►
Description
July 19, 2022 at 1:00 PM MDT
A
Sorry
we're
getting
started
a
little
bit
late
here.
I
find
myself
having
a
really
hard
time
being
on
time
in
the
summer.
I'm
not
really
sure
why
this
is
the
time
and
place
for
the
harris
ranch
community
infrastructure
district
number
one
board
meeting
of
july,
19th
2022
clerk.
Will
you
please
call
the
roll.
E
E
The
first
hearing
is
regarding
a
resolution
that
would
recover
176
dollars
of
foregone
property
taxes
to
be
used
for
the
maintenance
and
operations
district.
The
second
public
hearing
is
to
consider
the
fiscal
year
2023
budget.
Please
note
that
the
resolution
approving
the
2023
budget
does
not
address
any
of
the
projects
that
the
developer
has
submitted
for
reimbursement.
E
The
first
is,
I
wanted
to
call
your
attention
to
the
the
amount
it
is
just
176
dollars
in
this
year
and
the
district
has
3
209
that
is
available
to
it
in
foregone
property
taxes
and
176
dollars
of
that
is
eligible
to
be
recovered
for
the
fiscal
2023
budget,
as
required
by
idaho
code.
A
public
hearing
needs
to
be
held
prior
to
the
board,
taking
any
action.
E
C
C
We
have
to
hold
this
hearing
in
time
to
certify
a
tax
document
with
the
secretary
of
state.
If
we
missed
that
deadline,
it
would
cause
grievous
damage
frankly
to
the
district
going
forward,
because
we
would
not
be
able
to
keep
up
with
the
payments
that
we,
the
debt
service,
that
we
already
owe
the
other
part
of
it.
That,
for
me,
is
really
important.
To
note
is
that
this
hearing,
while
required
by
law,
is
one
that
was
as
required
by
lies
one
that
was
duly
noted.
C
A
Thank
you
for
those
comments,
and
I
just
want
to
echo
what
board
member
craig
has
said.
We
held
our
budget
workshop,
which
is
a
process
that
we
typically
go
through
here
at
the
city
for
each
budget
and
the
budget
workshop
for
the
harris
ranch.
Cid
was
actually
the
prior
week
to
the
city's
budget
workshop.
A
The
city's
budget
workshop
is
also
today,
so
there
was
actually
an
extra
week
from
what
the
city
with
a
much
larger
budget,
the
time
in
between
that
workshop
and
the
public
hearing.
So
I
I
appreciate
everyone
who
took
the
time
to
reach
out
to
us
your
your
feedback
has
been
received
and,
and
it's
much
appreciated.
A
The
reason
that
we
decided
to
take
some
of
these
foregone
taxes
is
because
the
because
we're
having
an
increase
to
our
administrative
costs
for
the
district-
and
this
will
help
us
in
this
year
and
in
out
years,
recover
some
of
those
taxes
so
that
we
can
pay
those
administrative
costs
that
have
been
on
the
rise.
So
I
appreciate
that
presentation,
david.
A
Oh
there's
one
at
the
podium:
there's
nothing
on
there
all
right!
Well,
I
will
go
ahead
and,
let's
open
the
public
hearing
for
the
foregone
property
taxes.
Is
there
anyone
here
to
testify
on
this
item
all
right?
Seeing
none
will
close
the
public
hearing
on
the
foregone
property
taxes
and
a
motion
is
in
order.
B
A
A
B
E
The
first
is
that
in
the
budget
workshop
I
had
mentioned
that
the
average
homeowner
would
see
an
increase
in
their
property
taxes
of
about
nine
percent
and
part
of
the
challenge
of
that
is.
When
you
use
the
term
average,
the
district
has
had
a
number
of
smaller
homes
that
fall
below
the
average
that
were
constructed,
and
so
that
lowers
the
average
of
within
the
district
of
the
the
market
value.
E
And
the
second
item
that
I
wanted
to
note
is
that
no
one
should
see
a
full
50
increase.
Part
of
the
increase
in
the
market
value
from
last
year
to
this
year
was
that
we
have
new
construction
and
we
also
have
the
occupancy
rules
that
are
that
are
added,
and
so
that
accounts
for
about
25
of
the
increase.
