Recreation, Urban Renewal, Airport, Golf Board, ADA Oversight Board, Historical Preservation Committee, and Legacy Flight Museum Council Member Johnson reported that budget meetings were held for Parks, Trails, and Recreation, and preparations are being made for the Teton Dam Marathon. She also mentioned that she recently met with the new manager for the ice rink. In addition, the LID committee is scheduled to meet again in a couple of weeks. Council Member Tietjen shared that the city received a $ioo,000 grant from the Eccles Foundation to help complete the bathrooms in the Tabernacle. She expressed appreciation for the foundation's support and excitement about the progress being made. She also reported that the Mayor's Youth Advisory Board visited the animal shelter and recently held their end -of -year party. .. Council Member Tietjen reminded residents that Flow-Bor Day will be held tomorrow from 4 pm to 5 pm and encouraged everyone to participate by helping plant flowers. She noted that the first 100 volunteers will receive a Flow-Bor Day T-shirt. She also provided updates on the America 250 Celebration; they are holding event planning meetings weekly. The Historic Preservation Commission will assist by judging the America 250 coloring contest and T-shirt contest before the City Council selects the final winners. Council Member Tietjen reported on the upcoming Flood 5o event and encouraged community members to visit the city's website and review the schedule of activities, and purchase tickets for the various events being offered. Mayor Merrill added to the Eccles Foundation grant announcement. He explained that the fundraising goal for the Tabernacle project is $5 million, with the Eccles Foundation expected to contribute the final $ioo,000 once that goal is reached. Since the city has currently raised about $2 million, they requested that the foundation release the funds earlier. The foundation agreed, citing confidence in the city's commitment to completing the project. Mayor Merrill emphasized how significant the $ioo,000 contribution will be for the project's progress. Mayor Merrill explained the history of Flow-Bor Day. Arbor Day is celebrated nationally in April; however, the April weather in Rexburg is often too cold for planting. The city decided to combine Arbor Day with flower planting in May when planting conditions are better. Council Member Reeser reported that the Legacy Flight Museum Committee met to plan for the annual fly -in and free pancake breakfast, which is scheduled for June 20 at Rexburg Airport from 8 am to io am. The event will feature aircraft displays from the museum's collection as well as other privately owned airplanes. He invited the Councilmembers to assist with serving breakfast during the event. Council Member Riggins reported that the Urban Renewal Agency met to discuss the property recently purchased from the Madison School District or previously known as the old jr. high school site. They are currently moving forward with obtaining bids for asbestos removal and demolition work as part of the redevelopment process. Council Member Colin Erickson reminded everyone about the Madison High School graduation ceremony that will be held on Thursday, May 23rd. The Central High School graduation ceremony will take place on Friday, May 242h. He reported that the Golf Board met to discuss adding new mapping and tracking screens to the golf carts in early June. The new software will improve cart management and pace of play. B. Other Reports: None Staff Reports: A. Finance: - Matt Nielson 1. Financial Reports n Finance Officer Nielson reviewed the Cash and Investment report. The city currently has approximately $39 million in managed investments and about $4.3 million in the Local Government Investment Pool (LGIP), which serves as the city's primary source of liquid cash for operational cash flow needs. Finance Officer Nielson explained that the city's managed investments are divided among three investment managers: Morton, Zions Capital, and TDI, totaling approximately $34 million. These investments must follow both the city's investment policy and the State of Idaho's investment guidelines, with the city's highest priority being the safety and protection of public funds rather than pursuing risky returns. Approximately 45% of the investments are placed in certificates of deposit (CDs). To further protect the funds, each CD is limited to $250,000 so it remains fully covered by FDIC or NCUA insurance protections. The remaining investments are primarily in agencies and US government. CT' OF RUSURG FY 2026 CASH & INVESTMENT BALANCE REPORT %0761a1 BALANCE P.H.0, AS Of CASH SINVESTMENRS RINaIY%M .1 YEAR 1.2 Yeao 24Yean 3AYwr4 44Yaara >SYEAR3 440=26 Caea On H.W NA 4260 001% 4.260 LMe BenkGMmnl Cteckam NA 3283.805 696% 3.283605 LMe Bane PAMm CneAln2 NA 19.514 DOA% 19514 Lone Bank C94etMr dPen O.S% 18003W 213% ,M100 Key Beek Caeeklnp(RLFI 0.01% 4.90 001% 4"9 Web Fargo DW9 Fund Choking 001% 131134 001% 13134 Bank aKpnmene Bank CD 3.R% M.I. 0.57% 20.706 Weelmal, CD 3.75% 202.088 0.61% 2B1080 Bream C%44 Unlon CD 3.80% 2W.154 061% 250.154 Framer CU CD 3A5% TS6.J1I 181% 156,314 IaaWCaMMCrWYUmMCD 4.09% 250.025 053% 250825 MWnbIn ATMca Cro6l UnIM 4.89% 240.691 0.53% 248897 Claeam CZ".=BeM 3.WA, ]50858 161% 159.6S0 WaF6 Bank 10% 260.874 065% 260,8T4 C, GO CM CO- n%.1 3.00% 88.118 019% BB,,6 TINa1 CeNKwais of DAlwAU MwelmenM 3AT9d18 $0.110 6.73% 3461,614 M.Wa 4. MAW9emM1 AN% 6206.199 4.122.611 2,521,056 152291 1.38.25.1 3210% 15,3W.0)1 Zgna Bank Cap" aAieare 3.83% 12S8433 1,125501 6.586.10a 641A88 A56044 1265% 5049.015 W.BOW mvawnem 3.83% 2.524,940 4,146217 17SA,254 2,418.621 465. 121 2925% 132WISB 51a%LGW—Cn 3.91% a245,T4S 30.566 911% 4.287.331 2 Finance Officer Nielson also reviewed the credit ratings associated with the investment portfolio. Most investments fall within the "A" rating categories, although a very small percentage approximately 0.7% are downgraded into lower "BB" ranges. He clarified that CDs under the insured limits do not require separate ratings because they are already federally protected. Managed Account Investments Ar4/30,2026 Rating Marew Bons Capital rw Total % AAA $ 100.504 $ 40,769 S 500.300 701,572 2.0% AAA S 3,791,845 $ 3.225,715 S 5,902,150 14.919,709 37.3% AA $ - $ 250.346 S 411,290 661,645 1.9% AA- S 612.800 $ 247.625 $ - 860.424 2.5% A+ $ 997,401 S 795.885 S 476.685 2.269,982 6.6% A $ 247.840 $ 369,855 S 588,531 1.180.232 3.4% -, A- $ 502,738 $ 514,680 $ 493,870 1,511.288 4.4% BBB- $ . $ 252,804 S - 252,804 0.7% BBB $ 240,529 $ - $ - 240,519 0.7% BBB- $ 239.974 S - S - 239.974 0.7% NAlcas­Fwnccl S 8.589,384 $ 251.947 S 4.936,323 13.777.655 39.8% S 15,383,011 $ 5,941 $ 13,269,168 34,621.804 200.0% Ratim, s 7RIz72 FDIC) u FmCt. 23777.6 1_' 9191R 886-. ]30.974 am 2J al9 988- 2528Da - M. 2269.982 Mayor Merrill asked Finance Officer Nielson to explain to the public why certain city funds are restricted and cannot simply be used for any project the city chooses. Finance Officer Nielson explained that governmental accounting divides money into individual funds, with the city maintaining more than 70 separate funds. Some are governmental funds supported mainly through taxes, while others are 0=6 business -type funds such as water, sewer, and sanitation services that are funded through service fees. OEM Finance Officer Nielson explained that many of these funds have legal or policy restrictions attached to them. Some restrictions are established by state law, while others are created internally by city policy. For example, the Street Repair and Reconstruction Fund currently has a cash balance of approximately $6.1 million, but those funds are specifically reserved for future street reconstruction projects identified in the city's capital improvement plan. Similarly, water utility funds must be used only for water -related purposes. He emphasized that while the city may appear to have large overall cash reserves, much of that money is legally committed to specific purposes and therefore cannot simply be redirected toward unrelated projects such as building a new police station. Finance Officer Nielson reviewed the Treasurer's Expenditure Report by Fund. He said the city is seven months into the fiscal year, which represents approximately 58% of the fiscal calendar through the end of April. At that point, the city has spent roughly 32% of the budget, which is normal for this time of the year. Finance Officer Nielson explained that expenses typically increase significantly during the summer months because many capital improvement projects take place during warmer weather. Water utility expenses and revenues also increase substantially during the summer due to higher water usage throughout the community. Because of these seasonal spending patterns, the current expenditure levels are not concerning. CRY OF REx6uRG TREASIMEIfS EXPENDITURE BEFORE BY WIND FINAL YEAR 20M (OCT'15-SEPT '261 YEAR-T043ATE ASOF APRIL 3%2026 58.316 OF THE YEAR CAm/ PERSONNEL OPERATIONS Olnin CAPITAL TRANSFER TOTAL REVISED FUND onE TMENT A IUND EXPENSE EXPENSE EXPENSE MEW EXPENSE EXPENSE BUDGET SPENT BALANCE BALANCE 01 GENERAL 6,527,252 3,845,920 0 390,986 586,192 1!,350,35 is, 414,W3 57.A 4,452,816 7,392,03! 