HomeMy WebLinkAbout8.19.26 Ltr to Planning and Zoning Commission re Basic American Foods Annexation(153844398.2)
153844398.2 0060174-00043
Rachel S. Aramburu 101 S. Capitol Boulevard, Suite 1900 Boise, ID 83702 D. 208.387.4233 Rachel.Aramburu@stoel.com
August 19, 2026
Chair Smith and Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission Attn: Deborah Lovejoy, City Clerk
City of Rexburg 35 North 1st East Rexburg, ID 83440
Re: File No. 26-00321 – Written Objection of Basic American Foods, Inc. to Proposed Annexation (Public Hearing, August 20, 2026)
Dear Chair Smith and Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission:
This office represents Basic American Foods, Inc. (“Basic American”) with respect to the proposed annexation of the parcel located at approximately 80 East 7th North, Rexburg, Idaho (the “Property”). Basic American respectfully opposes the proposed annexation and requests that the Planning and Zoning Commission deny File No. 26-00321. Consistent with the legislative
purposes underlying Idaho Code Section 50-222, including providing affected landowners a meaningful voice in decisions affecting their governance and reducing conflict between municipalities and citizens, Basic American submits this letter for inclusion in the record before the Planning and Zoning Commission August 20, 2026, public hearing.
As a longstanding employer, taxpayer, and economic contributor in Rexburg, Basic American
submits these comments not only to protect its legal rights, but also to preserve the cooperative and transparent relationship it has worked to maintain with the City over many years.
I. Basic American Has Not Consented to Annexation, and the City Expressly Acknowledged as Much in 2024.
A baseline legal requirement for any annexation is that the affected landowner consent to the
annexation. See Idaho Code § 50-222. As a matter of state law, cities cannot annex landowners against their will—at least without fulfilling rigorous statutory requirements that the City has not satisfied here. Unfortunately, that is exactly what staff are recommending the Commission do here.
Idaho Code § 50-222 defines “consent” as a written, recorded document in which the landowner
“explicitly” agrees to be annexed. No such document exists for the Property.
To the contrary, on June 7, 2024, Basic American and the City negotiated a Utility Easement Agreement (the “2024 Easement Agreement”) under which Basic American granted the City a
August 19, 2026
Page 2
153844398.2 0060174-00043
permanent 30-foot sewer easement and a temporary construction easement across the Property. That agreement provides:
“The City further agrees that it will not annex any additional property of Basic American Inc or
its affiliates until at least January 1, 2026. Nothing herein is intended to constitute a consent to
annexation at any time.”
That language was bargained for. It confirms both that Basic American has not consented to the proposed annexation and that the City previously expressly agreed not to treat prior negotiations with Basic American as consent at any time. Staff’s annexation proposal reneges on this promise,
which Basic American has relied on in good faith.
A. Basic American has not provided implied consent to the proposed annexation.
The City has repeatedly taken the position that Basic American has provided “implied consent” to the proposed annexation under Idaho Code § 50-222(2)(c). The “implied consent” provision provides:
“[V]alid consent to annex is implied for the area of all lands connected to a water or
wastewater collection system owned and operated in its entirety by the city if the connection was requested in writing by the owner or the owner’s authorized agent prior to July 1, 2024, or if the connection was completed before July 1, 2008.” Idaho Code § 50-222(2)(c).
The record from the June 18, 2026, Rexburg Planning and Zoning hearing misrepresents the
resources Basic American is using from the City. The only existing connection from the Property to municipal services is a tie to the municipal sewer system for sanitary sewer only and an emergency backup water line used for fire suppression and emergency shutdown. This parcel is only connected to the municipal water system as an emergency backup supply and is seldom
used. The facility’s industrial water needs are met entirely by Basic American’s own wells. The
facility’s trash and waste disposal needs are met entirely by an outside vendor. Treating an emergency standby connection and sanitary sewer use (that the facility pays for) as implied consent is not reasonable and directly contradicts the City’s promise not to treat prior utility negotiations as consent in 2024.