So
that's
why
some
homeowners
will
see
increases
between
35
and
41,
not
that
full
50
percent.
E
The
last
item
that
I
wanted
to
address
is
that,
in
the
workshop
board,
member
clegg
had
asked
that
I
discussed
the
impact
that
would
come
from
re,
potentially
reducing
the
levy.
In
the
workshop,
I
had
proposed
a
levy
alternative
of
taking
the
taxable
value
and
reducing
it
by
about
90
and
so
board
member
clegg
had
asked
well
what
does
that
mean
for
the
district?
E
E
Yeah
so,
madam
chair,
with
regards
to
the
projects
that
that
are
eligible,
there's
there's
two
governing
forces
that
that
are
authorities.
The
first
is
idaho
state
code
under
title
50,
chapter
31,
and
so
within
there,
the
community
infrastructure
is
defined,
and
so
any
projects
that
are
submitted
for
purchase
must
meet
those
definitions
of
community
infrastructure.
E
Okay,
so
the
second
question
was:
how
is
that
interest
rate
determined
and
that
rate
is
set
within
the
development
agreement
and
that
rate
of
interest
accrual
is
the
prime
rate
plus
two
percent,
which
currently
stands.
That
prime
plus
two
percent
is
six
point:
seven
five
percent
as
of
a
few
weeks
ago,.
C
E
Yeah
so
madam
chair
board
member
clegg,
I've
made
a
number
of
assumptions.
One
is
that
that
interest
rate
itself
doesn't
change
which
it
could
it's
likely
to
go
up,
and
then,
if
we
have
a
recession,
it's
the
fed
could
cut
rates.
So
I
just
made
the
assumption
that
it
does
not
change
from
what
it
is
today.
E
The
other
thing
is
that
the
recession
could
cause
there
to
be
less
growth
within
the
district
or
we
could
have
substantially
more.
So
there
are
there's
quite
a
few
variables,
and
so
I've
had
to
make
some
some
assumptions
in
order
to
come
up
with
that.
So
I
would
consider
that
you
know
you've
got
a
a
range
there
of.
C
C
E
C
C
E
But
the
budget
stays
relatively
the
same.
That
proportion
decreases,
however,
with
the
district.
The
district
is
taxes
on
an
incremental
basis.
There's
some
and
so
a
district
is
some
kind,
sometimes
called
an
incremental
taxing
district,
and
so
what
that
means
is
the
levy
rate
itself
is
fixed,
and
so
what
you'll
see
is
that
that
levy
will
remain
fixed,
and
so
it
will
become
a
larger
and
larger
portion
of
the
the
taxes
that
a
homeowner
will
pay
relative
to
to
the
other.
E
That
is,
if
growth
itself
it
under
under
the
way
the
mechanism
hopefully
works,
is
that
you're
going
to
have
sufficient
construction
that
that
is
what's
going
to
be
driving
the
taxable
value
of
the
district
as
opposed
to
appreciation
and
home
values.
However,
what
we've
seen
recently
both
for
the
district,
as
well
as
for
the
city
itself,
is
that
home
values
are
what
is
is
driving
the
change
rather
than
new
construction.
C
Thank
you
follow
up
on
that
as
home
values
moderate,
which
it
looks
like
they're
beginning
to,
and
hopefully
we
don't
have
a
recession
like
we
did
in
2008.
As
that
begins
to
happen,
the
levy
rate
will
either
stabilize
or
go
back
up
on
the
whole
at
the
city
level,
and
the
proportion
of
the
cid
of
that
would
would
decrease.
If
that
were
to
happen,
I
mean
we've
ten
years
ago,
when
this
started.
You
know
it
was
the
other
way
around
now.
It's
this
way
the
teeter-totters.
C
This
way,
my
guess,
is
it's
going
to
land
somewhere
in
the
middle,
but
right
now
certainly
understand
that
the
proportion
of
the
taxes
that
are
cid-related
compared
to
the
others
have
increased,
noting
that
early
on
in
the
life
of
the
cid,
those
proportion
of
taxes
were
actually
quite
low.
Is
that
am
I
right
in
that
analysis,.
E
F
C
Going
to
that's
fine
but
I'll,
ask
this
question
anyway.
