Not Necessarily News?

Published on November 23, 2011 at 7:44 pm. 0 Comments

Last Thursday, I received the following inquiry from a reporter at the Idaho Statesman:

“This is from Boise:

“’The City is not a part of any agreement that exists between Ada County and Dynamis. Up to this point, Ada County has not approached the City about the Dynamis project. Idaho Code (31-4407A) lays out a specific process by which a County must engage municipal participation in funding and operating a solid waste facility. Our understanding of the Dynamis facility is it will operate off of waste streams under control of the County (unincorporated areas) given the fact that we have not received any notice of intent to have municipal participation in the project.’

“So, basically, Boise trash will not be delivered to the Dynamis facility?

“Who owns trash delivered to the landfill? Does 31-4407A apply to a new facility within an existing landfill?

“I am working on a story for Tuesday.”

I was told the quote from the city came from Public Works spokesman Vince Tromboli.

Here was my response:

The City of Boise is not reading the code the same way the county does. In fact, it doesn’t appear they are even being consistent with themselves.

In 2005, the City of Boise was invited to be heavily involved in the county’s decision to open the North Ravine Cell at the landfill site. I have provided to you a copy of the October 25, 2005 letter from Mayor Bieter to Commissioner Yzaguirre stating, “City staff members, the Public Works Commission, and the City Council have reviewed the feasibility study and the county’s request for the city’s participation in the new landfill site. Based upon that review process, it has been determined to be in the city’s best interests to participate in the North Ravine Landfill Cell.”

Although the city was involved in the discussion before the county expended over $20 million to open the North Ravine Cell, they have not been involved in a review of projects to remove solid waste from the waste stream that would otherwise be buried, such as our Household Hazardous Material Collection Facility or our wood recycling program. These are programs through which we keep unnecessary pollutants and/or volume of waste out of the landfill, just like the Dynamis project is intended to do.

In 2006, the contracts for construction of NRC 1 were issued. Costs included: Engineering: $5,085,300; Owner’s Rep: $120,000; Construction: $15,814,264. NRC 1 Total: $21,019,564.

NRC 2 contracts were issued in 2009, including: Engineering: $1,700,000; Construction: $8,090,525. NRC 2 Total: $9,790,525

Total for both phases of the North Ravine Cell: $30,810,089

In 2009 and early 2010, our (now-retired) Landfill Director Dave Neal came to the Board on several occasions requesting that we consider raising rates at the landfill. Although the Ada County landfill is a self-supporting enterprise fund that does not utilize property tax dollars, we were all opposed to raising rates, and suggested that Mr. Neal find a better way to make ends meet.

Mayor Bieter, in his October 2005 letter went on to say, “The city is also interested in providing for options and alternatives for solid waste disposal and increased waste reduction, diversion, and recycling programs. We consider such alternatives to be a critical component of a sustainable, environmentally and economically responsible approach to solid waste management in a fast-growing community.”

Once waste is delivered to the landfill, it is under the control of the county. We continually seek ways in which to serve all county residents who are ratepayers at the landfill (including those who live within the incorporated cities) more effectively, more efficiently, at the lowest possible cost. We are happy to know that the Mayor and City of Boise are thinking along the same lines as the county and, based on Mayor Bieter’s 2005 letter, we expect they will be fully supportive of the Dynamis project.

Thus far, I have seen no story in the Statesman.

Turning Waste into Energy – and Jobs

Published on November 8, 2011 at 3:16 pm. 0 Comments

It has come to my attention that a disgruntled former employee is likely working with Commissioner Bisterfeldt to accuse the Board of Ada County Commissioners of having violated the Idaho Open Meeting Law nearly a year-and-a-half ago with regard to the Dynamis project. We have not done so.

Here are the facts: In 2009 and early 2010, our (now-retired) Landfill Director Dave Neal came to the Board on several occasions requesting that we consider raising rates at the landfill. Although the Ada County landfill is a self-supporting enterprise fund that does not utilize property tax dollars, we were all opposed to raising rates, and suggested that Mr. Neal find a better way to make ends meet.

