Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil Minutes - September 2, 2026 (208) 359-3020 35 North 1st East Rexburg, ID 83440 Rexburg.org | Engage.Rexburg.org City Council Minutes – September 2, 2026 Mayor Jerry Merrill Council Members: Bryanna Johnson David Reeser Colin Erickson Bill Riggins Eric Erickson Alisha Tietjen 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 5:00 P.M. Combined Madison County Commissioner/Rexburg City Council Work Meeting – Mayor Merrill said he asked City Attorney Rammell to review proper meeting procedures training before the meeting began. City Attorney Rammell explained that maintaining order and decorum during City Council meetings is important because it demonstrates professionalism and organization. He also noted that following proper procedures assisted staff with preparing accurate meeting minutes. By clearly identifying speakers before they speak makes it easier for city staff and AI-assisted transcription programs to determine who is speaking. City Attorney Rammell explained that, under Idaho Code, the mayor is the presiding Officer over the City Council meetings and establishes the order of business subject to rules prescribed by state code. He emphasized that the councilmembers should be recognized by the presiding officer before speaking. For example, a councilmember with a question should first address the mayor and request recognition. The mayor could then identify the councilmember before allowing them to proceed. City Attorney Rammell explained that this procedure provides greater clarity in the official record and reduces the amount of time staff spends manually identifying speakers while preparing minutes. He said individuals participating in City Council meetings provided "comment" rather than "testimony." Testimony generally involves individuals being sworn under oath, which is not the City's practice. Therefore, references should be made to public comment, Council comment, or Council deliberation rather than public testimony. City Attorney Rammell stated that the City Council Handbook contained rules of procedure and indicated that a few provisions need to be updated. He said City Clerk Lovejoy would distribute the applicable section to council members as a refresher. The procedures addressed matters such as the order of debate, including allowing the maker of a motion to speak first and giving priority to members who have not yet spoken. He explained that these procedures helped the presiding officer maintain balance and prevent one individual from dominating the discussion. City Attorney Rammell also asked councilmembers not to entertain comments or questions called out from the audience. He explained that this concern occurred more frequently during Planning and Zoning public hearings and could create confusion and make it difficult to maintain an accurate official record. He emphasized that maintaining a clear record is important if a governing body's decision later became subject to litigation. City Attorney Rammell said individuals wishing to speak should come forward, provide their name and address, and present their question or comment through the appropriate process. Once a public hearing is closed, additional public comments should not be accepted as part of the hearing. He noted that staff remained willing to meet with individuals afterward to address questions or concerns. City Attorney Rammell summarized three primary expectations for meeting procedures: councilmembers should be recognized by the mayor or presiding officer before speaking; participants should refer to statements from the public as comments rather than testimony; and comments or questions called out from the audience should not be entertained. ** Motion to Amend the Agenda as per Idaho State Statute §74-204(4)(b): Amendment to add Item 1D. C.E.R.T. Support Action Item Council President E. Erickson moved to Amend the Agenda as per Idaho State Statute §74-204(4)(b): to add Item 1D. C.E.R.T. Support; Council Member Riggins 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 Council President E. Erickson The motion carried. Review of the West Highway Urban Renewal District Plan Megan Conrad said she is an attorney with Elam & Burke in Boise who serves as legal counsel for the Urban Renewal Agency. She explained that she drafted the proposed Urban Renewal Plan for the West Highway District. The plan remains in draft form. She explained that the purpose of reviewing the plan at this stage is to identify and address questions or concerns before beginning the formal plan approval process and public meetings. Addressing substantive changes early in the process will make the subsequent approval process more efficient. Ms. Conrad noted that the Councilmembers and Commissioners might have received drafts containing comments or other preliminary information. She stated that additional revisions are expected as the boundaries of the revenue allocation area and the scope of proposed projects are finalized. The plan narrative will also be updated to accurately reflect the economic feasibility study, identified projects, and information regarding existing conditions from the eligibility study adopted in 2025. Ms. Conrad stated that although additional revisions are anticipated, the overall substance, framework, scope, and purpose of the proposed plan have been substantially developed. The meeting provides an opportunity for the City Council and County Commissioners to provide feedback and ask questions before the formal approval process begins. She explained that the goal is to complete the required process and bring the plan before the City Council for consideration through an ordinance, with the proposed district established on or before December 31, 2026.  Ms. Conrad reviewed a map of the proposed project area, which is overlaid on the city's zoning map. The proposed district currently encompasses approximately 840 acres and includes a variety of existing land uses. The project area is generally bounded by 1000 South to the south, U.S. Highway 20 to the east, 3000 West to the west, and 2000 North to the north. Land uses within the proposed district included mixed-use, residential developments of varying densities, public uses, and commercial properties. Most parcels within the proposed project area are located within the city limits or the City's Area of Impact. However, a few parcels are located within the unincorporated county that are outside the Area of City Impact. Ms. Conrad explained that the proposed boundaries are nearing completion but could still be adjusted. She noted that any anticipated boundary changes are not expected to affect the projects currently identified for the district. Ms. Conrad also introduced Brad Kramer with Perspective Planning and Consulting, who served as a consultant to the Urban Renewal Agency. She explained that Mr. Kramer will present a portion of the presentation related to the economic feasibility study and proposed projects. She reiterated that any anticipated changes to the parcels included within the proposed district are not expected to significantly affect projected revenue generation or the projects identified in the plan. She stated that these potential impacts will continue to be monitored as the district boundaries are finalized. Ms. Conrad reviewed the urban renewal process completed to date. She explained that urban renewal planning generally occurs in two phases, with the first phase focused on determining eligibility. During the eligibility phase, an independent consultant evaluated existing conditions within the proposed project area to determine whether the statutory requirements for establishing an urban renewal project were met. The Urban Renewal Agency retained Perspective Planning and Consulting to prepare the West Highway District Eligibility Report. The Agency Board reviewed the report and accepted it by resolution on October 15, 2025. Because some parcels within the proposed district are located outside the city's corporate boundaries, the Madison County Commissioners were also required to review the eligibility study and confirm the required findings. The County Commissioners completed their review on October 27, 2025. The eligibility study was then presented to the City Council on November 18, 2025. At that meeting, the City Council adopted a resolution making the required findings and directing the Urban Renewal Agency to prepare an Urban Renewal Plan for the proposed district.  Ms. Conrad said since that time, efforts had primarily focused on identifying the projects that would be undertaken during the life of the plan. Due to changes in state statute, greater specificity is required when identifying projects at the beginning of the planning process. The project identification process was conducted thoughtfully and included coordination with both the city and county to ensure the proposed projects are appropriate and support the goals of the plan. Ms. Conrad explained that statutory requirements applied to properties classified as agricultural operations. Any parcel that received an agricultural exemption within the previous three years requires the property owner's consent before it can be included in the district. If the property owner did not provide consent, the agricultural property would be excluded from the revenue allocation area. The consent process is a lengthy and involved identifying properties classified as agricultural operations, meeting with property owners, and providing them with the necessary information to make informed decisions regarding whether to consent to inclusion in the district. These efforts are part of the planning process that followed completion of the eligibility phase. Ms. Conrad reviewed the slide below and explained that the project entered the plan approval process phase. The next steps, which represent the more public-facing portion of the approval process. At the agency's meeting the previous week, the Agency Board reviewed the draft plan to confirm that it is moving in the appropriate direction and to prepare for the current meeting. Following the meeting and consideration of the feedback received, the goal is to present a final plan to the Agency Board on September 16 for consideration and approval. If approved by resolution, the plan will be forwarded to the Mayor and City Clerk for processing by the city and transmitted to the Madison County Commissioners for the necessary county review and approval process.   Ms. Conrad explained that parcels located within the City's Area of Impact will be coordinated with City Planning and Zoning Board as development occurred. However, several identified parcels are located outside the Area of Impact within unincorporated Madison County. Those parcels require review by Madison County Planning and Zoning Board to determine whether the proposed plan is consistent with the County's Comprehensive Plan. The review of that plan by the City and County Planning and Zoning Boards will not be public hearings but will instead be regular agenda items. The review will be limited to determining whether the proposed plan conformed with the applicable Comprehensive Plan. Typically, the determination will be documented through a resolution supported by a staff report confirming consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. Because the proposed area included County parcels, Madison County will also be asked to consider an intergovernmental agreement between the city and county, as well as a transfer of powers ordinance. The County Commissioners are tentatively scheduled to consider the plan, intergovernmental agreement, and transfer of powers ordinance around September 28. Following the Planning and Zoning review, the plan will proceed to a City Council public hearing. At least 30 days before the hearing, a notice will be published in the newspaper informing the public of the upcoming hearing. The plan, agency resolution, public hearing notice, final map and legal description, and other available information will also be transmitted to the overlapping taxing districts for review. A second public hearing notice will subsequently be published. The City Council public hearing is anticipated to be held on November 18. Following the public hearing, the city will proceed through its ordinance approval process. Ms. Conrad reviewed the overlapping taxing districts associated with the proposed revenue allocation area. The first slide identified the taxing districts applicable to parcels located within the city. She noted that portions of the proposed district overlapped the Rexburg Cemetery District, while other portions overlapped the Burton Cemetery District. For purposes of projecting revenue generation, the Rexburg Cemetery District levy rate was used because it applied to a greater number of affected parcels. The smaller Burton Cemetery District levy rate was not used in the projection; however, the Burton Cemetery District would still receive notice as an overlapping taxing district during the approval process. Ms. Conrad explained that Idaho Code § 50-2908 specifically identified which levies could generate revenue for an urban renewal revenue allocation area. Voter-approved levies and bonds had already been excluded from the total levy rates used in the projections. Any voter-approved bonds established during the life of the district would also not generate revenue for the Agency. There are statutory changes affecting the ambulance and fire districts. For new plans, those districts are required to consent by resolution before their levies can be included in the revenue allocation area. Inclusion is no longer automatic. To maintain a conservative revenue projection, the model assumed that consent will not be requested from the ambulance district. Therefore, no revenue from the ambulance district levy rate is included in the projections. For the school district, the tort levy is the only levy that could generate revenue for the Agency. The tort levy is relatively small and if no tort levy is imposed, no school district levy revenue will be generated for the Agency.   Ms. Conrad reviewed the taxing districts that overlapped many of the county parcels. The districts are like those associated with the city parcels, with some differences, including the fire district. Consistent with the previous discussion, the revenue model assumed that no revenue will be generated from the fire district levy, which was reflected as zero in the projections. From a legal perspective, she explained that Idaho Code § 50-2905 identified the information required to be included in an urban renewal plan. Legislative changes also required that this information be provided with greater specificity. The plan addressed eight statutory factors and identified where the supporting information can be found within the plan or its attachments. Ms. Conrad explained that the economic feasibility study, identified as Attachment 5, is a primary component of the revenue allocation area. The study identified the proposed projects, projected revenue generation, and anticipated cash flow to demonstrate the overall feasibility of the plan. The first statutory factor addressed the total assessed valuation of the base assessment roll for the revenue allocation area compared with the total assessed valuation of taxable property within the municipality. This requirement was referred to as the "10% test." The combined base assessment roll of all existing revenue allocation areas could not exceed 10% of the city's total taxable value. Because the proposed area included both city and county parcels, the analysis conservatively used the City's total taxable value because it represented the smaller value. The second factor required a statement identifying the type, number, and location of proposed public works or improvements. This information is included in Attachment 5 and Section 301 of the plan narrative. Section 301 remained under review to ensure that its narrative accurately reflected the intent and purpose of the projects identified in the economic feasibility study. The detailed estimated project costs are also provided in Attachment 5. The fiscal impact statement addressed the effect of the revenue allocation area on overlapping taxing districts before and after repayment of any bonds. This information is included in Section 502.8 of the plan and in the economic feasibility study. The primary impact on overlapping taxing districts involved a deferred benefit from increases in taxable value occurring within the revenue allocation area. Growth within the area would not be available to increase the taxing districts' budget capacity from new construction until the revenue allocation area terminated. Upon termination, 80% of the increment value would flow to the new construction roll for purposes of increasing budget capacity. Ms. Conrad also reviewed the methods available to finance project costs. These included a pay-as-you-go approach in which funds are accumulated over time, advance funding by developers, property owners, or other public or private third parties with reimbursement by the Agency for eligible projects under a reimbursement agreement, and the issuance of Agency debt to advance projects. Any bond issuance would be required to satisfy applicable lender and financial requirements. All these financing methods were contemplated within the plan. The plan's duration was established at 20 years. If the plan is established by the end of the year, the termination date will be December 31, 2046, with the agency eligible to receive its final year of revenue in 2047. The termination provisions are addressed in Section 800 of the plan. She further explained that any assets owned or retained by the agency at termination can be conveyed as provided in Section 800. The agency can also retain assets after termination if funding sources other than revenue allocation proceeds are available to support those assets.  