Gotta hand it to Team Dave on the sales campaign for the proposed debt question before voters in November. The NorthEnders have been mobilized and the council candidates have all avoided the issue in a joint campaign brochure. Even the DAILY PAPER editorial has offered an endorsement while addressing–almost point by point–the GUARDIAN concerns.
We have to note that debt has currently brought the USA to its knees and cities like Detroit are mired so deep in debt survival is in question.
The City of Boise currently has no debt. That means for each $1 spent, we theoretically get a $1 value. If the $ 33 million total bond package is approved Nov. 5, it will put taxpayers on the hook for $51,000,000 to be paid over a 20 year period.
That means we will pay $18,000,000 for interest and get absolutely nothing tangible in return for the two measures.
#1 FIRE
The city has built several new fire stations in the past 10 years funded by annual revenues to serve new developments and annexation. They have also collected “impact fees.” Now they claim existing stations are in disrepair and have outlived their useful life. Not good management to build new structures while ignoring existing assets. Sorta like buying a new car because you didn’t change the oil in the old one.
Boise Fire Dept. recently entered into some “mutual aid” cooperative agreements with other Ada County departments like Meridian and Eagle. Those agreements should be backed up with mutual training. Any fire training academy should be funded by all the departments in the county, not just on the backs of Boise property owners.
In general the fire bond ballot language is simply too vague with no specific locations, costs of individual stations, or repairs. The City Council also bypassed its own laws to avoid the required three readings at council meetings. Oh sure, they have “plans,” but nothing in the ballot proposal forces them to abide by what they propose in the sales pitch.
#2 PARKS/OPEN SPACE
Boise has annexed hundreds of acres in the southwest part of the city, collected “impact fees” for parks and refused to provide parks to the annexed citizens. Now they seek debt approval to pay for the promised parks.
Open space has been sought and acquired exclusively in the Foothills. There are many areas south of the Boise River and in southwest Boise worthy of preservation. Before entering into 20 years of debt for vague “open space” citizens should be provided more specific obligations if the bond is passed, to preclude purchases like Stack Rock in Boise county and acting as the banker for the Idaho Fish and Game Dept. on the Hammer Flat purchase and resale.
Annual appropriations for specific projects through two year “serial levies” are cheaper, wiser, and easier to pass than $51,000,000 in debt and tossing $18,000,000 to the wind for interest. The down side is higher taxes for, but only for two years.
READ THE BALLOT—
CITY OF BOISE
Ordinance NO. ORD-38-13
BY THE COUNCIL CLEGG , EBERLE, JORDAN, MCLEAN,
QUINTANA, AND THOMSON
AN ORDINANCE CALLING A GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND ELECTION TO BE HELD FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUBMITTING TO THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF THE CITY OF BOISE CITY, IDAHO, TWO PROPOSITIONS FOR THE ISSUANCE OF NEGOTIABLE GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS OF THE CITY OF BOISE CITY, IDAHO; DETERMINING THAT THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF BONDED INDEBTEDNESS OF THE CITY WILL NOT EXCEED TWO PERCENT (2%) OF MARKET VALUE OF TAXABLE PROPERTY; DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO NOTIFY THE COUNTY CLERK THAT THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL CALLED THE BOND ELECTION; APPROVING THE FORM OF BALLOT; APPROVING THE NOTICE OF GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND ELECTION; PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE OF SUCH BONDS AND THE LEVY OF A TAX TO PAY SUCH BONDS; ORDERING PUBLICATION; APPROVING A SUMMARY; PROVIDING FOR A WAIVER OF THE READING RULES; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, certain improvements throughout the city of Boise City, Idaho (the “City”), are deemed by the members of the Council of the City (the “Council”) to be required for the public good and welfare of the City; and
WHEREAS, the Council has determined and hereby deems it is necessary and advisable to finance certain capital improvements in the City, including for (i) the purposes of constructing and equipping a new fire training facility to meet minimum national standards, improving existing fire stations, constructing and equipping new fire stations to reduce emergency response service gaps and to enhance neighborhood safety, together with all necessary appurtenant facilities and equipment, pursuant to Sections 50-1019(6) and 50-1019(9), Idaho Code (the “Fire Protection Facilities”), and (ii) the purposes of protecting clean water, critical open space, natural areas, and wildlife habitat, and enhancing recreation through the purchase of open spaces such as the Boise Foothills, and expanding and improving the City’s neighborhood parks system, pursuant to Section 50-1019(4), Idaho Code (the “Open Space and Parks Improvements Project,” and together with the Fire Protection Facilities, the “Projects”);
WHEREAS, the City deems it necessary and advisable to issue general obligation bonds of the City in the amount of up to $32,915,000, pursuant to the provisions of Sections 50-1019 and 50-1026, Idaho Code, and chapter 2, Title 57, Idaho Code, to finance the Projects, and in order to do so desires to call an election to be held pursuant to chapter 14, Title 34, Idaho Code, for electorate authorization of issuing bonds to finance each of the Projects;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF CITY OF BOISE
THE CITY OF BOISE CITY, IDAHO:
Section 1. That a general obligation bond election (the “Bond Election”) is hereby called to be held in the City on Tuesday, November 5, 2013, for the purpose of submitting to the qualified electors of the City the two propositions set forth in the forms of ballot hereinafter provided.