Commissioner Fred Tilman came to me in May or June of 2010 and informed me that he had met with representatives of a local company that potentially had an innovative solution to some of our landfill issues. He and Rick Yzaguirre had already met with them and suggested that I meet with them to learn more about their company and how they might possibly reduce our landfill costs. Fred, Rick and I each met with representatives of Dynamis during May or early June of 2010.

Although the Ada County Landfill is subject to different purchasing laws than the county in general (see below,) I asked that the county put out a Request for Proposals for renewable energy projects. On June 18, 2010, a Request for Expressions of Interest went out. There was no deadline for submission of proposals, and we remain open to the possibility of co-locating other renewable energy projects at the landfill site. I believe that a solar project, to complement our current gas-to-energy plant and the future waste-to-energy project, would be an excellent fit. To date, I believe the county has received about a dozen proposals, including a formal written proposal from Dynamis.

In late June, our lead attorney and I negotiated a proposed agreement with Dynamis. That agreement appeared on our June 30, 2010, Open Business Meeting agenda for consideration by the full Board, and it received unanimous support and approval.

We have been very open about the Dynamis project. In fact, on June 30, we put out a news release announcing the partnership to the public.

Commissioner Bisterfeldt has refused to meet with anyone from Dynamis. He has never looked at the plans for the project and I don’t believe he even understands it.

Our landfill gas-to-energy project, a partnership with Fortistar, brings approximately a quarter of a million dollars’ worth of revenue to the landfill a year. When the Dynamis project is up and running, it will save the county (our ratepayers) about $2 million a year for the first five years it is operational. The company will employ approximately 60 people, will generate sales and income tax revenue for the state, and will employ several hundred construction workers while it is being built. It will also generate much-needed power.

Commissioner Yzaguirre and I continue to try to find ways to save money for our ratepayers and taxpayers. In a two-to-one decision, this year, Rick and I left the allowable three percent property tax increase on the table for the sixth year in a row. The cumulative benefit to our taxpayers is just shy of $60 million we have left in their pockets.

Given the numerous benefits to the state and local community of the Dynamis project, someone ought to ask Commissioner Bisterfeldt why he stated last week that he will do everything he can to cause the project to fail.

Landfill Purchasing
TITLE 31
COUNTIES AND COUNTY LAW
CHAPTER 44
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SITES
31-4403. Operation and maintenance. It shall be the duty of the board of county commissioners in each of the several counties to acquire sites or facilities, and maintain and operate solid waste disposal systems. Such maintenance and operation may, by exclusive or nonexclusive means, be performed through or by:
(1) Employees, facilities, equipment and supplies hired by or acquired by the board of county commissioners;
(2) Contracts, franchises or otherwise, entered into by the board to have the maintenance and operation performed by private persons;
(3) Contracts entered into by the board to have the maintenance and operation performed by another unit of government;
(4) Contracts, franchises or otherwise, granted pursuant to law by the board, for all or any part or parts of the county;
(5) Any combination of subsections (1), (2), (3) and (4) of this section;
(6) Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, in order to provide for the public health, safety, and well-being, the board of county commissioners and/or another unit of state government, may determine whether solid waste disposal systems services are to be provided by means of a contract, franchise or otherwise, provided for under subsection (2) of this section, or any contract, franchise or otherwise, awarded under subsection (4) of this section, with or without compulsory competitive bidding;
(7) The board of county commissioners before entering into such contracts, franchises or otherwise may require such security for the performance thereof as it deems appropriate or may waive such undertaking.

Update on Misdemeanor Probation

Published on October 21, 2011 at 1:29 pm. 0 Comments

Ada County is gearing up to take over the provision of misdemeanor probation services at the end of this contract term, which is September 30, 2012. Thank you to everyone who has taken the time to call or write to my Board to express your concerns and frustrations with this program.

Thank you, also, to the Boise Guardian (www.boiseguardian.com) for focussing much-needed attention on this issue and for providing a forum to allow those people who are affected by it the opportunity to interact, provide information, or just vent.

