Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLID Committee Minutes - August 6, 2026 1 (208) 359-3020 35 North 1st East Rexburg, ID 83440 Rexburg.org | Engage.Rexburg.org Local Improvement District (LID) Advisory Committee Minutes - August 6, 2026 Committee Members: Kristi Thompson Tracy Wynn Nathan Blumenberg Glen Crawford Bart Stevens City Staff: Keith Davidson – Public Works Director Joel Gray – City Engineer Faron Young – Asset Management Matt Nielson – Finance Officer Noah Phethean – Staff Accountant Marianna Gonzalez – Deputy City Clerk 5:00 P.M. City Hall Roll Call of City Council Liaisons: Council Member Johnson and Council Member Tietjen Roll Call of Committee Members: Tracy Wynn, Kristi Thompson and Bart Stevens 1. LID Funding Proposed Presentation to the City Council: Public Works Director Davidson reviewed the Power Point presentation that will be presented to the City Council. 2 The committee discussed several options for obtaining additional funding while considering the financial impact on residents and property owners. These options included a permanent levy override, petitioning the State for an increase in the gas tax, pursuing a local sales tax, and increasing the allocation for street construction through the City’s budget process. Increasing the budget allocation is considered difficult because all city departments compete for the same general fund resources. Public Works Director Davidson explained the committee also discussed several sidewalk replacement options during previous meetings. These included establishing an annual budget item specifically for sidewalk replacement, like an approach used by the City of Caldwell; focusing code enforcement efforts on sidewalks with significant issues; and increasing the city’s participation in sidewalk replacement costs through a cost-sharing arrangement, such as a 70/30 split. After considering the different alternatives, the committee narrowed its focus to a permanent levy override. The committee discussed whether to conduct a public survey but questioned whether the expense would be worthwhile. Because a permanent levy override would require a supermajority vote, the committee considered which approach would have the best chance of receiving voter approval. Public Works Director Davidson reviewed the Permanent Override Example/Analysis. The levy is estimated at $10 per $100,000 of assessed property value. A $400,000 home would pay approximately $40 per year. The levy could increase by up to 3% annually to help account for inflation an d rising construction costs. Levy revenue would be placed in a dedicated fund specifically for sidewalk replacement. Unused funds would be carried over: Sidewalk costs would vary from year to year. Any unused funds could be saved for future years with larger or more 3 expensive projects. The levy is expected to generate approximately $230,000 per year for sidewalk replacement. If sidewalk costs exceeded available levy funding, additional expenses could come from the street budget, potentially reducing the amount of street work completed. The proposed amount was based on historical sidewalk replacement costs, including the property owner’s typical share and the City’s ADA -related costs. The proposed levy is intentionally kept as low as possible and is designed to fund sidewalk replacement rather than additional street projects. Committee Members emphasized clearly explaining that annual expenditures might be higher or lower than the amount collected because funds could be carried forward to address future nee ds. They discussed how the financial impact will vary depending on property values. While the cost to an average homeowner will be relatively modest, properties with significantly higher assessed values, such as large apartment complexes and commercial properties, will pay a larger share of the levy rate. It was noted that these properties will have concerns about the proposal because their contribution will be disproportionately higher than that of an average homeowner, even though some larger properties have more sidewalk frontage. The committee also clarified that the proposed funding would apply to sidewalk replacement rather than the initial installation of sidewalks. Property owners without an existing sidewalk will still have to pay the levy but will not directly benefit from the replacement program until a sidewalk is installed. New sidewalk installation is required when certain improvements occur or when a property is sold, depending on the circumstances. Public Works Director Davidson clarified that sewer line costs are not included in the proposed sidewalk funding. Property owners will remain responsible for applicable sewer line costs from their homes to the location of the sewer main. Discussion regarding costs associated with sewer line work and noted that the location of the sewer main could vary, including being located on the same side of the street, near the middle of the street, or across the street. Recent sewer work completed as part of a construction project has cost approximately $3,500, while similar work completed independently of a larger construction project could have been substantially more expensive. The committee also discussed how tax-exempt properties will be treated under the proposed levy override. Because tax-exempt entities will not be contributing to the levy, they would not have been eligible to receive sidewalk replacement funding from the dedicated fund. This could have included properties owned by entities such as schools or counties. Those entities would have remained responsible for their sidewalk replacement costs, while the city would have continued covering curb and gutter costs under its existing practices. 