Case Closed!
Since 2006, Ada County has spent almost $31 million digging giant holes at the landfill, so we can dump our waste into them and wait for it to decompose. In contrast, we have spent $2 million to purchase site-specific plans for the Dynamis waste-to-energy facility, money that the county will receive back, for the purchase of those plans, before construction starts. There are naysayers who do not understand the science, technology, and landfill purchasing laws, but the project is sound.
Idaho Statesman reporter Cynthia Sewell just won the Idaho Press Club’s First Place Award for Environmental Reporting in a Daily Newspaper for her February 15, 2011 article, “Garbage in, electricity out” that tells the story of Dynamis Energy, the Eagle, Idaho, company with whom Ada County has contracted to design a waste-to-energy facility at our landfill.
My opponent would very much like for you to ignore my lengthy record of accomplishments (please see www.sharonu.com) while he talks trash about our Dynamis waste-to-energy project. Yet, he has never taken the time to meet with the Dynamis folks to even attempt to understand the technology or the project. It’s obviously easier for him to cast aspersions about the project (and me) when he is ignorant.
The $2 million dollars we have invested in the Dynamis project are not tax dollars. The landfill does not use tax dollars. It is a self-supporting enterprise fund, solely funded through landfill revenue. In contrast to this expenditure, please keep in mind that Ada County has not taken the allowable three percent property tax increase for six years now. We have left nearly $60 MILLION ($59,982,187) in taxpayers’ pockets, most recently on a 2-to-1 decision. My opponent has been endorsed by the one commissioner who wanted to raise your property taxes. It’s no wonder he wants to try to divert your attention elsewhere, but let’s go ahead and indulge him for a few minutes by looking at his assertions regarding Dynamis.
• My opponent claims we violated the Idaho Open Meeting Law. It is not a violation of the Open Meeting Law for commissioners to meet individually and talk with constituents when there is no contract or issue or application under consideration. Given his lengthy career in corrections, my opponent’s ignorance of the law is concerning.
• My opponent claims we violated state purchasing law. By his own admission, my opponent has read my blog post that clearly states the facts regarding landfill purchasing law, and I have explained the applicable code in person. Even though he has been presented with the facts of the law multiple times, he continues to insist that our actions were contrary to the law. He either fails to understand the law, or he is attempting to willfully mislead the voting public. I have even quoted the applicable law at the end of the same blog post, but still my opponent doesn’t get it. We actually went over and above the legal requirements for landfill purchasing by putting out a Request for Expressions of Interest and, before deciding to contract with Dynamis, had received SEVEN (7) responses. I will continue to take the legal opinion and advice of our elected Ada County Prosecutor and his Chief Civil Deputy (who have a combined total of over 60 years of legal experience) OVER that of my political opponent who has no experience.
• My opponent claims there was a conflict of interest when I worked with our attorney to negotiate the agreement with Dynamis and then was one of three commissioners to approve it. If only we could be so lucky as to have ALL of our elected officials aware of what they were signing onto before they did so, the world would be a better place. (Case in point, Commissioner Vern Bisterfeldt signed both copies of the Dynamis Franchise Agreement, because he routinely signed documents he had not read, although he has voiced nothing but disdain for the project. After it was pointed out to him what it was that he had signed, he insisted that new signature pages be created.) Most of the new contracts presented to the Board for review and approval are written with input from the commissioners. By suggesting that my actions constituted a conflict of interest, my opponent is demonstrating his complete lack of understanding of the responsibilities of the office for which he is running and the appropriate processes through which county business is conducted.
• My opponent claims we should have held hearings before moving forward on this project. The Dynamis project is contingent upon meeting certain funding deadlines and would have been offline altogether if the process was slowed down any further. This project constitutes an ancillary use to the landfill, just like the Fortistar gas-to-energy project, for which hearings were also not held. Interestingly, last summer, we held a public budget hearing on our $193 MILLION county budget and not a single member of the public showed up to testify, not even my opponent or his running mate. This newfound concern over $2 million of the county’s non-tax dollars is solely politically motivated.
• My opponent claims that he doesn’t think the technology will work. Perhaps he will share with us the credentials he holds to make such an assertion? Or perhaps he can even just try to provide us with a sound scientific or technical argument? I happen to know a man with a Master’s degree in Chemical Engineering from the University of Wyoming, THE campus where research on the relevant processes was done. I didn’t know this gentleman at the time we signed the contract, but when questions arose about the project, I had him review the design and engineering documents in their entirety and pronounce it sound. In the interest of full disclosure, my expert, Joe Coones, now also happens to be my fiancé. He certainly would have brought to my attention any problems with the technology, had they been there, and he did not. Last week, when I attended a meeting of the Hidden Springs Homeowners’ Association, I mentioned that I had brought an expert with me who could speak to the history and evolution of the technology, but the highly biased moderator did not allow him to speak.