Although I would have liked to see a thorough investigation take place before my colleagues renewed the ACMPS contract, we are at least now moving in the right direction. As I have mentioned several times on the Boise Guardian, I have never supported the concept of privatized misdemeanor probation or any corrections services but have never before had the necessary second vote to terminate the contract and provide the service in-house. I believe in limited governnment, but corrections-related services are properly handled by government to avoid the profit motive and problems that are allegedly occurring at ACMPS.

Early last week, I had gallbladder surgery, so please accept my apologies if you contacted me and I did not get back to you. I have read all my e-mail and listened to all of the voice mail messages I received, but admit that the timing of my surgery did not work well with the high volume of messages I received on this issue. I want to assure you that your concerns have been heard.

To all of the people who are currently on misdemeanor probation: Please understand that I have no authority over your individual case or situation. If you have complaints about the handling of your case by ACMPS, please contact your attorney and/or the judge on your case for assistance.

If you have evidence of a problem at ACMPS that you can document, such as positive UA’s at Global during a time when you can provide PROOF that you were clean, please send a copy of this information to the Board of Ada County Commissioners, 200 W. Front Street, Boise, 83702.

Thank you, again, to everyone for helping to change the way Ada County provides misdemeanor probation services.

Let’s Talk About Misdemeanor Probation

Published on October 10, 2011 at 6:10 pm. 4 Comments

I have NEVER supported privatized misdemeanor probation. I have advocated against the concept since Ada County first contracted for the service a dozen or so years ago. Law enforcement and corrections activities fall within the limited role of responsibilities that government should fulfill internally, not contract out. I have lobbied heavily to get the necessary second vote on my Board to do away with privatized misdemeanor probation but have always been unsuccessful in the past.

About a year-and-a-half ago, my colleagues did agree to put out a new Request for Proposals (RFP) to open the misdemeanor probation contract up to competition. I had hoped the Ada County Sheriff’s Office could provide the service; however, because the county was soliciting proposals only from the private sector, they were compared to each other and not to the service that could be provided through the Sheriff’s Office.

With the enthusiastic support of the judiciary, Nancy Cladis and her company “Ada County Misdemeanor Probation Services” (ACMPS) rose to the top during the selection process, so a new two-year contract was awarded to her by the county. We are right now in the middle of that two-year term but the contract can be terminated for cause. I would like to see a thorough investigation take place so my colleagues and I can determine whether there is – or is not – cause to terminate the contract, before the agreement for the second year is signed on Tuesday.

I have been asked what I have done to try to address the numerous concerns that are being raised about the county’s private misdemeanor probation contractor. First, I tried to put an end to privatized misdemeanor probation a few years ago; second, I tried to get at least one of my colleagues to agree that we should turn it over to the Ada County Sheriff’s Office; third, realizing that there was not going to be a second vote to bring the service in-house, I suggested we put the contract out for competitive bid, which we did. At that time, an evaluation committee was formed to review the proposals obtained through the RFP process. Some of the judges were quite outspoken that they thought Nancy was doing a terrific job and they wanted the county to continue to contract with her to provide the service. At that time, I resigned myself to the fact that there was nothing further I could do to change the situation.

More recently, I have been reviewing all available information to try to find out what is going on with ACMPS. I met with several of Nancy’s former employees, who have documentation to support a number of allegations they have made. I have also brought this information to the attention of the Ada County Sheriff’s Office and suggested other avenues through which these people could have their complaints investigated.

I have begged with, pleaded with and argued with my colleagues to try to get them to agree to an investigation – but so far, to no avail. (During these legal staff discussions, Vern Bisterfeldt routinely indicates that Nancy is a good friend of his.) Individually, I do not believe that I can legally walk into Nancy’s private business and start making demands, but I believe if the Board requested Nancy’s cooperation with an investigation, she would have to provide it or face early termination of the contract.

The contract renewal is on our Open Business Meeting agenda tomorrow morning. I assume my two colleagues plan to approve it, given that they have already signed the document. (I don’t sign documents until decisions are made on them in open meetings, as required by Idaho law.) Until a formal investigation of the numerous allegations regarding ACMPS takes place, and ACMPS is exonerated, I will be voting “no” to the continuation of the contract.