02 STREETOPERATC'.:' 751302 73;228 0 10,360 0 1.493,88 5,355,500 27.9 836:668 931,699 03 RECREATIONF9l-- .. 9.749 90,713 0 5,000 0 113,462 307AOO 36.9Y 18,056 3Q651 oa TABERFIVI GPE=.-1,_ 28,926 A9,093 0 193.056 0 27LO5 L189,200 22.896 354,9% 501.804 06 KERINKFACILRY 43,635 73.457 0 4.999 0 =092 268,900 OAN �1833 32,899 07 POLICE IMPARFBE CADRAI 0 14,723 0 9.610 0 24,333 383,300 6.396 398,10 398.163 08 DAR.ETRUSTFUND 0 6.867 0 0 0 6A7 17,800 3B6% 15,15E 20,E118 C9 DREG INTERDICROWEDUCADON 0 9A99 0 0 0 5,495 I8A03 52.89f 131190 13,19a 13 POLICE SMALLGRANIS 31660 1.914 0 0 0 5.574 SLOW 10.996 -7.327 -5.212 15 wGHSGRANT 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 Da 0 0 16 FIRE STATION 8106 FUND 0 0 0 0 O a MAW Doti 0 17 EMERfiNCYSERYI[FS 0 0 0 0 0 0 7A90,700 0.0% 0 14AM 18 JOINT FIRE EQUIPMENT 0 0 219,332 0 0 219,332 408,000 53.8% 0 0 19 MADLSONCOUWYRREDISTRICT 0 0 L1801220 0 0 1,380,22 1,565,500 75A% 0 0 20 FIRE IMPACT FEE CAPITAL 0 0 0 33,095 0 331095 42= 78.8% 40,725 50,725 21 FIRE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE _ 0 0 0 0 0 3,000 OA% 0 0 22 REVOLVING LOAN C 6,145 0 0 0 6.145 W'Stx, 7A% 1,711,3n 536.177 23 REXBURG RANDS OPERATIONS 43,535 47,222 0 0 0 96757 622,600 15.5% 45,519 50,906 24 LEGACY MGM MUSEUM 0 43.990 0 0 0 d3.9N 147,300 29A% 291,447 294025 25 SANITATION OPERATIONS 295,648 1,394.636 0 419445 0 2.309,929 3,5W,900 593% 3,319,9n 848,963 26 WATER OPERATIONS 847,451 935,571 0 390536 0 Z173,558 4,575,200 46.5% 25,857,571 7,813,734 27 WASTEWATER E63,235 1,383,697 0 3,340,123 0 5,587,055 12,804,700 43.6% 41,826,557 8,039,711 28 BUILDING SAFETY 464,231 235528 0 0 7L917 P2,676 1,W,100 50.1% L207,234 2,233.476 29 GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYS`K 262,587 76,253 0 0 0 338 60L300 56A% -153,396 140.9w 30 DOVINFOWN REVITAUMTION 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% D 0 31 SHOP BUILDING 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0." 0 0 32 NEW BLDGCITY HALL POL 0 13,253 0 652.310 0 665,563 1,59L200 42.1% 33L00S 331.00E 33 STREETIMPACTFEECAPITAL D 0 0 32.664 0 32.664 LZ22.200 L7% 2,717,293 2,717,293 34 WATERCAPITALRESERVE 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,698,000 0.0% 2,990,126 2,990.126 35 SEWERCAPITALRESERVE 0 0 0 0 0 0 51890200 0.0% 5,790,010 5,733A61 36 ARTSPNOMULGnON 0 0 0 5.M 32,083 37,083 225,000 16.5% 91,212 9L212 37 PARAMEOIC CARE WILDUIN0 0 0 6MI337 0 0 618337 1.50L700 4L2% 0 -SU 38 PARKS IMPACT FEE CAPTAL 0 0 0 4 .024 17,500 500,524 3,321,700 15.1% BB2,511 GM611 39 TRAILS OF MADISON COUNry 0 46 0 12A81 0 12,927 11056A00 1.2% 296,326 305,127 40 ROMANCETHEATER 381006 35593 0 10AW 0 84, 1Bb,300 45.3% L165 31.240 41 PARILCONSTRUCTKN2 0 0 0 99,207 0 99.207 5.000 1984.1% ""'a' 10 20 42 WATERCAPNALCONSTRUCT 0 0 0 4,281 0 4,281 2,185.000 0.2% -4,263 A,2E3 43 STREETREPMR/NECONSFRVC110% 0 380 0 30.750 0 31.1 3,765,000 04% 61153,917 6,19a,66] 44 STREET NEW CONSTRUCTION 0 0 0 724,097 0 724.097 7,333.600 9.9% 85,244 -22883 A7 AIRPORTOPERATIONS 1ZWS 25,810 0 0 0 37.858 6L100 62.0% 15,004 15.67A 48 AIRPORT CONSTRUCTION 0 26,357 0 100,746 0 U7,103 4,619AD0 2.8% -56.147 .53.213 49 AIRPORTREUO MONRESERVE 0 0 0 0 0 0 28,500 0.0% 11173,352 L173,352 50 GOLF COURSE OPERATIONS 360,271 262.3M 0 213,539 64,633 900,779 LT78,500 50.6% 568,783 717,992 51 GOLF COURSE OEa- ltR E D 0 0 0 0 0 210,800 0.0% 308,732 218.732 52 SEWERCAPITA_:i:'.f TRUMON 0 0 0 2326.M 0 Z326,794 3,276.500 71.0% -1,701,511 -L072,233 5}Sg UD CONSTRL(•r:'.-_,._. D 0 0 2,097,505 0 2.07,605 4,700,000 44.6% .2,n7.605 -L097.561 59J9 UDD SERVICF =.',[. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,OOBA00 0.0% I.ML084 4,111.654 81 REK&JRGCUR.=r-_. -. 6L779 71A20 0 0 0 13511 309A00 48.7% 1512M 12.567 82 FIBERCONSTRLC_ -'. 0 0 0 389 0 389 108AM OA% �20,493 20.A93 83 ENTREPRENEURIA_=RSSFdW D 16.9n 0 0 0 16,929 23,900 ]OA% 28.539 28.539 84 NINTERCHANGECONSTRUCTION 0 0 0 1,2651640 0 1.265, 4AID,000 26.2% -11 ti30.268 85 AFETY COMM. SUGWING 0 10,820 0 0 0 10,82 0 O.W W:265.640 226 3",426 B6 FIBER OPERATING 0 13,306 0 0 70,000 93, 135,8W 0.0% 699.705 700,157 91 SHOP MATH A COP 0 20,019 0 0 0 20,01 MAW 111.2% 42,063 42,063 93 AMBULANCECA ALR51L EMENT 0 0 0 0 0 0 Gm 0 0 94 REKWRGARTSCOUNOLTRUST 0 0 0 0 0 0 Gm 0 0 95 CW5O1n FCUNDATJON 0 0 0 0 213W 2,3 3,000 78.7% 13,000 13p00 TOTAL 510,62171 9AS1,667 52RI7,M SI 57,136 $845,685 $3S,793,693 SlIZ744,900 3L7% 7304889 $47A48,908 CRaelw am InvPAd b rasped to de iW wppvrq; records of to above fiwndal sW*ma This repml ran be fm on WAe .d. '.. burg ern fnan4e ow•fnancialYeoort< Fm gemy5erv4esme In the CAybud9etJPr2026. howe3er theyamr employedby 03e FLe DY4tr who wt4 m4 NNRK 3Me wi8 rre¢d b mo3e P dMget od,Wstment. B. Public Works: - Keith Davidson i. Adoption of the Comprehensive Safety Action Plan - Keller Associates -Action Item Nathan Cleaver with Keller Associates said he appreciated the opportunity to work on the Comprehensive Safety Action Plan. A great deal of positive progress came out of the effort. The city worked closely with the steering committee throughout the process. He explained that he will briefly review the results of the plan. The full Comprehensive Safety Action Plan is included in the City Council packets. Mr. Cleaver explained the city requested adoption of the plan for several important reasons. The city plans to apply for the next round of Safe Streets for All (SS4A) funding, specifically for construction projects. A large project identified that combines multiple streets and intersections into one package to address several safety concerns simultaneously. The city believed this project would score well during the upcoming SS4A grant application process. As part of the federal funding requirements, the city needs to formally adopt the plan. The plan also needs to include specific criteria such as a clear vision statement, a prioritization framework for projects, a performance matrix, and reporting requirements. Additionally, the plan needs to be posted publicly on the city's website to ensure transparency and public access. These requirements will be reviewed and verified by federal agencies during the application process. Mr. Cleaver reviewed sections of the Comprehensive Safety Action Plan. He explained one of the first elements of the plan involved the city adopting a Vision Zero philosophy. This philosophy focused on improving safety to eliminate fatalities and severe injury crashes. The plan also incorporates a Safe System Approach. While the city managed the roadways and police department, other services such as ambulances and post -crash care also played important roles in the overall safety system. The plan recognized that reducing fatalities involved more than roadway improvements alone and required coordination among multiple agencies and services. In addition, the plan included practical safety measures that could be implemented throughout the city. These included speed management strategies, intersection improvements, and other safety enhancements designed to reduce crashes and lessen the severity of collisions. The plan includes an accountability component. The city intends to establish measurable goals, such as completing a certain number of projects within a defined timeframe and working toward reducing traffic fatalities to zero over the next ten years. All these elements are included in the plan, and the exact performance matrices could be pulled directly from the document. Mr. Cleaver said the Safe System Approach was discussed extensively with stakeholders throughout the planning process. The discussion emphasized that fatalities and serious crashes involved more than just the crash itself The city considered what actions could be taken to better manage streets, including setting appropriate speed limits and improving how drivers are informed about roadway conditions and safety expectations. The plan also addressed post -crash care and recognized the importance of emergency response services in reducing fatalities and serious injuries. Additionally, the approach focused on all roadway users, including drivers, pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorcyclists. The Rexburg CSAP embraces the Vision Zero Mindset - that even one roadway fatality or serious injury is unacceptable. As part of a nationally recognized commitment to reach a goal of zero deaths on our roadways, the Federal Highway Administration has adopted a Safe System Approach (Reference 1). This proactive safety approach is rooted in the fact that humans make mistakes, and the human body is fragile. �apyf lNNNv �S UN<r , e�PoNblfttm'KfMrff'g Figure f: The Safe Systems Approach (Source.' Federal Highway Adannistration) The Safe System Approach uses a five -layer mink -disciplinary process of creating mitigations that, when a crash occurs, reduces the seventy of the crash. The sic principles that guide Safe System Approach are: 1. Deaths and serious injuries are unacceptable. 