Much
has
been
made
of
the
total
revenue
and
total
expenses
shown
here,
noting
that
almost
7
million
dollars
of
that
is
carryover,
because
we
did
not
let
bonds
last
year.
Is
that
so
the
the
budget,
although
it
looks
very
large,
is
really
written
this
way
to
ensure
that
there's
room
to
make
whatever
decision
is
necessary
about
last
year's
approved
projects
and
reimbursing
for
those.
E
Yeah
so
madam
chair
board
member
clegg,
so
in
line
seven
on
the
budget,
you
can
see
that
there's
so
line
7
and
then
line
25
so
on
the
revenue
side
and
then
on
the
expense
side.
There's
5
million
in
contingency
in
the
event
that
the
general
obligation
bond
for
last
year's
budget,
or
for
this
specific,
I'm
sorry
for
this
year's
budget.
Fiscal
2022
is
not
issued
but
is
instead
issued
in
fiscal
2023..
E
However,
I
I
will
note
that
the
the
lines
that
concern
most
folks
are
summarized
in
line
number
five,
which
is
the
overall
impact
and
then
bonds
work
on
a
leveraged
basis,
based
on
the
the
revenues
that
that
are
coming
in.
But,
yes,
the
overall
number
of
21
million
is
is
greatly
affected
by
the
fact
that
we
have
a
lot
of
unknowns
with
the
district
in
terms
of
the
timing
of
the
issuance
of
bonds.
A
So
we
have
what
we
have
is
we
have
a
district
with
agreements
made
through
the
development
agreement
and
through
state
statute,
and
it's
currently
approved
to
use
up
to
50
million
in
general
obligation
bonds
to
pay
for
the
projects
that
have
this
criteria
for
approval.
Where
are
we
right
now
on
letting
those
bonds?
And
where
are
we
in
the
progress
toward
that
50
million.
E
A
E
E
Yeah
so,
madam
chair
board
member
clegg,
if
we
were
to
expedite
the
based
on
either
availability
of
funds
as
the
district
grows,
if
we
were
to
issue
quickly,
then
yes,
the
the
the
the
purpose
of
the
district
would
then
shift
to
simply
paying
down
those
bonds,
as
opposed
to
issuing
new
bonds,
and
I
also
realized
I
had
had
the
year
wrong.
I
said
2050,
it
should
be
2040.
C
E
G
A
All
right,
then,
we
are
going
to
go
ahead
and
open
the
public
hearing,
let's
start
with
folks
online.
If
you
are
online
and
you
would
like
to
testify,
please
raise
your
hand
on
zoom
and
we
will
unmute
you
and
take
your
testimony.
Each
person
has
three
minutes
to
testify
and
I
just
ask
that
everyone
keep
it
on
topic
and
keep
it
respectful
and
respectful
towards
everyone
in
the
room
and
each
other.
So.
A
H
H
H
H
H
I
have
also
some
anecdotal
data
that,
because
of
the
these
future
assessments
and
levies,
there
are
many
real
estate
agents
who
are
pointing
potential
buyers
away
from
this
neighborhood
because
of
the
risk
and
because
of
the
unknown
cost
to
the
individual
homeowners.
So,
in
my
opinion,
that's
going
to
overall
decrease
the
potential
value
of
the
homes.
H
A
H
Thank
you,
and
I
would
just
my
only
response
to
that
is
the
homeowners
did
not
have
a
lot
of
say
in
what
those
improvements
were
going
to
be
and
the
costs
associated
with
it.
So
I
I
would.
I
would
like
to
have
the
opportunity
to
review
what
future
improvements
are
still
on
record
and
have
the
opportunity
to
voice
my
opinion
about
the
prioritization
of
those
those
improvements.
C
A
G
G
Okay,
let's
see
address
is
3026
south
brook
ridge
in
harris
ranch
in
boise
I'll.
Try
to
keep
my
comments
relatively
brief,
and
certainly
within
the
three
minutes
at
first
first
point
I
would
like
to
make
is
that
a
particularly
board
member
clegg
have
expressed
concerns
about
the
accrual
of
additional
interest,
to
the
extent
that
deferral
that
the
project
reimbursements
to
the
developer
are
deferred
into
the
future.
