City Council - Regular Meeting

this evening and to discuss the needs, concerns, and the future development of our city. Father, we're grateful for this good place that we have to live, especially for the good people that we live among, and ask that thou would please bless us all with wisdom and peace, that we might be able to work together to solve the problems and challenges that are before us, and also to support each other as residents of Rexburg. Father, we're grateful for all that thou has done for us, and we ask for these things in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.

Amen. Right. Thank you all very much. Appreciate that.

All right, at this point in time, we would need to do a roll call of our city council members, and we'll ask our assistant city clerk, Mariana, to do that for us, please. Deputy clerk, sir.

Council member Johnson here. Council member Teigen here. Council member Measer here. Council member Riggins here. Council member Colin Erickson here.

Here, I think he said. Okay. Thank you, Colin. We appreciate you, Council Member Erickson. We appreciate you joining us remotely. Council Member Eric Erickson has asked to be excused from this meeting this evening. So we will move on to item number three on the agenda, which is welcoming of some of our new city team members. Let's start out with, and what we'll do is ask you to come up to the podium and just introduce yourself briefly to us and And let us know a little bit about you. Let's start out with Mason Grundy from our street and sanitation departments. Is Mason here and ready? There you are. Okay. Come on up, Mason.

Hi, Mason. Can you hold on one second? Yeah. Thank you.

Ready?

Okay.

Where are you from, Mason?

Originally from California.

How long have you lived in Rexburg?

Since last May.

Oh, awesome. And you have your family here?

Yeah, my girlfriend and her two kids.

Oh, welcome. Thank you.

Great. Is there any other questions for Mason or anything else that you'd like to let us know? Okay, great. Well, thank you very much for being here. We appreciate it, and we appreciate you being part of our Rexburg team. Did you have a question? Okay. Let's give Mason a hand. All right. Thank you. Let's move on to Josh Heaton, our new ice rink facility manager.

Yes.

Good.

I'm Josh. This is my son, Finn, Cliff, River, and my wife, Alexis. I've lived here since like 2014 or so, off and on. Any questions?

How are you liking the ice rink so far?

Yeah, it's cool. Lots of potential, lots of fun. The staff has been fantastic. Lots of support from everybody here at City Hall. Just fantastic ideas, fantastic atmosphere. So no complaints.

Great.

Where were you at before you came here? So I worked for Idaho Falls and ran their ice rink for a little while. And yeah.

Okay, great. Well, thank you. We appreciate you too. All right, let's see. I think those are our only two new employees. We do have... Just for your information, we have two employees that have, or actually three that have moved from one department to another that Jackson Likes has moved from streets to our building inspection department. Brandon Budekhofer has moved from the sanitation and streets department to two streets. So he's just on streets only now. And Katie Suri has moved from planning and zoning to our HR department to become our HR generalist. So those are just some changes that have been made since our last meeting. So we are grateful for all of our team members and for those who are moving into different spots to learn new things, and we appreciate all of them. All right, let's go ahead. At this time, we have item number four on our agenda is the time for public comment. This is a time for items that are not on the agenda tonight. If anyone would like to make any comments, we invite you to come to the podium and state your name and address. And we would ask you to limit your comments to three minutes. Is there anyone who would like to address the Council this evening? If not, is there anyone online? With their hand up. No. Okay. Thank you. All right. We will go ahead then and move on to item number five, which is our committee meetings, our committee assignments and reports. Let's go ahead and start down here on the right with council member Johnson, and then we'll just move on down.

Thanks, Mayor. I don't have a lot to report. We had our budget meetings. So, you know, we had budget meetings for Parks, Trails, and Rec. And they're doing well, getting ready for the Teton Dam Marathon. And we just, you know, met the new manager for the ice rink. And that was a big deal. And then this isn't on here, but our LID committee will be meeting again in a couple weeks.

Okay, great. Thank you. Appreciate that. All right. Let's remember teaching.

With grants, we received a letter that the Eccles Foundation is going to award us $100,000 for the tabernacle to help us finish out. I hope I didn't steal your thunder, Mayor.

I'm glad you mentioned it.

To help us finish out the bathrooms in the tabernacle. We're really excited about that and we appreciate their support. Uh, the mayor's youth, they visited the animal shelter and then they had their end of year party. And tomorrow is flabber day. And we invite everybody to come out to that and help plant some flowers in the first hundred, get an awesome t-shirt. So everybody make it if you're can, I know tomorrow's graduation, but try and stop by plant a flower, get a shirt. Then with America 250, we are still meeting about that and getting excited about it and meeting weekly about all the things that are happening with that. The Historic Preservation Commission met and they will be helping with the America 250 coloring contest and t-shirt contest. They will be judging that and then picking the finalists and then the city council will determine the winners for that so we're excited for that happening and also flood 50 is happening in a couple weeks so we encourage everybody to get out go out on the website uh check out all the events order tickets for all the different things and we're getting excited about that so

Great. Thank you very much. Just a couple of things, if you don't mind, if I add on. Councilmember Teejan mentioned the $100,000 grant from the Eccles Foundation. We were fortunate with that because we had put in there that we needed to raise $5 million to do all of the things we want to do through the tabernacle, and they were going to finish out the last $100,000 of that $5 million. We realized that it's going to take us a while to get to 5 million, and right now we're at about 2 million. And so we sent them a letter and asked if they would finish out our 2 million instead of our 5 million. And they wrote back and said, Normally, we don't do this, but we feel like you have a good commitment and that you will work hard to finish the project. So we're going to go ahead and show our faith in your project and give you that $100,000. So we're very grateful that they were willing to do that because that'll help us a lot. $100,000 is a big deal. So we're grateful for that. Council Member Teejan also mentioned Flower Day. You might be going, Flower? What is Flower? Years ago, we wanted to celebrate Arbor Day, but Arbor Day happens in April, and it's usually too cold to plant things in April because they get frozen. So we decided to combine Arbor Day and planting flowers, so we called it Flower Day. And you can get T-shirts. As Councilmember Teach said, you can get a T-shirt that says, you probably wouldn't be able to get anywhere else. This is, I helped on Flauber Day. So it's four o'clock tomorrow. We would encourage anybody here that you're probably sitting there wondering, what could I do to help out the city of Rexburg tomorrow? Well, here you go. Four o'clock tomorrow, meet right in front of City Hall, bring some friends. Usually only takes about 45 minutes and we have it all done because in the past we've had 80 to 100 volunteers. So So we would appreciate all the help we can get because graduation is tomorrow. So probably some of those folks that might normally come may not be able to come because of that. So anyway, let's move on. Excuse me, move on to Council Member Reeser.

Yeah, the Legacy Flight Museum, we've met a couple of times since the last time we reported. And I'm pleased to say that the fly-in and breakfast is planned and moving forward on June the 20th at 8 o'clock in the morning. We're going to have a fly-in here at Rexburg Airport and be able to see many of the airplanes that we have in our inventory as well as others and also a pancake breakfast. Starting at 8 and ending at 10. At least the breakfast is ending at 10. So, yeah, we're looking forward to a great turnout.

Okay. That starts at 8 a.m., right? Okay. Thank you. All right. Council Member Riggins. Oh, excuse me.

Will you need help with that?

I think we will. Yeah. Deb's spearheading a lot of those things, so...

Yeah, if you're able to come that morning. City Council has kind of traditionally helped serve breakfast there. It's a good chance to meet people and visit with them and all that kind of a thing. So if you're available and can come.

It's 730. 730.

Yeah, Deb will be there at 6, but she lets us come at 730. Okay. All right. Council Member Riggins.

Much has already been said, it's overlapping. I don't know what's going on. urban renewal met today. We've met a couple of times since the last time we reported. Basically talking about the property that we purchased right across the street from Brolems, the old high school there that will be torn down. We're in the process of working towards getting bids for asbestos removal and then demolition. But things just kind of moving forward.

Okay, thank you. Appreciate that. Councilmember Colin Erickson, do you have any report you'd like to make this evening?

I just have a couple things. Just remember the graduation tomorrow night for the Madison High School. Also, Central graduates tonight. In fact, it's right now, the graduation. And then On the golf board, the only thing I have on that is to report that they should have the mapping and the screens on all the carts in, I think, the second week of June. It's scheduled to come up and have them all put in. So that should be a good thing to track and take care of carts and also move along players out there.

That's all I have. All right. Thank you. Speaking of the golf board or golf course, I think we need to plant a few more trees along the fence, along Main Street. As I was driving in, a golf ball came flying out and bounced on the highway right next to the car in front of me and bounced up over it. Luckily, luckily didn't hit anything. So I think we need to strategically plant a few more trees that grow fairly tall right along there. So luckily it didn't hit anybody. What's that?

Yeah.