4. Responsibility is shared. 2. Humans make mistakes. 5. Safety is proactive. 3. Humans are vulnerable. 6. Redundancy is crucial. Strategies presented in this plan leverage multiple principles, thereby creating a system of road user safety elements. Safety countermeasures should mitigate human mistakes and facilitate safe travel for all users, especially the most vulnerable road users. e.. Mr. Cleaver reviewed the city's crash history data from 2020 through 2024. During that time, the city averaged approximately 430 crashes per year. There were three fatalities during the study period. Serious injuries, which are classified as crashes involving hospitalization, show an upward trend, with 13 serious injuries reported in 2024. They focused on identifying high -crash locations throughout the city. These locations were determined using a data -driven scoring system. The team evaluated the 20 highest crash locations using an Equivalent Property Damage Only (EPDO) scoring method. Under this system, fatalities were assigned > oo points, serious injuries were assigned io points, and property - damage -only crashes were assigned 1 point. Using this scoring process, the team evaluated whether crash patterns were concentrated at specific intersections, roadway segments, or corridors. The data was also presented to the public during the second public meeting. Community members were asked to identify their safety concerns and share their highest transportation safety priorities. The plan also focused on implementing targeted safety measures with measurable results. Many of the proposed improvements included known crash reduction factors, meaning they had documented effectiveness in reducing crashes or lowering crash severity. Some measures were estimated to reduce crashes by as much as 50%, depending on the treatment applied. The map of the 20 highest crash locations showed that the triangular markers primarily represented intersections with high crash activity, while the line segments represented roadway corridors where crash clusters had occurred. These corridor locations often included severe injury or fatal crashes. Tame 2 Rexburg High Crash LacaVnru HCL Location EPOO Intersection Located in Area of Rank Score Segment Persistent Poverty SWO 1 N. 2n° East: E 2° Norm to S Teton 425 Segment Yes River 2 Golden Beautv Or / Umversm Blvd 395 Intersection Yes 3 S 2' East: E 7^ South to E 3' South 391 Seamen Yes 4 N 2� East: Mom RVView Rd to Moody 292 Segment No 5 S 1^ West: W 3� South to W fir 275 Segment Yes South 6 Yellowstone Hwy / W 7- South 202 Intersection Yes 7 University Blvd: 200' easlof 196 Segment Yes Yellowstone Highway to S 5eWest 8 S 2n° West W P' South 194 Intersection Yes 9 S 2° West / W 7" South 190 Intersection Yes 10 N 2° East! Moody Rd 187 Intersection No 11 S lr West / Main St 166 Intersection Yes 12 N 2n° East: S Teton River to E 71 North 155 Segment No 13 Main St / Pahsimee`oi Blvd f Summit 144 Intersection Yes 14 S 2n° West / W 5^ South 134 Intersection Yes 15 S Sn West / W 7° South 131 Intersection Yes 16 N 2" East f Lorene St 131 Intersection No 17 Pioneer Rd / Main St 127 Intersection Yes 16 N 2n° East f E 1511' North 126 Intersection No 19 W 1- North / N 2- West 116 Intersection Yes 20 Center St f E 7v` South 114 Intersection Yes - ea rw�wwwm 1 — 1] L nt t m'a,a r; 19 E]av . IV istn r Ic , 8 fe B it ® 151VNI ni. Fl ] .�T yv,ervty W.J ------------- ------------ Fyure 3: Re.bary High Grxh Location: Mr. Cleaver reviewed the recurring crash patterns and risk factors identified through the crash data analysis. Fmohasis Areas Systemic safety recommendations were developed to address recurring crash patterns and risk factors Identified through the crash data analysis. This analysis identified six safety emphasis areas that represent the most significant contributors to fatal and serous Injury crashes in Rexburg. These emphasis areas provide a guide to prioddzing systemic countermeasures and strategies that can be applied proactively, across the transportation network. • Young Drivers Drivers aged 16-25 were involved in 1,572 crashes in Rexburg. Two-thirds of all fatal or serious injury crashes involved a young driver. • Intersection -Related Crashes 56% of all crashes and 51.5% of fatal and serious injury crashes occurred at Intersectionsa • Nighttime Crashes 27% of all crashes occurred during dad dusk, or dawn conditions. while 39% of fatal and serious injury crashes occurred in low -light conditions. • Roadway and Lane Departure Crashes 29% of all crashes were madway orlane departure crashes, accounting for approximately one-third of all fatal and serious injury crashes. • Bicycle and Pedestrian Crashes While comprising less than 3%of all crashes. bicycle and pedesman crashes represented 24% of fatal and serious Injury crashes. • Motorcycle Crashes 1-7% of all crashes involved motorcycles, yet these crashes accounted for 23% of all fatal and serious injury crashes. P" Council Member Tietjen asked whether the data included information related to winter driving conditions. Mr. Cleaver responded that the number of severe crashes during winter conditions was surprisingly low. He noted that speed was one of the primary contributors to severe crashes, along with vehicle mass and energy. During winter conditions, most drivers naturally reduced their speeds because of snow and icy road conditions. As a result, crashes during winter weather in town tend to involve sideswipes and property damage rather than fatalities or serious injuries. He added that highway and interstate conditions were different because of higher travel speeds, but within the city, slower driving generally reduced crash severity. Mr. Cleaver reviewed the public outreach portion of the study. The city launched an online storyboard am survey that included questions and an interactive map where participants could identify safety concerns and problem areas. The survey began shortly before Thanksgiving and remained open throughout the New Year for approximately five to six weeks. The city received a strong public response, with approximately 16o participants providing feedback. The presenter noted that the amount of information gathered exceeded what was typically received through most public surveys. Of the respondents, 78% lived within Rexburg, approximately io% lived within io miles of the city, and another io% lived farther away. Survey results showed that only 41% of respondents felt safe driving in Rexburg. Approximately 33% reported feeling safe while walking, and only 20% felt safe biking within the city. He remarked that this result was not surprising. Additionally, 75% of respondents reported avoiding areas they considered unsafe, and 46% identified excessive vehicle speed as a major concern throughout the community. Mr. Cleaver explained that the project recommendations were developed by combining the public feedback data with the crash analysis data collected throughout the study. The recommended projects were prioritized using the Equivalent Property Damage Only (EPDO) scoring system. After the projects were ranked, they were further classified into near -term, mid-term, and long-term categories. The Steering Committee recognized that implementing all the recommended improvements would require a substantial financial investment. As project costs were evaluated, it became clear that the total expenses would amount to several million dollars. He noted that the previously discussed $6.9 million funding amount would not be sufficient to complete all the identified