Local business leaders urge Rexburg to reexamine impact fees and sign rules to boost growth

Business representatives and a local developer told the Rexburg City Council that high upfront impact, hookup and permitting fees — and restrictive sign language in the current sign code — can make it difficult for new firms to locate in the city.

Michael Malcolm of YESCO told the council the current sign code effectively forbids off‑premise advertising and, as written, prevents rebuilding or upgrading existing billboard structures if they are damaged or need maintenance. "I'm not trying to add more billboards into the community," Malcolm said, "but just simply to to consider the ability to keep the signs that are in place and and be able to upgrade or improve the structures as needed." He proposed a variance/exception process or a "cap‑and‑replace" credit approach some Idaho cities use so existing signs can be restored without expanding the total number of billboards.

Developer and business proponent David Taylor urged the council to take a broader look at the city's impact and hookup fee structure, saying fees can be an entry barrier for small entrepreneurs. Taylor cited comparative examples: he said one Twin Falls car‑wash operator reported monthly water usage of about 1.2 million gallons and paid roughly $82,000 in impact/hookup fees, while another development in Ammon paid about $42,000. "I'm not looking for a rebate," Taylor said, "I'm looking for you guys to look forward ... and to figure out a way that makes it so that it's not such a barrier to entry."

Council members and staff acknowledged the tension between recovering infrastructure costs and encouraging economic growth. Staff noted impact fees help avoid placing the full cost on city taxpayers and referenced past use of low‑interest DEQ loans and bond financing to support large water and sewer projects. Council members suggested options such as staged payments or pay‑as‑you‑go arrangements and invited interested council members and staff to join detailed discussions on potential fee restructuring.

No ordinance or fee changes were adopted at the meeting. Staff indicated the sign‑code item will be discussed in a strategic team meeting and may go to Planning & Zoning for further consideration, and that council will review impact‑fee alternatives in a future committee process.

Next steps: staff to bring the sign‑code timing and any possible variance/exception language to the strategic team meeting; council and staff to assemble fee‑comparison data and consider alternatives to high upfront impact fees.