Ms. Conrad reviewed the 10% test included in the plan document. The calculation used 2025 data because the 2026 values were not fully confirmed when the plan was prepared. The base values of the city's existing revenue allocation areas totaled approximately $115 million. Ten percent of the city's total taxable value is approximately $273 million. The existing revenue allocation areas therefore represent approximately 4.2% of the city's total taxable value, which is well below the statutory 10% threshold. The city is expected to remain below the threshold even with potential increases in property values for 2026. She then turned the presentation over to Mr. Kramer to review the Economic Feasibility Study.  Brad Kramer with Perspective Planning Consulting presented an overview of the Economic Feasibility Study he prepared. He explained that the purpose of the study was to determine whether tax increment revenue generated from anticipated private investment would be sufficient to cover the costs of proposed public improvements and other eligible projects within the revenue allocation area. He said he evaluated vacant properties within the proposed area and worked with the city to estimate anticipated development, future property values, and growth over the life of the district as part of the study. The analysis also considered historical levy rates, changes in property valuations, proposed public projects, and estimated project costs. Mr. Kramer reported that the proposed revenue allocation area is economically feasible. Projected tax increment revenues are anticipated to fund at least the priority projects, as well as many of the additional projects identified within the district. The study evaluated several development scenarios to account for uncertainty in future economic conditions, construction costs, and market demand. Although the city initially anticipated a 10-year buildout of the vacant properties, a more conservative analysis was conducted because the Agency anticipated issuing a bond to fund some of the public infrastructure. The study evaluated 10-year, 12-year, 15-year, and 20-year buildout scenarios to determine how slower development could affect bond repayment, revenues, and expenditures.  Mr. Kramer explained that projected revenues under the various development scenarios ranged from approximately $43.5 million to $68.5 million over the 20-year life of the district. The projections were based on historical data and assumptions outlined in the economic feasibility study. The city had identified several priority projects, including specific intersection improvements, roadway widening, and a lift station. The estimated cost of the priority projects totaled approximately $27.3 million. Under each of the revenue scenarios evaluated, sufficient revenue is anticipated to fund those priority projects. The study also included additional non-priority projects that the Agency could undertake if sufficient funding became available. These projects were identified more generally to provide flexibility and comply with statutory requirements regarding potential projects. Estimated placeholder costs for the additional projects total approximately $24.2 million, bringing the estimated cost of all identified projects to approximately $51.5 million. Under the more conservative 20-year buildout scenario, sufficient revenue might not be available to complete every non-priority project. However, the projected revenue was expected to fund all priority projects and provide sufficient cash flow to service the anticipated bond.   Mr. Kramer concluded that the projected cash flow supported the economic feasibility of the proposed revenue allocation area and offered to provide additional detail or answer questions regarding the financial analysis. County Commissioner Smith asked whether the agency anticipated bonding for the entire $27.3 million in priority projects or for a smaller amount. Mr. Kramer clarified that the economic feasibility model assumed a bond of approximately $6 million rather than bonding for the full cost of the priority projects. The remaining project costs are anticipated to be funded through revenue generated over the life of the district. The bond is intended to provide initial funding to begin priority projects without waiting for sufficient revenue to accumulate. Council Member Johnson asked for clarification regarding the proposed bond and whether the city or agency has used similar financing for other urban renewal districts. Mayor Merrill explained that bonding has been used previously, including within the urban renewal district near Walmart. Bonds provided upfront funding needed to begin infrastructure improvements rather than waiting for revenue to accumulate over time. He explained that requiring individual businesses or developers to pay the entire cost of infrastructure that benefited a broader area could discourage development because of the significant additional expense. Bond financing allowed infrastructure costs that benefited the overall district to be funded more broadly. Mayor Merrill also clarified that the proposed bond would not be a general obligation bond and would not require an election. Instead, the agency will issue the bond to an interested purchaser and repay the obligation through available revenue. Mayor Merrill addressed concerns that cities and counties could lose tax revenue for the entire 20-year life of an urban renewal district. Although a district could remain in place for 20 years, development and major projects did not typically occur immediately after the district was established. In many cases, significant development occurred during the middle or later years of the district. He referenced the downtown urban renewal district as an example, noting that efforts are underway to complete a major project before the district terminated. Because the project will occur near the end of the district's life, the increased taxable value generated by the project will remain within the revenue allocation area for only a short period before becoming available to the overlapping taxing districts. The actual period during which taxing districts experienced a deferred benefit from new development is often considerably less than 20 years. Depending on when development occurs, the period can be approximately six, eight, ten, or sometimes 15 to 16 years. Larger projects often occur during the middle or later years of an urban renewal district. Ms. Conrad provided a final update regarding agricultural property consents and explained that the remaining consents would determine the final boundaries of the proposed revenue allocation area. They will continue to pursue the remaining agricultural property owner’s consents, and any parcels for which consent is not obtained will be removed from the final map. Ms. Conrad said the proposed plan is subject to statutory provisions applicable to plans established after July 1, 2016, including the base reset provisions. If the City Council subsequently approved certain modifications to the plan by ordinance, the base value could reset to the district's current equalized assessed value. Such a reset could significantly reduce or eliminate the district's revenue stream. Ms. Conrad noted that statutory exceptions existed for actions that were not considered plan modifications for purposes of the base reset. These included a one-time plan amendment to add area, de-annexations, ministerial amendments, and certain expansions of existing commercial or industrial projects. She added that the agency's annual budgeting relied on assumptions regarding levy rates and projected revenues. Actual levy rates and revenues could fluctuate from year to year, requiring some flexibility in the Agency's budget and project schedule. Council President E. Erickson asked for clarification regarding the base reset provisions and whether modifications made during the 20-year life of the plan could cause the base value to reset to the current assessed valuation. Ms. Conrad confirmed that a plan amendment formally processed and approved by City Council ordinance could trigger a base reset unless the amendment qualified under one of the statutory exceptions. Council President E. Erickson asked whether this significantly limited the ability to expand the district in the future. Ms. Conrad explained that one exception allowed a one-time amendment to add property totaling up to 10% of the existing revenue allocation area's acreage without triggering a base reset. For example, if the district remained approximately 840 acres, the boundary could be expanded one-time by up to approximately 84 acres. This one-time expansion would fall within the statutory exception and would not trigger a base reset. However, a second amendment to add additional area could trigger a base reset. Commissioner Mendenhall asked for clarification regarding the transfer of powers ordinance and the intergovernmental agreement. Ms. Conrad explained that the transfer of powers ordinance generally acknowledged that tax increment revenue generated from county parcels within the revenue allocation area will be allocated to the Urban Renewal Agency for implementation of the plan. The intergovernmental agreement similarly recognized the multi-jurisdictional nature of the plan and established an understanding between the city and county regarding administration of the revenue allocation area. The Agency Board will administer the plan, and increment revenue will flow to the agency and be used in accordance with the approved plan. She noted that these requirements are addressed in Idaho Code § 50-2906. Commissioner Smith clarified that the transfer of powers and intergovernmental agreement related to the allocation of revenue and did not transfer land use or zoning authority. Ms. Conrad confirmed that the revenue allocation area will not change existing land use, zoning, permitting, or development requirements. Property owners will continue to follow the applicable jurisdiction's standard permitting, design, and development processes. Agricultural property will also continue to be valued as agricultural property until its use or classification changed. She further clarified that inclusion within a revenue allocation area did not, by itself, increase a property owner's taxes. Commissioner Mendenhall asked whether including county properties, particularly those outside or near the City's Area of Impact, within the revenue allocation area could make future city annexation easier. Ms. Conrad explained that the revenue allocation area has no effect on the city's authority or process for annexing property. Annexation remained governed by separate statutory requirements, and inclusion within the revenue allocation area neither facilitated nor altered that process. Scott Miller provided additional context regarding the location of the county properties on the proposed revenue allocation area map. He identified Highway 33 and noted that five County parcels are located outside the City's Area of Impact. Council Member Johnson asked whether approval of the revenue allocation area will transfer authority for determining the timing of identified projects from the City Council to the Urban Renewal Agency. She referenced the proposed widening of 12th West as an example and asked whether the Agency would independently determine when the project moved forward. Finance Controller Miller explained that projects involving city infrastructure, such as city streets, would continue to require city involvement. The Urban Renewal Agency can provide financial support for those projects but will not assume control of city assets or independently execute improvements to city infrastructure. Other types of projects that did not involve city infrastructure or assets could potentially proceed without the same level of city involvement. Finance Officer Nielson further explained that, historically, these projects have generally been incorporated into the city's budget and engineered by City staff. The Urban Renewal Agency then reimbursed the city for its proportionate share of eligible project costs. She noted that larger infrastructure projects typically involved multiple funding sources, which could include City, federal, and Urban Renewal Agency funds. As a result, the participating entities would need to coordinate project timing and include their respective funding commitments within their budgets. Ms. Conrad reminded the commissioners and councilmembers that the North Central Urban Renewal Area also had a transfer of powers and an intergovernmental agreement. The first section of the transfer of powers ordinance reaffirmed several findings, including that the adjusted base values of the revenue allocation areas within the City did not exceed the 10% limitation, the project was financially feasible, the necessary consents had been obtained, and the City of Rexburg had the authority to proceed with creation of the area. Ms. Conrad emphasized that an important finding is that revenue allocation proceeds generated from areas located within the unincorporated area are required to be used for the statutory purposes identified in the plan and applicable law. The transfer of powers acknowledged the authority to establish the plan and allowed tax increment revenues to flow to the Urban Renewal Agency for implementation of the plan. She clarified that the transfer of powers did not necessarily determine the timing of individual development projects. Project timelines are generally determined as circumstances arose, although opportunities to advance projects or partner in funding can affect their timing. Review America250 Event – Matt Nielson Finance Officer Nielson reviewed the financial report including all events associated with the Independence Day celebration, not just the concert. The report is organized by category and identified expenses, revenues, and the overall net total. The largest expense is $195,000 for the concert artist. He highlighted approximately $70,500 in contributions from local businesses and community partners, which helped reduce the city’s subsidy. Some contributions are designated specifically for the drone show or fireworks, while others could be used wherever needed. The drone show cost approximately $35,000, with a $2,500 grant received to offset the expense. Fireworks totaled approximately $30,000, including about $5,000 for the concert and $25,000 for displays at two other locations the following night. The city also purchased a flag display that was placed at Porter Park for several days and could be reused for future events. Concert insurance cost approximately $9,400, and marketing expenses totaled approximately $18,500. Marketing included social media, banners, electronic billboards, Google advertising, radio, and other promotional efforts. Parking, security, and limited staff expenses totaled approximately $10,000. Finance Officer Nielson clarified that the reported staff expenses included only a minimal number of part-time wages. Approximately 99% of the labor provided by city staff is not reflected in the report because the figures represented direct revenues and expenses. He noted that significant time and effort had been contributed by city personnel, the school district, and the county. Ticket sales generated approximately $200,000 in revenue, net of sales tax. Approximately 5,339 tickets were sold, while total concert attendance was estimated at nearly 6,000 people because hundreds of additional tickets had been distributed through radio promotions and other giveaways. Finance Officer Nielson reported that more than 100 volunteers, numerous city employees, and public safety personnel assisted with the Independence Day events. He noted that much of this contributed labor was not included in the financial report. Finance Officer Nielson estimated the total subsidy for the events at approximately $98,600, although additional invoices were still being received. Madison County’s half of the subsidy was approximately $49,300. The county contributed $50,000 toward the event. The city budgeted approximately $48,600 for its share of the subsidy, and the final amount was expected to be close to the budgeted amount. Although staff had hoped for a smaller subsidy, Finance Officer Nielson stated that the event was successful but required a significant amount of effort. County Commissioner Smith expressed appreciation for the report and commented positively on the event. Mayor Merrill noted that ticket sales may have been affected by the timing of the concert on the Friday evening before Independence Day. Because the holiday created a long weekend, a significant number of college students had left the area. He believes that attendance and ticket sales could have been substantially higher if more students remained in the town for the holiday.  