Well, maybe trees that don't grow fairly tall, but just right at that upper limit. Okay, so enough to be able to block some of those golf balls. But anyway, I was glad that it didn't hit the car. That was a relief. Okay, let's go ahead and move on to our staff reports. We'll start with our finance report with Mr. Matt Nielsen. Our CFO. Matt, before you start, just real quick, I wanted to just take a little poll. Do we have high school students here? Raise your hand. College students? Yeah? Okay, cool. Glad to have you here. Sorry I didn't welcome you at the start, but we're glad to have you here and learning what you can about our local government. We appreciate you being here. Thank you. Okay, Matt, go ahead.

Good evening.

There we go. Good evening. So I've got three reports in there for this month for you guys to look at. But Deb's going to pull up first the cash and investments balance report that you see here. So a couple of things on this. We're going to kind of do a deeper dive with some pie charts here in just a second that kind of talk about the managed investments, which is down if you go down just a little dab. So you can see that's about a total of on the far right about 39 million and the managed investments. And then. With that, we have the local government investment pool, which is about $4.3 million. That's really our liquid money. So as we have to look at cash flow and different councils where we're expensing money, that's kind of where we pull that money from is the LGIP. But then if you go to the charts, so I'm going to have Deborah flip to the charts. We did a little bit of a deeper dive just for your information on those managed investments. So Scott pulled out the three that we managed with, which is Morton, Zions Capital, and TVI. And then you can see the total there, the $34 million. But you can kind of get an idea of what they're investing in. And what they have to do, just for your information, is they have to follow our investment policy, which is very close to the state's investment policy as well. And so it's just our number one priority is always safety of our money. We're not going to put it in risky investments, if you will, and so that we don't lose it. And so as you look at that, they're investing about 45% of it in CDs. And then in addition to those CDs, further security on those CDs is we limit it to $250,000, which stays under the FDIC and the NCUA limits. So that if that bank ever was to fail, it's actually still protected. And so you can see the other areas, agencies and US governments are kind of the other bigger categories. And then if you go to the next, just keep rolling down, Scott also pulled up just the different ratings on those investments to give you an idea. And typically when we go in these investments, we're in the A ranges, but sometimes they get downgraded to the Bs. But you can see, you know, it's a fairly minimal amount at 0.7% on those three ranges. lines of BB plus BBB and BB minus. And then of course, there's no rating on the CDs that are under that $250,000 limit. But any questions on these? It was just to kind of give you guys a little better representation of how those managed accounts are invested and What kind of risk tolerance?

Matt, if you would, just for the public, maybe elaborate a little bit on the funds that are restricted and why we can't just use those wherever we want.

Yeah, sure. In fact, pull the other report up, Deb. And then we'll kind of look at that and I'll explain it. So pull the treasury report actually. So as you look at in governmental finance or governmental accounting, everything is kept in a fund. We call that a fund. And as you look at the city, we have like 70 something funds. Some of those funds are what we call governmental funds. Some of them are what we call business-type funds. If you think of water, sewer, sanitation, those are business-type funds with the idea that we charge a fee to cover the expenses for those. Governmental is generally covered by some other revenue source. If you look at the general fund right there on top, that's primarily covered by property tax and sales tax. And you do have probably the most discretion right there in the general fund. But the only reason why we have all these other funds is because there's additional restrictions or commitments. Some of those restrictions come from state law. Some of them come from internal policies that we have here. But anyways, all of those funds have a certain purpose. And so... I'll just give you, let's look at the, maybe just go to the second to bottom one there. So right there, you're good. So the one that says 43, street repair reconstruction. You can see that if you go to the far right, the cash balance right now is 6.1 million. Keith's going to get up here in a second and he's going to show you a five-year capital improvement plan for streets. But that's essentially that savings to do those street reconstruction projects. Um, and if we were to look at other ones in water, those are restricted for water. And so, and that's, that's the challenge is sometimes, uh, people see the total cash amount available and they're like, well, the city has plenty of money, like build the police station with that. Right. Um, unfortunately we can't do that. Uh, those have to be used for those specific purposes. And there's a reason why they're set aside in those specific funds. Does that help? Yeah, I think so. Thank you. Okay. And then as you look at that last report, the treasurer's report, we are through the fiscal year, we're through seven, I think you're right, seven months on this report through April. And that's about 58%. of the fiscal year. But if you look at the bottom, we've spent about 32% of that budget, which that is typical. You will see higher expenses in the summer, particularly on projects, right? Those capital projects and, you know, water, for example, you're going to see a lot higher numbers because water usage is going to climb super fast and in the next three months versus the prior. And so there's reasons for that. And so as we looked at that, we didn't, Scott and I didn't see anything alarming that stood out that we felt like we needed to talk about further, unless you guys have additional questions.

Any questions for Matt from council members? I think we're good.

Okay. All right. Thank you. Okay.

Thank you. Shoot that. All right, let's move on with our public works report. And business with our public works director, Mr. Keith Davidson.

Thank you, mayor. So what's that? We're going to do this. Action plan. So. I've got Nathan Kleber here with Keller associates and. I'm going to have him discuss that we had that safe streets for all grant. And so they were the lead on that. And he's got a PowerPoint presentation to give. And then we have that adoption of the safety action plan that we'd like to do at the end. So we can go after grants to help fund some of these improvements. I'll let Nathan talk to you.

Thank you. Appreciate being here. Every time I speak in front of the city council, I always get really nervous. And so just saying that helps me calm my nerves down. Appreciate this opportunity that we had to work on this grant and the comprehensive safety action plan. There's a lot of good that came out of it. We had a steering committee that we worked with quite a bit. Mary, you participated in that. And I'm going to go through the results, about five minutes. And if you feel like you'd like to interrupt me and ask me questions, go ahead. Or we can wait to the end of the presentation. I believe the actual report is in your packets. It is, OK. If I hit enter, will that do it? So tonight, what we're asking is that the city adopt the plan. And there's a couple of crucial reasons why in this particular meeting, the city should be submitting an application for the next round of safe... Safe Streets for All, SS4A, and that is for construction. We've identified a project that is fairly large that addresses a lot of the safety issues into one Package and so it's multiple streets multiple intersections and we believe that will score very well on the safe streets for all Funding round or this next grant application and so a part of that application is you have to approve the plan and there's certain criteria in the plan that have to be included and so one of those is a vision Well, first you need the plan approved to access federal funding for SS4A. It needs to have a prioritization of the framework of the projects, performance matrix and reporting requirements. This plan needs to be posted to your website so it's out there for the public to see. And so it's transparent. Those are some of the requirements that you're gonna need to have and they'll be verified by the feds when you submit. So the very first item with the plan is the city adopting a vision zero philosophy. So what does that mean? It means that we're targeting safety such that we eliminate fatalities and severe accidents, severe hospitalization. The plan also includes a safe system approach And so as a city, you're in charge of the roadways, but you may also be in charge of police, which you are. The ambulance, is that in the city's purview or is that in a hospital? So they're part of the safe system. So post-crash care is part of the system. There's other aspects besides just what happens on the street that prevent people from dying or from a fatality. The plan also includes practical safety measures that can be implemented, speed management, intersection improvements that address safety and the causes of the crash or reduces severity of crashes. And then it has accountability portion of it where, hey, we got to set a goal for we're going to complete these X amount of projects within this timeframe, or we're going to reduce our crashes to zero, I mean, our fatalities to zero within 10 years or so on. And so all these are in the plan and we can pull those exact matrix out.

Next one.

So first, the safe system approach. We talked about this quite a bit with the stakeholders. When we're talking fatalities and serious crashes, it's not just the accident itself, okay? What can you do as a city to manage your streets? But it's the speed limits and how do we inform drivers? It's the post-crash care. And then it addresses all users. So cars, pedestrians, bicyclists, motorcyclists. Now, we looked at the crash history for the city between 2020 and 2024. Those numbers are shown right there. You're averaging about 430 crashes a year. If we look at the fatalities, there's been three fatalities within that timeframe. And then at the serious injuries, which we classify as hospitalization, And we've seen upward trajectory of 13 this last, or in 2024, the last reporting year. So we focused on the high crash locations. And so how did we identify those? We used a scoring system that was data driven. So we're using the second item there, the 20 highest crash locations we identified by using a equivalent property damage. Oh, hmm. Can't remember what the O stands for, but it's your equivalent property damage, and they assign that to a fatality, and I hate to say it's a point system, but a fatality is, we scored it as 100 points. Serious injury was 10, and property damage only, that's what the O is, is one point, okay? From that, we evaluated the scoring and identify is it a particular location or is it a segment or a street? We also took that data and we presented it to the public later on in our second public meeting, but we also went to the public and asked, hey, what are your concerns and what are your highest priorities when it comes to safety? And so we have some information that we have from the public meeting in this as well. And then, like I said, we're looking at targeted measures that have measured results. If you implement these, it has a crash safety modification factor of 50% reduction, per se, if you implement this safety procedure. Not all of them are 50%. So our 20 highest crashes, so the triangles are the spot locations, tend to be intersections. I think all of them are intersections. And then the lines are segments where the cluster showed up. The lines tend to be, well, they can be a mix of severe injury or fatalities. Let me just go to the public. Well, actually, I'll go into the numbers first because I can't remember what slide I have next. All right. So is it surprising that two-thirds of all of the fatalities and serious injuries occurred with young drivers? It's probably not, especially the amount of crashes. So 1,500, almost 1,600 crashes in that time period were in that age group. Intersection related was 56%, and also 50% were the fatal and serious crashes. Nighttime crashes, 27%, and that includes dark, dusk, and dawn, with 39% fatalities and serious injuries at low light. Roadway and lane departure crashes were roughly 30%, and a third of all the fatalities were that as well. Question. Yes.

