The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed a district court decision in *Doyle v. The Harris Ranch Community Infrastructure District No. 1*, resolving a challenge to the operations and authority of a community infrastructure district in Ada County.
The case, decided Feb. 12, 2026, involved petitioners William Doyle, Lawrence Crowley, and The Harris Ranch CID Taxpayers' Association, an Idaho nonprofit association, who challenged The Harris Ranch Community Infrastructure District No. 1 and its board members. The respondents included the district itself and board members T.J. Thompson in his capacity as chairperson, Holli Woodings as vice-chairperson, and Elaine Clegg as a board member.
The Harris Family Limited Partnership, an Idaho limited partnership, intervened in the case as an intervenor-respondent, suggesting the dispute involved significant property or development interests connected to the Harris Ranch development.
Community infrastructure districts are special-purpose government entities that can issue bonds and levy assessments to fund public infrastructure improvements such as roads, water systems, and other municipal services. These districts are commonly used in residential and commercial developments to finance infrastructure costs that would otherwise burden local governments or developers.
The appellants were represented by Bailey & Glasser, LLP of Boise, with Nicholas A. Warden arguing the case before the high court. The district and its board members were represented by Givens Pursley LLP, also of Boise, with Melodie McQuade presenting oral arguments. The Harris Family Limited Partnership was represented by Clark Wardle LLP and Kirton McConkie of Boise, with T. Hethe Clark appearing for the intervenor.
The case originated in the Fourth Judicial District Court of Ada County, where District Judge Nancy A. Baskin issued the initial ruling that the Idaho Supreme Court ultimately affirmed. The appeal was heard during the court's June 2025 term, with the final opinion filed eight months later in February 2026.
While the specific legal issues in dispute are not detailed in the available court documents, the case appears to involve fundamental questions about the district's legal authority, governance structure, or assessment practices. Such challenges to community infrastructure districts typically arise when property owners or taxpayers question the validity of assessments, the district's formation process, or the scope of its authorized activities.
The involvement of a dedicated taxpayers' association as a plaintiff suggests the dispute may have involved broader community concerns about the district's operations or financial practices. Taxpayers' associations often form when residents believe a government entity is exceeding its authority or imposing inappropriate financial burdens on property owners.
The presence of the Harris Family Limited Partnership as an intervenor indicates the case involved parties with substantial financial interests in the outcome. Property developers and landowners often have significant stakes in infrastructure district disputes, as these entities typically finance and construct the improvements that serve new developments.
Community infrastructure districts operate under specific statutory frameworks that define their powers and limitations. Courts frequently review challenges to these districts' actions to ensure they comply with state law requirements for formation, governance, and assessment procedures.
The Idaho Supreme Court's affirmance of the district court decision suggests that Judge Baskin's analysis of the relevant legal issues was sound and that the district's challenged actions were within its lawful authority. However, without access to the full opinion, the specific legal reasoning behind the court's decision remains unclear.
This case represents part of ongoing litigation across the country involving community infrastructure districts and similar special-purpose governmental entities. As these financing mechanisms become more common in residential and commercial development, courts increasingly face questions about their proper scope and operation.
The resolution of this dispute provides clarity for the Harris Ranch Community Infrastructure District No. 1 and its stakeholders, allowing the entity to continue its operations without the cloud of legal challenge. For the taxpayers who brought the case, the affirmance represents a setback in their efforts to challenge the district's authority.
The case also demonstrates the complex legal landscape surrounding municipal finance and special district governance, where multiple parties with varying interests must navigate statutory requirements and constitutional limitations on government power.
Moving forward, the decision may influence how similar disputes are resolved in Idaho and could provide precedent for other challenges to community infrastructure districts throughout the state. The involvement of experienced municipal law firms on all sides suggests the case addressed significant legal questions with implications beyond the immediate parties.