safety improvements. As a result, the projects were organized by implementation timeframe to create a more realistic and achievable plan for the city to accomplish overtime. T.W. a Irpraamclrt PI."Faclmq Inhmtrudure HCL; Project Location Pnority Project Cost PMorttv Rankin0 Score Estimate HCL 1; N 2nd E: E 2nd N to S Teton 15 53.17M RMer 0 a 2 HCL S: S Sst W. W 3rd 5 to W Ist S 145 S059M E 4a E 'o 3 MCL 3: S 2nd E: E 7N S to E 3rd S 135 S151M a` IL 4 HCL 7; University Bbd: 13 53.84M it Yellowstone Hwy to StnW Z 5 HCL9:S2nd W8W7thS 13 52.78M 6 HCLI4:S2nd W&W5UlS 115 SLIOM 7 MCL 2: Golden Beauty Dr 6 11 53.07M d, Univesity BtW W8 HCL11:S12MW&Main St 105 SOJ1M O 9 HCL 6; Yellowstone Hwy 8W7B15 91S SOSIH t0 HCL15:55inW&W71hS 9 SL49M 0 1 it HCL I9;W IstNb N2ntlW 9 S$.1514 E12 HCL 20; Center St& E71n S 9 S321M 17 13 HCL6:52nOW&WIslS 6 30.54M V 14 HCL4:N2ndE:Moran%iJmto 7 50.59M Moody Rd 15 HCL 13; Main St B PaMmerol 6.5 52.82M Blvd& Summit Dr one 16 HCL 17: Pinneet Rd B Main St 65 50.70M F 17 HCL 10; N 2nd E L Moody Rd 5.5 SI.54M W O ~ 1 78 HCLl2:N2nd E: STeWnRiverto 3 50.66M QC E7tnN O 19 MCL 16: N 2nd E 6 town St L5 $2.07M a` 20 HCL 38;N2nd E5E i5thN LS 51.41M Mr. Cleaver explained that several additional policy recommendations had been identified as part of the plan. One of the primary recommendations involved adopting a Complete Streets policy, which would address roadway design elements such as bike lanes, sidewalks, and accommodations for all users of the transportation system. Another recommendation involved conducting routine safety audits following severe crashes. These audits would help the city evaluate whether specific intersections or roadway locations needed safety improvements after a serious incident occurred. The Steering Committee also discussed the possibility of implementing pedestrian impact studies for new developments, particularly within the university area. He noted that the city already required traffic impact studies for vehicles as part of the transportation planning process. Expanding impact studies to include pedestrian activity could help protect vulnerable users, especially in areas with high student populations and pedestrian traffic. In total, approximately 12 policy recommendations were identified in the plan, all of which were intended to improve transportation safety throughout the city. Mr. Cleaver also explained that several non -infrastructure actions could improve safety without requiring major construction projects. These actions included increased traffic enforcement and public^' education campaigns. Educational outreach efforts targeting college students, university populations, and high school students could potentially improve safety awareness without the expense of major engineering projects. Additional recommendations included strengthening partnerships with emergency response agencies such as ambulance districts and the fire department. The city was encouraged to evaluate whether fire station locations and emergency response resources were positioned effectively to improve response times following crashes. After developing the project list, the city conducted a second round of public outreach, which remained open for approximately two weeks. He explained that this portion of the process had been accelerated because the federal grant deadline had been moved up unexpectedly. The grant application was due the following week, requiring the city to complete and adopt the plan sooner than originally anticipated. The initial expectation had been to finalize the process near the end of June, but the revised federal timeline required earlier action. Mr. Cleaver noted an interesting result from the public feedback process. Of the 12 respondents who answered a particular question, io indicated that they would be willing to accept longer travel times if it improved safety. He explained that this did not necessarily mean simply lowering speed limits, especially because state law required speed limits to generally align with the 85th percentile speed of drivers. Instead, the discussion focused on roadway design strategies that naturally encouraged slower driving behavior. Examples included adding additional traffic signals, Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs), High -Intensity Activated Crosswalks (HAWK signals), or narrowing roadway widths to create conditions that made higher speeds feel less comfortable for drivers. These types of roadway design treatments could help reduce speeds and improve safety without relying solely on posted speed _ limits. Additionally, 92% of survey respondents either agreed or strongly agreed with the high -crash locations that had been identified through the city's crash analysis. Council Member Tietjen asked how the surveys had been distributed. Mr. Cleaver explained that the surveys were advertised through the city's Facebook page and that the outreach process had begun at the beginning of the previous month. Council Member Johnson asked for clarification regarding the number of responses to the specific question about longer travel times. Mr. Cleaver confirmed that there had been 12 responses to that question and acknowledged that the sample size was relatively small and therefore not highly statistically significant. However, he emphasized that most of those respondents still indicated a willingness to accept slower travel times in exchange for improved safety. Council Member Reeser asked whether the study only identified problem areas or whether it also included specific solutions for each location. Public Works Director Davidson clarified that the study did include proposed solutions for the identified problem areas. The purpose of the upcoming grant application is to help fund implementation of those solutions. Council Member Reeser confirmed that the grant process required not only identifying safety concerns but also developing solutions to address them. Mr. Cleaver explained that the solutions had already been identified through the planning process, and the next step involved securing funding to construct or implement them. The previously discussed cost estimates represented the expense of implementing all recommended improvements and solutions included in the plan. However, he emphasized that the city did not necessarily need to ..� complete every improvement all at once. Instead, projects could be implemented in phases or broken into smaller segments depending on available funding. Council Member Johnson asked for clarification regarding how the crash locations were prioritized and whether locations involving fatalities received greater weight even if the overall number of crashes at that location are lower. Mr. Cleaver confirmed that locations involving fatalities were given significantly higher priority through the scoring system. Under the Equivalent Property Damage Only (EPDO) scale, a fatality received a score of ioo points, while a serious injury crash received io points. This weighting system was designed to emphasize locations with the most severe crash outcomes rather than simply the highest number of total crashes. One example was the intersection at Seventh South and Center Street, where a fatal crash had occurred. The city had already secured an LHTAC grant to install a traffic signal at that location. Another fatality location was identified along North Second East, just north of the railroad tracks. The city had also obtained grant funding for improvements at that location, including roadway widening and lighting enhancements. A third fatality location was identified near Moody Road and Walmart along Second East. Staff confirmed that this location was also included in the study. Council Member Tietjen asked how feasible it would be for the city to implement a pedestrian impact fee as part of the development review process. Public Works Director Davidson acknowledged that the city has not implemented this type of requirement and would need to conduct additional am% research to better understand how such studies would work and what they would entail. Mr. Cleaver explained that the concept had evolved into what was being referred to as a multimodal impact study rather than solely a pedestrian impact study. Other jurisdictions have already begun implementing similar policies, and those examples could serve as models for developing a local policy framework. Council Member Tietjen commented that this type of impact fee could be especially helpful for the city, particularly given the rapid growth and could help address sidewalk connectivity issues and improve pedestrian infrastructure throughout the community. Council Member Tietjen moved to approve the Adoption of the Comprehensive Safety Action Plan; Council Member Johnson 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 The motion carried. 