Do we have anything that's like for like winter conditions?

We did look through all that data as well. And that is in the report. And I'd have to look it up. It was surprisingly low. And when we talk about crashes, what drives severity of a crash?

Speed.

Speed and mass, right? E equals MC squared, I think is energy, right? And what happens in winter conditions? everybody slows down. And so your severity, well, not everybody, but most people, most people slow down. And so you end up with side swipes, you end up with property damage only, but you don't end up with the fatalities unless you're out on the interstate is different. The highway and interstates is different, but in town, when you're maneuvering, everybody's going slow, trying to go most, except for the young drivers.

No judgment here. No judgment.

Okay. All right. Does that answer your question? Okay. Surprisingly, bicycle and pedestrians were only 3%. But as you would expect, 20%, 24% was the fatalities and serious injuries. And it makes sense. I think if, uh, I think statistics show if you're hit at 25 miles an hour and you're in a, you're a pedestrian, you have like 85% chance of living. If you hit a 35, you have like 25% chance of living. And it goes down from there. Motorcyclists 1.7% of all your crashes, but they were a quarter of the fatal and serious. So when we went to the public and asked them what they thought, we got a really good response. We did an online storyboard and had a bunch of questions and had a map that they could tag. And we began this right before Thanksgiving, and we ran it all the way through the new year. And so there was about six weeks there, five weeks, and we got some really good data. 160 respondents, and the amount of information we got was more than most surveys that we get from the public. 78% lived here, another 10% lived 10 miles away, another 10% lived even further. 41%, only 41% feel safe driving in Rexburg. 33% felt safe walking. 20% feel safe biking, which I'm not surprised. I mean, my wife will not bike along the roadway. I will, and that's not uncommon. 75% void areas that they feel were unsafe. And then 46% say speed too fast. So we took all this data, plus the crash data, and we came up with project recommendations. And we sorted those based off of the equivalent property damage only score. And then we classified them, are they near-term, long-term, or mid-term, or long-term? Because we felt that, and the steering committee felt that, hey, this is a lot of money. We go through all this, start adding this up. I mean, it's multiple millions of dollars, and that $6.9 million that Keith was wanting to use for this other stuff isn't going to cut it. And so instead, we classified it in durations that you can accomplish. Other items that we've identified is several policies that you can adopt. Some of the policies are complete streets, which addresses the roads, bike lanes, sidewalks, routine safety audits for when you know there was a crash that occurred that's severe. You do a safety audit. Hey, is there something that we need to do at that intersection to make it safer? Another one that we talked about quite a bit, and also it's a funding one, is an impact fee for development for pedestrians if they're within, let's say, the university zone. Right now you have an impact fee or impact study, excuse me, not impact fee, impact study for vehicles that's adopted in your transportation plan. But if you had one for pedestrians, now that may protect the ones that are the most at risk. And there's other policies.

We listed about 12 policies altogether that all affect safety.

Okay, and then there's non-infrastructure actions that you can take. This is obviously enforcement education campaigns. Could you, instead of paying engineers and contractors to do a modification, could you do an educational blitz with the college or the university and high schoolers? What would that be? Also, partnering with the ambulance districts, the fire, well, you guys have the fire department. Do you have the fire stations in the right locations to increase your response time? After we came up with the project lists and we went back out to the public, and this was ran for about two weeks, and we rushed this a little bit premature because they came out with the grant required here. I think it's due on the 26th, so in about a week. Next week, I believe it's due. We have to have this adopted and we were originally thinking that was gonna be the end of June and they moved up their deadline from what they did last year. Of the 12, here's an interesting note. 10 of them are willing to have longer travel times for safety. So what does that mean? So does that mean you can just go lower speed limits? No, because state law is you have to have 85% of the 85 percentile of the speed. And that's what you set it at. But does it mean that you're adding more traffic signals or RFBs or hawks? Or are you necking down the roadway to make it feel uncomfortable to drive fast so they have to slow down? There's provisions like that. 92% mostly agreed or agreed with the high crash locations that we had identified. Good question.

How did you send out the surveys?

These were advertised through the city's Facebook page.

Through the Facebook page. Okay. And this was done like in this month or when?

It began at the beginning of last month.

Okay.

i just have one question and so you're saying there were 12 responses total for this yeah and so the meaningful data is not very meaningful but still 10 10 said they would be willing to drive slower for safety that's pretty high percentage and keith wanted to really make sure that you guys knew that okay questions

Questions. Yeah, go ahead.

I've got a question. So is this study also identifying specific solutions for each of those problem areas that you've identified? Or is it just identifying the problem areas and then the solutions come later?

Yeah, there are solutions. And that's what we're with this grant that we're applying for would be to help fund those solutions.

So part of the grant is you need to not only identify the problem, you need to come up with a solution to the problem. And then if they agree. Well, we have the solutions.

But now it's just funding those solutions. So when Nathan was showing you on the previous slide, all those millions of dollars, those were solutions to the problem.

So that's what your chosen solution then would cost.

Well, that's if you implemented everything that we said that solution included. And you may piecemeal that. You may, I mean.

Yeah, there's segments you can just break out. It's like, what can you afford? Try and tackle the worst ones. and then see where we can go from there.

And so this also establishes our priorities. Depending on how much we do get from this grant, we can then say, okay, we can do this and this and this.

However, the grant, the project that we identified for the grant, it's like eight of the locations. It encompasses, what do you call it, university district?

Yeah. So it's high pedestrian area locations. were what we went after the grant some of the other ones the vehicular traffic ones ones that we didn't go after the grant or more along the lines of second east so that would be like putting in three-quarter like so you just have like a right out and maybe a left in and so you look at some of those things to to lessen those conflict points as people are coming in and out of those side streets or driveways and just trying to lower those but we didn't We felt like maybe our best opportunity to get funding would be to go after the pedestrian side versus the vehicular side.

So this is a prime example of what was delivered in the report. So this is the high crash location number one, and north, second east, and second, north, second east. So second through to South Teton River. So south of the bridge. And it goes and gives you analysis of all the crashes that we observed or that we counted. We try to diagnose what they were. We state them. And then later on, we go in and say, here's some improvements that you can do for that. And so we did that with each one of these. And then also part of the grant, it funded concept design for, we went through all 20 and we said, what can we do for a concept design? And so we went and surveyed them and then we went and did a layout for each one to try to nail down the cost even further. And these are all the public involvement comments. If you go through and read all the questions, it's pretty insightful what we got from the public.

Another question, Council Member Jones.

You may have already answered this, I'm sorry, and I just didn't understand it. So was more priority given to a place that had a fatality, even if the overall volume of crashes was significant?

Unfortunately, they got a score of 100.

So think of this scale, right? So 100 is a fatality, a serious accident is a 10, right? So that's 10 times the number, right, for that.

So can we see the ones where, like, could you give us an example of a fatality?

Yeah. So for example, right. And we have, we got a grant trail tax. So we're putting the signal up on seventh South and center street. So that's where we had one fatality. Another fatality that we had was out on North second East, just North of the railroad tracks. We have a grant that we're putting in lightning, widening out that section of the road. Another fatality, was up by Moody and Walmart. So the second east of Moody was another fatality location.

And that's on here.

Yeah, it's in that study.

Sorry to interrupt. Was that a pedestrian fatality or was that a fatality? Yeah.

He was sitting in a car and somebody thought we were in it.

And you read the report, it's pretty fluke, I think, what happened. Yeah.

Yeah.

Medical.

Yeah, I guess we didn't show the fatality locations on this map.

So a great spot if you guys want to go look it up. LTAC has a website with past five years accident history on it. And so you can go on there and then it has the different colored dots represent the different accidents severity. And so black dots represent a fatality. red, and then it goes all the way down to white.

And you can select that information and you can read a cliff notes version of the accident report that tells you, was it an impaired driver? What time of day? What direction were the traffic going? That type of stuff.

Is that L-T-A-C?

L-H-T-A-C. L-H-T-A-C. Local Highways Technical Advisory.

And if you're going to go there, just search crash data and it will pop up.

Is that for all of Idaho?

Yes.