Discussion regarding parking at Nature Park County Commissioner Smith explained access to the lower portion of the County fairgrounds property. County staff placed rocks along the property to restrict vehicle access while leaving the west side open for city park parking and access to the city shop. He said the parking area was closed approximately a year earlier because of ongoing vandalism and damage caused by vehicles. Individuals had driven through a former mud hole and damaged the parking lot. In response, the county restricted access by installing fencing and placing rocks around the area. County Commissioners Smith noted that neighboring residents used the property for access for many years and expressed concerns after the county closed it. There is no legal easement allowing neighboring property owners to cross the county property. The property will eventually be sold to a private developer. Discussion regarding an existing easement along the back of the adjacent city park. A neighboring resident occasionally moves the rocks with a skid loader to provide access for neighboring residents. However, it was clarified that while easements existed along portions of the park, there is no corresponding legal access across the county property. The situation is difficult because neighboring residents have historically used the area and may have assumed they have a right to continue doing so. The discussion continued regarding neighboring residents’ access through the county fairgrounds property. County Commissioner Mendenhall noted that some residents have gates along their back fences and have historically used the area to access stored recreational vehicles. Some residents may also have been told when purchasing their homes that they would have convenient access to the adjacent park. County Commissioner Smith explained that there is no formal agreement with the city regarding use of the property. Although additional rocks could be placed across the area to further restrict access, the county does not intend to block the city or public’s existing access to the park and city facilities. The county primarily uses the property for overflow parking approximately twice a year during the rodeo and fair. County Commissioner Smith indicated that as plans progress to relocate the fairgrounds, the county would be willing to discuss a potential sale of the property to the city. Mayor Merrill expressed interest in purchasing the property, particularly because it provided access to the city shop and served as a useful parking area. County Commissioner Smith noted that selling the property to a private developer could eliminate that access. He asked city officials to direct residents with questions or concerns about access to the county because the property is under county jurisdiction. Some neighborhood concerns appeared to result from a lack of information, as residents may not have realized that the property belonged to the county. County Commissioner Smith clarified that residents who need temporary access through that property to retrieve trailers or other stored property can contact the county, and arrangements will be made to provide access. Mayor Merrill suggested that the county prepare and distribute an official notice to neighboring property owners explaining the ownership of the property, access restrictions, and the circumstances surrounding its use. County Commissioner Smith stated that, based on advice from their attorney, neighboring property owners could not establish a prescriptive easement across government-owned property. P&Z Administrator Parkinson recalled that the issue had been discussed several years earlier and that neighboring residents may have received verbal permission to use the property approximately 20 to 30 years ago. However, no formal easement is believed to have been established. County Commissioner Smith reiterated that there is no written agreement with the city regarding use of the property but had no objection to continued public access for the city park and related facilities.  D. ** C.E.R.T. Support County Commissioner Mendenhall reported on the Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) and its response to a recent fire in the area. He stated that CERT is a volunteer organization made up of local citizens and has been instrumental in assisting during emergencies. County Commissioner Mendenhall mentioned that the Fire Department donated a trailer to CERT and that the organization is working to outfit the trailer with necessary equipment. He praised CERT's response during the fire, noting that its volunteers are prepared and able to provide services to affected residents within approximately four hours. County Commissioner Mendenhall said the county currently provides approximately $1,000 annually to CERT. He noted that the organization's level of activity and membership were increasing and that CERT also provided opportunities for teenagers to receive training in first aid and emergency services. He suggested that the City Council consider providing additional financial support to CERT. Mayor Merrill expressed support for the idea and recognized CERT as a dedicated community organization. He noted that CERT also assists the city with events such as the marathon by providing medical and emergency support. Mayor Merrill said the request warranted further discussion and would be placed on the agenda for a future City Council meeting. The City Council will discuss the request and determine whether additional funding should be provided. Council President E Erickson asked whether CERT is part of a statewide or nationwide organization or only established locally. Mayor Merrill indicated that he believes CERT is a nationwide organization. Discussion continued regarding CERT and its role in emergency preparedness. County Commissioner Mendenhall noted that CERT program coordinator Jon Corpany has been heavily involved with the organization for many years and has encouraged community members to participate in CERT training. Mayor Merrill mentioned that online training is also available to help individuals and families learn how to prepare for emergencies and assist themselves and others until first responders arrive. Council President asked whether CERT received federal or state funding. The group was uncertain about the organization's funding sources but noted that CERT operated beyond the local area and is part of a larger organization. Discussion continued regarding CERT's and their local training efforts, including training conducted at the hospital and a summer youth program. CERT's role during evacuations and other emergencies. CERT volunteers are typically among the first to arrive, establishing necessary services, and assisting affected individuals until the Red Cross or other agencies can take over. They recalled instances when CERT volunteers have remained on site to ensure residents received needed assistance. Mayor Merrill thanked the County Commissioners for bringing the need to support CERT' to the City Council's attention and suggested inviting Mr. Corpany or another representative from the local CERT organization to a future City Council meeting to provide a brief presentation. Adjournment 6:25 P.M. 6:30 P.M. Council President E. Erickson said the prayer. Council Member Riggins led the pledge. Roll Call of Council Members: Attending: Council Member Johnson, Council Member Tietjen, Council Member C. Erickson, Council Member Reeser, Council Member Riggins, Council President E. Erickson, and Mayor Merrill. Welcome New Employee: Elise Rasmussen – Planning & Zoning Department Elise Rasmussen introduced herself and stated that she is originally from Las Vegas, Nevada. She moved to Rexburg to attend BYU-Idaho and graduated approximately a year earlier with a degree in Business Supply Chain Management. She previously worked in insurance and at Enterprise Rent-A-Car. Elise recently joined the City of Rexburg as the Planning and Zoning Administrative Assistant. She expressed excitement about all she is learning in her new position and getting to know city staff and officials. Mayor Merrill welcomed Elise to the City of Rexburg team and thanked her for quickly becoming involved in her new responsibilities. Public Hearing 6:30 P.M. to Annex Property in the Impact Area at Approximately 80 E 7th N into the City of Rexburg (26-00321). Designated as Ordinance No 1351 if motion passes and considered 1st read – Alan Parkinson Action Item City Attorney Rammell reported that the city has maintained good communication with Basic American Foods and its legal counsel. He noted that representatives from Basic American Foods are present at the meeting and that the company has contacted the city the previous Friday with a proposed resolution. City Attorney Rammell recommended that the city continue discussions and negotiations with Basic American Foods and its legal counsel. He stated that other city staff members agreed with the recommendation and requested that the City Council table the item to allow additional negotiations to occur. Council Member Johnson moved to table Annexation of Property in the Impact Area at Approximately 80 E 7th N into the City of Rexburg until further notice; Council Member Tietjen 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 Council President E. Erickson The motion carried. Public Comment: Items not on the agenda; limit of 3 minutes; issues may be considered for discussion on a future agenda. Please keep comments on point and respectful. Staff Reports: Parks & Recreation: - Jon Lewis Resolution No 2026 – 12 Amend Egale Park Camping Use Policy Action Item Recreation Director Lewis reported that the city has received several concerning reports over the previous few months regarding interactions with individuals at Eagle Park. After spending additional time monitoring the park, he determined that operational changes are needed to improve public safety. He noted that several individuals indicated that they did not feel comfortable walking through the park alone and emphasized that city parks should feel safe and accessible to the public. Recreation Director Lewis recommended changing the camping procedures at Eagle Park by limiting camping to Friday, Saturday, and Sunday rather than allowing camping throughout the week. He explained that the change would make it easier for the Police Department and city staff to monitor the park. Campers will be required to visibly display their permits so staff can more easily identify individuals who are authorized to camp. He proposed changes intended to improve safety and allow the city to monitor the park more effectively without requiring significant additional resources. Council Member Johnson explained that she had discussed the proposed changes with Recreation Director Lewis and that the Parks Committee have reviewed the issue. She believes the proposal provided a reasonable balance between allowing residents to continue using Eagle Park and establishing restrictions to address ongoing safety concerns. She noted that the secluded nature of the park has contributed to some of the problems. Mayor Merrill agreed that the proposal provided an appropriate balance, noting that the city did not want to be overly restrictive but needed to ensure the park remained safe for the public. Recreation Director Lewis explained that the proposed restrictions are not necessarily intended to be permanent. As conditions at Eagle Park improved and the city developed better procedures for managing and monitoring the area, some restrictions could potentially be reduced. He stated that the proposed measures are necessary at that time to address the existing concerns. Council President E. Erickson asked whether the camping permit requirements and payment process at Eagle Park are clearly identified through signage. Recreation Director Lewis stated that the existing signage did not clearly reflect the proposed requirements but will be updated if the City Council approves the changes. Recreation Director Lewis explained that an electronic payment and registration system is already available. The proposed process is intended to require campers to check in with the city because the existing honor system has resulted in relatively few campers paying the required fee. He stated that a more formal permitting process will also allow staff to improve track activity within the park and address safety concerns. Recreation Director Lewis reported that city staff and the Police Department have recently responded to a group that remained at the park longer than permitted and accumulated numerous belongings throughout the area. He believes the proposed permitting requirements will provide greater control over camping activity and improve safety. Mayor Merrill asked about allowing campers to register and pay online, including the possibility of placing a QR code on park signage. Recreation Director Lewis explained that the permit would need to be physically displayed at the campsite so police officers can quickly verify authorized campers without having to contact each patron. Campers could print the permit themselves or obtain a printed copy from City Hall. Council Member Tietjen expressed concerns about requiring printed permits because City Hall closes at 12:30 p.m. on Fridays, which could create difficulties for travelers arriving later in the day. Recreation Director Lewis explained that the registration system generally requires reservations to be made at least two days in advance, although city staff can accommodate same-day registrations when possible. Council President E. Erickson emphasized the importance of installing clear signage explaining that overnight camping required advance registration and a permit. It was also suggested that the city communicates the new requirements through social media and other public information channels. Council Member Riggins asked whether the camping fee at Eagle Park will change. Recreation Director Lewis stated that the current fee of approximately $10 per night will remain unchanged. Council Member Riggins questioned the proposal to limit overnight camping to Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. He noted that families and other visitors may wish to camp during the week and expressed concern that limiting camping to weekends could restrict use of the park. Recreation Director Lewis explained that limiting camping to designated days will make enforcement and monitoring easier. Under the existing system, campers could stay for up to seven days, and city staff have difficulty determining how long individuals have been camping or whether they have paid the required fee. Limiting overnight camping to specific days would allow city staff and the Police Department to quickly identify unauthorized camping. Council Member Riggins requested that staff monitor the impact of the proposed schedule and consider whether additional camping days should be allowed if there was sufficient public demand. He emphasized that Eagle Park is a desirable recreational area, particularly during the summer, and noted that individuals whose days off occurred during the week will have limited opportunities to camp under the proposed schedule. Mayor Merrill agreed that Council Member Riggins’s concerns are valid and suggested that the proposed camping schedule warranted additional discussion. Council Member C. Erickson agreed that additional rules and restrictions are needed to better manage camping at Eagle Park. However, he questioned limiting overnight camping to Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. He suggested implementing the proposed restrictions initially and reevaluating them after a few months once the city has better control of the situation. He proposed eventually expanding camping to additional days of the week while potentially designating one day, such as Monday, when camping would not be allowed. This would provide staff with an opportunity to perform maintenance and other necessary work without campers being present. He said he supports beginning with more restrictive measures but emphasized that the long-term goal should be to expand access and encourage appropriate public use of city parks. Council Member Tietjen said she too supports the proposed camping restrictions and suggested that city staff track requests from individuals wishing to camp on weekdays. She stated that if a significant number of requests are received, the City Council could revisit the camping schedule and consider extending the available days. She noted that, based on her observations of the area, most camping activity currently occurred on weekends. Mayor Merrill suggested that a special permit could potentially be considered for weekday camping. Council Member Johnson stated that limiting camping days will make it easier for the Police Department to provide adequate patrol coverage. She emphasized that inappropriate activities have occurred at the park and believed the restrictions could help increase police presence and improve safety. She also supported tracking weekday camping requests, including whether requests came from city residents or visitors from out of state. Recreation Director Lewis anticipated that park usage could increase as safety conditions improved. He supported reevaluating the restrictions after city staff has an opportunity to monitor usage and emphasized that improving safety remained the primary concern. Mayor Merrill summarized that the City Council generally supported the proposed restrictions with the understanding that city staff will monitor usage and requests for weekday camping. He emphasized the importance of maintaining public safety while avoiding restrictions that unnecessarily prevented residents from using the park.   