G
The
original
projections
prepared
back
in
2010
by
the
developer,
with
respect
to
the
disbursement
of
the
50
million
dollars
authorized
bond
amount,
showed
no
payments,
zero
dollars
being
paid
to
the
developer
for
accrued
interest.
Even
though
the
proposed
the
the
projected
reimbursements
would
be
made
over
a
period
of
30
years
between
2010
2040..
G
G
F
G
G
F
E
Yeah,
so,
madam
chair,
that's
that's
a
great
question
that
will
be
a
decision
of
the
of
the
board.
The
this
public
hearing
is
by
state
statute,
the
only
public
hearing
that
we
have.
However,
I
always
welcome
and
invite
homeowners
to
provide
comment
which
I
will
submit
to
the
board
when
those
decisions
are
made.
D
E
Yeah
so,
madam
chair,
in
terms
of
of
growth,
at
this
point,
I
am
only
projecting
what
growth
has
been
so
far,
and
so
I'm
using
a
a
rear,
looking
approach
to
to
project
those
in
terms
of
the
actual
growth
and
construction
and
how
much
is
remaining
to
be
built
out
both
in
terms
of
residential
and
then
commercial.
I
would
actually
defer
that
question
to
to
the
to
the
developer.
C
E
C
So
follow
up
david
you're,
projecting
growth
based
on
the
past,
which
has
primarily
been
single-family
home
growth
and
you're,
not
including
the
potential
value
of
the
commercial
and
the
multi-family
that
is
in
the
plan
and
is
currently
being
planned
and
built,
which
could
potentially
come
in
at
a
higher
rate
than
100
single-family
homes
a
year
versus
900
multi-family.
Is
that
am
I
correct?
C
E
Yeah,
madam
chair
board,
member
clay,
that's
that's
correct
that
there
is
a
a
amount
of
commercial
that
could
be
built
in
that
again.
I'm
just
using
averages
to
approach
that
one
of
the
goals
of
the
district
is
to
to
be
able
to
do
a
better
job,
and
so
actually
city
council
this
evening
will
consider
staff
increase.
That
will
help
assist
the
district
in
in
providing
more
analysis
when
it
comes
to
projecting
growth.
E
D
C
C
So,
for
me,
this
is
a
real
conundrum.
Quite
frankly,
we
have
a
district
that
has
a
approved
development
agreement
that
has
a
first
of
its
kind,
approved
specific
area
plan
that
identifies
the
things
that
make
this
development
different
from
other
developments
and
collectively
those
things
have
in
fact,
proven
out
to
create
a
place
that
is
higher
value
on
average
than
many
of
the
other
places
in
the
valley.
C
Reducing
a
little
bit
will
save
a
little
bit,
but
it
really
will
be
a
little
bit
as
we've
seen
with
our
own
bigger
property
tax
increases
or
percentage
property
tax
increases
at
the
city
playing
at
the
margins
saves
a
little
bit
per
house,
but
it
costs
more
in
interest.
It
means
less
infrastructure
it.
It
has
all
of
these
downstream
effects
that,
from
my
perspective,
I
have
a
hard
time
saying.
C
C
The
legislature
can
fix
this
and
they've
refused
to,
and
in
doing
so
they
put
all
of
us
in
a
horrible
situation
and
so
with
trepidation.
To
be
certain
because
of
all
of
that,
I
move
approval
of
cr.
Our
house
ranch
cid
8
2022,
a
resolution
approving
the
fiscal
year
2023
operating
budget
for
the
harris
ranch
community
infrastructure
district
number
one
in
providing
an
effective
date.
A
After,
as
you
noted,
all
of
her
property
values
have
increased,
I
think
in
a
way
that
none
of
us
envisioned
and
that
levy
rate
meanwhile
is
staying
the
same
and
what
that
means
is.
Yes,
things
get
paid
off
more
quickly,
but
at
what
cost?
To
the
current
homeowners,
we
were
presented
with
several
scenarios
in
our
budget
workshop
memo
that
mr
hasagawa
sent
us
and
one
of
those
scenarios
had
project
kind
of
built
in
a
10
market
decline
projection,
and
we
do
have
a
lot
of
unknowns
right
now.