Taxpayers Are Getting a Raw Deal

Published on August 31, 2011 at 5:33 pm. 1 Comment Tags: , , , , .

Ever heard of someone being charged with a DUI (Driving Under the Influence) in Ada County? Let’s take a look at the dramatic difference in distribution of court fines and fees between Boise City and Ada County.

The cost of committing a DUI in Ada County, if caught and charged by either the Ada County Sheriff or Idaho State Police, is $1185. The State of Idaho gets $930 of that amount and Ada County receives $255.

In contrast, the cost of committing a DUI in Boise City, when caught and charged by the Boise Police Department, is $1132. Of that amount, the State of Idaho collects $202, Ada County receives $25, and the City of Boise walks away with $905.

Over my objection and “no” vote, Ada County signed off on an agreement with the city for all Ada County property taxpayers to subsidize Boise’s magistrate court operation, to the tune of $1.2 million a year or about 60 percent of the county’s costs not covered by our small piece of the fines and fees. This deal was struck despite the fact that adequate fine and fee money is collected to cover the entire cost, if the dollars are properly allocated to do so.

In 1999, in an effort to garner support for his downtown courthouse, then-Commissioner Roger Simmons and his Board offered Boise City a sweetheart deal – at a highly subsidized price – to provide magistrate court facilities and services. The city had previously been providing its own magistrate court services out at Barrister, near the county jail.

In 2008, now-Commissioner Vern Bisterfeldt was on the Boise City Council when it stopped making payments under the old agreement and challenged the legal requirement that they provide their own magistrate court facilities and services, claiming it was double taxation. The Fourth District Court judges en banc (as a group) ruled against the city. Bisterfeldt was still on the council when they took their case to the Idaho Supreme Court. All five justices ruled unanimously against the city.

In 2010 while negotiations over these costs were ongoing, with the full support of Boise Mayor Dave Bieter, Bisterfeldt ran for county commissioner. Now, as a county commissioner, former City Councilor Bisterfeldt has worked out a new sweetheart deal with the mayor, requiring about $1.2 million in county property taxes per year to subsidize the provision of Boise City’s share of services.

I believe that the dollars paid by the people responsible for committing the crime, or filing the court action, should pay the cost for providing these services. The fine and fee money is there and is adequate to cover costs. In the new deal, however, Boise City is able to retain the lion’s share of the fines and fees, despite the fact that the county provides the facilities and services that the courts have ruled are the city’s obligation.

Driving under the influence is a crime. It’s dangerous, and all too often, is deadly. When someone commits this crime – or any other – would you prefer that the fines and fees collected from them cover the costs associated with their actions, or should all of Ada County’s property taxpayers (including Boise residents) foot the bill? I am a big believer in personal responsibility. County property taxpayers who have not committed the crime should not be forced to pay the price.

A Case in Point

Published on August 30, 2011 at 8:40 pm. 0 Comments Tags: , , , .

Ever heard of someone being charged with a DUI (Driving Under the Influence) in Ada County? Let’s take a look at the dramatic difference between distribution of court fines and fees for Boise City and Ada County.

The cost of committing a DUI in Ada County, if caught and charged by either the Ada County Sheriff or Idaho State Police, is $1185. The State of Idaho gets $930 of that amount and Ada County receives $255.

In contrast, the cost of committing a DUI in Boise City, when caught and charged by the Boise Police Department is $1132. Of that amount, the State of Idaho collects $202, Ada County receives $25, and the City of Boise walks away with $905.

Over my objection and “no” vote, today, Ada County signed off on an agreement with the city for county property taxpayers to subsidize Boise’s magistrate court operation, to the tune of $1.2 million a year or about 60 percent of the county’s costs not covered by the county portion of fines and fees.

Driving under the influence is a crime. It’s dangerous, and all too often, is deadly. When someone commits this crime, would you prefer that the fines and fees collected from them offset the costs associated with their actions, or do you prefer to have county property taxpayers foot the bill? I am a big believer in personal responsibility. County property taxpayers who have not committed the crime should not be forced to pay the price.