2. Review and Approval of the 5-year Capital Street Improvement Plan - Action Item Public Works Director Davidson reviewed the proposed five-year street reconstruction plan. The city typically focuses on firmly identifying projects for the upcoming year while keeping later years more flexible. This approach allows the city to adjust priorities as roadway conditions changed over time, some roads deteriorated more quickly than anticipated and required earlier attention. He noted that the purpose of presenting the plan to the City Council is to begin solidifying priorities for 2027, while work for 2026 is moving forward. Public Works Director Davidson explained that the streets highlighted in yellow on the map represented the projects currently proposed for 2027. The plan also included several projects associated with urban renewal efforts. Those projects did not yet have specific construction years assigned because their timing would depend on how related development activities and funding opportunities progressed. He clarified that the Urban Renewal projects are identified in pink on the map. The University Boulevard Urban Renewal District is scheduled to expire in 2031, with funding extending through approximately 2032. Council Member Johnson inquired about the roadway segment from the university area to Sunrise and noted that it had been identified as an Urban Renewal project. Public Works Director Davidson explained that the project had originally been included on the urban renewal project list when the urban renewal district was established, likely around 2012 or 2013. As a result, the project remained one associated with the urban renewal plan. Council Member Johnson asked if widening the roadway would require a nearby home to be readjusted. Public Works Director Davidson responded not necessarily because the road already exists where the home is located. A determination would need to be made to have a driveway approach versus a street approach on that road. He also explained that the project is not currently being actively pursued and that any future action would depend on traffic volumes, roadway demand, and long-term transportation needs. 0 Council Member Johnson expressed concern after hearing discussions about Urban Renewal potentially negotiating with the homeowner for additional land acquisition. She questioned whether the project could proceed if the property owner refused to sell and noted that Urban Renewal could not force a property owner to give up land without further city action. Public Works Director Davidson clarified that no immediate action or acquisition efforts are underway at the present time. He emphasized that any future roadway improvements would depend on evolving transportation needs and future planning decisions. Public Works Director Davidson further explained that the initial roadway concept involved a two- lane roadway with a potential center turn lane. Under that configuration, the roadway could likely still P-, accommodate on -street parking and maintain many of the existing conditions near the home in question. Finance Officer Nielson added that the Urban Renewal University Boulevard District expires in 2031. Last year, funding extended through 2032 to give an idea of how quickly action would probably need to be taken because once the project goes into design phase and put into construction, a few years would be needed. The other considerations are the cost of either two traffic signals or adding an additional road through the area. Improvements also need to be made at Cresthaven church. Urban Renewal has about $2 million that could go toward the project. If the cost exceeded that amount, then street impact fees and/or other street funds would have to cover the remaining expenses. City Attorney Rammell clarified that under Idaho law, an urban renewal agency composed entirely of elected officials can independently exercise eminent domain powers. However, because the Rexburg Urban Renewal Agency includes appointed members, any potential eminent domain action would ultimately require approval by the City Council as the governing body that created the agency. Council Member Johnson expressed concern about previous City Council meetings related to Sunrise Drive and stated that some residents felt their concerns had not been adequately addressed. At that meeting they had asked for solutions but that is not the way the meeting went. She specifically questioned why the possibility of negotiating with homeowners about selling property had been discussed publicly if no immediate property acquisition was required under the current roadway ^, concept. Public Works Director Davidson responded that property acquisition had only been discussed as a possible future option rather than a requirement. He explained that the present roadway concept could likely be completed without impacting nearby homes, but future conditions or City Council direction could potentially change that approach. Council Member Riggins said he lives in the affected neighborhood and stated that many rumors have circulated about the possibility of a six -lane roadway being constructed through the area. He emphasized that, based on existing roadway widths, such a large roadway would not physically fit within the current corridor. He agreed that clearer communication with residents is necessary so homeowners would better understand what types of improvements are being considered and whether nearby homes would be affected. Council Member Johnson reiterated that residents' concerns were not simply rumors because there were previous discussions about roadway widening through that corridor. She also questioned why that corridor is included in the five-year plan when she believed other traffic problem areas in the city were more urgent. Public Works Director Davidson responded that there are potential future developments being considered in the area that could eventually require roadway reconfiguration and additional transportation improvements. Urban Renewal funding creates opportunities to complete transportatior improvements before traffic conditions become problematic, which some residents support to stay ahead of future growth. At the same time, city staff recognize that others believe the city should delay major roadway projects until traffic problems become more immediate and clearly demonstrated. Council Member Johnson emphasized that residents in the affected neighborhood remain concerned about the proposed roadway improvements and wanted the discussion to clearly state that the current five-year street plan does not involve widening the road into existing residential properties. 10 Public Works Director Davidson clarified that, aside from improvements involving the church property, the currently envisioned roadway configuration would generally remain within the existing corridor. He acknowledged that there could be discussions involving some adjacent vacant properties west of the existing roadway, but no current homeowners are expected to lose property or be required to dedicate right-of-way under the present concept. Council Member Johnson asked whether any current homeowners would be expected to give up right-of-way or sell portions of their property under the current proposal. Public Works Director Davidson responded that they did not anticipate that occurring and emphasized that no immediate Ron plans exist to pursue residential property acquisition. He also noted that because the project does not yet have a construction date, there would be significant time available for future public discussion before any major decisions would be made. Council Member C. Erickson moved to approve the 5-year Capital Improvement Plan; Council on" Member Reeser seconded the motion; Mayor Merrill asked for a vote: Those voting ave Those voting nav Council Member Johnson none Council Member Tietjen Council Member C. Erickson Council Member Reeser Council Member Riggins The motion carried. 