Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Community Improvement Districts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee introduces RS 32-696 to allow CIDs in counties outside city comprehensive plans
Summary
The House Revenue and Taxation Committee introduced RS 32-696 on March 21, a narrowed change from House Bill 407 that would allow community improvement districts to be formed in counties (outside a city's comprehensive plan); the RS was recommended to the second reading calendar.
The House Revenue and Taxation Committee introduced RS 32-696 on March 21, 2025, a pared‑down change that would allow community improvement districts (CIDs) to form in counties, not just within city limits or a city's comprehensive plan.
Representative Jason Monks, R‑Ada County, said the RS is a small portion of the earlier House Bill 407. "The only thing that this particular RS does is it allows a CID to be also formed in a county, not just within a city or within a city's comprehensive plan," Monks said. He said other carve-outs, including questions that arose about fire districts, were removed from this version.
Monks told the committee the original CID statute was written as a pilot limited to cities when it was created 17–18 years ago; the RS would let counties opt in to the same CID authority if they meet statutory requirements. He said the RS is not directed at any single project but that he had been told informally there are "at least 3 projects statewide that could possibly use this" if they choose.
Committee members asked procedural and scope questions. Representative Gannon asked whether a county commission would have to approve a CID; Monks said yes and added that property owners must also approve. Representative Birch asked whether the RS might apply to a large, publicly reported project outside McCall; Monks said he would follow up with specifics if owners consented to being named.
Representative Raybould moved that the committee introduce RS 32-696 and recommend it be sent to the second reading calendar; the motion carried by voice vote. Monks will be the floor sponsor if the RS advances.
Supporters described the RS as a limited technical expansion of existing CID authority; some members said they would reserve final judgment pending further review and local consultation. The committee recorded no public testimony at the March 21 meeting on the RS.