Section 2. That the City hereby determines that the outstanding amount of all bonded indebtedness of the City, including the bonds proposed under this Ordinance, will not exceed two percent (2%) of the market value for assessment purposes of all taxable property within the City on the tax rolls completed and available as of the date of the Bond Election.
Section 3. That pursuant to Section 34-1401, Idaho Code, the Clerk of Ada County, Idaho (the “County Clerk”) shall administer the Bond Election, including scheduling the polling times; preparing and printing the ballots; publishing the notice of the Bond Election and the sample ballot for each proposition; and conducting the Bond Election.
Section 4. That in compliance with Section 34-1406, Idaho Code, the Clerk of the City (the “City Clerk”) shall notify the County Clerk that the Mayor and Council have called the Bond Election on behalf of the City by delivering to the County Clerk a copy of this Ordinance, including the forms of the ballot and notice of the Bond Election, as provided under Section 5 and Section 6 hereof.
Section 5. For purposes of the Bond Election, the Council hereby approves the form of ballot as set forth below:
***FORM OF BALLOT***
INSTRUCTIONS TO VOTERS:
To vote, fill in the oval () to the left of the words “YES. I vote IN FAVOR OF” or “NO. I vote AGAINST” according to the way you desire to vote on the questions. If you make a mistake, request a new ballot from an election worker.
Shall the city of Boise City, Idaho, be authorized to issue and sell general obligation bonds for the following purposes:
To construct and equip a new fire training facility to meet minimum national standards, improve existing fire stations, as well as construct and equip new fire stations to reduce emergency response service gaps and to enhance neighborhood safety;
To protect clean water, critical open space, natural areas, and wildlife habitat, enhance recreation through the purchase of open spaces such as the Boise Foothills, and expand and improve the City’s neighborhood parks system. CITY OF BOISE
One hundred percent (100%) of bond proceeds will be used for the specified purposes as verified by annual independent audits. Repair and construction projects will incorporate energy, water, and other conservation measures.
The bonds are due in installments as fixed by the Mayor and Council of the City, the last installment to be due and payable not more than (20) years from the date of the bonds, as provided in Ordinance No. _____ adopted by the Council of the City on September 10, 2013.
QUESTION #1 – FIRE SAFETY
YES. I vote IN FAVOR OF authorizing $15,710,000 in bonds for fire safety as stated in Ordinance #___.
NO. I vote AGAINST authorizing $15,710,000 in bonds for fire safety as stated in Ordinance #___.
QUESTION #2 – OPEN SPACE AND PARKS
YES. I vote IN FAVOR OF authorizing $17,205,000 in bonds for open space and parks as stated in Ordinance #___.
NO. I vote AGAINST authorizing $17,205,000 in bonds for open space and parks as stated in Ordinance #___.
The following statements are required by Sections 34-439 and 34-439A, Idaho Code:
The projects to be financed by the sale of the proposed bonds are as set forth in the above Questions 1 and 2. The date of the bond election is November 5, 2013. The anticipated interest rate on the proposed bonds, based upon current market rates, is 4.61% per annum.
As to Question 1, above, the total amount to be repaid not later than twenty (20) years from the date of such bonds based on the anticipated interest rate is $24,454,832, consisting of $15,710,000 in principal and $8,744,832 of interest. The estimated annual amount to be collected each year from the proposed levy under Question 1 is $1,222,766.
As to Question 2, above, the total amount to be repaid not later than twenty (20) years from the date of such bonds based on the anticipated interest rate is $26,781,435, consisting of $17,205,000 in principal and $9,576,435 of interest. The estimated annual amount to be collected each year from the proposed levy under Question 2 is $1,339,047.
As to Questions 1 and 2 combined, the total amount to be repaid not later than twenty (20) years from the date of such bonds based on the anticipated interest rate is $51,236,267, consisting of $32,915,000 in principal and $18,321,267 of interest. The amount estimated to be collected each year from the levy for such bond issues is $2,561,813.
