Just let us take your money..and by the way….STFU.

I think this expenditure on Thomas Rd smells of preferential treatment for a SELECT few. At the very least, the Commishes should make public why they feel this money serves all the people of Ada County.

EDITOR NOTE–Based on the discussion, it would appear the commishes DON’T feel the money serves a wide group.

Good job on this, Guardian. You have good helpers. Notice Rebecca Arnold never showed at the meeting. But she deflected from her own self dealing by talking about supplying “constituent” services. Near as I can tell, she’s the only one with a residence back there. I notice Wong and Price also jumped to her defense. ACHD needs some house cleaning.

It is disgusting that this project was ever even a consideration given the structure of the roadway is already substandard for emergency vehicles not to mention that the roadway would remain private and for the use of so few, including an ACHD commissioner and her client.

It is also disgusting the way that Sara Baker and Paul Woods refer to Mr. Clancy. I am happy to see that Commissioner Woods will no longer be in office, there needs to be more turnover in those seats and maybe we as citizens could enjoy a more cooperative and less self-absorbed culture at ACHD.

“Clancy Anderson wants to talk”

“Oh Jesus Christ”

“So, we’ll let him have his little say right off the bat and then we’ll go into our discussion”

///

Good thing C. Paul Woods lost his bid for reelection. Now it’s Baker’s turn. As Board President, if she can let that disrespectful attitude exist (Woods and hers), she doesn’t deserve to sit there or any public service seat.

///

In the meeting their legal counsel said, “our staff has said it is unsafe”.
So some ACHD staff person is a Professional Engineer with bridge expertise??

IF it is truly “unsafe” why is it open today?

Your attorney, on public record, has said it is “unsafe”.

Oh, that’s right, it’s not really unsafe. We just want to use that as an excuse to get the county to pay for the improvement for a millionaire and his neighbors (including Commissioner Arnold).

And yet the commissioners are unaware of already spending $25,000 on a project benefiting of their own?
Does anyone believe C Arnold is unaware of that expense? Convenient she is at a convention… ACHD paid?

Further proof the commission should be disbanded and county-wide road mntce should be under the existing Ada County structure.
It’s easier to keep track of 3 crooks than it is to track 8 crooks.

Clancy: Imagine the reaction if both Tucker and I showed up at an ACHD meeting.

Okay…

Commssioner 1: Clancy and Tucker Anderson are attending the hearing – they want to talk.

Commissioner 2: Jumpin’ Jehosaphat!

Commissioner 3: Great Caesar’s ghost!!

Commissioner 4: SWEET DONKEY OF MARIA!!!

I’m sure it was meant as an invocation. The ACHD definitely needs an intervention.

Oh, almost forgot. Baker, when at city hall, was responsible for costing taxpayer $100s of thousands with that whole Curtis Road Extension fiasco.

How quickly people forget.

For you newcomers, not that long ago Curtis Road and Veterans Parkway did not connect. A proposal to connect them had been on the books for decades. When ACHD got around to doing it, neighborhood activism led by Sara Baker led to a compromise where the extended Curtis road was only 1 lane in each direction.

The very week it opened it was a useless bottleneck and if I recall clearly, it cost $750,000 for a new design and widening.

Paul Woods explanation is lame and inaccurate. Clancy is being a gentleman here.

The commission did not “take action to correct it”.
Topic starts at time 1:49 https://achdidaho.civicweb.net/Portal/3912/MeetingArchives

1) The rude comment was before the Commission was made aware of the 25K. The main point here is the Commissioner’s attitude toward public input. If he really had ‘frustration about the process’, C Woods should have been welcoming Clancy’s comment– something more like, “great! we need someone else to point out the problems here”.
But that was NOT the response. Not too mention “J.C.” in such a tone, is offensive to many people-regardless of the reason- but apparently acceptable to Cmr. Baker.

2) Secondly it was not corrected.
The commission kicked the can down the road to another meeting- to CONSIDER vacating the street to be a private road up to Franklin. (maybe around Jesus Christ’s birthday, when no one is paying attention).
Does that solve the supposed ‘safety issue’ for a heavy fire truck responding to Arnold’s house fire? No.
There is only ONE road access to those few houses.

Previously, the Commission effectively condemned Alto Via Court homes (the houses sliding down the hill) when fire hydrants were closed and no trespassing signs were installed.
An unsafe bridge for any users and particularly fire trucks???? That’s a pickle! Let’s allow BFD to the Alto Via standard and apply it here. Karma!

The Commission has also previously denied applications to developments based on not having a secondary access.
This could have solved when Dunham Dr and Maile Ln were installed. But, NO! Moore’s Private Island must be important. Another double-standard.

3) If this all had not been recorded or brought to the attention of others this baby-bridge expense would slip on through along with the 25K already spent. Much like other things in public govt– it happens all the time. It’s only a few that get uncovered.

More of the same:
-It’s okay to shoot or beat an unarmed person- as long as it doesn’t get recorded.
-It’s okay to hi-jack public funds- as long as it doesn’t get noticed with a FOI Request.

This topic is a molehill but reflects the mountains.

I think we should be thankful they only spent $25,000 (unfortunately), as the real price of the bridge would be easily 6 figures. Looking at the 5 year plan just for bridge work the cheapest is well over $150,000 and this does not include any upgrades to the adjacent infrastructure. Most likely to meet the current code the other hidden costs that would have been: right of way, turn around, road widening/retaining walls, etc….. If a project relates to Life Safety, the Local Authority Having Jurisdiction should also have input in to the design. In this case it was rushed thru and City of Boise Fire Department was not consulted. Had they been, the scope probably would be significantly different.

Hopefully ACHD sets policy or enforces existing policy that projects of significant scope, even if related to Life Safety, have over-site to prevent them from being hidden from Commissioners or the taxpayers.

These folks in the Thomas subdivision have a pretty sweet deal. They own a total of 38 acres all still zoned A-1 which means they pay tax at about 1/10 the rate of surrounding properties zone for residential, manufacturing and office uses. Of course they expect us to pay to for the maintenance of their exclusive access too!