II. The City’s Notice Is Deficient Under Idaho Code §§ 50-222(3) and (4).
Where the City has not secured the required landowner consent, the City must meet certain state-law requirements before proceeding with any annexation. See Idaho Code § 50-222(3). The City has not satisfied these basic requirements intended to protect landowners. There are three independent defects.
A. The property description in the City’s public notice is internally inconsistent.
August 19, 2026
Page 3
153844398.2 0060174-00043
A valid annexation notice must accurately identify the property proposed for annexation. The legal description in the notice dated July 14, 2026, places the Property in Township 06 North, Range 39 East. The map in the same notice places it in Range 40 East, abutting the current city
boundary. If the description on the first page of the notice controls, the property identified for
annexation sits west of the City’s existing boundary and is not the land that Basic American owns. This discrepancy was previously brought to the Planning Department's attention but remains uncorrected. An accurate property description in the hearing notice is the foundation of a valid annexation notice, and this inconsistency alone requires the Rexburg Planning and Zoning
Commission to deny the annexation.
B. The hearing notice omits multiple disclosures required by Idaho Code § 50-222(3)(b).
State statute requires the hearing notice to identify, in plain terms, (i) how a landowner may give or withhold consent, (ii) where consent or objection is to be filed, (iii) the deadline by which it must be filed, and (iv) where the full annexation record may be reviewed. Idaho Code § 50-
222(3)(b). The notice issued in File No. 26-00321 contains none of these required disclosures.
Those omissions are not technical; they are how the statute ensures meaningful landowner participation. Therefore, the notice deprived affected landowners of information the Legislature deemed necessary to participate meaningfully in the annexation process, rendering the notice legally deficient and requiring denial of the annexation request.
C. The City has not produced the written annexation plan required by Idaho Code §§ 50-
222(3)(d) and (4).
State statute also requires the City to provide a written annexation plan identifying:
a) “The manner of providing tax-supported municipal services to the subject land;”
b) “The changes in taxation and other costs that would result if the subject land were to
be annexed;”
c) “The means of providing fee-supported municipal services, if any, to the subject land;”
d) “An analysis of the potential effects of annexation on other units of local government that currently provide tax-supported or fee-supported services to the subject land;”
e) “The proposed future land use plan and zoning designation or designations, subject to
public hearing, for the subject land; and”
f) “A statement of the public purposes that would benefit from annexation.”
Idaho Code § 50-222(4); see also Idaho Code § 50-222(3)(b). A major purpose of this requirement is to ensure that the City is not recklessly annexing properties to which the City
cannot effectively or affordably provide municipal services. Unfortunately, the absence of an
August 19, 2026
Page 4
153844398.2 0060174-00043
annexation plan leaves the Commission without the information necessary to determine whether municipal services can be provided to the Property in a reasonable and cost-effective manner. That omission is especially significant here because Basic American supplies its industrial water
needs through private wells, and the record reflects only limited or nonexistent utility
connections across the parcel proposed for annexation. No annexation plan appears in the record before the Commission and, therefore, the Commission must deny the proposed application.
III. The Vast Majority of the Acreage Proposed for Annexation Is Agricultural Land That Cannot Be Annexed Without Basic American’s Written Permission.
Idaho Code § 50-222(12)(a) provides that land of five acres or greater and “actively devoted to
agriculture,” as defined in Idaho Code § 63-604(1), cannot be annexed without the landowner’s express written permission. Importantly, this requirement applies even if the City could otherwise rely on the implied consent exception that Planning Staff and the City Attorney have relied on here. See Idaho Code § 50-222(5)(a) (exempting requirements of Idaho Code §§ 50-222(3) and
(4) under implied consent pathway but not exempting Idaho Code § 50-222(12) requirements).