When the city challenged the legal requirement that they provide their own magistrate court facilities and services, the Fourth District Court judges en banc (as a group) and the Idaho Supreme Court justices unanimously ruled against the city. I believe that the dollars paid by the people responsible for committing the crime, or filing the civil magistrate court action, should offset the cost to taxpayers for providing these services. Ada County should not have agreed to allow Boise City to retain the lion’s share of the fines and fees.

Greyhound Simulcasting at Les Bois Park a Felony

Published on August 30, 2011 at 4:37 am. 4 Comments Tags: , , , , .

Note: The following piece was first published on the front page of the August 29, 2011, issue of the Valley Times.

There are people in Ada County who are breaking the law, and government officials – including attorneys – are covering for them. The Alabama-based Greene Group operators of Les Bois Park are committing a felony every time they simulcast greyhound racing at that facility.

Dog racing is illegal in the State of Idaho because of the heinous treatment of the dogs allowed by the Greene Group at their track in Post Falls, where live greyhound racing began in the late 1980’s. In 1995, Spokesman-Review investigative reporter J. Todd Foster exposed the nightmarish conditions in which the dogs were kept, and the unthinkable treatment they received.

In response to the newspaper coverage, public outcry, and massive lobbying effort by greyhound advocates, in 1996 the Idaho legislature passed a law that banned all live dog racing, and placed significant restrictions on the simulcasting of dog racing (the broadcasting of live racing from other facilities) in the state.

In response to concerns about the potential loss of jobs in Post Falls, where the greyhound track was located, the simulcasting of dog racing was allowed to continue for a period of three years – but ONLY at tracks that had been licensed for live dog racing prior to January 1, 1996. The only track that meets that requirement is the Coeur d’Alene Greyhound Park and Event Center in Post Falls.

After Governor Phil Batt left office and Dirk Kempthorne took the helms of the state, the sunset clause was removed from the law. The simulcasting of dog racing was allowed to continue past the initial three-year period but, still, only at facilities that had been licensed for live dog racing prior to January 1, 1996.

Later, there was another change made to the law. This additional change allows the simulcasting of dog racing to take place at a substitute facility for one that was licensed for live dog racing prior to January 1, 1996, but only within the same county where the live dog racing took place. The only county in which I can find evidence that live dog racing was ever licensed was Kootenai, where the Alabama-based Greene Group’s Post Falls Greyhound Park is located.

At a recent Idaho Racing Commission meeting, members confirmed that there has never been a live dog racing license issued at Les Bois Park. The law is clear: every time Treasure Valley Racing’s Greene Group operators broadcast greyhound races at Ada County-owned Les Bois Park, they are committing a felony. They have been simulcasting greyhound racing every day they have been open since June 1, 2011, according to their online schedule. If every greyhound race meet that is broadcast constitutes only one felony, they will have committed 178 felonies since opening day. Yet, this activity continues, unimpeded.

Am I shocked? No. Surprised? No. Since 2006, the Greene Group, its associates, and affiliated PACs have donated more than $200,000 to Idaho politicians. They have put so much money in the pockets of Idaho politicians – from the governor on down to county commissioners – they appear to believe they are immune from prosecution. Maybe they are.

Idaho Attorney General Lawrence Wasden’s office, through the Chief of the Criminal Division Stephen Bywater, informed me that they would be issuing an opinion on the legality of simulcast dog racing in Idaho at facilities other than the one in Post Falls. After several weeks, the AG’s office issued an interpretation, but not an official opinion of the Idaho Attorney General. Instead, it is a memorandum authored by one of the two Deputy Attorneys General who represent the Idaho Racing Commission, Jenny Grunke. I believe the fact that the Attorney General himself has chosen not to stand behind this opinion speaks volumes about its lack of accuracy.

Much of the beginning of the memorandum quotes language from old Idaho Racing Commission annual reports, but without quotation marks or attribution. When I was in school, I was taught that this act constituted plagiarism, which in and of itself, raises questions about this attorney’s ethics. Nonetheless, the early part of the opinion appears to be accurate and factual.

Problems in the memorandum arise where attorney Grunke indicates that the law passed in 1996 outlawed only live dog racing in the State of Idaho. In fact, it eliminated both live and simulcast dog racing statewide, with the single exception of the facility in Post Falls.