4 Public Works Director Davidson explained the proposed structure would have placed the levy revenue collected from property owners into a dedicated sidewalk replacement fund. Funding would have been used as sidewalk replacement needs arose, and any unused balance will be carried forward for future projects. The committee emphasized the importance of clearly communicating that the revenue will be restricted to sidewalk replacement and will not serve as a general-purpose or discretionary city fund. Committee Members also reviewed the broader financial reasons for considering the permanent levy override. Based on the previous five-year average and projected spending over the next five years, the city’s available street reconstruction funding has resulted in an estimated 60- to 75-year replacement cycle for streets. The committee considered that cycle inadequate and identified additional dedicated funding as one way to reduce pressure on existing street resources. Public Works Director Davidson said the street operating revenues have also decreased over time, and a downward trend is expected to continue. Public Works Director Davidson noted that County Road and Bridge funding appears to have stabilized, so that revenue source is not expected to continue declining at the same rate. However, future City budget is still expected to remain tight based on current f inancial projections. Public Works Director Davidson clarified that the permanent levy override will not prevent the city from pursuing other funding options in the future. The city can still petition for changes such as a local sales tax or an increase in the State gas tax. The permanent levy override is simply the option the committee is considering moving forward currently. The committee also discussed the City’s street replacement cycle. An approximately 20 -year cycle was described as optimal, while the city is operating closer to a 50-year cycle. It was noted that many communities throughout the state faced similar funding challenges and that adequately funding street maintenance is a widespread concern among public works departments. Local Improvement Districts, or LIDs, were also discussed as a funding mechanism. Although LIDs can be difficult to implement and are not necessarily preferred by either city staff or the City Council, they remain necessary because the city does not have sufficient funding to eliminate them entirely. 5 Council Member Johnson requested that additional slides be prepared for the City Council, showing the 70/30 cost-sharing arrangement. Committee Member Stevens expressed concern about the city paying 100% of sidewalk replacement costs. Committee Member Stevens asked about combining the permanent levy override with a cost-sharing requirement for sidewalk replacement. Under that approach, the city can continue paying for curb and gutter, consistent with its existing practice, while property owners contributed a portion of sidewalk replacement costs. He suggested that such an approach could make the program more equitable and allow for more funding to complete more projects. Committee Member Stevens asked the committee members to consider how a 100% City-funded sidewalk replacement program might be perceived by property owners who have recently installed new sidewalks or whose properties are unlikely to require replacement for many years. There is concern that those property owners, as well as higher-value commercial properties, will have contributed to the levy while older neighborhoods received the most immediate benefit. A cost-sharing component is one possible way to make the proposal more equitable and more acceptable to a broader range of property owners. Continued discussion regarding combining permanent levy override with a cost-sharing program. Committee Member Stevens suggested that this approach could provide additional funding while helping the city keep pace with sidewalk replacement needs as the community continues to grow. He expressed concerns that a program in which the city paid 100% of sidewalk replacement costs could eventually become financially unsustainable . A cost- sharing arrangement could be more equitable because replacing a deteriorated sidewalk could directly benefit the adjoining property owner and potentially improve the property. For example, rather than requiring a homeowner to pay the full cost of a $10,000 sidewalk replacement, the city could have paid a substantial portion while the homeowner contributed a smaller, more manageable amount. Discussion clarified that an earlier 70/30 cost-sharing concept had originally been discussed as an alternative to the permanent levy override, with the city paying approximately 30% and the property owner paying approximately 70%, in addition to the city continuing to cover curb and gutter costs. Continued discussion toward potentially combining the levy override with some form of cost sharing, with the exact percentage left open for 6 further consideration. Committee Members noted that combining the two approaches could have stretched the dedicated levy funding further and allow ing the city to complete additional sidewalk replacement work. The Committee Members discussed the potential benefit of requiring property owners to retain some financial responsibility for sidewalk replacement. Committee Members noted that if the levy paid 100% of replacement costs, residents might have expected their sidewalks to be repaired simply because they are paying the levy, even though their property might not have been scheduled for replacement for many years. Maintaining a property - owner’s contribution is viewed as one way to manage those expectations. A cost-sharing arrangement was also considered more equitable for residents who had previously paid substantial amounts through an LID. Under earlier LIDs, property owners had sometimes been responsible for 100% of curb, gutter, and sidewalk costs, resulting in assessments that could have reached approximately $30,000 for an individual property. Committee Members believed that requiring some contribution from current property owners could have made the new proposal more acceptable to those who had already paid significant improvement costs. The Committee Members discussed several possible cost-sharing percentages, including 50/50 and 70/30. One possibility is to reduce the proposed levy amount if the city were responsible for only a portion of sidewalk replacement costs. However, another proposal was to maintain the levy at approximately $10 per $100,000 of assessed value while also requiring a property-owner contribution. Under that approach, the additional property - owner payments will extend the available funding and potentially allow more sidewalk work to be completed. The Committee Members identified several options that could be presented to the City Council. These included: 1. the permanent levy override by itself; 2. a 70/30 cost-sharing program without the levy, with the City paying 30% and the property owner paying 70%; 3. a combination of the permanent levy override and cost sharing, potentially with the City paying 70% and the property owner paying 30%. The exact percentage for the combined option remained open for further evaluation, with members noting that voter acceptance should be an important consideration. 