11 Mayor's Report/Business: A. Ratify Proclamation No 2026 - 03 May 2026 as Jewish American Heritage Month Action Item Mayor Merrill explained the background behind this proclamation. He shared that he had recently attended a conference sponsored by the Combat Anti-Semitism Movement, an organization dedicated to combating anti-Semitism as well as hate crimes more broadly. The organization focuses on addressing violence and discrimination directed toward all groups, although its primary mission centers on anti-Semitism and protecting Jewish communities. Mayor Merrill referenced several recent attacks that had targeted religious communities, including attacks on Jewish synagogues, a recent attack on a mosque in San Diego that resulted in fatalities, and ^ the previously known attack on the Elias Chapel in Michigan. He explained that these incidents demonstrate the continuing need to oppose hate crimes and promote greater understanding and respect among different communities. Mayor Merrill said the proclamation is being presented in recognition of Jewish American Heritage Month, while also serving as a broader statement against hate crimes and intolerance of all kinds. He asked Council Member Reeser to read Proclamation No 2026 - 03 May 2026 as Jewish American Heritage Month. PROCLAMATION No. 2026-03 May as Jewish American Heritage Month WHEREAS, since their arrival on American shores as early as the 16th century, Jewish immigrants and their descendants have played a vital role in shaping the United States, contributing to the nation's creation, growth, freedom, prosperity, and enduring strength; and WHEREAS, Jewish Americans have made profound and lasting contributions to every aspect of American life, including the arts, sciences, business, law, education, military and public service, entertainment, and culinary traditions, enriching the cultural fabric of our nation and helping define what it means to be American; and WHEREAS, for over four decades, Presidents of the United States have formally recognized the invaluable contributions of Jewish Americans to our country, and since 2006, the month of May has ^ been officially designated as Jewish American Heritage Month through Presidential proclamation and bipartisan Congressional support; and WHEREAS, at a time of rising antisemitism, it is more important than ever to affirm the place of Jewish Americans in our national story and to reaffirm our commitment to their safety, dignity, and belonging. NOW, THEREFORE, I, Jerry Merrill, Mayor of Rexburg, do hereby proclaim May 2026 as Jewish American Heritage Month in the City of Rexburg, Idaho. I call upon all residents to join in celebrating the remarkable history, heritage, and contributions of the Jewish community to our city and our nation. I further encourage: • All city departments and agencies to commemorate this occasion through public announcements and the display of educational materials; • Our local schools, colleges, and universities to offer programming that highlights Jewish American heritage and its impact on our shared municipal values; • Museums, libraries, and cultural institutions throughout the City of Rexburg to host exhibitions and events that honor Jewish American history and achievements. Let this month serve as a time to reflect, learn, and celebrate the resilience, creativity, and enduring contributions of Jewish Americans throughout our history. ADOPTED by the City of Rexburg, State of Idaho, on this 201h day of May 2026. ATTEST.• Deborah Lovejoy, City Clerk IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal of the City of Rexburg to be affixed this 200' day of May of the year of our Lord two thousand twenty-six APPROVED: Jerry Merrill, Mayor 12 Council Member Reeser said he heartily concurred being a teacher at Madison High School who teaches the Holocaust and human rights. He explained that he and his students have learned as much as they can about the Jewish communities around the country. He highlighted the difficult situations that some people face because of anti-Semitism and other forms of prejudice and hatred. He said he along with all the Holocaust students at Madison High School, wholeheartedly support the proclamation and any other efforts that show a commitment to standing up against hatred and ensuring that everyone is treated with dignity. Council Member Riggins moved to ratify Proclamation No 2o26 — 03 May 2026 as Jewish American Heritage Month; Council Member Tietjen seconded the motion; Mayor Merrill asked for a .. vote: Those voting ave Council Member Johnson Council Member Tietjen Council Member C. Erickson Council Member Reeser Council Member Riggins The motion carried. Items for Consideration: NONE Those voting nay none Calendared Bills: A. Second Reading: Those items which have been first read: 1. Ordinance No 1336 Amendment to Ordinance No 1225 Animal Control Prohibiting the Sale of Animals in Certain Situations in the City of Rexburg — Spencer Rammell Action Item CITY OF REXBURG ORDINANCE 1336 SALE OF ANIMALS IN PUBLIC PLACES AND RETAIL STORES PROHIBITED AN ORDINANCE PROHIBITING THE SALE OF ANIMALS IN PUBLIC PLACES; PROVIDING EXCEPTIONS FOR ANIMAL SHELTERS, NON-PROFIT ANIMAL RESCUE ORGANIZATIONS. AND CITY ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS; PROHIBITING THE SALE OP DOGS AND CATS IN A RE "TAIL BUSINESS OR COMMERCIAL ESTABLISHMENT IN THE CITY OF REXBURG; PROVIDING EXCEPTIONS FOR ANIVLVL SHELTERS, HUMANE SOCIETY, AND NON- PROFIT AN INIAL RESCUE ORGANIZATIONS THAT DO NOT BREED DOGS OR CATS FOR COMPENSATION; PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR THE VARIOUS VIOLATIONS OFTHIS ORDINANCE; AMENDING ORDINANCE NO 1225 AND ALL OTHER ORDINANCES OR PORTIONS THEREOF IN CONFLICT HEREWITH; PROVIDING FOR THE EFFECTIVE DATE OFTHIS ORDINANCE Council Member C. Erickson moved to approve Ordinance No 1336 Amendment to Ordinance No 1225 Animal Control Prohibiting the Sale of Animals in Certain Situations in the City of Rexburg and consider second read; Council Member Riggins seconded the motion; Mayor Merrill asked for a vote: Those voting ave Council Member Johnson Council Member Tietjen Council Member C. Erickson Council Member Reeser Council Member Riggins The motion carried. Those voting nav none 2. Ordinance No 1347 Rezone 401 S 121h W from Rural Residential 2 (RR2) to Low Density Residential 2 (LDR2) and Low Density Residential 3 (LDR3) Zones (26-o0094) - Alan Parkinson Action Item ORDINANCE NO. 1347 Rezone 401 S 12th W from Rural Residential 2 (RR2) to Low Density Residential 2 (LDR2) and Low Density Residential 3 (LDR3) Zones AN ORDINANCE AMENDING AND CHANGING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF REXBURG, IDAHO, AND PROVIDING THAT THE ZONED DESIGNATION OF THAT CERTAIN PROPERTY HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED, SITUATED IN REXBURG, MADISON 13 COUNTY, IDAHO, BE CHANGED AS HEREINAFTER DESIGNATED; AND PROVIDING WHEN THIS ORDINANCE SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. Proposed Rezone from Rural Residential 2 to Low -Density Residential 2 and Low -Density Residential 3 N pT L N N D J 3 LDR2 LDR3 s 0 < Green Willow or r c .� o K Dlnu awe _ o o c Pa _ U .'�' a • .... A Council Member Riggins expressed concern about growing tensions surrounding the rezoning discussion and public perception that residents are not being heard. He referenced a recent incident where a respected community member tore up a city council agenda during a meeting and another resident stated publicly that citizens felt ignored and disrespected. He questioned whether the City Council has done enough to listen, provide answers, and seek compromise with residents affected by the proposed rezone. Council Member Riggins directed an apology to Council Member C. Erickson, explaining that after reviewing prior City Council meeting records, he realized he had misunderstood Council Member C. r Erickson's earlier comments regarding transitional zoning. He now understands that Council Member C. Erickson was advocating for a "common sense transition" between existing single-family homes and proposed higher -density residential development. The discussion during a previous City Council meeting focused on the proposed zoning classifications of LDR2 and LDR3. He asked whether, if the rezoning were approved as proposed, the Planning and Zoning Commission would still have the legal authority to require LDRl-style development along the edge of the project adjacent to existing homes on Green Willow Drive. His goal is to create a transition buffer that would better protect neighboring homeowners and preserve the character of the existing neighborhood. P&Z Administrator Parldnson explained the differences between the zoning categories. LDR1 permits only detached single-family homes with one residence per lot. LDR2 still allows detached homes but also permits twin homes and duplexes as a matter of