Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Local Government topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lawmakers introduce RS 32‑696 to allow community improvement districts in counties outside city comprehensive plans
Summary
Representative Jason Monks and others introduced RS 32‑696 to permit community improvement districts (CIDs) to form in counties (not only within city comprehensive plans), remove a prior carve‑out for fire districts, and preserve owner and county approvals; committee introduced RS and recommended second reading.
The House Revenue and Taxation Committee on Friday introduced RS 32‑696, a redraft that would allow community improvement districts (CIDs) to be created in counties outside city comprehensive plans.
Representative Jason Monks, R‑District 22 (Ada County), said the RS is a slimmed‑down portion of a larger bill (House Bill 407) the committee previously considered; it removes earlier provisions that would have expanded CID authorities for fire districts and instead narrowly permits CID formation in a county setting. Monks said the original pilot limited CIDs to cities when the program was new and this change would modestly expand that authority.
Committee members asked whether the change would apply to specific projects; Monks said the RS was not drafted for a particular development but that he had been told of at least three potential projects around the state that might be eligible, including one in the Treasure Valley and another in eastern Idaho. He said he would check with project owners before identifying them publicly.
Representative Gannon asked whether county commissioners would need to approve a CID before it became enforceable; Monks said yes, and added that property owners in the district must also approve formation. Representative Burch said she would support the introduction but wanted to revisit questions before floor action. Representative Raybould moved to introduce RS 32‑696 and recommend it for the second‑reading calendar; the motion carried and Monks will be floor sponsor.
Discussion vs. decision: testimony and a full hearing had already occurred on the larger HB 407, according to Monks, and this RS is a narrowed portion. The committee introduced the RS and sent it to the second‑reading calendar; Monks committed to follow up with specifics about projects if owners authorize disclosure.
Ending: Committee members said they will review the RS text and stakeholders before any floor vote.