4. The Committee Members also discussed presenting the approach used by Caldwell as an additional option. Under that concept, sidewalk replacement funding is set aside separately rather than necessarily tying all sidewalk work directly on street reconstruction projects. Although this approach requires additional city funding that otherwise would be available for streets, members believed it is still important for the City Council to understand the alternative. Committee Members clarified that sidewalks will not be replaced unnecessarily. Existing sidewalk sections will be evaluated according to established replacement criteria, and only sections meeting those criteria will be replaced. ADA requirements will also be considered because a sidewalk could have appeared to be in good physical condition while still failing accessibility standards, such as requirements related to cross slope. Committee Members questioned how the levy program will affect property owners who have already paid an existing LID assessment when a permanent levy override is to take effect. Members recognized that those property owners could feel like they are paying twice—once for improvements already assessed through the LID and again through the new levy. The potential 70/30 cost-sharing option and the effect it will have on the existing street fund. Public Works Director Davidson noted that significant infrastructure projects already place demands on available street funding, which limit the amount available for sidewalk cost sharing. The committee agreed that the City Council should be presented with the four options previously discussed so that they understand the full range of alternatives. Council Member Johnson particularly wanted the City Council to understand that sidewalk replacement did not necessarily have to be tied to street reconstruction projects. Separating sidewalk replacement from street projects was identified as a policy option for the City Council to consider rather than an absolute requirement. Public Works Director Davidson noted ADA-related requirements are still in effect when certain sidewalk improvements are necessary. Public Works Director Davidson explained the potential changes associated with the federal Public Right-of- Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG) and how those requirements could affect future sidewalk projects. One concern is that future accessibility requirements could require additional portions of existing sidewalks and 7 driveways to be brought into ADA compliance when street work is being completed. Historically, ADA improvements associated with street reconstruction focused primarily on bringing intersections and corners into compliance. He noted that the possibility that future requirements could expand the amount of sidewalk that would need to be addressed when street projects occurred. Public Works Director Davidson mentioned that the (PROWAG) uncertainty could affect the cost and scope of future sidewalk projects and should be considered when evaluating the city’s funding options. He emphasized that accessibility requirements continued to evolve, making it important for the city to monitor federal standards and determine their applicability before establishing a final program. Discussion regarding ADA requirements related to sidewalk cross slopes, particularly where sidewalks crossed residential driveways. It was explained that the allowable cross slope is approximately 2%. Many existing driveway approaches, especially where sidewalks are located directly adjacent to the curb, had substantially greater slopes. Those conditions could create significant accessibility difficulties for individuals using wheelchairs and could require modification when applicable ADA improvements are completed. Discussion potential ADA requirements and acknowledged concerns about how expanded accessibility standards can affect residential properties. Significant changes to residential sidewalk requirements could create substantial costs and potentially require additional funding. Council Member Tietjen recommended having a spreadsheet available during the City Council presentation so different scenarios could be calculated in response to questions. For example, if Councilmembers want to know the effect of increasing the levy from $10 to $20 per $100,000 of assessed value or changing the cost -sharing percentage, city staff can calculate the resulting revenue and property-owner impact during the discussion. Committee Members believe it is useful for the City Council to understand all the options the committee has considered. At the same time, most of the committee appeared to support retaining some level of property-owner contribution so residents would have some financial participatio n in sidewalk replacement. Committee Members also emphasized that any 70/30 scenarios should be clearly identified whether the city or the property owner is responsible for the 70% share to avoid confusion. Discussion regarding the City Council Meeting date to present the proposed LID Funding options to the City Council, they determined that the first meeting in September would work. Adjournment: 5:42 P.M.