Council President E. Erickson moved to approve Resolution No 2026 – 12 Amend Eagle Park Camping Use Policy with direction to the Parks Department to revisit the policy in the future and consider additional amendments as needed; Council Member C. Erickson seconded the motion; Mayor Merrill asked for a vote: Those voting aye Those voting nay Council Member Tietjen none Council Member Johnson Council Member C. Erickson Council Member Reeser Council Member Riggins Council President E. Erickson The motion carried. Finance: - Matt Nielson Review and approve Fire Department Fiscal Year 2027 Budget Action Item Finance Officer Nielson provided background on the joint venture agreement used to fund fire and ambulance services within Madison County. He explained that three taxing entities contributed to the agreement: the Ambulance District, which is funded through property taxes paid by all County residents; the Fire District, which is funded by residents outside the City of Rexburg; and the City of Rexburg’s General Fund, which provides the city’s proportionate share of fire service costs primarily through property and sales tax revenues. A Fire Board, consisting of representatives from each entity, administer the joint venture agreement. Finance Officer Nielson explained that the Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) budget represented the operating budget for fire and ambulance services. Additional funds are maintained for equipment replacement, wildland operations, and other purposes. The original proposed subsidy for the three entities totaled approximately $6.69 million, with the city’s fire portion at approximately $2.2 million, which had been included in the city’s adopted budget. During subsequent budget work meetings, several adjustments were proposed, including a new fuels reduction and shift coverage position. The position will assist with fuels reduction activities primarily during the summer months and provide shift coverage during the remainder of the year. Approximately $48,000 of the position’s cost will be covered by a federal grant. Finance Officer Nielson reported that the city requested detailed line-item budgeting for the Wildland Fund to more accurately account for revenues and expenses. The Fire Board supported the request, and Chief Troy Miskin provided a revised proposal on approximately August 26, 2026. Finance Officer Nielson stated that the revised budget provides greater detail but identified several additional adjustments that are needed. Expenses transferred to the Wildland Fund have not been removed from the operating budget, resulting in duplication. He recommended reducing the operating budget accordingly. Finance Officer Nielson also recommended properly accounting for equipment reimbursements received from wildland deployments. He explained that when jointly owned fire equipment was deployed, reimbursement revenues were received and ultimately distributed to the appropriate fire equipment replacement fund to help fund future equipment purchases. He reviewed his recommendations with Chief Child and Chief Miskin, who considered the proposed adjustments reasonable. He also identified accounting changes that he anticipated will be addressed during the department’s audit. If the recommended adjustments are approved by the Fire Board, the overall subsidy from Fiscal Year 2026 to Fiscal Year 2027 would decrease by approximately $82,000, primarily because of additional ambulance revenue. The Fire District’s contribution will decrease by approximately $51,000, while the city’s fire contribution will decrease by approximately $71,000 from the previously proposed amount. The city’s fire budget will still represent approximately a 3.3% increase. The adjustments will also allow approximately $15,000 to be restored to the city’s General Fund contingency. Council Member Reeser asked how the city’s share of the joint venture costs is determined, noting that the city appeared to pay approximately one-third of the costs. He asked whether the allocation is based on the three participating entities, the number of households, or the amount of revenue generated by each taxing entity. Finance Officer Nielson explained that the joint venture agreement established different cost-sharing formulas depending on the type of expense. Building improvements at the downtown facility are divided equally among the City, Fire District, and Ambulance District, with each entity paying one-third. Fire equipment costs are divided equally between the City and Fire District, while the Ambulance District does not contribute to those expenses. Ambulance equipment is funded entirely by the Ambulance District. Finance Officer Nielson further explained that personnel costs, which represent one of the largest expenses, are allocated differently. The Ambulance District pays 48% of personnel costs, while the remaining 52% is divided between the Fire District and the city. The allocation between the Fire District and city is calculated using a formula that considers both assessed property values and population within each jurisdiction. He noted that determining the final allocations requires an extensive spreadsheet with multiple calculations. Council Member C. Erickson expressed support for establishing a defined budget and emphasized the importance of operating within the available funding. He stated that the city does not have unlimited resources and cannot continue providing additional funding without established limits. He appreciated that the proposed approach clearly identified a budget, encouraged cost savings, and provided the city with a better understanding of its financial responsibility. Finance Officer Nielson explained that a new budget addendum had been drafted to establish a joint operating fund. Under the proposed approach, the budgeted contributions will be placed into the joint operating fund. If funds remain at the end of the year due to effective financial management, the remaining balance will carry over and remain within the budget. He noted that this approach encouraged responsible use of the funds and allowed carryover funds to be used for future needs, such as adding positions or addressing other expenses. From the city’s budgeting perspective, they closely monitor expenditures and percentage increases based on anticipated General Fund revenues. This approach allowed the city to maintain greater control over its financial contribution.  Council Member C. Erickson moved to approve Fire Department Fiscal Year 2027 Budget; Council Member Reeser seconded the motion; Mayor Merrill asked for a vote: Those voting aye Those voting nay Council Member Tietjen none Council Member Johnson Council Member C. Erickson Council Member Reeser Council Member Riggins Council President E. Erickson The motion carried. Public Works: - Keith Davidson Local Improvement District (LID) Committee Report Public Works Director Davidson presented the recommendations from the Local Improvement District (LID) Committee. He reported that the committee had met six times since January. The committee initially reviewed background information regarding street funding and the various revenue sources available to the city. Committee members then brainstormed potential funding options, evaluated the advantages and disadvantages of each option, and considered possible revenue sources. The committee ultimately developed a presentation and completed its final review on August 6. The committee considered several funding options, including a permanent levy override, petitioning the State for an increase in the fuel tax, pursuing a local option sales tax, adjusting the frequency or cost-sharing structure of LIDs, increasing the budget allocation for street reconstruction, and exploring alternative approaches for sidewalk replacement. He acknowledged that some options would require significant time and effort to implement but stated that the committee wanted to consider all potential funding sources. Council Member Tietjen asked Public Workds Director Davidson to provide an overview of the LID process. He explained that the city primarily uses LIDs in conjunction with street reconstruction projects to replace sidewalks, curbs, gutters, and, when necessary, sewer connections to bring the area up to current standards. He noted that the City Council recently approved the city assuming the cost of curb and gutter replacement, while property owners remained responsible for sidewalk improvements and necessary sewer connection replacements. Public Works Director Davidson explained that reconstructed streets might not receive another major reconstruction for approximately 30 to 50 years. For that reason, the city evaluated sewer connections during reconstruction projects to help ensure they would last for the expected life of the new roadway and avoid having to excavate a newly reconstructed street to repair a failed sewer line. An LID allowes the city to obtain financing for eligible improvements so property owners are not required to pay the entire cost upfront. Instead, property owners could repay their portion of the improvements over a 10-year period. He acknowledged that while the financing option benefited property owners, sidewalk replacement costs could still be difficult for residents because they are generally not expenses homeowners anticipated or are eager to incur. Public Works Director Davidson mentioned an additional street funding option that he had recently learned about while attending an Idaho Transportation Department meeting. He explained that counties could seek voter approval to increase annual vehicle registration fees, with the additional revenue used to support street-related expenses. The amount of the additional registration fee would be established through the ballot measure. For example, an additional $35 registration fee could be proposed, and the potential revenue generated could then be calculated based on the number of registered vehicles. Council President E. Erickson asked how much revenue the option could generate. Director Davidson stated that he only recently learned about the possibility and has not had sufficient time to research or calculate the potential revenue. He presented it as another possible funding source that had not previously been considered and noted that additional options could emerge as the city continued exploring street funding alternatives. Council Member Reeser asked whether the proposed increase in vehicle registration fees will require a countywide vote or only a vote of city residents. Public Works Director Davidson stated that he believes the measure will require a countywide vote but noted that he had not yet determined how the resulting revenue would be distributed. He referenced Ada County as an example but explained that its structure differed because a highway district served the county. Council Member Reeser also asked whether approval would require a two-thirds vote or a simple majority. Public Works Director Davidson stated that he will research the voting requirements and provide additional information if the City Council wished to further consider that option. Public Works Director Davidson explained that after reviewing the various funding alternatives, the LID Committee narrowed its discussion to four potential options. These included establishing a dedicated budget for sidewalk repair and replacement, implementing a sidewalk cost-sharing arrangement in which the City assumed a greater portion of the costs beyond curb and gutter, pursuing a permanent levy override, or combining a sidewalk cost-sharing arrangement with a permanent levy override.  Public Works Director Davidson explained that the first option involved establishing an annual budget specifically for sidewalk repair and replacement. He noted that the City of Caldwell allocated approximately $150,000 annually for sidewalk replacement. Rexburg could consider a similar approach using either the General Fund or the Street Fund. However, this option would not generate additional revenue and would instead require reallocating existing city funds to sidewalk improvements.  Council Member Johnson clarified that the dedicated sidewalk repair budget would represent a different approach from the city’s current practice. She explained that Caldwell did not tie sidewalk replacement to street reconstruction projects. Instead, the city would establish a specific annual amount for sidewalk improvements and complete as many sidewalk projects as the available funding allowed each year, rather than replacing sidewalks as part of street reconstruction projects. Council Member Riggins expressed concern that $150,000 will only fund a limited amount of sidewalk replacement at current construction costs. He questioned whether that level of funding will significantly address the city’s sidewalk needs. Public Works Director Davidson clarified that the $150,000 amount was provided only as an example based on Caldwell’s program. He stated that the City Council could determine a different annual funding amount based on the city’s needs and available resources. Council Member Johnson suggested providing a breakdown of LID costs to place the proposed funding amount into perspective. She recommended separately identifying the costs associated with street reconstruction, curb and gutter, and sidewalk replacement. She explained that reviewing the individual costs will provide a clearer understanding of how much funding is specifically needed for sidewalk improvements. Public Works Director Davidson explained that the next option involved a sidewalk replacement cost-sharing arrangement. Under this option, the city will pay 30% of the sidewalk replacement costs, while the property owner will pay the remaining 70%. The city’s portion will be funded through either the General Fund or the Street Fund. He clarified that this contribution will be in addition to the curb and gutter costs already assumed by the city.  Public Works Director Davidson then discussed the permanent levy override option, which focused specifically on funding sidewalk replacement and did not include other LID expenses, such as sewer connections. The proposed levy is approximately $10 per $100,000 of assessed property value. He explained that a permanent levy override will require voter approval by a two-thirds supermajority. The final option combined a permanent levy override with a 70/30 sidewalk cost-sharing arrangement. Under this option, the city will pay 70% of the sidewalk replacement costs using revenue generated through the permanent levy override, while the property owner will remain responsible for 30%.  Public Works Director Davidson explained that maintaining a property owner contribution will provide an incentive for property owners to share responsibility for the improvements. He noted that if the city paid 100% of sidewalk replacement costs, property owners who contribute through the levy could expect the city to replace their sidewalks upon request. Requiring a 30% property owner contribution will have helped manage those expectations while maintaining shared responsibility for the improvements.  