►
Description
August 16, 2022
A
A
A
B
A
D
Yes,
mr
chair,
so
good
afternoon,
mr
chair
members
of
the
board,
it's
good
to
see
all
of
you
again
in
our
last
meeting
the
board
approved.
Oh,
that
was
not
was
expecting
there.
We
go
in
our
last
meeting
in
the
board,
approved
the
fiscal
2023
budget,
with
the
change
that
the
bond
levy
was
to
be
reduced
by
10
percent.
D
A
C
D
So,
mr
chair
board
member
clegg,
the
budget
itself
makes
a
slight
allowance
for
the
fluctuations
and
so
we've
typically
rounded
up
to
nearest
whole
million,
and
so
you
will
see
in
the
revenue
side
that
there
is
six
million
listed
in
revenue.
But
according
to
current
rates,
it's
about
5.6
million.
It
could
go
up
or
down
from
from
there,
depending
on
rates
on
the
day
that
the
bond
is.
D
Yes,
and
so
in
fact,
we
also
have
a
contingency
appropriation
of
1.8
million.
Typically,
the
district
will
issue
15-year
bonds.
There
is
a
chance,
and
in
2020
we
did
issue
a
20-year
bond,
so
the
the
budget
makes
allowances
for
both
changes
in
interest
rates,
as
well
as
the
possibility.
Although
remote
that
we
could
get
a
20-year
bond.
D
All
right
continuing
onward
the
chart
b
shows
the
impact
of
an
incremental
taxing
district,
and
so
in
gray,
you
can
see
the
the
amount
of
the
levy
that
is
used
to
support
existing
debt
service
and
then,
in
the
case
of
the
full
levy,
a
90
bond
or
a
90
levy.
You
can
see
that
the
yellow
area
on
the
top
represents
the
incremental
revenue
that
is
used
to
fund
a
bond,
so
0.7
million
in
incremental
revenue
is
able
to
fund
an
8
million
dollar
bond
on
the
far
right.
D
D
C
D
Each
each
different
scenario
changes
the
amount
of
property
tax
from
the
bond
levy
by
about
a
hundred
dollars,
and
what
I
did
here
is
I'm
showing
two
different
ways
of
looking
at
the
impact
to
residents.
On
the
left.
In
chart
c,
I
chose
a
home
within
the
district
that
is
835
000
in
an
estimated
value
according
to
zillow
and
on
the
right
is
just
an
estimate
based
on
the
ada
county.
Assessors,
I'm
sorry,
I've
mixed
that
up.
D
The
first
side
is
the
eight
accounting
assessors,
the
right
side
d
is
zillow
and
their
estimates,
and
so
what
you
can
see
is
that
the
in
the
case
of
a
representative
home
in
2021
it
was
there
is
a
big
jump
between
2021
and
2020
and
the
actual
value
of
that
home.
And
so
even
though,
for
the
average,
when
you
look
at
it
mathematically,
there's
not
a
significant
change
for
many
residents.
D
Yeah
so
mr
chair
board
member
clegg,
in
the
case
of
the
chart
c,
what
is
happening
is
that
there
is
a
it
entirely
shows
a
change
due
to
the
actual
change
in
assessed
value
per
the
ada
county,
assessor,
so
that
2021
value
of
602
000
going
up
to
835
000.
That's
just
entirely
due
for
this
one
home
due
to
the
change
in
assessed
value
in
chart
d.
The
reason
why
the
the
increase
is
is
is
about
11
percent
increase.
D
C
D
D
All
right,
so
I
think
you
know
the
what's
what's
important
to
take
away
here-
is
that
between
each
of
the
three
different
options
that
I
had
in
the
previous
slides,
either
the
full
levy,
reducing
the
bond
by
by
10
or
reducing
the
levy
by
10
each
one
of
those
step.
Downs
has
an
impact
to
the
average
home
in
the
district,
regardless
of
the
lens
that
you
use
of
about
a
hundred
dollars
reduction
in
each
case.
A
David,
if
I
can
ask
one
quick
question,
this
may
not
be
fair.
Do
you
happen
to
know
the
distribution
of
home
values
in
the
district?
For
example,
what
is
the
95th
percentile
and
what
is
the
fifth
percentile,
I'm
just
trying
to
get
a
sense
of.