right. Because those housing types are automatically permitted within LDR2 zoning, he explained that the city would likely not be able to selectively prohibit them on certain lots without changing the zoning classification itself. Council Member Riggins asked whether the city could approve the broader rezoning while still requiring a strip of LDRi development directly adjacent to the existing homes as a protective transition area. P&Z Administrator Parkinson responded that because twin homes and duplexes are permitted uses within LDR2 zoning and do not require a conditional use permit, the city would likely need to restart the rezoning process and change the zoning designation itself to legally require only LDR1-style housing in those areas. ra. Council Member Tietjen asked whether the City Council could only vote based on actual evidence rather than feelings or assumptions. City Attorney Rammell responded that he is trying to understand the context of the question and asked whether it related to consideration of a zone change. Council Member Tietjen confirmed that it did. He explained that there are several factors involved in considering a zone change. Some factors are established by statute, while others have been established through precedent by the Idaho Supreme Court. He said that the question is likely related to the delivery of services. He explained that courts evaluated delivery of services by considering both existing 14 services currently available and any remediation or mitigation efforts that could address future concerns. City Attorney Rammell further explained that determining what qualified as facts versus hypothetical concerns depended on the specific circumstances. He stated that if there is substantiated growth in an area, and concerns remained about traffic patterns or road conditions despite proposed mitigation measures, those issues could still be considered. He noted that distinguishing between reality and speculation is fact -dependent and varied according to the specific road, the specific delivery of services, and the services that could be affected in that area. He added that those factors would then .,, be weighed against the specific facts of the proposal. He acknowledged that his explanation is somewhat indirect; however, he framed the question within the proper legal framework for considering a zone change. P&Z Administrative Parkinson responded to Council Member Riggins question, he explained that if restrictions were placed on the types of homes allowed, the density could not be limited differently. The density would remain the same whether the development consisted of single-family homes, duplexes, or twin homes, because the zoning only allowed six units per acre. Council Member C. Erickson stated that he was trying to emphasize the importance of creating a step-down in zoning density. He said that, in his opinion, the City Council should require such a step- down because of an Idaho Supreme Court ruling involving the City of Hailey. The south property should transition from RR2 zoning to LDR1 zoning as a step-down measure. He added that LDR1 zoning requires quarter -acre lots at minimum, rather than allowing six lots per acre. Council Member Reeser asked for clarification about whether the City Council can regulate the style of homes being built without changing the allowed density. P&Z Administrator Parkinson explained that if duplexes or twin homes were prohibited, the density would remain the same. The zone will still allow six units per acre, regardless of whether the homes are detached single-family homes, duplexes, or twin homes. Council Member Reeser clarified that if twin homes are constructed, only three twin - home structures per acre could be built because each structure contained two housing units, resulting in .N" a total of six homes per acre. Discussion regarding the difference between LDR1 and LDR2 zoning. Council Member Reeser explained that LDR1 allowed four homes per acre, while LDR2 allowed six homes per acre. He stated that he is trying to understand the density difference more clearly. Council Member Riggins asked what steps would be necessary to change this rezone to include LDRi, LDR2, and LDR3 zoning options together to create what he described as a "safety belt" for nearby residents. He recalled that during a previous zoning discussion involving nearby properties, the City Council had requested a transitional zoning approach and had sent the proposal back for revisions. He stated that the current proposal appeared even closer to neighboring homes. P&Z Administrator Parkinson responded by pointing out that there is RR2 zoning north of the Gem Prep property and that the City Council had not required a step-down to LDRi in that area. He emphasized that the final decision belonged to the City Council and noted that there are also LDR3 and LDR2 zones west of the property adjacent to TAG zoning. He explained that the City Council needed to evaluate the overall transition between zoning areas. Council Member Johnson stated that she abstains from the vote but wanted to point out that Councilmembers vote three separate times on zoning matters so they can reconsider their position if new information becomes available. She also raised concerns about upcoming state regulations scheduled to take effect on July 1. She asked whether the new laws would limit the city's ability to regulate developments in the future and warned that delaying action could potentially result in even greater density under the new state rules. P&Z Administrator Parkinson responded that the city staff are still researching the legislation and have not received clear guidance from the state. He explained that the legislation referenced single- family homes, but it remained unclear whether that definition included detached homes only or also included duplexes, twin homes, and townhomes, which were classified as single-family residences under building code definitions. The city will need to update its code to comply with the state requirements by October 1. 15 Mayor Merrill stated that he understands the concerns about requiring a lower -density transition zone but questioned whether the city could legally require that type of restriction if the property could otherwise be serviced appropriately. City Attorney Rammell asked for clarification about the legal question being asked. P&Z Administrator Parkinson clarified the question is whether the city could require only detached single-family homes along the southern border of the property. City Attorney Rammell explained that the application process involved procedural due process rights. He stated that when a property owner applied and paid the required fees, the applicant has the right to request a specific zone change and proceed through the established process. While negotiations and adjustments could occur during public hearings, applicants still retained procedural rights and notice requirements. He added that forcing substantial changes to an application during the second reading could create due process concerns because affected parties may not have received proper notice' about the modified proposal. He recommended the City Council to either approve or deny the application as submitted rather than impose major new conditions during the later stages of the process. City Attorney Rammell referenced emails previously sent to Councilmembers after the public hearing had closed. He explained that those communications had been disclosed to the applicant because they could potentially be viewed as information received outside the official public record. The applicant had waived certain procedural rights in writing to avoid additional delays and hearings. He advised that making major amendments during the second reading would likely not be procedurally proper. If substantial changes are desired, it would be cleaner and more appropriate to restart the process. P&Z Administrator Parkinson added that any major changes would also require valid reasons supported by new evidence rather than simply public dissatisfaction. Council Member Tietjen asked whether the evidence could consist solely of the fact that residents are upset. City Attorney Rammell responded that it could not. City Attorney Rammell further explained that any new information would likely be reviewed carefully to determine whether improper discussions or open meeting violations occurred. City Attorney Rammell noted that Council Member Riggins clarified that, after reviewing the record more carefully, he better understood