Minutes from the January 22, 1996 House State Affairs Committee meeting, where the legislation to eliminate dog racing was initially proposed and considered, state, “The purpose of this legislation is to make dog racing illegal in the State of Idaho but to allow simulcast pari-mutual wagering to continue at any dog track which had live racing prior to January 1, 1996.” The same language is contained in the bill’s Statement of Purpose. The only facility that meets the necessary qualification is the one in Post Falls.

In 1999, legislation was passed removing the sunset clause that would have eliminated the simulcast of dog racing in Post Falls altogether. Deputy Attorney General Grunke claims that, “The removal of the sunset clause from Idaho Code § 54-2514A allowed the continued simulcasting of greyhound racing in Idaho.” Ms. Grunke is asserting that the removal of the sunset clause somehow made the simulcasting of dog racing legal throughout the State of Idaho, an assertion that can be proven false.

From records maintained at the Legislative Library, the Fiscal Statement from the 1999 legislation was obtained. It states, ”If this legislation fails to pass, the State of Idaho, and several of its political subdivisions, will realize a reduction in revenues beginning this next fiscal year. This reduction will amount to between $132,000.00 to $400,000.00 depending on whether the Coeur d’Alene Simulcast site remains in business.” (Emphasis added.)

In 2005, the legislation was changed again, to allow an alternate site, WITHIN THE SAME COUNTY. The Statement of Purpose from that legislation says, “The purpose of this act is to prevent the loss of monies paid annually to the public school income fund, Idaho Fair Circuit, Kootenai County, horse owners and breeders and the State Racing Commission by the Greyhond Park and Events Center at Post Falls in the event that property is converted to other uses by the present or subsequent owners.” (Emphasis added; the word “greyhound” is misspelled in the original document.)

Given any doubt about the meaning of the law, one can obtain clarification from these historic records. It is not in Ms. Grunke’s best interest to provide an accurate interpretation; however, since she represents the Idaho Racing Commission, whose members have allowed the simulcasting of dog racing to continue where it is not legal. It is her job to try to protect her clients and provide cover, but in this case, her legal “opinion” is not factual. Ms. Grunke has a serious conflict of interest in this situation so her creative interpretation of the law should be seen as just that.

We don’t even have to rely on historic records of the Idaho Legislature to realize that the simulcasting of dog racing is allowed at only one facility in the State of Idaho. We can look at documents from as recent as the 2011 legislative session, where House Bill 191 was passed with the enthusiastic support of Idaho’s horsemen. That bill contained language which is now memorialized in Idaho Code § 54-2512 (5) which states, “No more than one (1) simulcast and/or televised race facility per county shall be allowed. This includes the one (1) simulcast license authorized in section 54-2514A, Idaho Code.” (Emphasis added.)

There is no confusion as to the actual meaning of the Idaho Legislature’s words, clear intentions, and actions to eliminate live and simulcast dog racing from the State of Idaho, with only the one exception of the greyhound park in Post Falls. There is, however, significant consternation that professional staff members of the Idaho Attorney General’s office would make blatantly false claims in order to cover felonious behavior.

Here’s the law:
54-2514A. Dog racing illegal after the effective date of this act. On and after the effective date of this act, live dog races and pari-mutuel betting on such races or the training of dogs to compete in live dog races shall be illegal in the state of Idaho. Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, the provisions of this section shall not be deemed to alter or affect simulcasts and simulcast pari-mutuel wagering at a facility that was licensed and authorized prior to January 1, 1996, to conduct live dog races and pari-mutuel wagering on them prior to the effective date of this act, and horse and dog race simulcasts and pari-mutuel wagering on such simulcasts may be conducted at that facility, or at an alternate facility in the same county and approved by the commission as if the facility were still licensed and under the same conditions and restrictions imposed by law on a licensee. Under no circumstances shall the provisions of this section or section 54-2512, Idaho Code, be used to grant more than one (1) license to conduct simulcast pari-mutuel wagering in any county. Any person participating or conducting a live dog race or pari-mutuel betting on such a live dog race or the training of dogs to compete in live dog races in violation of this section shall be guilty of a felony.