If
you
know
what
average
is
average
is
a
very
useful
number,
but
whether
there's
a
large
clump
at
the
bottom,
offset
by
you
know
two
or
three
bill
gate
style
homes
at
the
top,
just
like
how
the
value
is
actually
distributed.
Do
you
know
yeah.
D
So,
mr
chair,
that's
a
fantastic
question
and,
and
the
zillow
data
doesn't
have
this,
in
particular
the
standard
distribution,
to
be
able
to
see
that.
I
think
that
in
the
future,
that
would
be
a
great
question
to
ask
of
ada
county
to
get
some
of
that
data,
that
that
shows
that
actually,
the
statistical
distribution
and
and
whether
it's
a
normal
distribution,
whether
it's
a
barbell
distribution
or
a
skewed.
So
I
think
that's
an
excellent
question
for
for
future
analysis.
Thank.
A
D
All
right
in
these
last
set
of
slides
I've,
I'm
presenting
the
actual
budget.
So
this
is
the
the
budget,
as
was
proposed
by
the
board
or
suggested
directed
by
the
board
in
the
july
19
meeting,
and
so
I'm
going
to
move
on
just
so,
you
can
see
some
of
the
revenue
and
expense
highlights,
so
I'm
actually
comparing
all
three
of
them
together,
and
so
you
can
see
the
bond
levy
decreasing
that
10
percent
decrease,
and
then
you
can
see
the
the
changes
to
the
the
bond
revenue
again,
because
those
are
are
rounded
off.
D
D
Okay,
then,
here
are
the
the
key
things
most
of
the
the
budget
itself
and
expensive
side
does
not
change,
but
you
can
see
the
changes
to
to
debt
service
and
then
the
amount
that
would
be
used
for
community
infrastructure
and
again
those
community
infrastructure
numbers
will
change
based
on
the
actual
size
of
the
bond,
which
is
in
turn,
based
on
the
interest
rates.
When
the
bond
interest
rate
is
locked
in.
E
D
Yeah
so
mr
chair
board,
member
woodings,
that's
that's
an
excellent
question
for
for
last
year,
based
on
where
interest
rates
were
the
board
had
given
approval
for
about
a
five
million
dollar
bond
and
with
where
interest
rates
are
right.
Now
it's
in
between
4.5
and
5
million
that
that
could
be
issued
for
that
previous,
that
fiscal
year,
2022
budget.
A
D
No
this
this
is
this
is
a.
I
just
need
to
pull
this
this
number
so
based
on
where
we
were
in
the
in
the
july
meeting.
I
looked
at
the
growth
rate
of
the
district
and
then
just
said,
let's
just
assume
that
we
go
with
the
90
levy
for
just
this
one
year
and
over
the
course
of
the
the
life
of
the
district,
it
would
make
about
a
370
000
difference,
so
that
is
to
say,
the
district
has
50
million
dollars
of
bond
authorization
that
it
could
use.
A
C
C
So
then,
my
second
question,
which
was
the
other
one
I
was
going
to
ask
it-
looks
like
we're
500
000
less
in
what
we
had
hoped
about
last
year.
If
we
go
at
a
90
percent
levy,
we're
going
to
be
at
another
two
and
a
half
million,
so
three
million
total
that
will
not
be
bonded.
If
we
go
with
this,
what
projects
get
left
unreimbursed
in
that
scenario
that
are
already
on
the
approved
list.
D
Yeah
so
mr
chair
board,
member
clegg,
I
don't
have
the
the
exact
projects
in
front
of
me,
but
I
can
say
that
for
the
typical
size
that
the
developer
has
been
submitting
projects
most
of
the
many
of
the
projects
are
in
about
that
range.
So
it
would
mean
that
easily
a
whole
project
would
be
unreimbursed
and.
A
D
A
And
the
question
really
is
what
happens
to
the
remaining
bonding
authority
and
in
the
cid
in
future
years?
If,
for
some
reason,
the
value
of
the
assets
in
the
district
falls
significantly,
and
it's
not
like
a
naval
gazing
question
like
really
what
happens
under
each
of
these
scenarios
and
so
that'll
help
us
understand
whether
that
factor
should
weigh
into
to
our
decision.