A
We
have
an
economy,
that's
you
know
up
and
it's
down
and
no
one's
really
sure
what's
going
on.
But
what
that
10
percent
market
decline
does,
I
think,
is
recognize
where
we
are
economically
at
this
moment
and
also
it
keeps
the
actual
revenue
to
the
district,
the
same
as
what
we
proposed
last
for
what
we
approved
for
this
current
fiscal
year
at
5.3
million.
A
So
I
think
that
it
feel
it
feels
to
me
that
that's
a
really
good
compromise,
it
doesn't
allow
the
full.
You
know
8
million,
that
we
were
looking
at
for
proceeds,
but
it
does
kind
of
keep
that
flat
and
it
reduces
the
levy
rate
a
little
bit
for
homeowners,
which
I
think
makes
sense,
given
the
way
that
properties
have
increased
over
just
the
past
couple
of
years.
You
know.
A
C
So
here
I
guess
what
I'm
saying
what
I
was
trying
to
say,
however,
in
artfully,
is
that
yes,
that
full
levy
at
all
about
200,
000
versus
the
less
than
folivia
1.9
does
have
a
small
impact
per
homeowner,
and
my
question
is
whether
that
small
impact
per
homeowner
is
worthy
of
the
downstream
pain
that
it
will
cause
if
we
don't
collect
it
this
year.
On
the
other
hand,
it's
not
very
much
in
this
one
year
and
allowing
for
some
adjustment
in
this
one
year.
C
While
you
know
the
one
thing
I
would
say
to
all
of
you,
the
legislature
needs
to
hear
about
this.
This
is
not
anything
we
can
fix,
and
I
wish
I
could.
I
wish
I
had
the
power
to
fix
this.
I
can't,
without
the
pressure
from
homeowners
that
you're
giving
to
us
to
them,
they
won't
fix
it,
and
so
I
you
know,
I
part
of
what
I'm
trying
to
say
is
understand
your
angst.
C
A
C
So
I
guess
with
that
I
would
amend
my
motion
to
say
that
we
will
approve
the
resolution
for
fiscal
year
2023
operating
budget
with
the
amendment
that
the
levy
rate
will
be
reduced
by
10
percent
to
meet
90
percent
of
the
full
approved
rate,
and
in
that
case
the
staff
will
have
to
return
to
us
with
the
budget
numbers.
So
my
question
is
whether
we
can
approve
that
today
or
whether
we
approve
what
we
would
like
to
see
and
we
have
to
see
those
numbers
before
we
can
approve
it.
E
E
I
would
note
just
for,
for
the
purposes
of
the
motion
itself,
that
when,
when
you
say
a
10
decline,
it
should
be
a
10
decline
specific
to
the
the
bond
levy.
The
administrative
levy
itself
should
remain,
there's
there's
effectively
two
levies,
and
so
the
administrative
levy
would
need
to
to
remain
the
same,
but
the
bond
levy
is
the
one
that
should
be
reduced
and
and
definitely
can
return
with
with
those
those
numbers.
D
C
That
we
approve
the
resolution
approving
the
fiscal
year
2023
operating
budget
for
the
harris
ranch
community
infrastructure
district
number,
one
with
a
10
reduction
in
the
levy
rate
for
the
bond
proceeds
and
the
rest
of
the
budget
to
remain
as
presented,
and
that
10
reduction
is
only
for
the
2023
year
and
direct
staff
to
bring
back
to
us
the
revised
budget
numbers
by
next
tuesday
for
review.
I
think
we
can
approve
the
budget
as
is,
and
do
we
have
to
review
it
before
we
can
send
it
to
the
l2.
C
A
Okay,
so
the
revised
budget
numbers
will
be
brought
back
to
us,
along
with
an
l2
that
we
will
approve
to
transmit
to
the
county
at
the
same
time,
the
budget
as
a
resolution
and
the
l2,
I
believe,
is
also
a
resolution
so
be
on
the
lookout.
For
when
that
meeting
will
happen,
we
will
not
have
an
additional
public
hearing
on
that.
This
is
the
one
and
only
budget
public
hearing
we'll
be
conducting,
and
with
that
our
agenda
is
complete
and
I'll.
Hear
a
motion
to
adjourn
madam
chair.