Fatally Flawed Agreement

Published on August 26, 2011 at 9:21 am. 0 Comments

On Tuesday, August 30 at 9:00 a.m., the Board of Ada County Commissioners will consider an agreement with the City of Boise for the provision of Magistrate Court facilities and services. Passage of such an agreement could end years of legal wrangling between Boise and Ada County. Unfortunately, the agreement currently proposed by the City of Boise, final terms of which are being worked out between agency attorneys, is seriously flawed.

The City of Boise proposes that Ada County property taxpayers subsidize more than 60 percent of the cost to provide Magistrate Court facilities and services for the City despite the fact that state law, a court order, a unanimous Fourth District Court decision and a unanimous Idaho Supreme Court ruling all place the responsibility for the provision of these facilities and services squarely on the City.

According to calculations provided by the Ada County Clerk’s Office, the provision of Magistrate Court facilities and services costs an average of about $6.6 million a year. The City of Boise’s share of these costs is equal to about 50 percent, or $3.3 million.

Ada County collects approximately $1.2 million in fines and fees on behalf of Boise City which offset a portion of Boise’s $3.3 million cost — leaving a cost of more than $2.1 million. Under the proposed agreement, the City of Boise would pay Ada County about $830,000 a year, although the revenue generated for the City through fines and fees for these cases is slightly greater than $2.1 million.

Let me reiterate: the City of Boise collects adequate revenue from Magistrate Court fines and fees to cover the full cost of the County’s provision of facilities and services related to the city’s Magistrate cases. The agreement currently under consideration by the City of Boise and Ada County requires Ada County property taxpayers to subsidize more than 60 percent of the net cost, or more than $1.2 million a year.

It is not in the best interest of Ada County taxpayers – even those within Boise City – for Ada County to heavily subsidize the provision of Magistrate Court facilities and services. This approach effectively uses property tax dollars to pay for services that should be covered by the related court fines and fees. Although the County has left the allowable three percent property tax increase on the table for the past six years – leaving nearly $60 million in property taxpayers’ pockets – this proposed subsidy of Boise’s Magistrate Court facilities and services will allow the City to further outpace the County’s spending on employee salaries and benefits, which ultimately will have to lead to a property tax increase to all County taxpayers in order for the County to remain competitive.

In contrast to the City of Boise’s proposed Magistrate Court settlement agreement, Ada County charges the Cities of Eagle, Star and Kuna approximately 90 percent of the County’s costs for the provision of enhanced law enforcement services within those cities, although the County would be legally required to provide some level of law enforcement in these areas if the cities chose not to contract to do so for themselves.

If there are any remaining doubts or questions about the cost to the County of providing Magistrate Court facilities and services, I would suggest we hire an outside accounting firm to provide an independent analysis. As currently proposed, the settlement agreement between the City of Boise and Ada County is clearly seriously flawed and I intend to vote against it.

If you would like to provide input prior to the Tuesday meeting at which the proposed agreement is exected to be considered, you may send messages to the Board at BOCC1@adaweb.net .

Decision-Makers’ Bad Decision

Published on August 22, 2011 at 11:17 am. 0 Comments Tags: , , .

The Treasure Valley Partnership plans to hold a retreat at Tamarack Resort September 15 and 16. How is that good for local taxpayers OR the local business community?! According to their website, “The Treasure Valley Partnership is a group of mayors and commissioners from Ada and Canyon Counties in Southwest (Treasure Valley) Idaho who became concerned with the change in their communities because of rapid growth in the 1990′s.” It would be nice if local leaders will show some leadership and, “Just say no!”

Fighting the Greene Giant

Published on August 17, 2011 at 6:18 pm. 1 Comment

According to Idaho Code 54-2514A, the simulcasting of dog racing outside of Kootenai County is a felony in the State of Idaho. The Greene Group operators of Les Bois Park have been simulcasting greyhound racing every day they have been open since June 1, 2011, according to their online schedule. If every greyhound race meet that is broadcast constitutes only one felony, they will have committed 178 felonies since opening day. How long do you suppose it ought to take for the proper authorities to take action?