D
Yeah
so,
mr
chair,
that's
that's
an
excellent
question.
The
way
that
the
district
works
is
a
little
different
from
city
property
taxes
in
that
there
is
no
foregone
that
is
given
up.
However,
instead,
what
happens
is
the
district
does
a
test
to
see
if
there
is
additional
bond
revenue
available
if
it
were
to
levy
at
2.85
mills,
and
so
if
there
is,
then
the
district
can
issue
based
on
that
incremental
revenue.
In
that
slide,
previous.
D
A
D
C
D
So,
mr
chair
board
member
clegg-
and
that
surprised
me
as
well-
and
I
did
look
at
a
few
other
homes
and
did
see
that
that
was
the
case
and
and
some
of
that
had
to
do
with
decisions
by
the
ada
county
assessor.
They
have
a
band
that
they
can
assess
at
between
90
to
110,
and
so
I
can't
comment
on
on
their
decision-making
process,
but
for
many
homes
throughout
the
city.
While
it
didn't
fall,
it
didn't
rise
a
real
lot
and
in
a
few
cases
it
within
harris
ranch
there.
D
What
happened
was,
although
there
were
some
cases
where
the
assessed
value
may
have
fall,
fallen
overall,
new
construction
within
the
district
and
possibly
appreciation
of
other
homes,
especially
on
the
higher
end,
did
make
up
for
that,
and
so
the
the
district
was
able
to
to
bond
in
that
particular
case.
Additionally,
in
2020,
if
you
recall,
I
mentioned
we
received
an
offer
for
a
20-year
bond
and
so
between
all
of
those
it
allowed
for
a
fairly
significant
bond
issuance
in
that
year
compared
to
previous
years
for
the
district.
B
C
Mr
chairman,
yes,
when
I
accepted
the
motion
of
the
council
member
woodings
or
board
member
woodings
last
meeting,
I
did
not
fully
appreciate
the
impact
on
the
bonding
authority
that
a
10
levy
adjustment
would
would
have.
I
didn't
it's
really
helpful
to
understand
the
incremental
growth
versus
the
existing
bonding
authority
and
why
a
10
percent
decrease
in
levy
amount
would
have
such
a
30
impact
on
the
on
the
bonding
authority.
C
Of
delaying
payment
of
the
reimbursed
costs
ultimately
will
reduce
the
amount
of
infrastructure
that
the
district
can
build
and
that
the
district
can
repurchase
from
the
developer,
which
ultimately
will
mean
that
some
of
the
things
that
folks
in
the
district
were
promised
won't
be
able
to
be
built,
and
I
empathize
with
tax
increases.
Certainly,
I
think
all
of
us
do
we've
all
experienced
them,
but
given
that
it
seems
to
me
that
the
middle
scenario
actually
comes
closer
to
what
I
expected.
C
C
A
C
The
question
is
what
the
motion
would
be
and
I'm
looking
here,
I
would
move
that.
We
approve
hrc
id
9-20-22
a
resolution
of
proving
the
fiscal
year
2023
operating
budget
for
the
harris
ranch
community
infrastructure
district
number,
one
with
the
following
amendment
that
the
total
budget
amount
be
adjusted
to
reflect
a
90
percent
bond
of
the
allowed
amount
with
the.
E
I
would
like
to
move
I'm
sorry,
I'm
I'm
only
working
off
of
my
laptop
right
now,
so
I
keep
going
back
and
forth
in
between
screens.
I
would
like
to
move
that.
We
approve
hrcid
9-2022,
a
resolution
approving
the
fiscal
year
2023
operating
budget
for
the
harris
ranch
community
infrastructure
district
number
one
and
providing
an
effective
date.
A
E
A
A
It
would
appear
that
the
motion
dies
for
lack
of
a
second.
My
colleagues
have
both
tried,
so
the
chair
will
make
a
motion
and
we'll
see
we'll
see
how
it
goes.
I
would
move
approval
of
the
fiscal
year
2023
operating
budget
for
the
harris
ranch
community
infrastructure
district
number
one
as
proposed
by
staff
prior
to
the
last
meeting,
in
other
words,
at
100
and
without
90
mil
rates
or
90
bonding
authority.