Okay. Good for senior projects. I'm going to file that one away. Within our jurisdiction.

And I can provide context on two. I was the prosecutor on two. The resulting call out for both of those. So I can give more context on that.

Okay, is there any other?

Your original slide, we're averaging, I mean, our average over those years is about 450 per year.

Yes, that's what it was. I didn't go back and look at the 25 data now that's published, but I just kind of remember the numbers. And the one where you're trying to go back to the top two categories.

How much of an increase we had from 20 to 21. And then from there, it's all.

That was COVID.

Yeah, I wonder if that was good. Yep. But he was driving. Hey.

This probably is actually for Keith. How possible is an impact study for pedestrians for us to do that as a solution? Or impact fee?

Well, not necessarily impact fee. It would probably be looking at, right, as developments come in, to say that, like we do a traffic impact study, would be to look at a pedestrian impact study. We've never done one of those, so I'd have to look into that more and see what that

So we did look it up. So we changed it to a multi-mobile study. And there's some other jurisdictions that are doing it. And so there are some you could use to come up with a policy.

I think that would be really helpful for us.

Well, especially with the amount of apartments coming in.

And sidewalks that we need for connectivity. Sidewalk stuff. Yeah.

It's miles away from us.

That would help us connect a lot of our sidewalk problems, maybe.

Okay, is there any other questions from anyone? If not, we do have the item on the table is the adoption of this comprehensive safety action plan. Is there a motion to go ahead with that item?

Mayor, I move that we adopt the comprehensive safety action plan.

All right, thank you. Is there a second to that motion?

I'll second.

Second by Councilmember Johnson. Any further discussion or questions before we vote? Hearing none, all in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? All right, that motion carries. Thank you very much. We appreciate that. Appreciate all the work that went into that. Hopefully we will become a safer...

place to live because of that so thank you yeah i just wanted the reason why i really wanted to to press uh the issue that nace talked about is just whenever we look at trying to reduce crashes and accidents and things like that inevitably right you're slowing down vehicles and you're going to have more congestion in some ways and so helping people understand that there's additional costs that maybe they don't see when you start looking at safety features in there. So because generally most people get upset when they have suggestions. Yeah. All right. Thank you. The next item I have for you is our proposed five year street reconstruction plan on there. And like always, we always like to have the next year nailed down and then the subsequent years are more flexible, right? Because we don't always know, sometimes roads deteriorate faster than we expect and so we need to shift on that. So that's why we bring this forward to the city council and just kind of really nailing down, obviously 2027, we have 2026 moving forward right now, but 2027, would be the year. So if you look at them, yellow is what we're looking at for 2027. On there, we also have included some of the projects from urban renewal on there. Those ones don't have a year on them. So just depending on as things transpire with those.

And the urban renewal ones are the ones in pink, right?

Yeah, well, I guess it doesn't show up quite as pink as on my paper. Yeah, so you've got University there, Sunrise, and then in that intersection where it makes a sweep. And then you also have up north by Walmart, just north of Walmart, where... The temple's going in, and then also Home Depot over there. So that's what's looking at that signal going in there.

And what years are those ones?

There's not a year on them. It's just... Just when it happens? Yeah, when it happens.

Okay, question.

So for the university to sunrise, I see it says urban renewal. So is the plan to have urban renewal completely pay for that portion?

Yeah, so that was on the urban renewal projects list on there. So back when that urban renewal was set up, I think it was like, was it 2012, 2013, somewhere in there, probably. And so that was listed out as one of those projects there.

And so that one, it would involve, the widening of the road would actually involve at least one home having to be readjusted, right?

Not necessarily. I mean, because that road's already in where that home is. It would just be looking at, are we looking at... not having a driveway approach versus a street approach on that road. And that could happen sooner if we wanted to pursue that, or it could not happen for a long time. It would just be a matter of like what volume, how many cars are really traversing that road.

I guess I'm still just a little unclear because, you know, I recently heard that there was talk of negotiating with the owner of that home. And so if they didn't want to sell their land to the city, urban renewal cannot, like then it would come to us, right? Because urban renewal cannot make them do that if they said no. So wouldn't that put a stop to that?

And there's nothing that is necessarily, driving that at the moment right it would just be down the road would that need to happen right with that so so if you start looking at okay what do we what is that road with and tail at the at the initial moment right i mean we were looking at a two-lane road with maybe a turn lane the middle on that right so that allows for it up at that section by that home would allow for still having on-street parking still having all those those things with it but i'm i i'm so confused i'm sorry i know because recently i am you said that we're gonna talk about negotiating i said that i said that was an option that we we could look at right and so how will we know if that's the option that's being pursued or if it's not Well, that'd be a direction if council wanted us to look at that direction to go with that, or if they're like, no, let's not pursue that at this time.

And so you're saying the way it is right now, there would be no change to the homes whatsoever?

Yeah, I would not anticipate that at the present moment. I mean, you look at Main Street and the homes that sit on Main Street, that's a five-lane road with those driveways on there. So you look at different speeds and things like that that would be going through that. Obviously, you're coming up to a stop condition along there. And so those would be things we'd look at.

I can answer your urban renewal questions. Go ahead, Matt. That University Boulevard district expires in 2031. Last year, funding is 2032. So it kind of gives you an idea of of how fast you probably need to get on that. Because I mean, once you go into design and actual bid it out in construction, you're gonna need a few years. And the other thing is, is that the cost of it's really going to depend on if you end up putting two traffic signals plus a road through there, because we also have to do some improvements at that West Haven church as well. And so urban renewal has about 2 million that can go towards that. If it's above that, then street impact fees and or.

your other street funds would have to pay the difference okay all right any further questions yeah um did you have something oh just quickly just to clarify as to your question so yes so urban renewal

So there is, within Idaho statute, like you said, in the scenario where eminent domain would attempt to be utilized, in Idaho, if an herbal renewal agency is compromised of only elected officials, they can exercise eminent domain. If one of the members is appointed, which I believe we appoint, or the Rexburg Herbal Renewal Agency appoints members, Then it would default to city council or to the governing body who authorized the original creation of that board. And so then any eminent domain action would revert back to city council.

Yeah, go ahead.

I'm sorry. I'm really not trying to be difficult. It's just that this actually matters to me, this portion, because I feel like a couple years back, we said we were going to have a meeting where residents came. And I don't feel like residents were actually, you know, we asked for solutions and things, but... That's not the way the meeting played out. I was really, really disappointed with it. And so I guess I'm not understanding why then it was even brought up that we might want to consider talking to them about selling their property if you're saying that's not part of this five-year plan.

No, that could be an option on there, right? And so it's just an option to look and say, okay, would they be interested in, with this road coming up through, would they be interested in selling their house?

but it's not required to put in what you have planned on this. No, I don't believe that. Okay.

Yeah, I think one of the, can I, Mayor, can I just say something? Yeah, go ahead. It's just, there's a lot of, I live there. That's where I live. And, you know, my wife and others are very supportive very against this. But the issue is that everybody, you know, people talk about there's a six-lane road going up there, and I've tried to go up there with my tape measure to show my wife that it is impossible to put a six-lane road on what already exists there, the part that they've already widened, right? So there's all of these... these these stories have gone about so i agree with you by the way i agree with you so what i'm saying to you is that i believe that that ultimately um and by the way i sit on the on the urban renewal board and i i haven't heard about this at all so this is this is all new to me um so um So I agree. I think that we need to explain to people what's going to happen. If that home is not going to be affected, I think they need to know that it's not going to be affected. If we're going to have stop signs, I think they need to know that there's going to be stop signs or lights, whatever you decide. But I think that there needs to be some communication there.

Yeah, definitely. Yes, go ahead.

Yeah, I just wanted to point out that they weren't just stories because it was actually posted. And yeah, maybe it got embellished, but it was not just stories about the road widening up there that had the residents concerned. So it wasn't just stories. But I would also like to know, I mean, I can think of other places in the city that are much more urgent stories. than that little piece right there. So I would just like to know why that's right now in the five-year plan, because the traffic problems aren't up there to me. And so I just want to know why it's there right now, why it's part right now.

Yeah. So we have some things that potentially could be coming in that area to drive the reconfiguration up there. Yeah.

And what about the things we already have right now? So, like, I could think of some other places, like, I'm sure we could think of other places where it's not just... Well, urban renewal funding, right, is part of that, right?

I mean, obviously, there's areas where urban renewal funding can be spent on that. And I get both sides of the things, right? Because some people are like, why is the city not being proactive in building these things? before they're detrimental, right? So being ahead of the curve. And then I get the other side is like, well, we shouldn't be building anything until after the fact, right? It just depends on kind of where the people fall on, where they want to see improvements made or not made.

Okay. All right. All right. The item on the table then is the five-year Capitol Street improvement plan. So if there are any questions or discussion, I would entertain a motion to move forward on this item. Is there such a motion?

I'll make that motion. Go ahead.

