►
Description
June 20, 2023 at 3:00 PM MDT
A
C
D
Today
the
district
will
hold
two
public
hearings.
The
first
hearing
is
regarding
a
resolution
that
would
recover
foregone
property
taxes
to
be
used
for
the
maintenance
and
operations
of
the
district.
The
second
public
hearing
is
to
consider
the
fiscal
2024
budget.
It
is
important
to
note
that
the
resolution
approving
the
fiscal
24
budget
does
not
address
any
projects
that
the
developer
will
submit.
D
D
A
A
A
D
D
D
D
In
response
to
board
feedback
at
the
June
budget,
Workshop
staff
has
also
prepared
a
brief
overview
of
the
property
tax
impact
for
this
budget.
These
calculations
are
based
on
a
hypothetical
home
value
within
the
district
and
are
derived
from
average
property
values
due
to
a
decrease
in
home
values.
The
average
home
will
see
their
District
property
tax
decrease
from
an
estimated
two
thousand
sixty
three
dollars
to
an
estimated
1766
dollars.
D
Next,
in
response
to
board
members
woodings
request
at
the
June
20th
budget,
Workshop
District
staff
has
also
prepared
a
quick
overview
of
the
project
status
of
the
district.
The
project
overview
is
broken
into
the
following
categories:
approved
projects
represent
all
projects
approved
by
the
board,
which
currently
currently
totals
31.3
million
of
the
approved
projects.
19.2
million
have
been
financed
through
Bond
issuance.
D
And
leaving
12.1
million
that
are
approved
but
have
not
been
financed.
Prospective
projects
are
Community
infrastructure,
infrastructure
projects
that
have
been
completed
by
the
developer
and
will
be
submitted
for
board
approval.
Those
total
3.8
million
at
this
time
and
will
be
discussed
at
our
upcoming
October
board
meeting.
A
D
A
E
Thank
you,
okay,
so
my
name
is
Bill
Doyle.
My
address
is
3026
South
Brookwood
in
Boise.
I'll.
Keep
this
brief.
The
purpose
of
my
comments
is
simply
to
request
that
now
the
board
make
an
adjustment
to
the
tax
levy
for
the
upcoming
fiscal
year,
so
that
you
collect
only
the
amount
necessary
with
a
reasonable
margin
of
safety
to
pay
scheduled
Debt
Service
on
the
outstanding
General
obligation
bonds
previously
issued
by
the
district.
E
So
property
owners
in
Harris
Ranch
are
already
paying
40
percent
more
on
average
for
their
aggregate
property
taxes
than
other
comparable
properties
within
the
development
and
outside
of
the
development
elsewhere
in
Boise.
So,
looking
for
what
I
believe
to
be
a
fair
Equitable
and
reasonable
adjustment,
an
amount
of
the
lobby
so
that
you
only
collect
enough
to
to
make
payments
of
scheduled
Debt
Service
I,
don't
think
that
that
has
any
adverse
effect
on
the
developer
because
of
the
the
pending
litigation
you're
not
able
to
proceed
with
the
financings
previously
approved.
A
E
F
Mr,
chair
Heath,
Clark,
251,
East,
Front
Street
in
Boise
on
behalf
of
Harris
family
limited
partnership
in
Barbara,
Valley
development
and
I
just
wanted
to
respond
to
Mr
Doyle's
comments.
Obviously
we
do
not
agree
with
that
approach.
That
would
suggest
that
the
the
the
claims
that
they've
been
making
somehow
have
validity,
and
so
therefore
the
taxpayers
excuse
me
the
CID
shouldn't
be
prepared
to
pay
on
previously
approved
projects.
It
would
hamstring
as
I
understand
it.
F
A
C
No
Mr,
chair,
I,
think
I
have
all
of
the
information
that
I
need
and
thank
you
for
that.
Additional
analysis.
I
would
move
that.
We
approve
hrcid
14-2023,
a
resolution
approving
the
fiscal
year
2024
operating
budget
for
the
Harris
Ranch
Community
infrastructure,
District
number
one
in
providing
infective
dates.
C
A
Okay,
thank
you
on
the.
We
did
receive
a
written
objection
and
we
heard
it
again
today
and
I
I.
Take
it
I
understand
the
concern.
At
the
same
time,
it's
been
the
policy
of
this
board
to
try
to
Levy
funds
to
facilitate
Community
infrastructure.
We
try
to.
We
make
attempts
to
issue
bonds.
The
process
has
been
gummed
up
frankly
by
litigation,
but
the
Board
needs
to
be
able
to
issue
those
bonds
if
the
litigation
resolves
and
without
taking
a
position
on
who's
right
or
whose
claims
are
stronger.
A
I
have
a
personal
view
on
that,
but
without
taking
that
position,
we
do
need
to
be
able
to
issue
bonds
if
the
litigation
resolves
in
a
way
that
allows
us
to
do
that.
So
that's
part
of
the
reason
that
I
support
taking
the
levy
as
proposed
by
staff
and
then
there's
the
the
observation
that
the
levees
are
extra
or
excess.
A
It's
kind
of
true
in
the
abstract,
but
to
the
extent
that
there's
extra
money
it
gets
used
to
service
Edition
the
existing
debt
or
to
pay
down
the
debt
in
advance
of
schedule.
So
it's
still
going
to
its
purpose.
It's
not
like.
We
collect
it
and
sit
on
it
and
have
it
and,
in
my
mind,
I
mean
one
way
or
the
other
the
debt
has
to
be
paid.
This
is
the
this.