Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Local Improvement Districts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Rexburg council tables Local Improvement District 54 after hours of public comment
Summary
After more than an hour of public testimony and debate, the Rexburg City Council voted to table consideration of Local Improvement District 54 so staff and council can model alternatives and return with cost-sharing scenarios.
The Rexburg City Council on Tuesday opened a public hearing on Local Improvement District (LID) 54, a proposal to rebuild sections of Fifth West, First South, First West and Park Street that would require property owners to pay a portion of curb, gutter and sidewalk work, then voted to table the matter for further study.
The council and public spent more than two hours on the item, with homeowners, landlords and business representatives offering a mix of support, concern and alternatives before Councilmember Chambers moved and Council President Walker seconded a motion to table. The motion passed unanimously.
LID 54 would cover properties on Fifth West (Yellowstone to Seventh South), First South (Second West to Center Street), First West (Main to First South) and Park Street (Pioneer Road to the previously completed section by the LDS church). City staff provided an early estimate of property-owner assessments based on linear footage and replacement needs. Several speakers and neighborhood representatives questioned the scope and the allocation method used to calculate assessments.
Homeowners and property managers told the council the city’s method for allocating costs — based on curb, sidewalk and driveway footage — produced bills that many said were unaffordable. "The estimated cost from Rexburg City for my share of the curb and gutter and sidewalk is $4,269," Madison County resident and property owner Todd Grant told the council, adding he had a private contractor estimate of about $2,600 for the same work.
Owners of rental properties said the assessments could force rent increases or make properties financially untenable. "Between the two homes, that puts us very close to $30,000," Bill Johnson said of the combined assessments on a pair of rental properties he owns on Fifth West.
Others asked the council to consider alternatives to the LID format, including a citywide streets levy override or spreading costs over a broader base. "Is it possible to vote on it as citizens, like to come through on a ballot saying, ‘do you want an increase in taxes so this isn’t a lump-sum expense’?” audience member Tracy asked during the hearing.
Several residents urged the council to require narrower travel lanes and redesigned street sections that could reduce asphalt and maintenance costs while improving walkability. "Narrower lanes, slower speeds and a more walkable street would create long-term savings and raise property values," Aaron Denney told the council.
Neighborhood representatives also raised issues with parcel mapping and cost allocations. Larry Rigby, representing Continental Park HOA, said his review found only a small portion of the association’s curb and sidewalk that needed replacement, yet the LID maps assigned about $32,000 of cost to residents of that complex.
City staff said some work in the LID areas is time-sensitive because of street and utility needs. The city also urged property owners to consider finance options: LID assessments can be paid over a 10-year term and staff said historically the city has offered interest rates tied to municipal bond levels.
Councilmembers emphasized they were sympathetic to residents’ concerns and that alternatives would be studied. "We could look at reallocating funds in our streets budget, or consider different participation scenarios — for example, the city taking the curb and gutter while property owners handle sidewalks," Councilmember Johnson said during deliberations.
After public testimony, Councilmember Chambers moved to table the LID. Council President Walker seconded. The motion passed, and council directed staff to return with scenario cost breakdowns — including (a) full LID as proposed, (b) city participation limited to curb and gutter, (c) varying city/owner splits on sidewalks, and (d) an estimate for what a citywide levy override sufficient to eliminate LIDs would require.
The council also asked staff to report on whether bids could be locked in if the council delayed and to produce a clear timeline and outreach plan so affected property owners receive earlier notice for future LIDs. Council members said they will consider options at a work session before the next council meeting.
The public hearing record remains open for written comments; the council did not set a new hearing date when it tabled the item.