Go ahead, Colin.

I'll make that motion to approve the five-year plan.

All right, thank you. Motion has been made by Council Member Colin Erickson. Is there a second to that motion? I'll second. Second by Council Member Reeser. Any further questions or discussion? Yes, go ahead.

I want to make it clear. Like Council Member Riggins said, these residents are very concerned about this, so I just want to completely clear that this is not something where the road is being widened to cut into property. No, it's not. Just make that clear. Well, the church. It is not.

Yes, no. What about the church? Yeah, the church is being widened.

But the church is okay with that. The church is aware and they agree to it.

Yeah, all those things. So we don't have... There's no properties... right, that we're not gonna be in discussion with, because obviously there's some right of way that is potentially gonna be needed going to the west of where the road's already built to where the road is already in existence going up other than the church section, that would be section widened. The rest of that would stay the same. But going down to the West, right, there'll be some property that we're going to be in discussions with the property. That's vacant property on homeowner property.

No current homeowners.

Yeah, no current homeowners.

Needing to give up any right of way.

No, absolutely.

And any plans that you have right now?

to do that.

You have none.

And this isn't happening this summer. What's that?

It's not happening this summer or anytime soon either.

That's why we don't have a date on it.

There's time to discuss it.

Yeah, no homes. In fact, I would not anticipate any homes giving up any right away for... I would never say never because I don't know what's going to happen, but it would be a long, long ways out.

And you mean asking them to give up relatively? Yeah, we can't just take it from them.

Thank you. Good questions. Thank you. All right. So we have a motion and a second on the table. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Any opposed? All right, that motion passes. Thank you very much. Good discussion. All right. Thank you, Keith. We appreciate that.

Really quickly, is there a way to turn off the AC?

I don't know.

Thank you. I'm trying very hard not to start shivering.

Not to shiver, yeah. I know I started wearing extra layers for this meeting. Okay. All right, at this time, we have before us a, a proclamation. I'm going to explain this just a little bit before we go into the proclamation. I attended, I attended a, uh, last month I attended a, uh, kind of a conference, uh, that was put on and, uh, paid for actually, uh, attendance travel and everything was paid for by a group called combat and anti-Semitism movement. And, uh, there, um, Their purpose is basically what it says, combating anti-Semitism, but along with that, combating hate crimes in general, no matter who they are perpetrated against. You've heard of some of these things, these attacks that have been... made on Jewish synagogues. There was one just yesterday on a mosque in San Diego. A couple of people were killed, unfortunately. And, of course, there was the one that we know of on the LDS Chapel in Michigan. And so this group is... focused on how do we combat hate crimes in general, and since they are a group of Jewish people, anti-Semitism specifically. So this proclamation really is for Jewish American Heritage Month, but it does take in much more than that. So, Council Member Reeser, would you mind reading this?

Are you okay with that? Absolutely.

I have a bit of a cold and I sound more like a frog than even usual. So I'd appreciate if you would do that.

Happy to do it. Proclamation number 2026-03, May as Jewish American Heritage Month. Whereas, since their arrival on American shores as early as the 16th century, Jewish immigrants and their descendants have played a vital role in shaping the United States, contributing to the nation's creation, growth, freedom, prosperity, and enduring strength. And whereas Jewish Americans have made profound and lasting contributions to every aspect of American life, including the arts, sciences, business, law, education, military and public service, entertainment and culinary traditions, enriching the cultural fabric of our nation and helping define what it means to be an American. And whereas over four decades, presidents of the United States have formally recognized the invaluable contributions of Jewish Americans to our country. And since 2006, the month of May has been officially designated as Jewish American Heritage Month. through presidential proclamation and bipartisan congressional support. And whereas at a time of rising antisemitism, it is more important than ever to affirm the place of Jewish Americans in our national story and to reaffirm our commitment to their safety, dignity, and belonging. Now, therefore, I, Jerry Merrill, Mayor of Rexburg, do hereby proclaim May 2026 as Jewish American Heritage Month in the City of Rexburg, Idaho. I call upon all residents to join in celebrating the remarkable history, heritage, and contributions of the Jewish community to our city and our nation. I further encourage all city departments and agencies to commemorate this occasion through public announcements and the display of educational materials. Our local schools, colleges, and universities to offer programming that highlights Jewish American heritage and its impact on our shared municipal values. Museums, libraries, and cultural institutions throughout the city of Rexburg to host exhibitions and events that honor Jewish American history and achievements. Let this month serve as a time to reflect, learn, and celebrate the resilience, creativity, and enduring contributions of Jewish Americans throughout our history, adopted by the City of Rexburg, State of Idaho, on this 20th day of May, 2026. Okay, thank you very much.

I appreciate that. And I am going to go ahead and sign this. And I would ask for... a motion to ratify this proclamation to proclaim May as Jewish American Heritage Month in the city of Rexburg. Is there any discussion on that before we make a motion?

One thing just, I heartily concur as a teacher at Madison High School who teaches the Holocaust and human rights, we learn as much as we can about the Jewish communities that we have around our country. And unfortunately, we also highlight the difficult situation that some find themselves in with antisemitism and other forms of prejudice and hatred. So I and all of my Holocaust students at Madison High School, I dare speak for them. heartily support this and any other proclamation to show that we stand up against this and that everybody deserves to be treated with with dignity thank you very much i appreciate that any other comments or questions

I will add to that. It was really cool, actually. I debated on whether to go to this because I didn't know. I thought, well, I don't know if we have a whole lot of Jewish community here in this, but sometimes we don't know, right? And the other thing is, do we stand up against hate crimes in general and anti-Semitism? I think we probably all want to. So I felt like this was... a worthy cause. And after I went, I was very, it was very enlightening actually. And it was very cool because we had almost 50 mayors from across the country that were invited. And we, we worked together on some different items and we, we ate together and there were mayors of all, all colors and genders and everything you can imagine. And it was really interesting and enlightening and rewarding experience to mix and mingle with them and get to know them and just feel like we're all part of humanity. So it was really something that I enjoyed. So what I'm going to do is ask for a ratification of this proclamation, after which I'd like to have us maybe all gather in front of the dais here and take a photo of this proclamation and ourselves. And we'd invite any of you who are here to come up and join us if you'd like to. And the folks from the CAM, the movement, people have asked if we would send them a photo of this occasion. So with that, I would entertain a motion to move ahead with this ratification of this proclamation.

Mayor, by the way, thank you for this. I appreciate this very much. So I make a motion that we ratify proclamation number 2026-03, making May as 2026 as Jewish American Heritage Month.

All right. Thank you. Is there a second to that motion?

I'll second that.

Seconded by Council Member Tijan. Any further discussion or questions? Hearing none, all in favor? Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? All right, that motion carries. All right, at this time, let's go ahead and take the picture real quick, and then we will come back behind and finish up our business. So let's all sneak down here in front.

All right.

All right. Any of you that would like to come up to the end of the year, we'd love to have you.

Heidi.

Nice to meet you.

Arthur. Arthur. Yeah, we're glad you're here.

All right, let's get a perfect score. Anybody else?

One, two, three. One, two, three. Okay, we're good. All right. Can you see?

Thank you. That's the best I've ever been involved. That's great. Something like smile. Thank you. Okay.

All right. Yeah, you bet. I appreciate that. It brings tears to my eyes. Yeah, I appreciate that. And I think all of us appreciate it, but I knew you would appreciate it especially. So teaching that class and all. All right, thank you, everyone. We appreciate your participation with that. Let's move on with item number, we have nothing for item number eight. Item number nine, we have, let's see, do we have any? Yes, we do have ordinance number 1336, which is the amendment to ordinance number 1225, animal control prohibiting the sale of animals in certain situations in the city of Rexburg. See, that's the second reading, right? Yeah. Okay. So I would entertain a motion to consider this item second red. This ordinance number second red. Is there such a motion?

I'll make that motion, Mayor.

All right. Thank you. Is there a second to that motion?

I'll second that.

Second by Councilmember Riggins. Any further discussion or questions? Hearing none, all in favor? Aye. Any opposed? All right. Thank you very much. Item number two is ordinance number 1347, a rezone of 401 South 12th West from rural residential two to low density residential two and low density residential three. This is item number 1347, considered to be second read. Is there any questions or comments on this item before we move forward?

