►
Description
February 21, 2023
A
B
A
A
C
C
A
C
A
A
C
A
Right
we're
gonna
go
into
a
short
executive
session
and
then
we'll
be
back
to
address
the
rest
of
our
agenda
items
on
our
return,
see
y'all
soon,
all
right.
Everyone
welcome
back
we'll
resume
our
agenda
number
three
and
we'll
go
into
our
resolutions.
I'm
gonna
hand
it
over
to
David
hassagawa
to
walk
us
through
our
resolutions.
D
D
D
D
The
developer
is
a
third
and
a
third
party
entity,
separate
from
the
city
and
the
district.
The
developer
constructs
Community
infrastructure
projects
and
submits
those
project
improvements
to
the
district
for
purchase
the
district
itself,
issues
General
obligation,
bonds
that
are
paid
via
tax
level
to
fund
the
purchase
of
those
projects.
It
is
this
process
that
we'll
be
conducting
today.
D
All
right,
I
also
wanted
to
touch
on
the
notice
and
how
that
was
conducted.
We
did
receive
an
objection
on
February
13th
from
the
Harris
Ranch
Community
infrastructure,
taxpayers
Association
around
the
timing
of
the
notice,
and
so
I
wanted
to
add
that,
while
a
budget
public
hearing
does
require
10
days,
advanced
notice
for
the
district,
this
particular
meeting
does
not
have
that
particular
requirement.
D
And,
however,
the
district
did
give
10
days
notice,
rather
than
the
required
two
days
notice,
to
give
the
stakeholders
a
chance
to
submit
any
thoughts,
comments,
concerns
objections
and
both
the
developer
and
the
association
did
submit
letters
which
are
included
as
part
of
the
staff
report
and
separate
from
the
association.
We
did
receive
one
objection
letter
from
a
resident
that
has
been
included
in
the
staff
report.
C
C
D
D
So
real
quickly,
there
are
three
formal
avenues
that
the
district
pursued
to
post
the
noticed.
The
first
is
that
on
the
city's
website
there
is
a
public
meetings
page
and
that
was
updated
and
you
can
see
a
screenshot
of
that
page
at
the
end
of
I'm.
Sorry
that
this
this
is
a
separate
one
that
was
posted
at
the
end
of
January
and
then
the
CID
itself
has
its
own
page,
and
that
is
what
is
posted
up
here
on
the
screen
and
then
on.
D
D
In
addition
to
these,
these
three
areas-
The
District
staff,
also
reached
out
to
the
taxpayers
association
on
December,
27th
and
provided
the
third
project
request
that
the
developer
had
submitted
and
prior
to
that,
the
develop.
The
association
did
have
the
initial
two
project
requests,
as
evidenced
by
the
fact
that
they
objected
to
them
on
September
1st.
A
D
And
and
I
will
just
add
that
if
if
there
are
questions
I'm
happy
to
answer
those
afterwards
and
then
as
Madam
chair
has
indicated,
if
you
would
like
to
reach
out
to
Boise
treasury
at
cityofboise.org,
you
can
always
submit
email
questions
and
those
will
come
to
me
personally
all
right.
There
are
two
different
resolutions
before
the
board
today.
D
The
first
resolution
is
a
resolution
that
would
approve
the
three
projects
that
were
submitted
by
the
developer
for
purchase
by
the
district.
The
second
resolution
authorizes
the
district
to
issue
General
obligation,
debt
to
fund
the
purchase
of
those
three
projects,
we'll
discuss
the
project
resolutions.
First,.
D
The
developers
submitted
three
projects
with
invoices
totaling
4.5
million.
After
a
review
of
those
projects,
The
District
staff
are
recommending
that
4.3
Million
worth
of
those
submitted
invoices
be
approved
for
purchase.
Additionally,
section
4
of
this
resolution
improves
two
additional
Associated
expenses.
The
first
is
the
interest
associated
with
the
projects
that
is
allowed
to
accrue
to
the
developer
per
the
development
agreement.
D
D
D
D
Foreign
and
I
I
will
add
that
that
is
35
million
for
bonds
that
have
not
yet
been
issued.
The
district
last
year
did
approve
more
bonds
to
be
issued,
but
those
have
not
yet
been
issued.
Okay,
all
right.
What
I
wanted
to
touch
on
now
are
the
criteria
that
are
determined
the
eligibility
for
a
project
and
its
Associated
invoices
to
be
approved.
The
first
is
that
all
the
invoices
and
projects
must
meet
the
requirements
of
the
development
agreement
and
that
development
agreement
is
an
agree,
a
contract
signed
by
the
city,
the
district
and
the
developer.