the concerns raised by Council Member C. Erickson during the previous discussion. Council Member Riggins explained that although he had initially proposed approving the application, he still believes that important questions remained unanswered. He added he lacked scientific evidence demonstrating that the existing streets could adequately support the proposed development. He stated that he had supported moving the application forward because he trusted the process and expected that additional answers would emerge later. Council Member Riggins stated that, as a member of the community, they did not believe they owed the developer anything personally. City Attorney Rammell responded that while Council Member Riggins did not owe the developer personally, the city owes all property owners due process and equal protection under the law. Property rights are foundational principles, and local governments must balance the rights of developers with the concerns of neighboring residents and constituents. Council Member Riggins agreed and stated that there needs to be a balance between developers seeking to build projects and the neighboring residents who are already established in the area and invested in the community. City Attorney Rammell explained that there is often a distinction between residents feeling unheard and the reality that officials have listened but are constrained by the legal framework governing land use decisions. Land use decisions are not simply based on personal preference but rather on whether those decisions could withstand legal challenges involving property rights or community standing. He said both property owners and community members could claim that — their rights have been infringed upon in land use disputes. Discussion regarding new state legislation affecting zoning and development regulations and the uncertainty surrounding how the law would be interpreted. City Attorney Rammell explained that it remained unclear how the statute defined a single-family residence and whether existing projects would be grandfathered under prior regulations. He emphasized that the city is still required to amend its local code by October i to comply with state law, even as the legal landscape surrounding zones continued to change. He emphasized that future legislation could further restrict the city's authority over development density and zoning decisions. While the law created significant challenges and 16 uncertainty for city planning staff, he noted that elected officials could point to state law requirements when making difficult decisions, even if they personally disagreed with the outcomes. Council Member Riggins thanked City Attorney Rammell for the explanation and stated that he wanted to ensure the City Council remained within the law and fully understood what actions are legally permitted. Discussion regarding traffic impacts and the city's ability to provide services for new developments. r.. City Attorney Rammell explained that the City Council relies on recommendations from city staff when determining whether roads and infrastructure could adequately support proposed projects. City Staff evaluates developments using established planning standards and guidelines to decide whether traffic impacts could be sufficiently mitigated. Mitigation measures often include requiring developers to contribute toward infrastructure improvements. City Staff determines that traffic and road conditions can be managed to an acceptable level of service under technical standards, even when residents still viewed the impact negatively. Longtime residents often opposed additional traffic and growth but noted that those personal concerns differed from the legal and technical criteria staff are required to apply during the development review process. Council Member Riggins responded by explaining that Councilmembers are ultimately responsible for answering residents' concerns. He said he based his decision on this zone change primarily on the planning and zoning staff report and the recommendations contained within that document. He noted as Councilmembers they need to be as informed as possible so they can adequately explain their decisions to the public. He added that when residents ask why they supported the proposal, their response is that they fulfilled their legal responsibilities. City Attorney Rammell responded by explaining that the current public hearing system could sometimes feel counterintuitive to community members. Some residents often feel frustrated because they elected Councilmembers as representatives but then discovered they could not freely discuss pending land use matters with them outside the formal public hearing process. The state procedures .. require the City Council to follow strict rules governing public hearings and communications causing some residents to feel they lack the opportunity to speak directly with elected officials. Council Member Reeser moved to approve Ordinance No 1347 Rezone 401 S 12th W from Rural Residential 2 (RR2) to Low Density Residential 2 (LDR2) and Low Density Residential 3 (LDR3) Zones and consider second read; Council Member Tietjen seconded the motion; Mayor Merrill asked for a vote: Those voting aye - Council Member Tietjen Council Member Reeser Council Member Riggins The motion carried. Those voting_nay Council Member C. Erickson P&Z Administrator Parkinson suggested that the City Council consider holding a future work meeting to address the new state legislation and the zoning changes that would need to be incorporated into the city code. Mayor Merrill agreed to hold a future City Council work meeting to discuss several code revisions required because of recently passed state legislation. Council Member Johnson raised concerns about comments reportedly made by a Planning and Zoning Commissioner during a previous Planning and Zoning meeting. She stated that some residents .. believe there had been inappropriate name-calling and asked what mechanisms existed to remind appointed commissioners to remain polite. Elected officials could be voted out of office for inappropriate conduct, whereas appointed commissioners did not face elections. City Attorney Rammell responded by explaining that the individual referenced during the prior meeting later expressed regret about the comments and apologized, acknowledging that the statement probably should not have been made. He said he spoke with the commissioner about the issue. He emphasized that land use matters are taken seriously within the city and stated that he attends all planning and zoning commission meetings. He described the situation as an isolated occurrence. B. Third Reading: Those items which have been second read: NONE 17 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. A. Minutes from May 6, 2026, Meeting -Action Item B. Approve Payment of the City of Rexburg Bills - Action Item Council Member Johnson asked a question regarding the city ice rink's recent power bills. The electricity bill appears unusually high, noting the bill is approximately $18,000 for the current month and approximately $ll,000 the previous month. The annual electricity budget for the facility is PMR estimated at around $6o,000. Finance Officer Nielson explained that after reviewing, the $18,000 bill, it likely covered a two -month period rather than a single month because the billing statement did not clearly show the dates between the previous and current billing cycles. The $18,000 charge is divided across two months; the monthly average should be lower than the earlier billing period. Finance Officer Nielson acknowledged that there are still unknown factors, particularly regarding summer operations and the impact of new equipment such as the dehumidifier system. City Staff do not yet fully understand how energy usage will be affected during extremely hot summer temperatures. Despite those uncertainties, he concluded that when the three most recent utility bills are averaged together, the overall expenses aligned closely with the city's original projections for the facility's electricity costs. Council Member Tietjen moved to approve the Consent Calendar containing the minutes and city bills; Council Member Riggins seconded the motion; Mayor Merrill asked for a vote: Those voting axe Council Member Johnson Council Member Tietjen Council Member C. Erickson Council Member Reeser Council Member Riggins The motion carried. Adjournment 8:25 P.M. /��Attest: ]� 4YY / a t,F, Ern M rianna Gonzalez, City Deputy fferk VED: rry erri ayor Those voting nay none fl ri 18