Idaho Code § 63-604(1)(a)(i) provides that land is “actively devoted to agriculture” if, among other things, “it is used to produce field crops including, but not limited to, grains, feed crops, fruits and vegetables.” That definition applies directly to the vast majority of the proposed annexation area. Approximately 81.30 acres of the proposed parcel are used to grow hay for
local feedlot use. Thus, those approximately 81.30 acres qualify as land “actively devoted to
agriculture” under Idaho Code § 63-604(1) and legally cannot be annexed without Basic American’s express consent.
1
The City must, at minimum, carve out any lands “actively devoted to agriculture” before any
annexation proposal moves forward.
1 Screenshot is an approximate estimation for illustrative purposes.
August 19, 2026
Page 5
153844398.2 0060174-00043
IV. The City Cannot Deliver the Municipal Services That Would Justify Annexation.
A core consideration for any annexation is whether the City can actually deliver municipal services to the property. See, e.g., Idaho Code § 50-222(4). Basic American representatives have
met with the City on multiple occasions to understand how municipal services would be
extended to the facility, yet the City has never articulated a long-term plan for doing so. The reason is straightforward: the City cannot provide the municipal services necessary to support Basic American's operations.
Basic American’s process water and fire-suppression demand exceed what the City’s municipal
water system can reliably supply, which is why Basic American maintains its own water
infrastructure and connects to the City’s water system only through an emergency backup line. The City’s wastewater treatment plant is not built to handle Basic American’s industrial wastewater without significant pretreatment and added capacity, and the 2024 Easement Agreement contemplates only a sanitary sewer line along one parcel’s edge. The annexation
notice does not identify what police, fire, stormwater, transportation, or solid waste services
would be extended, what they would cost, when they would arrive, or how they would be financed, despite the fact that Idaho Code § 50-222(4) requires a written plan answering those questions. And, even if the Commission were to annex the Property over Basic American’s objection, Idaho Code § 50-222(5) provides that Basic American cannot be required to use the
City’s water or wastewater services and may retain its existing systems. Annexation would
therefore deliver no actual City service to the facility.
In prior conversations, the City has cited traffic impacts and police service demands associated with employees commuting to the facility as justification for annexation. However, those concerns warrant closer examination. Basic American’s employees already contribute to local
tax revenues through property taxes, and many commute from outside the City using roadways
that are primarily owned and maintained by the Idaho Transportation Department rather than the City. As a result, the City bears only a limited share of the transportation impacts associated with facility operations.
For those reasons, not only is the proposed annexation unlawful, it is also unreasonable. At the
June 18th Rexburg Planning and Zoning hearing, City staff explained that the principal
motivation for annexation is to allow the City to collect property tax revenue, and the City Attorney suggested that any future capacity concerns could be addressed through impact and capacity fees. Hoping to expand the City’s tax base is not a valid legal basis to force an annexation against a landowner’s consent. And, practically speaking, the City is asking Basic
American to pay City taxes for services that Basic American has no expectation to receive.
V. Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, Basic American respectfully requests that the Planning and Zoning Commission deny the proposed annexation in File No. 26-00321. The proposed annexation is not only unlawful; it is contrary to the basic good-faith business dealings that Basic American has
August 19, 2026
Page 6
153844398.2 0060174-00043
come to expect from the City of Rexburg. Basic American has been a longstanding economic partner in this community, providing jobs, investment, and revenue that benefit the residents of Rexburg. Businesses should be able to rely on the City’s representations and expect that
annexation decisions will be made in accordance with both the letter and spirit of Idaho law. To
approve this application despite the defects identified above and the City’s prior commitments to Basic American would send the opposite message. The Commission should deny the application and ensure that any future annexation proposal is pursued through a lawful and transparent process.
Representatives of Basic American and this office plan to appear at the August 20, 2026 hearing.
Please do not hesitate to reach out if we can provide additional information to support the Commission’s review.
Respectfully submitted,
Rachel S. Aramburu