D
D
D
On
your
screen,
you
can
see
a
definition
for
what
substantial
Nexus
is
is
defined
to
be
in
the
district's
interpretation.
So
these
are
how
the
The
District
staff
evaluated
each
of
the
projects.
I
won't
read
all
of
that
for
you,
but
we
did
find
that
the
Nexus
of
the
roadways
themselves
and
the
associated
utilities
were
substantial
due
to
their
location
in
the
mixed
use
area
of
the
district
foreign.
D
Now,
with
that
said,
I
have
to
admit
on
my
part
that
when
I
drew
the
map
under
project
Geo,
22-3
I
did
include
the
area
in
red
to
the
right
and
that
area
in
the
red
to
the
right
at
the
very
top
part
portion
does
touch
a
a
single
family
residential
lot.
However,
after
clarifying
with
the
in
the
district's
engineer,
I
was
able
to
confirm
that
this
project
is
only
the
area
shaded
in
yellow
and
therefore
there
are
no
single
family
residential
lots
that
touch
this
particular
project.
D
D
C
Madam
chair,
yes
in
my
review
of
the
staff
report,
I
started
to
take
notes
on
each
project
and
I
can't
finally
came
a
quick
way
with
these
conclusions.
I
want
you
just
tell
me
if
they're
right
from
the
staff
report,
each
of
the
projects
exist
inside
the
district
and
overlaps
with
development
in
the
district
and
in
some
way
is
designed
to
create
needs
that
come
out
of
the
district
right.
C
E
D
E
Chair,
yes,
I
would
move
to
approve
hrcid1-2023
a
resolution
of
the
board
of
directors
of
the
Harris
Ranch
Community
infrastructure,
District
number
one,
making
certain
findings
and
determinations
with
respect
to
certain
Community
infrastructure
projects
within
the
district
and
providing
for
related
matters.
Second,.
C
Madam
chair,
in
addition
to
my
comments
from
David,
the
only
other
discussion
item
in
here
is
the
addition
of
possible
legal
expenses
and
in
looking
at
both
the
history
of
this
and
at
the
possibility
of
Court
challenges.
I
guess
I,
don't
understand
how
the
projects
could
be
implemented
or
how
the
district
itself
could
move
forward
without
legal
advice
and
legal
help,
and
so
in
mind.
In
my
mind,
that's
certainly
at
least
a
general
administrative
expense
at
the
district,
and
that's
why
I'm
supporting
its
inclusion.
A
D
D
The
reason
to
have
that
higher
amount
is
that
there
is
a
possibility
that
the
district
could
receive
an
offer
for
a
longer
term
of
20
or
more
years
that
would
allow
for
a
higher
Bond
issuance
amount
or
that
rates
themselves
could
change
by
the
time
the
district
actually
issues
a
bond.
Therefore,
the
9
million
amount
is
meant
to
accommodate
unexpected
changes.
That
would
benefit
the
the
issuance
of
a
bond.
D
With
that
said,
the
proceeds
of
7.4
million
4.6
million
would
be
used
to
fund
the
2022
projects
that
the
board
just
approved
and
additionally
to
fund
an
unfunded
amount
of
3.1
million
from
the
2021
projects.
So
just
a
little
bit
of
History
back
in
October
of
2021
there
were,
it
was
possible
to
issue
a
bond
of
4.2
million.
However,
the
projects
that
were
approved
were
worth
7.3
million
and
that
left
an
unfunded
amount
of
3.1.
D
Now
those
numbers
are
moving
targets
because
of
interest
rates,
but
that
is
how
the
district
anticipates
the
proceeds
would
be
used
is
to
fund
the
2022
projects
as
well
as
any
amounts
that
are
unfunded
for
the
2021
projects
when
those
actually,
when
a
bond
actually
can
be
issued,
and
that
is
it
for
my
remarks
on
the
bond
resolution.
Madam
chair
board
members,
any
questions.
E
D
E
A
C
D
All
right,
Madam
chair
this
is
for
informational
purposes.
Only
there
will
be
no
resolution
associated
with
this
item
up
on
the
screen.
You
can
see
our
next
board
meetings
that
have
been
scheduled
and
the
purposes
for
each
of
those
board
meetings.
I
will
draw
attention
to
July
13th
because
for
those
that
are
present
and
viewing
online
that
one
will
be
the
budget
public
hearing
and
at
that
meeting
the
District
board
will
be
accepting
oral
testimony,
but
in
any
event,
with
any
of
these
meetings.