Council President E. Erickson asked whether the proposed sidewalk funding options will replace the city’s existing LID process. He noted that the discussion has become focused primarily on sidewalks and questioned whether an LID will still be necessary for expenses such as sewer connection replacements. Public Works Director Davidson clarified that the proposed options will not completely eliminate the need for LIDs because property owners will still be responsible for sewer connection replacements. He explained that under the 100% permanent levy override option, levy revenue will fund sidewalk replacement. The amount of sidewalk work will vary from year to year depending on the street reconstruction projects underway. The proposed levy amount was based on average anticipated sidewalk costs, and he believes the permanent levy override will increase by approximately 3% annually as costs increase. Council President E. Erickson asked whether the funding will cover driveway approaches affected by street reconstruction. Public Works Director Davidson explained that the proposal primarily addressed sidewalks and applicable ADA requirements rather than entire driveway approaches. He noted that in some locations, the sidewalk and driveway approach are integrated near the curb, while properties with sidewalks set back from the curb presented different circumstances. Mayor Merrill noted that eliminating LIDs could remove a financing option available to property owners. He explained that some property owners choose to replace an entire deteriorated driveway during an LID project and finance the cost through the LID over 10 years. Without the LID, those property owners will be required to pay the full cost upfront. Public Works Director Davidson reiterated that LIDs can not be completely eliminated because they will still be needed to address sewer line replacement costs. Council Member Johnson emphasized that an important limitation of the proposed permanent levy override is that the funding will apply only to the replacement of existing sidewalks. It will fund the construction of new sidewalks in areas where sidewalks do not already exist. She explained that extending the funding to new sidewalk construction, including sidewalks associated with new developments, will have significantly increased the scope and cost of the program. She emphasized that property owners without existing sidewalks will not benefit from the proposed levy override because it is intended solely for sidewalk replacement. Council President E. Erickson recalled that property owners who are required to construct new sidewalks through previous LIDs generally incurred the largest costs, while costs for replacing portions of existing sidewalks are typically lower.Public Works Director Davidson agreed and explained that costs varied depending on the age and condition of the existing sidewalk and whether ADA improvements were required. Public Works Director Davidson reviewed the permanent levy override analysis. He explained that a levy of approximately $10 per $100,000 of assessed property value will generate approximately $230,000 annually for sidewalk replacement. The amount paid by individual property owners will vary based on assessed property value. Over a 30-year period, the estimated total cost ranged from approximately $1,500 for a townhouse and $1,600 for a smaller single-family home to approximately $4,000 for a larger single-family home. A large apartment complex valued at approximately $28 million would have paid approximately $135,000, while a large retail property valued at approximately $21 million would have paid approximately $103,000 over the same period.  Public Works Director Davidson also reviewed the city’s street reconstruction funding. He reported that the city averaged approximately $2.5 million annually for street improvements over the previous five years, which provided enough funding to reconstruct streets on an approximately 60-year cycle. With annual funding declining to approximately $2 million, the estimated reconstruction cycle increased to approximately 75 years. He emphasized that available funding directly affected how frequently the City can complete street reconstruction projects. The city pursued and successfully received grants to supplement local funding for some projects; however, street operating revenues continue to decline, making it increasingly difficult to maintain the desired level of street reconstruction.  Public Works Director Davidson explained that the purpose of the presentation was to review the options discussed by the LID Committee and that no formal action is requested from the City Council that evening. He encouraged Councilmembers to consider the options, discuss them with community members, and identify any additional ideas or concerns. Public Works Director Davidson requested that the City Council reconvene at a later date to discuss the options and provide direction on how the city should proceed. He stated that the discussion could take place within the next month or several months and could be scheduled as either a work meeting or a future City Council meeting. Council Member Tietjen recommended scheduling a work meeting the following month to allow the City Council to thoroughly discuss the options, determine a preferred direction, and ultimately bring the matter forward for a vote. Council Member Johnson agreed that waiting longer than a month could result in losing momentum on the issue. Council Member Riggins asked Public Works Director Davidson how long the process might take if the City pursued an increase in the State fuel tax. Public Director Davidson responded that it would be a significant undertaking. Council Member Riggins acknowledged that the committee had identified several potential funding options but noted that most will rely on revenue generated within the local community. He explained that an increase in the fuel tax could generate revenue from residents as well as travelers purchasing fuel while passing through Rexburg and Madison County. He stated that bringing in revenue from outside the community could reduce some of the financial burden on local taxpayers and encouraged further exploration of the option. Council Member Tietjen asked about the potential timeline for placing a permanent levy override before voters and whether the timing could be discussed further during the proposed work meeting. Public Works Director Davidson agreed that the timeline can be discussed at the work meeting, including which upcoming election will be most appropriate for the measure. He emphasized the importance of allowing sufficient time to provide voters with clear information explaining how the permanent levy override will work, what it will fund, and how the revenue will be allocated. He stated that transparency regarding the intended use of the funds would be important before placing the measure before voters. Council Member Reeser asked whether the LID Committee had identified a preferred funding option or whether its primary purpose had been to evaluate the available options and present them to the City Council for consideration. Council Member Johnson responded that she did not believe the committee had reached a consensus on a preferred option. She explained that committee members had differing perspectives based on how each option would affect various property owners. Business owners generally expressed less support for the option that will fully fund sidewalk replacement because higher-valued properties will contribute more, while residents who participated in the discussions generally favored that approach. She also noted that the committee did not have full attendance at any single meeting, which made reaching a consensus more difficult. Council Member Tietjen said there was a preference among committee member residents for one of the permanent levy override options, either the option that fully funded sidewalk replacement or the 70/30 cost-sharing option. Council Member Johnson suggested selecting a date for the LID work meeting so Councilmembers can reserve the date and improve the likelihood of full attendance. The Councilmembers agreed that October 21 will be an appropriate date for the work meeting. Approve ITD Local Professional Services Agreement for Forsgren Associates to design the Teton River Connecting Path and Pedestrian Bridge Project #A024(684) Action Item Public Works Director Davidson reported that the city received a grant for a pathway project along the north side of the Teton River near Albertsons. The project proposed extending the existing pathway east along the river and constructing a pedestrian bridge to create a loop connection. He recommended entering into a contract with Forsgren Associates for the project, with the contract established at a not-to-exceed amount. Council Member Tietjen requested to view a map of the proposed route. Public Works Director Davidson explained that the existing pathway will extend along the river across city-owned property and will connect with the new portion of the pathway currently under construction. He is also evaluating whether the proposed pedestrian bridge can be relocated farther along the route from its originally planned location. Council Member Tietjen asked whether residents of the nearby development will have convenient access to the pathway. Public Works Director Davidson explained that the development is providing an access point that will connect residents to the pathway. Mayor Merrill said there has been discussion regarding the possibility of using a compacted crushed granite surface rather than asphalt for the pathway. He stated that the alternative could potentially reduce long-term maintenance associated with cracking and tree-root damage to asphalt. He recommended comparing the costs and maintenance requirements of both surfaces and suggested that the Parks and Trails Committee also review the options. Council Member Tietjen expressed concern about ADA accessibility and asked whether a crushed granite pathway would accommodate wheelchairs and strollers. Mayor Merrill stated that similar pathways he has observed are heavily compacted and provide a firm surface. Council Member Tietjen also asked about drainage and whether the surface could become muddy during wet weather. Mayor Merrill indicated that properly constructed pathways of this type generally drained well. Council President E. Erickson supported evaluating alternatives to asphalt due to the deteriorating condition of existing City trails. He noted that tree roots have caused significant cracking and uneven surfaces, which also created accessibility concerns. Mayor Merrill reported that the city received a $15,000 AARP grant and approximately $10,000 from Rocky Mountain Power for trail repairs at Nature Park. The funding will be used to remove and replace damaged sections of asphalt. He noted that the approximately $25,000 in grant funding will likely not cover all necessary repairs and that additional Parks or Trails funds will be used to complete further improvements. Mayor Merrill requested that Forsgren Associates evaluate both asphalt and crushed granite options for the proposed pathway. Public Works Director Davidson agreed that the alternatives can be evaluated but identified winter maintenance as a potential concern. He stated that city staff will need to determine whether a crushed granite pathway can be effectively plowed if the pathway is intended to remain open during the winter. He also acknowledged that an alternative surface could help address the tree-root damage experienced with existing asphalt pathways. Council Member Johnson moved to approve the ITD Local Professional Services Agreement for Forsgren Associates to design the Teton River Connecting Path and Pedestrian Bridge Project; Council President E. Erickson seconded the motion; Mayor Merrill asked for a vote: Those voting aye Those voting nay Council Member Tietjen none Council Member Johnson Council Member C. Erickson Council Member Reeser Council Member Riggins Council President E. Erickson The motion carried. Public Works Director Davidson reported that North Second East had reopened and that the sewer line connection is complete and repaved. He noted that additional construction work is still underway along North Second East. Council Member Tietjen asked for an update on construction of the traffic signal at Seventh South and University. Public Works Director Davidson reported that construction has begun but that the project experienced delays due to material availability. Crews are installing the underground infrastructure and signal bases along the sides of the roadway. He explained that construction will temporarily pause when students return and will resume afterward. The roadway will remain open during the students’ return. Mayor’s Business: Ratify Proclamation 2026 – 04 Constitution Week as September 17th -23rd Action Item Mayor Merrill reported that he and Public Works Director Davidson participated in the Idaho Water Users Association’s annual Water College, which the city hosted at City Hall. He explained that the statewide educational event is designed to help current and prospective legislators better understand water-related issues. Public Works Director Davidson and representatives from Rural Water and other organizations provided presentations regarding water challenges and opportunities to improve water management throughout the state. Following the presentations, participants toured several water projects. The group visited Walters Pond to observe the City’s groundwater recharge efforts and then traveled through the St. Anthony and Ashton areas to view irrigation improvement projects that have received State funding. Mayor Merrill highlighted the use of automated canal headgates as an example of improved water efficiency. He explained that water managers have traditionally been required to manually remove boards from canal structures to control water flow. New automated stainless-steel gates allowed operators to remotely open and close the gates using electronic controls. The previous manual process could take several days and potentially limit opportunities for groundwater recharge. The automated system allowed water managers to respond more quickly and efficiently when water became available for recharge, including directing water toward the Egin Lakes area near the sand dunes where it could infiltrate into the aquifer. He emphasized the importance of continuing to improve water efficiency and management practices. He also expressed concern about future water supplies if the region did not receive adequate mountain snowfall during the upcoming winter. Mayor Merrill read Proclamation 2026 – 04 Constitution Week as September 17th-23rd.  Council Member Reeser moved to ratify Proclamation 2026 – 04 Constitution Week as September 17th -23rd; Council Member Tietjen seconded the motion; Mayor Merrill asked for a vote: Those voting aye Those voting nay Council Member Tietjen none Council Member Johnson Council Member C. Erickson Council Member Reeser Council Member Riggins Council President E. Erickson The motion carried. Items of Consideration: Planning & Zoning recommendation to approve a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for a cell tower in Regional Business Center (RBC) zone located at approximately 1450 N 2nd E in the City of Rexburg (26-00649) – Alan Parkinson Action Item P&Z Administrator Parkinson presented a request to locate a cell tower near the rear corner of the Walmart property. The proposed tower received approval from both the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). He explained that one concern involved the tower’s proximity to surrounding buildings and the potential impact area if the tower failed. An engineer certified that the tower is designed to collapse upon itself and remain within the designated fall zone without impacting nearby buildings. Based on the engineer’s certification, city staff approved the proposal and forwarded it to the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Planning and Zoning Commission subsequently recommended approval by the City Council.  