Yeah, I do. Can I just share? I've got, I have two comments. I have an apology and a question. All right. So comment number one. When I watch a well-known, respected citizen of our community tearing up a city council agenda in front of us at the end of a meeting, I'm concerned. Who's not listening? When another respected member of our community stands in front of us and tells us that she and others are not being heard, considered, and respected, again, I'm concerned. Who's not listening? Why aren't we providing answers? Where's the spirit of understanding and compromise? Colin Erickson, I owe you an apology. I have not been able to stop thinking about this. So you were trying to get a message across. I heard you speak, but I didn't ask the right questions to get the answers. As I went back to the records this past week, I finally understood that your suggestion of adding LDR1 against existing homes was about common sense transition. So this ordinance has LDR2, LDR3, and so on. So I finally understood what Colin was trying to get across to us. So Alan, I just have a question for us on this. If this rezoning were to be approved, as has been proposed, would the Planning and Zoning Commission legally be able to require LDR1 against existing properties on Greenwillow Drive. So that's the whole, I went out through this past week just to look and I just thought, okay, I now understand. I understand where Colin was coming from. And Colin, you can correct me if I'm wrong. But would we, once they bring the proposal, again, all we saw was an empty proposal, right? So we just saw an empty map. with nothing but suggesting that it would be LDR2 and LDR3. Colin was trying to get this message across, and again, I missed it, but I caught it. And so the question is, if we approve this the way that it's proposed, as this organization brings forth their maps and plans and they want to put on them, would we be able to legally ask them to put LDR one style homes against the homes that exist as a sense of transition.

Okay. So let's take a minute and look at the differences between the two. LDR1 is single family residences detached. So you only have one unit per lot. Exactly. Exactly. When you get into LDR2, you have, it still ends up most of the time being that way, but you now have introduced twin homes, which are two homes connected side by side, each on an individual lot. but they are connected or a duplex, which is one down and one up. And those are in their code and those are a permitted use in an LDR too. So you wouldn't be able to come in and then remove that ability for them to do twin homes or duplexes.

Yeah. But would you, would you be, in other words, would we be able to say to them in order to In order to protect our citizens who are there, in order to protect their property, their financial investments and so on, would we be able to say to them, yes, you can have LDR 2 and you can have LDR 3, but along those six homes there, whatever it is, I don't remember how many homes there are, but six homes, you need to put LDR1 up against them and then go into the other.

Would we be able to do that? It's probably a question more for Spencer, but my understanding is that's a permitted use to put those in there, and it's not a CUP, so they don't need to ask you permission for what kind. They can still come in and do those.

You'd have to vote this down and start over again.

You'd have to force them to go back to an LDR1.

And Spencer, can you just help me help? So that we can't vote based on, we can only vote based on actual evidence, right? Not on what feelings or people's, it can only be actual evidence that has been provided to us by staff, correct? Or not by staff, by actual evidence though, right? Or actual, I'm just trying to remember what the, two weeks ago.

I'm trying to understand your question. So from a From what context? Are you talking from... We can't base this off of... Okay, so in consideration of a zone change. Yes. There are a number of factors that you consider. Yes. Some are listed by statute and then others are established typically by precedent by the Idaho Supreme Court. And so again, there is that criteria that which we've gone through in training and other things. When you're talking about specifically, I would say that you're likely referencing delivery of services.

Yes.

Okay. And so then there is courts will view a delivery of services in light of preexisting or existing services that exist now, but then also through remediation and mitigation. And so, um, when you would say actual facts or actual evidence and not necessarily hypotheticals that could exist, it's hard to give an answer as to what you mean as to if you're referring to, oh, hey, if we believe that there is a substantiated growth in this area, and we believe that despite what staff has said about possible remedial or mitigating issues on road, we still feel that something that, you know, traffic patterns or whatever exists, Um, Again, to say what is based in reality and then based in hypothetical or can be speculative is factual dependent sometimes and is dependent on specifically the specific road, the specific delivery of services. When I say delivery of services, the services that could be impacted in that specific area and then weighed against the specific facts of the proposal. So again, that's a very lawyer kind of indirect way to say that. But again, it's, gosh, why are you saying that Alan? I could have just said, you know, it depends. But again, from that standpoint, I do think, I think we, I framed your question. Right.

And the way that.

In the framework in which we look at it legally in a zone change.

Okay. Okay.

I have one more response. Just one more response for Bill. One of the things you realize, even if you could come in and limit what type of homes, you couldn't limit the density. That's going to stay the same, whether they put single family homes in or duplexes or twin homes, they can only do six per acre. So that doesn't change depending on what type of home they are putting in. Colin, you had a question?

The thing I was trying to emphasize the step down that we can do and we should, in my opinion, we should do because the Supreme Court ruled on it with Haley, City of Haley, where there should be a step down. That's why I said that South property should be a step down from LDR or from R2 to LDR1. So it's a quarter acre lot at the smallest lot, not six lots on an acre. And I don't have the paperwork. Pardon me, I could read it off, but it's back home. Sorry.

Alan? Yes. Quick question. When you said that, just previous to Colin, Councilman Erickson's comment, you said that we could designate the style of home or something like that, but not how many homes?

You couldn't do either. I said, even if you could come in and say, we don't want duplexes or twin homes, you still have the same density, but you don't have the power, if you approve this, to shut down either twin homes or duplexes. That's an option that is allowed use.

So the immediate decision was to change it to LDR2, which does allow twin homes, but still there can only be six homes per acre.

Correct.

So that means that if they choose to do twin homes, let's say, just hypothetically, they can only do three twin homes per acre because that creates six homes.

Correct. Correct.

Think of it in units. So units. So the density between low density residential that Councilman Erickson was talking about, that allows six individual units.

Four.

Individual home, four. Four per acre. Okay, so four per acre. This then allows six per acre, whether they're individual homes, six per acre, or three attached units built for two families per. Correct. Okay, just getting that density difference. compute in my head.

Thank you. So the question for me then, what would it take, what does it take for us to have this change so that it includes all three? So that includes LDR1, LDR2, and LDR3. And that way we have some kind of safety valve for ourselves. uh that that is going to say you know um again i i i just if i i just pictured myself living there and then somebody deciding to put you know i've got an acre that's x amount wide and now i've got three homes you know beside me and i realize it might not be that many and so on but But again, we're talking about a transition. And we had the same issue when we did the first set of properties. Remember, we took it back because we wanted that. Now this property is even closer to them, right? The other one was away from them. And we said, we need transitioning, right? And so we sent it back. They brought it back. They agreed. They worked together. And now we've brought now the property right to their backyards. And it's almost like we're making fun of them. It's almost like we're saying, yeah, yeah, look, yes, you made me do this over here, but I'm going to put these right up against your house, right?

Well, and the thing to look at in this too is you have our two to the north of the gym prep and that. there's that same opportunity. We didn't step down from that one to LDR1. We had them do that. And this, again, this is you guys' decision. I'm just trying to point out.

Yeah, no, absolutely. That's why I'm asking the question.

So you have that RR2 that is going to have that opportunity, and that's what you have to decide. One of the other factors is you have LDR3 and LDR2 to the west of you that are up against TAG. So that's a whole different deal. You have to look at it as a transition. I understand the wills isn't transitioning. They're set and they're in place. Brianna, you had a question.

I just want to say, first of all, I'm abstaining from this vote. So I'm not debating on it. But I did want to point out two things. To answer Council Member Riggins, I think it's important to understand that we vote three times because that way if we get new information, we can actually alter our vote. And that's an important thing to know as a council member. But also, I wanted to know... and maybe Spencer, I don't know if you know too, the new state regulations that are going to go into effect.

Yeah, July 1.

Are they actually going to take away our ability to do anything like this?

Yeah, that's ugly.

So I'm just saying, if you wait, it might be... More density. It might be even more density.

So that's something to really consider, right? I just read it the other day, and you're right. I mean, the reality is the developer could sit on it until July 1st, and then he could throw the new law at us, right? Without asking for permission.

Yeah. So I don't even know what that's going to look like. What does that even mean?

Zones with start units to the acre.

But what's a zone with a starter home? Have you gotten any more guidance on that?

We haven't. We're doing research with what the state, what they tried to do. We haven't found out definitions. They said single family homes. Were they referring to detached or twin homes, duplexes or townhomes? All of those are rated as single family homes in the building code. So we don't have clarity from them and we're trying to get that. And that's something that we're going to end up bringing in front of you because we have till October 1 to adopt that into our code. Okay, and so we have to do it at that.

So, if. We make it so when we make a decision on this, because it's before that new law goes into effect, will that mean our decision is grandfathered in or does that mean that. whatever we do is irrelevant.

It may be, because my understanding is it's when he does the subdivision that he will bring in front of you, what he brings forward to you at that point will determine.

So if that is postponed until the, or I shouldn't say postponed, because that gives an idea of intent.

Yes.

If it takes that long for the developer to bring the plat before us, then... we're playing by the state's rules instead of the zoning as it is now, or that we might change it to here in the next couple of weeks with a third reading. Right. Okay.

Yeah. So Spencer, I guess my question was too is, Bill, I totally understand where Colin is coming from. I'm just not sure legally that we, you know, we know people don't want that, but can we legally, I mean, if we can service that, I don't know that we can.

I did read from it last time, but I don't have the paperwork in front of me. It's like, say, with Haley, I had the paperwork, but I don't have it here now.

Again, can you specifically frame me the question? So restate it for me. Can you, can we legally require a developer or an applicant to do what, Alan?