As of November 5, 2013, the total existing bonded indebtedness of the City, including interest accrued, CITY OF BOISE
is $0.
***End of Form of Ballot***
Section 6. For purposes of the Bond Election, the Notice of Bond Election shall be substantially in the following form:
***FORM OF NOTICE OF GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND ELECTION***
NOTICE OF GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND ELECTION
Pursuant to the laws of the State of Idaho and Ordinance No. ____ of the Mayor and Council of the city of Boise City, Idaho (the “City”), adopted on September 10, 2013, notice is hereby given that a General Obligation Bond Election will be held in the City on Tuesday, November 5, 2013, beginning at the hour of 8:00 A.M. and closing at the hour of 8:00 P.M., for the questions of whether the City shall be authorized to issue and sell general obligation bonds for the following purposes:
Question 1: To construct and equip a new fire training facility to meet minimum national standards, improve existing fire stations, as well as construct and equip new fire stations to reduce emergency response service gaps and to enhance neighborhood safety;
Question 2: To protect clean water, critical open space, natural areas, and wildlife habitat, enhance recreation through the purchase of open spaces such as the Boise Foothills, and expand and improve the City’s neighborhood parks system.
One hundred percent (100%) of bond proceeds will be used for the specified purposes as verified by annual independent audits. Repair and construction projects will incorporate energy, water, and other conservation measures.
The bonds shall be due in installments as fixed by the Mayor and Council of the City, the last installment to be due and payable not more than (20) years from the date of the bonds, as provided in Ordinance No. _____ adopted by the Council of the City on September 10, 2013.
The following statements are required by Sections 34-439 and 34-439A, Idaho Code:
The projects to be financed by the sale of the proposed bonds are as set forth in the above Questions 1 and 2. The date of the bond election is November 5, 2013. The anticipated interest rate on the proposed bonds, based upon current market rates, is 4.61% per annum.
As to Question 1, above, the total amount to be repaid not later than twenty (20) years from the date of such bonds based on the anticipated interest rate is $24,454,832, consisting of $15,710,000 in principal and $8,744,832 of interest. The estimated annual amount to be collected each year from the proposed levy under Question 1 is $1,222,766.
As to Question 2, above, the total amount to be repaid not later than twenty (20) years CITY OF BOISE
from the date of such bonds based on the anticipated interest rate is $26,781,435, consisting of $17,205,000 in principal and $9,576,435 of interest. The estimated annual amount to be collected each year from the proposed levy under Question 2 is $1,339,047.
As to Questions 1 and 2 combined, the total amount to be repaid not later than twenty (20) years from the date of such bonds based on the anticipated interest rate is $51,236,267, consisting of $32,915,000 in principal and $18,321,267 of interest. The amount estimated to be collected each year from the levy for such bond issues is $2,561,813.
As of November 5, 2013, the total existing bonded indebtedness of the City, including interest accrued, is $0.
***End Form of Notice of General Obligation Bond Election***
Section 7. That if at the Bond Election two-thirds (2/3) of the qualified registered electors of the City, eighteen (18) years of age or older who have resided in the City for thirty (30) days, voting thereat assent to the issuance of said bonds under one or both of the propositions, as certified by the County Clerk, the respective negotiable bonds of the City shall be issued as hereinabove provided and shall mature not more than up to twenty (20) years from their date and the annual bond maturities thereof shall be payable in accordance with the provisions of the Idaho Municipal Bond Act. Such issue or issues will create new debt for the object of providing for the acquisition and construction of one or both Projects, and to pay the costs of issuance of such bonds, in accordance with the provisions of Section 50-1026, Idaho Code, payable from the proceeds of taxes and other available sources.
Section 8. That said negotiable general obligation bonds shall be issued if carried as aforesaid and payment shall be made from available sources of revenue and through the levy of taxes in the City, beginning in the year principal and interest payments are due and continuing until principal and interest shall have been fully paid in such amounts and at such rates as are necessary to assure the prompt payment of such interest, and also to establish and to constitute a sinking fund sufficient for the payment of the principal thereof as required by law, and it is hereby ordered that such taxes shall be levied annually at the time and in the manner as general taxes for the City are levied in each such year; provided, however, the aforementioned taxes shall never be diminished prior to payment of all bonds excepting in any year to the extent that other available funds shall have been applied to or set aside in a special fund to be irrevocably held for the payment of principal or interest or both, payable from said taxes for such year. The proper officer or officers of the City are hereby authorized and directed to do all things requisite and necessary to carry out the provisions of this section and to apply the proceeds of the taxes so collected to the payment of such principal and interest.
