Jefferson County commissioners rejected an ordinance that would have reclassified a parcel in Section 12, Township 4 North, Range 38 East, from Agricultural‑10 to Residential‑1, saying the county and the City of Rigby need clearer commitments about sewer and service connections before more area‑of‑impact rezones proceed. The motion to adopt Ordinance 2025‑O7 (ZON25‑0003) failed after commissioners expressed doubts about whether the city would help fund or construct the sewer infrastructure needed if development followed.

The proposal would have amended the county’s official zoning map as recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission, which held a public hearing July 10 and found the change consistent with the Jefferson County comprehensive plan. Supporters said the parcel sits inside the county’s designated area of impact and matches surrounding zoning. Opponents said the county lacks leverage to ensure timely city hookups and warned the county could be left maintaining roads and services for subdivisions without city participation.

Commissioners pressed for a renegotiation or tightening of the county’s area‑of‑impact agreement with the City of Rigby before approving more rezonings. Concerns included developers relying on private wells and septic systems rather than municipal utilities, higher long‑term maintenance costs for the county, and the practical difficulty of running new sewer lines across existing subdivisions.

Commissioners also discussed alternatives such as encouraging higher‑density lots (quarter‑ or third‑acre) where city sewer can be economical and pursuing grant or LID structures that make municipal hookups feasible. No formal follow‑up motion outlining conditions or a renegotiation plan was adopted during the meeting; commissioners said they would pursue further discussions with the city and revisit county area‑of‑impact language.

The ordinance language cited Chapter 65, Title 67 of the Idaho Code and Chapter 1.12 of the Jefferson County Code; the Planning and Zoning Commission record and the county’s comprehensive plan were listed in the ordinance file. The vote on the ordinance did not carry.