Council Member Reeser asked whether the proposed cell tower will improve cellular coverage in the northwest portion of the city. P&Z Administrator Parkinson stated that he did not know whether the tower will improve coverage in that specific area but expressed hope that it would improve cellular service within the community. Council Member C. Erickson said he previously spoke with a Verizon area manager during meetings in Boise. The representative indicated that Verizon is seeking additional locations for cell towers within Rexburg and requested assistance identifying potential sites. The proposed tower could help improve cellular service within the city. T-Mobile and Verizon signed agreements to use the tower, and those efforts are underway to secure additional providers, including AT&T. Council Member Riggins moved to approve a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for a cell tower in Regional Business Center (RBC) zone located at approximately 1450 N 2nd E in the City of Rexburg; Council Member Johnson seconded the motion; Mayor Merrill asked for a vote: Those voting aye Those voting nay Council Member Tietjen none Council Member Johnson Council Member C. Erickson Council Member Reeser Council Member Riggins Council President E. Erickson The motion carried. B. Review committee recommendation of Police Station Facility options – Matt Nielson & Josh Rhodes Action Item Finance Officer Nielson introduced the Police Station Options Committee discussion and explained that he and Police Chief Josh Rhodes would jointly present the information. He stated that the internal committee included the Mayor, Council Member Reeser, the City Attorney, the CFO, the Police Chief, the Assistant Police Chief, and several consultants who participated in one of the meetings. Police Chief Rhodes thanked the City Council and City staff for their continued support in evaluating options for the Police Department. He explained that continued residential and commercial growth increased the need for a facility capable of accommodating the department’s current and future operational needs. Chief Rhodes identified evidence storage as one of the department’s critical concerns. Evidence was stored in the basement of the existing facility, where available space had become increasingly limited. The department has begun relocating some evidence to its secondary training facility, but storage needs continue to increase as call volumes, cases, and evidence processing grow. He mentioned technology and facility limitations. He stated that the department faced ongoing financial challenges associated with maintaining and updating cameras and other technology. Detectives shared office space, which created privacy and scheduling challenges when conducting investigations and interviewing victims and witnesses. The department also lacked dedicated victim and witness interview rooms and instead used a hard interview room and a multipurpose conference room. Larger cases involving multiple suspects, victims, or witnesses sometimes required the department to use other facilities for interviews. Additional space concerns include office space, parking, fingerprinting services, and public service areas. Chief Rhodes noted that during busy periods, particularly when students returned and requested parking permits, approximately 30 to 50 people could be lined up outside the Police Department. Fingerprinting services were also conducted within the crowded front lobby area. He emphasized that these limitations would become more significant as the City and Police Department continued to grow and add personnel. Chief Rhodes reviewed the previous efforts to fund a new police facility through general obligation bonds. He stated that bond measures had been presented to voters in November 2025 and again in May 2026, and both measures had failed. Following the first bond election, the city conducted a community survey and received feedback regarding concerns about project cost and location. The proposal was subsequently modified to reduce costs and respond to public feedback. He said voter participation increased during the second bond election while the percentage of affirmative votes decreased. Following the second unsuccessful bond measure, the city formed the internal committee to evaluate alternative options for addressing the Police Department’s facility needs. He noted that location continued to be one of the primary concerns identified through community feedback. The committee subsequently began reviewing potential sites and alternatives throughout the city to determine an appropriate path forward. Finance Officer Nielson explained that the committee identified three options for the City Council’s consideration. He clarified that these are not the only possible options and encouraged Councilmembers to discuss any additional alternatives they believe should be considered. He stated the committee focused on the three options they believe are the most realistic based on potential locations, construction methods, and estimated costs. They analyzed possible down payments and whether providing a down payment can reduce the amount the city will need to borrow. Finance Officer Nielson explained that funding sources were also considered and will continue to be an important part of the discussion. He noted that available funding significantly affects which options are financially feasible. Although the most financially feasible option might not always be the preferred option, financial considerations are an important factor in determining the best approach. They narrowed the analysis to three primary options and will provide the City Council with an individual analysis of each option. Finance Officer Nielson explained that the committee identified three primary options for addressing the Police Department’s facility needs. The first option is to wait a few years and attempt to pass another general obligation (GO) bond, which will require a supermajority vote, to construct a new police station. The second option is to purchase an existing building in the city and renovate it, potentially adding new space if the building is too small. The committee reviewed a couple of potential sites, including the BMC property, although it is unknown whether the property is for sale or what the purchase price would be. The third option is to construct a new City Hall office building and renovate the existing City Hall for use as a police station. He noted that this option has been discussed by the City Council periodically over the previous six years. Finance Officer Nielson said regarding the first option, the city already owns approximately five acres of land where a new police station could potentially be constructed. Although the property is not located downtown, it provided sufficient space for the Police Department’s offices, training facilities, and public gathering areas. A new facility could also address the Department’s safety, security, and technology concerns. Additionally, the building could be designed to accommodate future additions and expansion. Finance Officer Nielson said the primary challenges associated with option one is limited funding sources and uncertain timing. The city will need to determine how much funding can be provided upfront as a down payment and how much can be supported annually for debt payments. The city will also need to return the proposal to voters, with no guarantee that a GO bond will pass. The city previously evaluated alternative financing through a lease appropriation when considering placing a new police station on the ballot. That analysis estimated that the General Fund would need to provide more than $800,000 annually. They determined that the city could not financially support that level of annual payment.  Finance Officer Nielson reviewed the second option, which involved purchasing an existing building in the city and renovating it for use as a police station. He explained that one of the primary challenges is locating a building that is available for purchase and adequately meets the Police Department’s needs. He noted that some available buildings could be significantly undersized and would require substantial costs for both renovation and additional square footage. The committee also reviewed a larger building that is primarily constructed of steel. Although the building is in good condition, significant renovations are necessary to convert it into a functional police facility. Finance Officer Nielson explained that the greatest uncertainty with option 2 is that the city did not have a specific property being offered for purchase and will need to search for an appropriate building. Until a property is identified, they could not determine whether the facility would adequately address all the Police Department’s existing space, safety, security, and operational concerns. He also stated that this option has fewer available funding sources for both the initial down payment and ongoing annual payments. The analysis indicated that sufficient funding would not likely be obtained through a lease appropriation. As a result, purchasing and renovating an existing building would likely require a general obligation bond, making the timing and feasibility of this option uncertain.  Finance Officer Nielson reviewed the third option, which involved constructing a new City Hall office building and renovating the existing City Hall for use as a police station. He clarified that there are no significant concerns with the existing City Hall and that the building could continue serving its current purpose for decades. However, the committee identified several reasons why constructing a new City Hall and converting the existing building into a police facility could be a beneficial option. He explained that the existing City Hall provided a central downtown location for the Police Department. Some police functions could continue to operate from the training facility near the City Shop on 5th West, although Police Department staff believed some training activities could be accommodated within the existing City Hall building. Finance Officer Nielson stated that this option provided the greatest number of potential funding sources. From a financial perspective, the additional funding sources could provide a larger down payment, reduce the amount the city will need to borrow, lower annual payments and interest costs, and minimize the financial burden on the General Fund. If a general obligation bond is not required, the option will also avoid asking taxpayers to support an increase in property taxes. They also evaluated potential locations for a new City Hall. Finance Officer Nielson identified an approximately 1.5-acre parcel across from the library that was purchased jointly by the City of Rexburg and Madison County from the school district. He clarified that the property was not purchased by the Urban Renewal Agency. The Urban Renewal Agency purchased the adjacent approximately 4.2-acre property. One advantage of the location is that the Urban Renewal Agency has agreed to provide public parking in the area. Preliminary layouts include approximately 140 public surface parking spaces, which could serve a new municipal building as well as existing facilities such as the library and tabernacle. The property also has bus lanes along the west and north sides, which provides an additional benefit.  Finance Officer Nielson explained that the form-based code applicable to the property will require a three-story building. A new City Hall could potentially have a footprint of approximately 9,000 to 12,000 square feet per floor. Because the building would be constructed vertically, it could occupy a relatively small portion of the property and preserve more surrounding land for future redevelopment and potential tax-generating uses. He also noted that the property historically has been tax-exempt and emphasized that the location will allow City Hall to remain downtown while using a relatively small footprint. Finance Officer Nielson continued reviewing the benefits of constructing a new City Hall and renovating the existing City Hall for use as a police station. He noted that the proposed downtown location for the new City Hall would benefit from the public parking planned by the Urban Renewal Agency. He explained that this option will allow the city to plan for both facilities and provide an orderly transition of the Police Department into the existing City Hall after the new City Hall is completed. Renovations to the existing City Hall can be completed in phases as funding becomes available. He also noted that vacant space on the upper floor of City Hall can potentially be used immediately by the Police Department to help alleviate some of its current space constraints. Finance Officer Nielson added that a phased renovation approach will allow the City to continue accumulating police impact fees and use those funds for future improvements and expansion. Portions of the existing City Hall can also temporarily continue to house other governmental services and transition to police use within approximately three to five years as additional funding became available. The existing City Hall contains approximately 28,500 square feet, which is more than 4,000 square feet larger than the combined office and training facility previously proposed new police station. The City Hall building therefore provides substantial space for the Police Department to grow into, although the smaller amount of surrounding acreage presented some limitations. If the city proceeds with this option, the Pioneer Road property can eventually be sold. He noted that the previous property owner retained the first right to repurchase the property. If that right is declined, the city can place the property on the open market. The existing police station on Main Street can also be sold after the transition is completed, with the proceeds potentially contributing toward project funding. Converting the existing City Hall into a police facility will require parking lot improvements to provide a secure police entrance and parking area. These improvements could require expansion or modification of the existing parking area. Finance Officer Nielson also explained that constructing a new City Hall provided additional financing opportunities, including a lease appropriation purchase option and potentially a public-private partnership. He indicated that the lease appropriation method is a proven financing model that has been used for facilities such as the Idaho Falls Police Station and the Chubbuck City Hall and Police Station. This financing method can be used by cities without a public vote and typically involves financing over a period of approximately 20 to 30 years. For the initial phase of converting the existing City Hall into a police station. The committee identified three primary improvements that will need to be addressed immediately: secure public entrance, adequate evidence storage space, and a secure police parking area. Police Chief added that much of the existing interior office space can accommodate necessary offices, interview rooms, and other operational needs without extensive renovation, although security improvements will still be required. The existing City Hall is already equipped with security cameras that can continue to be utilized. Existing office spaces can also be converted into interview rooms with minimal modifications. The primary improvements will include installing appropriate cameras and microphones in those rooms, allowing the existing space to meet the Police Department’s interview room needs. Finance Officer Nielson explained that the lease appropriation financing method is formally referred to as a Certificate of Participation. Under this arrangement, the local government will own the land while another entity will finance and develop the building. During the financing term, the city will appropriate funds annually through its budget process to make the required lease payments. At the end of the term, ownership of the building will be transferred to the city, making the arrangement like a lease-to-own agreement. He explained that if the city decided at some point during the term that it no longer needed the facility, it could choose not to appropriate the annual lease payment. The entity that financed the building can then rent the facility for the remainder of the lease term, with the city ultimately receiving ownership at the end of the term. This financing method is attractive to developers and investors because there is a low likelihood that the city will discontinue the annual appropriation once the facility is in use. Finance Officer Nielson explained that the committee considered why constructing a new City Hall is being evaluated when the primary need is a new police facility. The committee determined that this option could provide the greatest benefit to taxpayers because it allowed the city to use alternative financing, such as a lease appropriation, and will likely avoid the need for a general obligation bond and an associated property tax increase. He said a new City Hall will have a relatively small footprint because the form-based code requires a multi-story building. The proposed location will not require removing existing buildings from the tax rolls, will remain downtown near other public facilities such as the library and tabernacle, and will be located near planned public parking. He noted that if Madison County eventually constructed a