C
A
If
you
look
at
wages
in
the
treasure
valley
and
you
compare
that
to
the
tax
burden
for
homeowners,
if
you
look
at
really
any
metric,
it's
not
sustainable,
as
we
all
know,
because
we
howl
from
the
diocese
about
this
all
the
time.
That's
a
function
of
state
law,
there's
very
little
that
we
can
do
at
a
city
level
to
address
that
fundamental
inequity.
A
E
A
A
Suggests
that
the
balance
should
be
in
favor
of
continuing
to
maximize
the
bonding
authority.
The
other
tipping
points
for
me
on
that
were,
although
interest
rates
are
rising,
they're
still
below
the
developers,
reimbursement
rate,
and
although
there
is
a
possibility,
there's
certainly
economic
uncertainty
now
and
there's
a
possibility
of
economic
problems
in
the
future.
A
E
E
The
impact
of
that
on
homeowners
is
outsized
from.
I
think
what
was
anticipated,
and
I
think
that
by
lowering
that
that
levy
amount,
it
provides
a
little
bit
of
relief
where
there's
always
a
balance
to
be
stricken
as
well.
As
my
colleagues
have
pointed
out
on
what
the
bonding
authority
is,
how
that
accelerates
the
build
out
of
infrastructure
and
how
that
potentially
impacts
the
infrastructure
that
ultimately
gets
built
and
reimbursed.
E
The
city
is
beholden
to
a
three
percent
maximum
increase.
This
cid
is
not
beholden
to
that.
This
cid
can
increase
its
budget
significantly.
Just
by
maintaining
the
exact
same
levy
rate,
the
city's
levy
rate
is
variable,
depending
on
what
our
budget
turns
out
to
be
so
they're
very
different.
In
that
respect,
my
intention
in
the
original
resolution
was
to
lower
that
levy
rate
slightly
to
keep
the
bonding
authority
on
par
with
what
it's
been
in
prior
years,
still
allowing
the
build-out
and
reimbursement
of
infrastructure,
but
reducing
that
impact
on
homeowners.
E
So
I
won't
be
supporting
the
motion,
but
I
appreciate
the
discussion
it's.
It
was
a
little
bit
awkward
having
just
two
of
us
there
for
the
july
meeting
and
having
trying
to
have
that
back
and
forth
gets
very
tenuous.
So
I
appreciate
having
three
folks
here
on
the
board
today
to
have
a
little
bit
more
robust
discussion.
E
C
Mr
chairman,
I
seconded
the
motion
because,
in
my
mind
I
felt
like
the
motion
I
made
was
the
correct
one.
The
in
between
one
that
had
less
of
an
impact
on
the
bonding
authority
did
provide
some
relief
but
didn't
have
as
much
impact
on
the
unreimbursed
interest
and
the
potential
to
actually
get
infrastructure
built
which,
as
you
rightly
pointed
out,
is
the
purpose
of
the
district.
C
It
doesn't
mean
that
I'm
not
sympathetic
to
the
cost
to
the
homeowners
and
increase
taxes,
nor
that
I
don't
understand
the
unique
position
that
this
budget
holds
compared
to
the
budget
overall
of
the
city
and
the
limitations
on
budget
increases
that
the
city
is
restricted
to
constrained
to
special
districts.
All
over
the
state
do
have
different
rules,
and
certainly
this
is
one
of
them.
C
Having
considered
all
that,
I
still
believe
that,
over
the
long
term,
the
purpose
of
the
district
was
to
get
this
infrastructure
built
and
to
do
it
as
efficiently
from
a
cost
perspective
as
possible,
so
that,
ultimately,
over
time
it
costs
those
taxpayers
less
and
or
delivers.
More
than
would
otherwise
be
the
case,
and
I
think
by
voting
yes
for
this
motion
today.
I'll
get
closer
to
meeting.
D
A
A
Thank
you.
Our
final
item
board
member
woodings,
deferred
from
the
beginning
of
the
meeting,
is
the
minute's
approval.
I
was
not
present
at
the
meeting
shouldn't
be
voting
on
the
minutes
and
that
prevented
a
quorum
on
that
vote.
So
we
will
take
up
item
two
looking
for
a
motion
with
respect
to
the
minutes
of
july
19,
2022.