They wanted to know if they could force them to do just single family detached along the Southern border of this property.

Okay. So typically, so then this is, so this application, I would say this application has had some procedural, um, intricacies that are unique to, I guess, just this application in this parcel. And so typically from a procedural due process standpoint, an applicant, if I am a property owner and I make application with the city, I come in and I pay $1,100, $1,300 to make an application. I have the right to request a zone change. If it's a zone change that has to necessitate a comprehensive plan change, I go through that process. So within that, and sometimes through the public hearing process, there can be give and take that takes place. But there is due process and timing procedural rights that come with your application and so you can typically and again others may have a looser definition but typically when somebody makes an application a specific application where there's where they are requesting a specific zone there are scenarios where you would say hey we're going to make you do this instead we're going to make you change your application I think that that creates notice and due process issues in which somebody could say, hey, I wasn't opposed. to this, but then you changed it in this public hearing, you didn't properly notice this public public hearing, and I was opposed to the change that you proposed. And so it can cause those issues. And so typically, my general rule is somebody makes application, you specifically approve or deny that application. Now, when an applicant has procedural rights. So we referenced last week, uh, the public record, uh, was essentially, uh, there were emails that, uh, that went through to members of city council. We disclose those to the applicant because, um, essentially that could be viewed as, um, information that is that was presented to members of the voting body after the public hearing was closed or after the record was complete we gave him that opportunity to rebut but that may have created more delays for him because then we would have to post it as a public hearing he specifically in writing he waved those rights on two separate things because of timing issues And again, so he waived some of those due process rights for timing issues. And so again, as to your question, can we make that requirement? I would say that from that standpoint, it may trigger some of those due process warnings. And I would say that as the application sits now, specifically now that we're in second reading, you approve or deny the application as recommended. Um, and again, there's first, second and third readings for a reason. Um, but, uh, sometimes substantive changes, uh, to amend or amendments to those things, uh, it's cleaner and better, uh, to again, go back to the initial, uh, reading of those things than to make those changes. Um, but again, we're, we're, we're off into an area where there's always procedural due process rights that come with those things. But again, there's a reason that we have first, second, and third readings. So to answer your question, I don't think in a second reading it would be procedurally proper to then attempt, specifically when he's made application, the applicant was present last time, that then on a second reading to throw an amendment HAVING SOMETHING CONTINGENT UPON ITS PASSING IN A SECOND READING, THE PROPER PROCEDURE WOULD BE TO APPROVE OR DENY THE MOTION AS IT SITS.

PLUS YOU HAVE TO HAVE VALID REASONS. YOU HAVE TO HAVE NEW ELEMENTS AND STUFF TO BE ABLE TO SAY WE DIDN'T UNDERSTAND, WE DIDN'T KNOW. this has been brought forward. So now we have to make that change.

That evidence can't just be because people are upset, right?

Correct. And so from that standpoint, any of that new information would be viewed through the lens of why are we having these conversations? Has there been any ex parte or open meeting violation conversations that have taken place? I'm not saying they have, but that's the type of inquiry that judicial review would have on something like this, where they would say, you know, and again, I do think that councilman Riggins went through and stated specifically that now in reviewing the record, he understood, better understood the question that council member Erickson was making in doing that. So. I'm going to kind of delve into who were recused from that vote.

I think I was, it wasn't, I'll just ask you later.

Okay.

It was a question for you for later. Okay. It's fine.

All right.

If you remember correctly, my, and, and, and, and, and I was the one, I was the one who proposed that we accept it. Right. So I, and, and I did it. trying to make myself clear that once this part of it was done, that there needs to be some answers. I need some answers. When, again, when I look at, when I look at this consideration of a, for approval, right. And I have this list of six things plus all this other, right. And, and I don't think I have, I don't think I have answers to some of these things. Uh, you know, the, we don't, we, I don't have any scientific evidence that, that the existing public streets are capable. I don't have that. I don't have the numbers, you know, I, I, I, I don't. So, um, And so I made that motion with the idea that I'm going to trust the system, right? I'm going to trust the system, that the system is going to live the way it's supposed to. And again, I may be out of, and if I'm out of turn, tell me I'm out of turn, but here's the reality. As a member of this community and as a member, I owe the developer nothing. I owe him nothing.

That is incorrect. Because you don't owe the developer anything, but you owe him, this is what I would say, each party's half.

Yeah.

rights. He has, if you own property as a private property, and this is foundational back to the very existence of our country where, and we always do this with, uh, there is the rights of property owners, um, who some would say, Hey, the intrusion of local government to say what I can and can't do with property that is mine. And so, uh, that with, again, balancing that within the rights of constituents, neighbors, abutting properties. And again, what we're dealing with- That's what we need to make sure, right?

That's exactly where I want to- So, and again, and I didn't mean to cut you off, but when you- No, no, no.

To make the record clear, when you say we owe him nothing, I would say, no, we owe him. We owe any developer or any landowner here due process, equal rights.

But you added the part that I was going to add too, which is- And I'm sorry for doing that. There has to be this balance between- a man who wants to develop or a company that wants to develop. And then those who are there, who are our neighbors, who are taxpayers, who are already developed, who are already invested, right? And I- Sure.

And so, and again, I think, if I may, I think that we had a scenario. It's not the first, nor will it be the last with the growth that Rexburg is experiencing, where specifically members of the community came up here and said, we don't feel heard. We feel like the process is we've kind of been steamrolled by this process. the amount of conversations from staff that took place with specific members of the community where we, I'll be very candid. I had multiple conversations with everybody who spoke publicly against it in the last meeting where I explained, and again, these are all subject to public record. You can go through and do a word count of the amount of the correspondence that I had both in email and in phone. And so I think sometimes there's a distinction between you're not hearing us. We don't like this. And it's, We're hearing you. This is the process. We understand you don't like this. Sometimes the framework in which we make these decisions can be limited by the law. And that doesn't mean that limited anybody can decide whatever they want. Sometimes it's whether you can defend it. if somebody claims or argues an infringement upon those rights. Now that comes both ways. The infringement of rights can come from both the property owner and both from those who have standing in the community to challenge a land use issue. They're not, and again, this is only with the growth in Rexburg and now the changing state statute, where again, you say, hey, what does this mean? What does a single family mean? Single family residence mean? Is it been grandfathered yet? When the state comes down and throws new and restrictive legislation that significantly restricts what a city can choose to enforce, there isn't always going to be the clarity in that language. And this is nothing new to anybody here, specifically to Council Member Reeser. What does this mean? What does this law mean? Well, how do we figure out what it means? The process in which you figure it out is somebody says, hey, we're going to apply this to our set of facts. And then there is going to be an aggrieved party who says, we feel like the interpretation of this new law doesn't apply to us. It applies to somebody else. And what happens? It's challenged. It's challenged in the courts. And then the courts give you a definition in which they say, this is what the legislation meant. And they, well, how do they do that? Again, there are, you get into the very framework of your court system, of those who are contextualists, of those who are constitutionalists, who give value to the meaning of the original constitution or the original word, the plain meaning of the word. It is an imperfect system. It's the system we live in. And so when somebody asks me, what does this new law mean to the specific application to land use issues in Rexburg? I say, I don't know yet. I can do my best guess to rip through the legislative history, to go through subcommittee notes and to find the questions that I think, but those subcommittee notes are not going to give me the answers that I need apparently right now. And not only that, when you go through, I've looked at this. This was a 36 to 34 vote that passed. This passed by the slimmest of margins. but it is clear in what we must enforce. It's not clear as what a single family home may be right now, but then from the same end, we are required to make these changes by October 1st. And we'll make those changes. There is no guarantee that the legislation won't undo exactly what they did the next year. And then we're gonna have to rewrite it again. There is a shifting scale sometimes. And so again, we have this conversation and if you say, well, Hey, could the developer on July 1st or by October 1st, when we choose to implement it, could he stand on the state law? Absolutely. And so any of this discussion could be essentially for nothing because then we are bound from state statute. Now the state statute, I would say this, it adds issues to individuals like Alan and Keith. And from a city planning standpoint, it adds huge issues. From a clarity standpoint and from an elected official standpoint, it could make your job a bit easier because it's like, hey, we don't agree with this, but this is, we may not agree with this. This is state law and we have to comply with state law. And so some of that, and again, and if we think this is going to be restrictive, wait until next year when the one that was held up in the Senate is passed. And that essentially says that we can't restrict anything anywhere. including density. And so, yeah.

No, please know that I thank you. I appreciate your response. And I just need to make sure, right, that we're within the law and that what can we, what can we not, what can we, right?