facility on the adjacent property, additional governmental services would be in the same area. Another significant advantage is the estimated construction cost. The cost per square foot for a three-story office building is expected to be substantially lower than the estimated cost of constructing a new police facility, potentially by approximately one-third. Option three also provided the greatest number of potential funding sources for both the down payment and annual payments. Finance Officer Nielson reviewed potential funding sources available for the three options. These included a general obligation bond, General Fund resources, funds previously reserved for a municipal building, police impact fees, grants such as Community Development Block Grants (CDBG), private contributions, and the City's Revolving Loan Fund (RLF). The city successfully used CDBG funding for previous public facilities and parking improvements. Private contributions could also be considered, particularly because individuals have previously expressed interest in contributing toward a new police facility. Finance Officer Nielson explained that the Revolving Loan Fund has also historically been used to help finance municipal facilities, including the existing City Hall when it was remodeled. The fund generated revenue through investments and loans to businesses, allowing the balance to grow over time. He estimated that approximately $400,000 from the RLF could potentially be available toward a project down payment. He then reviewed City departments and enterprise funds that pay overhead costs for centralized City services. These included Building Safety, Engineering, Shop, Sanitation, Water, Wastewater Treatment and Collections, GIS, Airport, and Golf. Centralized services included administration, Human Resources, Information Technology, Customer Service, Finance, Legal, and other governmental functions. Each year, a portion of the cost of providing these services is allocated to the applicable departments through overhead charges. Finance Officer Nielson said because these departments benefited from services provided through City Hall, a portion of the cost of constructing and financing a new City Hall can be allocated to them. The departments could contribute toward the initial down payment and could also pay a proportionate share of annual financing costs through their overhead rates. As an example, Finance Officer Nielson presented a scenario in which a new City Hall cost approximately $11 million. If the city provided a $6 million down payment, approximately $5 million will need to be financed. Based on an analysis prepared with the city's municipal advisor at Zions, a 20-year lease appropriation at an estimated interest rate of 4.13% would result in annual payments of approximately $380,000. Of the estimated $380,000 annual payment, approximately 69% can be allocated among the departments that pay overhead costs, leaving approximately 31% to be paid by the General Fund. Under this scenario, the General Fund's annual share would be approximately $118,000. An annual General Fund obligation of approximately $118,000 is financially manageable compared with the previously estimated annual cost of more than $800,000 for financing a new police station.  Council President E. Erickson asked where the individual departments would obtain the funding needed to contribute toward the proposed project. Finance Officer Nielson explained that city staff will need to review each department’s available reserves to determine whether sufficient funding existed. Alternatively, contributions can be incorporated into the city’s budgeting process over the next two to three years. Council President E. Erickson expressed concern that the city has limited revenue available each year and emphasized that any additional departmental contribution will have to come from an existing funding source. He questioned whether requiring departments to contribute toward the project will result in those departments having to operate with fewer resources. Finance Officer Nielson explained that some departments maintain reserves that can potentially be used to cover additional overhead costs. Each department’s financial position will need to be evaluated individually during the budget process to determine whether sufficient reserves are available. Mayor Merrill clarified that many of the applicable departments are primarily funded through fees rather than property taxes. Finance Officer Nielson acknowledged that requiring additional contributions can involve difficult budget decisions. As an example, he stated that if the Streets Department were asked to contribute approximately $600,000 toward the project down payment, the City Council will need to determine whether using those reserves for the project provided sufficient value to the community. Finance Officer Nielson emphasized that any departmental contributions will ultimately be considered and determined through the city’s regular budget process. Council Member Johnson said the City Council could potentially accomplish a similar result by reducing departmental budgets and allocating additional funding to the Police Department. Finance Officer Nielson reiterated that certain enterprise funds, such as Water, Wastewater, and Sanitation, are subject to restrictions that limit how their revenues can be used. Council Member Johnson questioned whether increasing overhead charges to departments will ultimately have the same effect as reducing their available budgets. Finance Officer Nielson explained that he specifically referenced the Streets Department, noting that the City Council recently discussed its limited available funding. The City Council has the authority to reduce certain General Fund departmental budgets and increase funding for the Police Department; however, doing so would primarily affect General Fund departments and could require significant reductions in departmental services to generate sufficient funding for the project. Discussion regarding option three requiring the city departments to absorb additional overhead costs and the need to account for those expenses within their budgets. Depending on the department and its funding structure, this could require reductions in other expenditures or adjustments to applicable fees. Council Member Johnson reiterated that she generally agreed with the proposed funding approach but wanted the City Council to recognize that additional overhead costs will still have financial impacts on the affected departments. Finance Officer Nielson said he is willing to review alternative funding approaches if the City Council developed a financially viable proposal. Finance Officer Nielson explained that the process involved both policy and financial decisions. He noted that project costs could increase depending on the City Council’s decisions regarding departmental square footage, construction quality, and other design considerations. As a result, option three could ultimately become too expensive, and additional analysis is necessary to determine whether it is financially feasible. However, he believes option three warranted further consideration because it could potentially be completed without a general obligation bond. Finance Officer Nielson presented preliminary construction cost estimates for each option. Option one, which has undergone the most extensive previous plan, is estimated to cost approximately $16.5 million to $18 million. Option two is estimated at approximately $14 million to $16 million, while Option Three is estimated at approximately $13 million to $14.5 million. He emphasized that the estimates are preliminary and could change based on square footage requirements, available funding sources, the amount of the down payment, and other project decisions. The committee recommended pursuing Option three, which included constructing a new City Hall office building on 1st North, west of the library, and renovating the existing City Hall for use as a police station. If the City Council agrees to proceed with further evaluation of option three, the committee recommended establishing two separate committees. One committee would evaluate the planning and construction of a new City Hall, while the second would evaluate the renovation of the existing City Hall into a police facility. The planning process would determine departmental space requirements, potential funding sources, available funds for a down payment, anticipated annual overhead contributions, the amount that would need to be financed, and available financing options. Finance Officer Nielson stated that the lease appropriation is a proven financing model that could be considered. Public-private partnerships could also be evaluated, although the committee identified limited examples of that financing approach being used in Idaho. Council Member Reeser stated that, as a member of the internal committee, he preferred option one to construct a new police station. However, the city has previously attempted twice to obtain the required voter approval for a general obligation bond, and both attempts were unsuccessful. He believes a third attempt is unlikely to receive the required supermajority approval. He explained that the committee therefore focused on identifying another feasible way to provide the Police Department with adequate facilities. Based on the committee’s review, the existing City Hall appeared to be the only City-owned building that could realistically accommodate the Police Department’s current and future needs. Council Member Reeser emphasized that the purpose of the proposal is not simply to construct a new City Hall. Rather, converting the existing City Hall into a police facility will require the city to find another location for City Hall operations. He is unaware of another city-owned building that can adequately serve that purpose. As a result, the committee determined that constructing a new City Hall on property already available to the city is the most feasible alternative. He noted that the proposed property has historically been tax-exempt and that alternative financing options, including a lease-to-own arrangement and potential contributions from departmental reserves through overhead allocations, could help provide a down payment and reduce the amount that will be needed and supported by the General Fund. Council Member Reeser reiterated that constructing a new City Hall is not his preferred approach. His preference is to construct a new police station through a general obligation bond, but previous attempts have been unsuccessful. He therefore believed Option Three is the most feasible remaining alternative. He remained open to other options if a more suitable location for either the Police Department or City Hall can be identified. He acknowledged that the proposal could present public perception and policy challenges because it could appear that the primary objective is to construct a new City Hall. He emphasized that his primary objective is to provide the Police Department with a functional and appropriate facility and that the need for a new City Hall resulted from that objective. Council Member C. Erickson stated that he does not believe the City Council is ready to act on the proposed option and believes additional alternatives need to be evaluated. He recalled that previous discussions indicated that a police facility required approximately three to five acres to adequately serve the city’s needs. Drawing from his experience in the community and in law enforcement, he expressed concern that the city has historically modified existing buildings to accommodate the Police Department rather than constructing a facility specifically designed for police operations. He believes the public will benefit from a better understanding of the Police Department’s existing facility limitations and needs. Council Member C. Erickson stated that although the existing City Hall could potentially be adapted for police use, he does not believe the city should settle for a facility that merely accommodates basic needs. He expressed concern that City Hall has been designed as an office building rather than a police facility and that substantial renovations will be required to provide the necessary safety, security, and operational features. He also questioned whether comparing the overall square footage of City Hall with the previously proposed police facility provided an accurate comparison because the buildings have been designed for a different purpose. He believes the City Council needs a more detailed analysis of the actual cost to renovate City Hall into a secure and functional police facility capable of meeting the Department’s needs for the next 20 to 30 years. Council Member C. Erickson recommended further evaluating other alternatives and financing approaches before proceeding with the construction of a new City Hall. He suggested reviewing approaches used by other communities, including Idaho Falls, and believes additional options should be considered before the City Council moves forward with option three. Council Member Tietjen requested clarification regarding the action item and asked whether the City Council is being asked to approve option three or simply authorize further planning and analysis. Finance Officer Nielson clarified that the proposed action is to enter a planning phase for option three. The planning process will determine square footage requirements, potential funding sources, available funding for a down payment, and estimated annual payments. Two committees will also be established to separately evaluate the new City Hall and the conversion of the existing City Hall into a police facility. The police facility committee will evaluate the initial renovation costs necessary to make the existing City Hall functional for the Police Department and consider a phased approach for future improvements as additional police impact fees become available. Mayor Merrill clarified that the results of the planning process will be presented to the City Council for further consideration and a subsequent decision. Approval of the action item will not commit the city to proceeding with option three but will authorize further evaluation and development of the proposal. If the planning process determined that the option is not financially or operationally feasible, the city will not be obligated to proceed. Council President E. Erickson agreed with concerns that the city historically pieced together facilities for the Police Department. However, he stated that he trusted the committee’s analysis and Chief Rhodes’ assessment that the existing City Hall could be renovated into a functional police facility. He expressed concern regarding the proposed lease appropriation financing. He believes allocating additional overhead costs to individual departments will ultimately require those departments to reduce services, increase applicable fees, or identify other funding sources. He questioned whether shifting costs among departments reduced the financial burden on residents. Council President E. Erickson asked whether the city has considered partnering with Madison County on a joint law enforcement facility, noting that the county is also evaluating expansion needs for the Sheriff’s Office. Chief Rhodes stated that a joint facility has been considered and that city staff has consulted with other jurisdictions that have pursued similar arrangements. He explained that challenges can arise because the sheriff is an elected position and because the respective agencies can experience different rates of growth and changing facility needs over time. Chief Rhodes explained that location is a significant factor in evaluating the existing City Hall. He noted that the building is centrally located near the Prosecutor’s Office, dispatch, the Sheriff’s Office, and the jail, all of which the Police Department interacted with regularly. A new City Hall on the proposed property will also remain nearby, allowing convenient interaction between City Hall and the Police Department. He stated that city staff also considered the overall cost for the city and taxpayers when evaluating the alternatives. Although he would have preferred a newly constructed police station with all desired features, he recognized that every facility involved financial limitations and compromises. Chief Rhodes stated that consultants have identified several improvements that could increase security at the existing City Hall, including physical barriers near the entrance, a protected public entryway, and a gated and a secure parking area. He believes the existing building is structurally sound and will immediately provide a safer environment than the Police Department’s current facility. He expressed concern that continuing to delay a facility solution could increase both operational challenges and future construction