• My opponent claims we should have demanded a performance bond. That would have been nice, but performance bonds are not available on a design project, as this was. Other company assets guarantee Dynamis’ performance.
• My opponent claims we should be working more closely with Republic Services (which already has a trash hauling monopoly in our area – watch for their rates to rise accordingly in the very near future) to recycle trash the old-fashioned way, by pulling things out of it and trying to reuse them. I would rather lead the community into the 21st Century and recycle our waste the cleaner, more efficient way, while producing enough power to serve from 20,000 – 22,000 households a day, while saving a huge amount of space at the landfill, saving money, creating hundreds of construction jobs, 60 permanent jobs, and facilitating tens of millions of dollars of economic investment in our community.
This is NOT new technology, but Dynamis’ engineers have taken what existed and improved upon it. The Wall Street Journal (Los Angeles Waste Management) gets it: “The preferred mode in Europe is to build not a few hugely expensive incineration behemoths but a larger number of smaller, community-based utilities that burn trash to provide electricity and heat through underground conduits. The technology in the newest plants limits toxic emissions of dioxins, a major issue with incinerators of the past, to levels similar to a backyard barbecue’s.” Speaking of emissions, although some folks have expressed environmental concerns about this project, it must necessarily operate within all of the parameters established by EPA and DEQ, as well as meet all permit requirements.
It is apparent from a recent New York Times article that Ada County, Idaho, is ahead of New York City, New York, in implementing clean waste-to-energy projects.
You should be proud you live in Ada County, Idaho, where we are constantly looking for ways in which to operate more efficiently and effectively. Let’s not return ourselves to the dark ages by electing my opponent and his running mate, neither of whom has even bothered to take the time to meet with Dynamis and learn firsthand about the technology and the project. Ada County deserves leaders with vision, the ability to understand the laws of the state, and the ability to make good decisions.
For more information about the Dynamis project, I invite you to read about it in earlier posts on my blog at Turning Waste Into Energy and Jobs and Not Necessarily News.
Defending Your Dollars
Next week, I will file to run for re-election to the Board of Ada County Commissioners in the Republican Primary. Why should you care? You should care because my re-election to this Board can have a significant impact on your property taxes. During the three years I have been back in office, here are some of the things I have accomplished on your behalf:
- I told you I wanted to leave more of your money in your pockets and I have. Working together with my colleague, Commissioner Rick Yzaguirre, we left the allowable three percent property tax increase on the table for the sixth year in a row. Prior to taking office again in 2009, I had repeatedly stressed to the Board the importance of spending our public dollars wisely and only spending those dollars that were truly needed. Our statutory responsibilities are becoming even more challenging as the economy falters and obligatory costs, such as for indigent medical services, increase. Nonetheless, over six years, county property taxpayers have saved nearly $60 million, more than $43 million of which has been in the last three years alone.
- I lobbied heavily in support of negotiating an agreement with Capital City Development Corporation (Boise City’s Urban Renewal Agency) to take over operation of what was the ridiculously expensive parking at the courthouse. It took the county a year to work out the deal, but the mission was accomplished. We were then able to cut prices from $2.50 per hour with ten free minutes, to $1.00 per hour with the first hour free.
- Despite the reduction in parking costs at the courthouse, we still had over 3000 people jaywalking (down from 4000) each week across five lanes of traffic in front of the courthouse – sometimes with infants and young children in tow. For two years I lobbied to get a much-needed signalized crosswalk in front of the Ada County Courthouse. February 28 of this year, thanks to a partnership between Ada County, the Ada County Highway District, and the Idaho Transportation Department, that crosswalk becomes a reality.
- The county is statutorily obligated to pay medical bills for people who are uninsured and don’t otherwise have the income or means to pay their own bills. The Indigent Services department’s budget is about $12 million and has grown significantly the past few years, with so many people out of work. I believe there is a more cost effective way to provide medical services to this population than through costly Emergency Room visits. I have worked with Idaho State University, the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, and the Central District Health Department to provide free preventive health screenings in the community. The screenings are conducted by ISU students with faculty oversight. We have now added the Garden City Community Clinic and Family Medicine Residency as community partners, so when health problems are discovered at the screenings, the patient can access necessary preventive care and treatment, where personal responsibility for one’s health is stressed. For an investment of less than $150,000, lives have been saved. We have a biostatistician working to calculate savings to taxpayers. For my vision and role in setting up this more cost-effective preventive care program, I was honored with an Idaho Health Care Heroes Award, as a Health Care Innovator, by the Idaho Business Review in 2011.
- I had the honor of serving as Chair of the Hazard Mitigation Plan Steering Committee, in which 21 separate taxing districts in Ada County came together to create a new Hazard Mitigation Plan. Our completed Hazard Mitigation Plan received high ratings from FEMA.
