Tamarack, Valley County discuss using community infrastructure districts to finance Heritage infrastructure

Tamarack Resort representatives briefed the Valley County Board of Commissioners on May 27 on using a community infrastructure district — a state law financing tool adopted in 2008 — to pay for infrastructure in the resort’s Heritage area and on alternatives including a local improvement district for water and sewer.

The resort’s representative said a CID would allow the developer to front the cost of roads, water, sewer and other public infrastructure through bond proceeds, with the assessment repaid by property owners inside the district; he added that “ultimately, this is a tax. Right? There’s no way around it.” The presentation noted differences between CIDs and LIDs: Idaho’s CID statute limits borrowing relative to assessed value to about 3-to-1, while the LID statute historically allows roughly 1-to-1, and CIDs require public bidding for infrastructure contracts.

Why it matters: a CID would place an assessment on properties inside the drawn boundary and is disclosed on title and purchase agreements, so buyers would know of the obligation. The county’s role matters because if a CID is formed in an unincorporated area the county serves as the CID governing board and would review and approve projects and budgets for public infrastructure inside the district.

Key points from the presentation: - Legal scope: the presenter said Idaho’s CID provisions were adopted by the Legislature in February 2008 and currently allow formation within cities or within a city’s area of impact; in areas of impact the county acts as the CID board. The presentation included examples of existing CIDs in the Treasure Valley and named earlier developments where similar districts were used. - Vote threshold: if property owners already reside in the proposed district, the statute requires a two‑thirds vote of those owners to form the district; if a developer owns the land and no homes are sold, the developer’s petition can proceed without that resident vote. - Financing mechanics: CIDs most commonly use special‑assessment bonds; general‑obligation bonds are possible but less common and carry a perpetual obligation if used. The presenter contrasted CID bond sizing (approximately 3:1 value) with LID limits (about 1:1). - Use of proceeds: eligible CID expenditures listed by the presenter included highways, streets, bridges, trails, water and wastewater facilities, parking, stormwater, public safety facilities and associated design and financing costs; proceeds can also be used for off‑site improvements such as traffic signals. - Boundary and fairness: the presenter said the district would be drawn around the Heritage geography only and that only properties inside the boundary would pay the assessment, which he described as “a more fair way to cover those costs.” - Opposition and statutory amendment: the presenter said the Freedom Foundation and other groups raised concerns during the recent legislative session because a CID is a taxing district; to address that opposition he proposed adding a sunset provision keyed to bond maturity so districts cannot continue indefinitely. He said the sponsor intends to reintroduce the amendment next session and that, if passed, the law would take effect July 1 the following year. - Timeline and next steps: the presenter said if the statute change passes in the 2026 session it would take effect July 1, 2026, and formation work could begin immediately with a goal of returning to the county for consideration later in 2026 or by summer 2027; he estimated a roughly six‑month county process for formation once the paperwork is ready. He also said he will spend the summer meeting with outside interest groups to answer questions and will return with a fuller fall presentation on formation, governance, revenue handling and public hearings.

Alternatives discussed: Tamarack staff said they are also evaluating an LID for water and sewer through the North Lake district, noting North Lake has experience with multiple prior LIDs and that the sewer/water plant currently has about 2,043 equivalent dwelling units (EDUs) available; the presenter said roughly 650 units have been platted and that the remaining infrastructure to tie Heritage into North Lake would be the principal work if an LID proceeds.

Concerns and context raised by commissioners and staff included the public perception of a new taxing district, potential buyer reactions to assessments, and whether the state legislature will accept a county authority change. The presenter acknowledged those concerns and said many of them could be mitigated in statute language and by disclosure to buyers.

No formal action was taken by the board at the workshop; presenters asked for feedback and said they will return with more detailed material in a future meeting.