costs. The Police Department intended to remain fiscally responsible while making the best use of available resources. Chief Rhodes also identified opportunities within City Hall for community outreach, education, and training. He noted that much of the existing office space could be used immediately with limited renovation, while certain areas, including interview rooms and secure spaces, will require modifications. The building also provides areas that could accommodate future growth. He reported that consultants have identified other Idaho law enforcement agencies that have successfully renovated existing buildings for police use or shared facilities with municipal offices. City Staff have considered these examples when evaluating the feasibility of converting City Hall. Chief Rhodes reiterated that option three has been evaluated based on the overall cost to the city, the financial impact on taxpayers, the functionality of the existing building, and its downtown location. He stated that the downtown location provided favorable response access to the university, elementary schools, and other areas of the community. City Staff have also evaluated response times from the Pioneer Road property and recognized that each potential location involved advantages and disadvantages. Council President E. Erickson concluded that he did not believe the City Council is prepared to make a final decision tonight. He stated that he needed additional time to consider the proposal and better understand how lease appropriation financing will operate. Council Member Johnson stated that Councilmembers appeared to share the goal of providing the Police Department with an adequate facility, although they differed on how that goal should be accomplished. She expressed concern about the potential cost of renovating the existing City Hall and reiterated that allocating additional overhead costs to departments will effectively reduce the funding available within those departmental budgets. Council Member Johnson requested additional financial analysis to construct a new police station on the property the city purchased. She asked that all available funding sources be applied to that option so the City Council can compare the remaining financing needs and determine the potential annual lease appropriation cost for a new police facility. Council Member C. Erickson expressed appreciation for the work completed by Chief Rhodes and the committee but stated that several questions remained unanswered. He requested a more detailed professional evaluation of the existing City Hall to determine the actual cost of converting it into a secure and functional police facility. He noted that police facilities generally required more specialized construction and security features than standard office buildings and therefore had higher construction costs. Council Member C. Erickson reiterated his preference for constructing a police facility specifically designed for law enforcement operations. Based on his previous law enforcement experience, he believes the city should fully evaluate whether it can provide the Police Department with a purpose-built facility rather than continuing to modify existing buildings. Council Member Tietjen clarified that the proposed action will only authorize additional planning and will not commit the city to option three. The planning process is intended to provide more detailed information regarding renovation costs, overhead allocations, and other financial considerations. She suggested that the analysis could also include Council Member Johnson’s request to further evaluate financing for a new police station. Chief Rhodes explained that Core Construction participated in the committee’s preliminary review and has experience working with other construction companies on similar renovation projects. Core Construction indicated that converting the existing City Hall into a police facility appeared feasible and offered to assist with preliminary analysis and planning at no cost to the city. Additional information would be needed to determine the extent of the analysis they can provide. Chief Rhodes also explained that the renovation can be completed in phases. Certain improvements that are not immediately necessary, such as a secure sally port, could potentially be constructed several years later using accumulated police impact fees. He noted that those impact fees are specifically available for qualifying Police Department capital improvements and can reduce the amount of funding required from other city departments. Council Member Reeser acknowledged the concerns expressed by other Councilmembers and stated that the committee’s recommendation is intended to address many of those concerns. He emphasized that proceeding with the proposed action will not commit the city to constructing a new City Hall or renovating the existing City Hall into a police facility. He explained that the two proposed committees will gather additional information regarding project costs, square footage requirements, funding sources, down payment options, and estimated annual payments. That information will then be presented to the City Council before any binding decision is made to proceed with construction or renovation. Council Member Reeser stated that the planning process will provide the City Council with more detailed financial information and allow it to determine whether option three remained feasible. If further analysis identified significant concerns or demonstrated that the option is not practical, the City Council could decide not to proceed. He believes approving the proposed action will simply authorize and direct city staff and the committees to gather the additional financial and operational information necessary for the City Council to make a more informed decision. Council Member C. Erickson stated that he supported gathering additional information through the proposed planning process but did not want the process to limit the City Council to a single option. He believes too many questions remain regarding both the future of City Hall and the Police Department’s facility needs. He emphasized that additional alternatives should continue to be explored during the planning process. He supports moving forward with further analysis if it did not direct the City Council toward a predetermined outcome or prevent consideration of other feasible options. Council Member Johnson requested clarification regarding the scope of the proposed action item. She expressed concern that approving the action will further the planning and analysis to option three. She stated that she wanted the city to continue evaluating other alternatives, including the cost of constructing a new police station after applying all available funding sources. She indicated that she supported proceeding with additional planning if those alternatives are included in the analysis. However, she did not support an action item that exclusively furthered consideration for Option Three. Finance Officer Nielson clarified that city staff could provide a comparison of the recommended funding sources for each option, including potential down payments and ongoing annual payments. He stated that the analysis can also calculate estimated annual lease appropriation payments. Council Member Johnson clarified that her proposed alternative is to construct a new police station without using a general obligation bond. Finance Officer Nielson confirmed that city staff could include that alternative in the financial analysis and apply the same potential funding sources being considered for option three to determine its financial feasibility. Council Member Riggins stated that public safety is a fundamental responsibility of city government and believes the City Council needs to determine how to fund an adequate police facility within the resources available. He suggested evaluating whether existing city expenditures could be reduced or reprioritized to provide funding for a new police facility. He believes the city should clearly identify the financial tradeoffs associated with constructing a new facility using existing revenues. Mayor Merrill noted that the existing City Hall was originally a JCPenney building and was successfully renovated into a functional municipal facility. He believes the building could similarly be renovated into a safe and functional police station. He acknowledged that renovations could cost several million dollars but stated that the building’s location and existing structure made it a viable option for long-term police use. Mayor Merrill expressed concern that delaying further evaluation will continue to postpone improvements to the Police Department’s facility. He supported evaluating additional alternatives but recommended moving forward with the planning process to obtain more detailed information regarding renovation costs, security improvements, and financing options. Finance Officer Nielson clarified that the planning phase will determine the square footage needed for a new City Hall and the estimated cost to renovate the existing City Hall into a police station. City Staff will also identify potential funding sources for the down payment and ongoing annual payments. The funding analysis will be applied to all three options without considering a general obligation bond. City Staff will determine which funding sources can be used for each option and identify available cash reserves, potential down payment amounts, the remaining amount that will need to be borrowed, and the estimated annual lease appropriation payment. The analysis involves several variables and will take time to complete. Mayor Merrill reiterated that entering the planning phase will not commit the city to a specific option. Correction to meeting minutes requested on September 16, 2026 (Transcript at 3:57:08 (table approval of minutes to Oct 7, 2026, meeting) Finance Officer Neilson added that Council Member Johnson requested that city staff identify potential funding sources for both the initial down payment and ongoing payments, including any necessary financing for a new police station. She asked that Finance Officer Nielson evaluate those funding sources against each of the three options previously discussed, excluding the General Obligation Bond option from consideration. The analysis will determine which options can be financially supported by the identified funding sources and which options will not be feasible. Council Member C. Erickson requested that the lease appropriation financing analysis also be applied to the option of constructing a new police station so the City Council can compare the financing consistently across the different options. Finance Officer Nielson agreed and stated that city staff will evaluate the same potential funding sources and down payment options for all three options. He noted that additional funding sources, including the Revolving Loan Fund, could also be considered as part of the comparison. He added that planning for a new City Hall will begin by identifying which departments will occupy the building, determine their square footage needs, and estimate the space required for public areas, entrances, restrooms, and other shared spaces. City Staff will also evaluate whether departments such as Recreation and Cultural Arts needed to remain in City Hall or can they be relocated to other city facilities, including the ice rink or Tabernacle. He stated that this analysis would help determine the actual space requirements for a potential new City Hall. Council President E. Erickson asked whether entering the planning phase will commit the city to consultant expenses. Finance Officer Nielson explained that funding for professional services has been included in the municipal building reserve fund. City Staff will initially complete as much analysis as possible internally and continue working with consultants, including Headwaters and CORE Construction, that provided preliminary assistance at no cost. If more detailed analysis requires consultant fees, staff will return to the City Council with the estimated cost for approval before proceeding. He added that if the project advanced further, the City will likely need to hire a municipal financial advisor. Council Member Tietjen moved to approve to enter the planning phase to determine square footage needs and potential amounts for funding sources for options one, two and three to build a new city hall and police station and forming two committees; Council Member Reeser seconded the motion; Mayor Merrill asked for a vote: Those voting aye Those voting nay Council Member Tietjen none Council Member Johnson Council Member C. Erickson Council Member Reeser Council Member Riggins Council President E. Erickson The motion carried. Calendared Bills: Second Reading: Those items which have been first read: NONE Third Reading: Those items which have been second read: Ordinance No 1355 Final Assessment Roll for Local Improvement District 54 (LID 54) – Keith Davidson Action Item LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT 54 FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL ORDINANCE NO. 1355 AN ORDINANCE CONFIRMING THE ASSESSMENT ROLL, FOR LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 54 IN REXBURG, IDAHO, FOR THE PURPOSE OF INSTALLING CERTAIN STREETS, CURBS, GUTTERS, SIDEWALKS, AND OTHER PUBLIC FACILITIES AND PARTS THEREOF WITHIN THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF SAID CITY, TO BE GRADED, RE-GRADED, GRAVELED, PAVED, RE-PAVED AND OTHERWISE IMPROVE THE HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED STREETS WITHIN THE DISTRICT AND TO CONSTRUCT AND RECONSTRUCT SIDEWALKS, CURBS, GUTTERS, DRIVEWAYS, DRAINAGE FACILITIES, OFFSITE STORM SEWER, WATER AND SANITARY SEWER FACILITIES, STREET LIGHTS AND OTHER PUBLIC FACILITIES AND OTHER WORK INCIDENTAL TO ALL OF THE FOREGOING IMPROVEMENTS; ORDERING ASSESSMENTS TO BE MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ASSESSMENT ROLL AND PRESCRIBING DETAILS CONCERNING SAID ASSESSMENTS; AND REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES OR PARTS OF ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT HEREWITH, AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. Council President E. Erickson moved to approve Ordinance No 1355 Final Assessment Roll for Local Improvement District 54 (LID 54); Council Member Riggins seconded the motion; Mayor Merrill asked for a vote: Those voting aye Those voting nay Council Member Tietjen none Council Member Johnson Council Member C. Erickson Council Member Reeser Council Member Riggins Council President E. Erickson The motion carried. Ordinance No 1356 Amendment of the Fiscal Year 2026 Budget Action Item Ordinance No. 1356 Amend Ordinance 1333 Fiscal Year 2026 Appropriation Ordinance AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF REXBURG, IDAHO, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 1333, THE APPROPRIATION ORDINANCE FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING OCTOBER 1, 2025, AND ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2026: APPROPRIATING ADDITIONAL MONIES THAT HAVE BEEN OR ARE TO BE RECEIVED BY THE CITY OF REXBURG, IDAHO, AND BUDGET REDUCTIONS IN THE NET SUM OF ($6,708,100) AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Council Member Riggins moved to approve Ordinance No 1356 Amendment of Fiscal Year 2026 Budget; Council Member C. Erickson seconded the motion; Mayor Merrill asked for a vote: Those voting aye Those voting nay Council Member Tietjen none Council Member Johnson Council Member C. Erickson Council Member Reeser Council Member Riggins Council President E. Erickson The motion carried. 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. Minutes from August 19, 2026, City Council Meeting - Action Item Approve the City of Rexburg Bills - Action Item Council Member Johnson moved to approve the Consent Calendar containing the minutes, and city bills; Council President E. Erickson 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 Council President E. Erickson The motion carried. Council Member C. Erickson moved to a enter into Executive Session as per Idaho State Statute §74-206(1)(f) To communicate with legal counsel for the public agency to discuss the legal ramifications of and legal options for pending litigation, or controversies not yet being litigated but imminently likely to be litigated; Council Member Tietjen seconded the motion; Mayor Merrill asked for a roll call vote: Those voting aye Those voting nay Council Member Johnson none Council Member Tietjen Council Member C. Erickson Council Member Reeser Council Member Riggins Council President E. Erickson The motion carried. Executive Session Start 9:14 Executive Session End 9;57 Adjournment 9:57 P.M. APPROVED: ________________________________ Jerry Merrill, Mayor Attest: ________________________________ Marianna Gonzalez, City Deputy Clerk