- I periodically contribute to this blog and my Facebook page, to keep people informed about what is going on in Ada County.
- Finally this year, I obtained the necessary second vote for the county to take over the provision of Misdemeanor Probation services in Ada County. The Ada County Sheriff’s Office will take over management of the program when the current contract ends on September 30 of this year. Although I believe in limited government, one of the tasks that is reasonably performed by government is protecting public health and safety. Putting this program under the Sheriff, who already runs the work release center, community service program, Sheriff’s Inmate Labor Detail, and other alternative sentencing programs, makes more sense than having it done by a controversial private sector contractor.
For me, this election is about running on my record – the things I have accomplished on your behalf during the time I have had the honor and privilege of serving as your Ada County commissioner. I hope you will support me in my re-election efforts. Thank you!
The Business Case for Hiring Tobacco-Free Employees
The following guest opinion was prepared by Central District Health Department Executive Director Russ Duke, with small contributions by me. We have submitted it to the local papers for publication but I have not yet seen it appear.
In December 2011 the Central District Health Department (CDHD) announced that it will no longer hire anyone testing positive for nicotine use. The decision was made by the Board of Health because of the irrefutable evidence linking tobacco use with premature death and chronic diseases, but also because it made good business sense. Now Ada County is instituting a similar policy for its new hires.
Since there is no way to differentiate tobacco use from nicotine replacement products, CDHD chose the tougher standard. Ada County will do the same. Nicotine replacement is designed to be a bridge to becoming tobacco-free, not an on-going habit.
The health argument against tobacco is powerful. For those of age, tobacco use is perfectly legal. It is a personal choice, but one with grave consequences. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) says smoking is a primary cause of at least 30% of all cancer deaths, and is responsible for nearly 80% of the deaths from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and for early cardiovascular disease and deaths. For every smoking-related death another 20 people suffer with smoking-related disease. Smokeless tobacco products are really no safer; they are known to cause cancers of the oral cavity.
Clearly tobacco use is linked to higher health care costs. The CDC puts a $3391 annual price tag on each employee who smokes: $1760 in lost productivity and $1623 in excess medical expenditures. An American Cancer Society study of health care utilization showed that employees who smoked had more hospital admissions per 1,000 (124 vs. 76), had a longer average length of stay (6.47 vs. 5.03 days), and made six more visits to health care facilities per year than nonsmoking employees.
We are not only government agencies, but also employers. As such, we are tasked with protecting public health and safety while watching the bottom line. Since employers pay the largest share of the cost of employee health insurance, they (we) have a vested interest in reducing those costs. Every dollar we save on health insurance is a dollar we can use to fund other services to the community, or return to our taxpayers.
Tobacco users are absent from work more often. Smokers miss a little over 6 days of work a year due to sickness (including smoking related acute and chronic conditions) compared to their nonsmoking counterparts, who average just under 4 days of missed work a year.
Tobacco users are less productive. A full time job is considered 2080 hours per year. If a smoker uses just two percent of that time on cigarette breaks, it amounts to about a week of unproductive time away from his job. The more someone smokes, the less productive they are.
Smoke-free policies reduce smoking. When workplaces ban smoking they increase the number of employees who quit smoking altogether. This is followed by improved employee health, greater productivity, less absenteeism and lower costs for health insurance.
You will hear some people comment that the overweight and obese also increase the cost of health care, so why not ban them from being hired? First of all it is illegal. Second, a person’s weight is affected by many variables, some of which are out of their control, like genetics, environment and income. A person doesn’t choose to be overweight, yet everyone using tobacco products is making a conscious choice to do so.
Hiring tobacco-free employees contributes to the bottom line in dozens of ways. But at the end of the day, it also contributes to the health and longevity of our greatest resource, our people.
Russell Duke
Director Central District Health Department
Sharon Ullman
Ada County Commissioner
Quorum Questions
I must apologize for having not written anything lately for my blog. It has been challenging to find time to write.
As you might have realized by now, there is rarely a dull moment in the life of an Ada County commissioner! I have been working on some deadline-sensitive projects and Commissioners Rick Yzaguirre and I are keeping the county running even with Commissioner Vern Bisterfeldt’s extended absence.
With a three-person board, it can be a challenge to function when one member is chronically absent or becomes impaired and is unable to do their job, due to the potential lack of a quorum if either of the other two people cannot be present. Last week, because Rick was out of town, we had to reach him by telephone several times in order to have our necessary two-commissioner quorum to hold hearings and conduct county business.
Next Tuesday morning, Rick will be tied up interviewing candidates for an open judgeship. Hopefully, Vern will be better next week and able to return, but we are moving the bulk of our regularly scheduled Open Business Meeting from 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. in the likely event he will not be back. Rest assured that Rick and I are committed to getting the job done and keeping the county on track.
Not Necessarily News?
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
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
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
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
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
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.
Sharon Ullman
Recent Comments