To your question on, let's just talk about traffic impact and studies that way, where somebody would say, hey, we consider the delivery of services within an area. And we have staff that city council relies on and they say, hey, let's hear it. It's why staff makes a recommendation. There's absolutely a scenario where you say, hey, can this road handle this type of traffic? And they say, well, you know, based on these guidelines, we feel that it can or that it can be mitigated to the point where this developer isn't going to pay for all of it, but they pay a contribution. We can do things to mitigate the traffic on this level. We can make this workable. There is a distinction between making it workable from his perspective and some people's own point of view of, well, I've lived here for 40 years. And I've lived here for 40 years and this is not acceptable to me. That's different than the standard that is applied from staff at times where there's obviously overlap there. But there is, again, we deal in standards that aren't always apparent to people who are accustomed to not waiting through two cycles of lights whereas you go somewhere else when you're in san diego someone would say you mean you only waited twice through the cycle that's fantastic what was it three in the morning yeah no and spencer i think the issue issue becomes is when we have to respond right when they want to know and and uh uh

And so, I mean, we can read through it. We can read. And I mean, I based my decision on this document, right? This planning, zoning, staff report. That's what I based my decision. movement on. So I went off of it. And so, but we need to be as, we need to be as informed as possible so that when they ask us why, I can, I, and my response has been, I fulfilled my legal responsibility. That's been my response. So I appreciate your answers. I appreciate you teaching us, at least me anyway, as we go through this.

The way the system is currently set up, I can see why. And again, I have an open door policy with members of the community. They can come in and chat through all of these things with me on a number of issues. I'm happy to do it. The mayor's asked me to do those things. I can do it. From that standpoint, the way that it is currently set up where the public hearing exists in Planning and Zoning Commission, it can be counterintuitive to members of the community that say, I elected these people as my representatives and I cannot talk to them because it's not a public hearing. That may be the issue that you want to address later But again, it's the system that we have currently set up in the city of Rexburg. It's the one that we conform to. And again, that may alleviate some of this where it feels like, you know, hey, I want to talk to members, to my elected officials. I feel like I don't have the opportunity to do it. And not only that, the city clerk and I are saying, not only are you not going to talk to them, we're not going to let this email go through because it opens up the record and it creates legal and procedural issues for us. I'm tired of hearing myself, so I can only imagine how bad it is for you guys. Jeez. All right.

Okay.

Sorry to make the meeting so long, you guys. Good questions and good discussion. I appreciate that.

I'm sure Eric's just devastated he's not here. Councilman Erickson, sorry.

Yeah. All right. So at this point, then, we do have on the table the ordinance number 1347 to rezone the properties as stated to LDR2 and LDR3. So at this point, is there a motion to move forward with the second reading of ordinance number 1347?

Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve ordinance number 1347 and consider it to be second read.

All right. Thank you. Is there a second to that motion?

I second that.

Seconded by Council Member Teejan. Any further discussion or questions? Hearing none, all in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? Aye. Okay, so that motion carries, and we will consider that ordinance second read. We'll be on the calendar for third reading next time. Okay, thank you. We appreciate that information, and it's a difficult decision, and I think we all feel that, so I appreciate the discussion and the thoughts going into that.

Well, Mayor, I think one of the things we may want to look at doing as this new legislation is coming down, get through your budget hearings and things, and maybe it's time to hold a work meeting.

Yeah, we probably need to.

I agree.

Yeah, because there's going to be a lot that we'll have to be thinking about.

I have four that passed in the last session that we have to adjust into our... For the record, there's probably four or five of us city attorneys who are all

We're all put out feelers to, again, that we would say authority within the state trying to get some clarification, and we haven't gotten it yet. So, and again, it may take court challenges to do it, but we're seeking, and again, we have a right as a city and municipality to seek clarification from the Attorney General, and we're doing that.

Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Appreciate that.

Mr. Mayor, can I say something now? Yes.

Yes, go ahead.

I just wanted to bring up the, you know, it was mentioned that the conduct of like a planning and zoning commissioner, there was some name calling. at least residents felt that there was name calling. And I don't know what the mechanism is for that to remind them to be polite, because like, if we, if we say things that are unkind, we can be unelected, but they're appointed. So I don't know what the mechanism is.

I don't think you'd have a problem with me sharing this. And so the individual that was referenced by the public in the last meeting, essentially he had, uh, expressed essentially apologized after and said, Hey, maybe I shouldn't have said that. And so again, I didn't flush out of that conversation more, but there was at least some conversation that I had of with him. And again, I, I take land use issues seriously in this city. And so I attend all the planning and zoning commissions. And so we haven't had a meeting since or one that he's been at. I'll chat with him. And I'm happy to do that. And again, I do think in... This issue in a number, our planning and zoning meetings, they have remained very civil and professional. And I would say that's an isolated type scenario where we had somebody that took offense to what was said.

Okay, thank you. Appreciate that. Okay, let's move on to item number 10. Well, we have no third reading, so item number 10 is the consent calendar, which consists of the minutes from the May 6, 2026 meeting and the approval of the payment of the City of Rexburg bills. This is much less controversial, thank heavens. So is there a motion to approve the consent calendar? No?

I move that we approve the consent calendar.

All right. Thank you, Council Member Tijan. Is there a second to that motion? I'll second that. Second by Council Member Riggins. Thank you. Is there any questions or discussions about minutes or any of the bills?

I'm so sorry. I did have one question.

You don't have to be.

I know we want to get out of here. I was just looking the last two months at the ice rink, the power bill. And, you know, it was $18,000 this month, it said. And I want to know about that. And $11,000 the month before. And you can correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the whole budget was like $60,000 for electricity.

Yeah, so I looked at that because, yeah, I had sticker shock when I saw that the first time. And I'm like, oh, man, 18 months for 30 days. But what Pam and I believe is when we looked at the bill, they actually showed a 30-day period for about half of that $18,000. And they didn't actually show the dates in between the last bill and this bill. And so in other words, they didn't list the read period for the month in between for March. And so our belief is that the $18,000 is actually for two months. And if you take the $18,000 and you divide it by two for those two months, it was actually less than the month, the first payment, which the first payment, if I remember right, was like 32 days. So you could say it was a little over a month. And you will see those range based on those read periods. But there were some issues. The first time, we didn't get the first bill for a long time because Pam had to go back and forth with them to try to figure out some billing issues. But my take on it is that it was for two months, which puts you around 9000. And we we should be fine. More sense. Yeah, we should be fine. Now, there's still a lot of unknowns because you do have I mean, some of that period, I believe they were running the new What do you call it? The dehumidifier. And then the other question is, we still don't necessarily understand what happens in the middle of summer when it's 90 degrees outside, right? And so, but actually, if you take the three bills that we got for the three months and divide it out, it's actually within what we kind of suspected. Yeah.

That's a good question. We'll dig into that a little bit more and see if we can find out for sure. So thank you for that. Any other questions or comments? Okay. Hearing none, I would entertain a motion to approve the consent calendar.

I did that.

Oh, you did?

Oh, that's right. We were just doing this.

Okay. And there was a second, right? Yes. Yes. Okay. Thank you. So all in favor? Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? All right. We will go ahead and get the bills paid and enter the minutes. Thank you all very much. All right. Anything else anyone needs to bring up other than I would just remind you, if you, if you can come to flower day tomorrow at four and help us plant flowers, we're going to need all the help we can get. And we will plan on, let's see, do we have, do we have a meeting before the, yeah, we do before the marathon and all that stuff. Right. So. We've got a lot of things coming up here in the next few weeks.

Just remember the next meeting, we have that utility rate study work meeting at 5.

Oh, a work meeting at 5 on the next meeting? Yeah.

And the next one after that's the budget at 4 on the 17th.

Okay, so we've got some work ahead of us.

And then one other thing I forgot to mention with the flood 50. If you are planning on going to the ribbon cutting up at the Teton Dam overlook, you need to make sure that you RSVP that because they are trying to get numbers for that. So make sure if you're going and.

So where do you RSVP on the flood on the.

They sent you an email. They emailed everybody. It's from the Department of the Interior. So you just reply and say, yes, I am coming.

Oh, I'll have to look up my email.

Make sure, and you might have to look through. Yeah, it was back away. So that was something that they wanted me to find everybody.

Do you know, do you know if I asked if it would be okay to bring my wife and then I got a thing sent back just saying, we got you down, you know, kind of a thing. So the answer we got to that was no.

Yes, they're not going to. Anyways, so you can bring a plus one and maybe a plus two, but no more than that. So they're trying to keep it minimal because there's not a lot of room out there. I think it came from the Department of Terry or the Bureau of Reclamation. One of those. But yeah, it's going to be really it's going to be an awesome thing to be up there. Cool.

Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that. Is there anything else that we need to be aware of that we're not thinking of? Seems like there's some things going on. I'm constantly missing things. All right. Well, thank you all very much. I appreciate your work and being here. And thank you, Council Member Erickson, for Zooming in. And I hope everything goes well for you down there, wherever you end up or might be. Okay. Thank you, everyone. We are adjourned.

all right get to go out and patrol now right exactly well