Section 9. That, pursuant to the provisions of Sections 50-901 and 50-901A, Idaho Code, as amended, this Ordinance, or a summary thereof, shall be published within one (1) month hereafter in an issue of The Idaho Statesman, the official newspaper of the City.
Section 10. That the summary of this Ordinance, which is attached hereto as Exhibit A, be, and the same is, approved as to both form and content. CITY OF BOISE
Section 11. That, pursuant to the affirmative vote of one-half (1/2) plus one (1) of the members of the full Council, the rule requiring two (2) separate readings by title and one (1) reading in full be, and the same is hereby, dispensed with, and accordingly, this Ordinance shall be in full force and effect immediately upon its passage, approval, and publication
To insure more advertising-free Boise Guardian news, please consider financial support.
Oct 7, 2013, 6:30 pm
How many fire calls are a fire or something where the FD was actually needed, and how many where the big red truck racing the white van to a medical call? How many million could be saved by stopping this silly, expensive, and dangerous practice.
EDITOR NOTE–Answers are in all the lengthy comments from PAUL FORTIN on the candidate post. I trust you wanted an answer and were not trolling for more from him.
Oct 7, 2013, 8:41 pm
Maintenance and repair of public assets is a responsibility to taxpayers. Letting them fall into disrepair is just plain wrong. They are not too old. Take a look at some of the old brick buildings serving as fire stations in the East Coast States of this country. They have been in service for many decades and still serve citizens and their employees well. The whining for new digs is shameful. Fix what you have and be thankful for a clean safe workplace.
Oct 9, 2013, 7:21 am
You had best rein in this empire building before it gets any worse.
The overspending on firemen and coppers has been the downfall of cities in California and elsewhere already.
The debacles in Canyon County, the three failed attempts to pass a $70 plus million jail bond that nearly everyone in the official offices of that county and everyone in “law enforcement” was pumping and pimping for as “crucial for public safety” should serve as a stark reminder of the self-serving nature of these initiatives.
Oct 9, 2013, 7:35 am
I am not suggesting that Boise City and Ada County are guilty of the level of misguidedness, mismanagement, lack of ethics, and other corruption that exists in Canyon County.
However, the citizens need to take a stand on this and other issues.
Oct 9, 2013, 7:17 pm
The so-called overspending on Coppers and Firemen is not what broke the cities in California and elsewhere. You just have been BS’ed into believing this nonsense.
I fear Team Dave will take a page out of the Detroit playbook and say that the money is needed for fire stations and parks and then turn around and use the same for what is really intended: a folly named trolley. That is how Detroit and other cities became broke. So, Yeah; blame the poor firemen.
To find out about the Boise Fire Stations and when they were built visit boisefiretrucks.com I learned a lot from this website. The only station that might need replacing is number 5.
Sending a fire crew on a medical call makes sense if you are in sudden cardiac arrest – time is muscle. The longer a person is down, the heart (made of muscle) is dieing and the loss is greater if you do survive. Chance of surviving a Cardiac Arrest in Boise? 2-3% compared to Seattle (51%) and that’s not good. Otherwise the big red truck on a medical call is ridiculous at best and only serves to enhance grants. Look up SAFER grants if you want to learn more. Atlantic City, NJ just laid off 51 firefighters because they cannot get a SAFER grant extension and the blame is on the government shut-down (http://www.firehouse.com/news/11188170/with-safer-in-limbo-51-atlantic-city-firefighters-sent-pink-slips).
Oct 11, 2013, 8:39 am
Well, does “DO” above stand for Democrats for Obfuscation?
Perhaps you should look at the facts rather than slinging the BS label.
The overstaffed and overpaid coppers and firemen have sucked too many communities dry. The coppers, desperate to save their jobs and behinds after the stimulus pork barrel dried up have alienated citizens with inane ticket writing to generate revenues for their salaries.
Oct 11, 2013, 8:35 pm
No matter what some will say FDs don’t need all the personnel they SAY they need. On national average fires only account for 25% of modern fire department responses. 70% are EMS and the other 5% are service calls. The unions shamefully use scare tactics to frighten people into allowing excessive budgetary allotments EVERYWHERE! And politicians buckle to the demands to repay them for the union’s support. As a result, contracts are signed that are unsustainable.
Research municipal depts and you’ll find that 80% ± of fire dept budgets are personnel expenses (salaries, OT, bloated pensions created by “pension spiking”) paying for out of control unfunded union liabilities. And despite a comment made here, the public employee unions HAVE decemated city budgets everywhere and played a Huge part in city bankruptcies. Because of having to pay these huge union liabilities departments don’t have enough money to maintain upkeep of stations and fire apparatus! And, the fire unions have also have a huge influence over the NFPA, requiring staffing that is totally unreasonablebe for the modern fire service.
How do I know this? I am a rural fire chief and began in the fire service in the mid-1970s. I have been both a career and volunteer firefighter for almost 40 years.
Oct 11, 2013, 9:46 pm
Part 2 – SAFER is designed as a TEMPORARY stopgap, NOT a source of funding union firefighter jobs forever. Atlantic City is in default of its performance requirements from the SAFER grant they have right now yet they want the feds to bail them out again. And they will probably get it. Their SAFER grant was 9 Million + dollars! And now they want it again! SAFER is another federal program designed to reward the unions. Approximately 70% of SAFER funds go to union departments.
Atlantic City was supposed to maintain ALL the firefighters hired under SAFER for an additional year AFTER the two year performance period. They gave all the layoffs notices 6 months before it was concluded but they want another govt bailout.
Until a system can be designed that can reign in federal abuses of programs in order to curry favor from special interest groups we are doomed to destruction.
Oct 13, 2013, 10:43 am
Here is another source of pension fund problems.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/looting-the-pension-funds-20130926
Unions get the blame for too much. If all of the firemen were volunteer (Fireguy should know this) insurance rates would go up. Insurance companies and Wall St. (Yes, Wall St.)
Because of a lot of changes in the fire codes (brought by firemen and their respective unions) firemen have less and less fires to fight these days. So they run medical calls. What no chief can justify is why a truck that costs $250,000+ must be sent on all medical calls.
For years Nampa FD ran a small squad truck without Paramedics. Now all calls are in the full-sized pumper engine with Paramedics and if a Engine has no Paramedics another Engine or Truck (ladder) responds.
Twin Falls FD doesn’t run on medical calls unless it is a car accident, or a lift assist. None of their firemen are Paramedic certified. Their union, so I wonder if it is the union or something else?
DO is my initials.
Oct 13, 2013, 1:42 pm
DO, I appreciate your comments. The entire blame does not go to the unions but they [public safety unions]have played a huge part in the debacle of effective fiscal management of municipalities by public safety fear-mongering.
One must understand that unions HAVE driven the “need” for far too many stations, with far too many $300,000-$800,000 fire apparatus, to meet absurdly short response times, with even more absurd staffing requirements that hamstring administrators.
I’m always amazed when I read stories about large municipalities that send two, three, even four engines, and a couple of ladder trucks to fight a single-dwelling structure fire, then brag about how they had 45 firefighters on-scene to extinguish it. But, they do not extinguish the fire any faster than 8 professional volunteers can do.
Another scam that is “hereditary”, and recently been exposed nationally, is how union members “spike” their pensions by running up huge overtime figures their final year of income. This is what determines how much their pension is based on for the rest of their lives. Their fellow firefighters participate in this because they know it will be paid in kind later for them. This is why the unfunded liability union pensions are wiping out budgets. I listened to a large municipal fire chief speak at a national fire department expo and he talked on how the richest guys in his FD are not the chiefs but the Paramedic/Captains because of the massive overtime they can acquire.
It should also be noted that only 30% of firefighters in the US are union. The remaining 70% are volunteers.
And, the ISO-based reduced insurance rates are not always assured just because its a paid department. There are many, many volunteer fire departments throughout the country that have equally low ISO ratings (Insurance Service Organization – which rates all FDs in the US that request a rating) because they spent their budgets on better equipment, training, station placement and water systems instead of exorbitant salaries and pensions. Their volunteers proudly serve as volunteers out of pride in department and ownership as stake-holders. They volunteer 12 or 24-hr shifts at the station all the time, on top of their regular jobs.
We are about to extend the size of our station this fall and add another station in the spring to address new infrastructure demands. But, we are building reasonable, inexpensive stations that don’t cost millions to build. We don’t need a $3M station to house firetrucks and make volunteers comfortable. We do it through fundraisers (like regular station events such as pancake breakfasts, etc.) donations by individuals and corporations, and volunteer labor. And our volunteers, and local community volunteers, contribute many man hours to their construction out of pride of growth.
That is something large municipalities have lost through their current systems…their neighborhood fire station.
EDITOR NOTE–Starting to get off topic guys. Keep the bond proposal as the issue please.
Oct 14, 2013, 11:05 am
Well, if bloated unions and their bennies are part of the problem in Boise, the discussion is relevant. And even if unions are not involved, it is salient and relevant.
Further, the point of having public unions should be debated. The fire departments are natural monopolies and thus do not have private enterprise competition to keep them honest and in check.