And the beat goes on!! An acre of pasture disappears to be replaced by multistory apartments, etc., etc. And who picks up the infrastructure tab. It is a little late to face bond issues supporting that growth. I’ve yet to see an about-face where this need is somehow rubbed out by a NO VOTE. So suck it up taxpayers. Enjoy the ride your elected officials have created. By the way, we can also look forward to human tea made from the enhanced sewage collection and then delivered via Boise’s residential water service.

How much confidence do you have in this city council and Steve Burgos to bring this in within budget? Just wondering as my knowledge of the director is he is a nice guy but not very experienced in this area of funding.
His expertise is in climate change and that is his push.

A couple of summers ago the City Council tried to market water recycling to us by drinking beer made from purified water. Now they are asking for a half billion dollars to inject treated (NOT purified) sewer into Deep Snake River aquifer. This aquifer is clean water because it is so deep that you drink from it without purification. Is this deceptive marketing?

Dave, here are the brass tacks on the water bond:

(1) federal regulatory requirements mean Boise will HAVE to send this money to build pipes and treatment for the next 70 years of residents to use; there isn’t an option on that part — there just isn’t

(2) a “no” on the bond means the current residents have to pay for all of it, upfront, through massive rate hikes, even though many of them will be dead before they can use the improvements

(3) a “yes” on the bond means we borrow money now, at around 2%, and then use that money to smooth rate hikes and shift the cost forward to the people who will eventually move here and benefit from it

It really is that simple. A “no” is current residents paying for future growth. A “yes” on the bond is growth paying for itself.

As to public participation, with all due respect, you’re a bit mistaken. The regulatory issues, how to pay for them, and bond option, all were vetted multiple times at the city council and public works commission level. Essentially nobody showed up but it isn’t fair or honest to say there was no opportunity for input — and that’s particularly true here, because the ultimate issue is being put to voters — the purest form of input — on November 2.

Bottom line is that if you want to pay for future residents’ water treatment, by all means vote “no.” If you want them to pay for it, then vote “yes.”

EDITOR NOTE– Councilor Bageant, I respectfully appreciate your position. While you make a good argument for debt vs cash up front, I question the grand scope and admitted driving force –“economic development and customer demand.” We constantly hear the cry that “you can’t stop growth.” If we comply with federal environmental laws and provide for a MODERATE growth, but not skyscraper apartments and acres of subsidized industrial parks, we can limit growth, have clean water, and preserve our quality of life.

“Climate action”?

Can they expand on how increased sewer capacity will keep Mother Earth from overheating? Or is “climate action” just dropped into every boondoggle?

According to the BoiseDev article, Councilperson Bageant (bless his heart!) is very concerned about low-income residents; he wants “to ensure new customers pay for the cost of the extra capacity.” At best, the bond will make the newcomers partially share that cost with the existing low-income residents. If they truly wanted the newcomers to pay for it, they’d factor the cost of expansion into new-construction impact fees, right?

Anybody who can’t afford a $120 monthly sewer bill, can’t afford to live in our fair community! Let them eat cake!

Finally, some logical discussion on this issue! It is the same scenario that played out with library. Hold some meetings get limited feedback and use it has reasoning to plow forward. Until some one wakes up and calls BULL! The folks at City Hall know very well this would not pass public vote, just as the library did not. But we need more capacity in order to grow so let’s stick the taxpayer not the developer.

With some respect for Councillor Bageant, I flatly state the City DID NOT go to proper ends to advertise the ‘public hearings’ and actively solicit citizen input.

Meetings of the City Council and Public Works Commission level are constricted: drive downtown, try to navigate construction of new condos, find parking, etc.

How about taking the meetings to the people?? Move them around the City, like to high school auditoriums. Get the City Council out of its many-times renovated and remodelled City Hall.

Stop being insular.

WG, Wow. That was uninformed. Guardian, says ‘don’t spend money to advertise” WG says, “advertise more”.

As the Councilmember makes clear, and ANYONE following Boise Council matters knows – it has been online and easily accessible.

For this topic, we have seen it coming since the well commented “Water Into a Canal” dialogue here on BG and local media, a year ago (despite it not being listed as a related blog posts above). https://boiseguardian.com/2020/08/27/16519/

Anyone savvy enough to post here on BG should be savvy enough to attend an online meet of the Council and likely any other govt online meeting.

I for one, appreciate Boise’s fantastic efforts in doing just that. It has been easier to testify and the city staff has been great accomplishing the I.T. task.
That task is obviously much easier in an established setting, rather than a traveling circus to various schools (putting a burden on those facilities), just to be more convenient for 2 people.
It’s 2021.

Good job to Boise Council holding meetings for the past 18 months!

Amazingly, when we all flush- the system does work. Turn on the faucet- it works.
When your system works, you want their system to work. That cost$ money.

Maybe I missed it. Did Patrick Bageant and our other elected public servants make sure this issue was PRINTED on everyone’s Boise City Utility bill in the news and information Section? I don’t believe I missed it!

Had we just gotten that new Library! they could all go there to virtually participate.

Thanks, Clancy. Unfortunately this is always true of public meetings. Locations can’t capture everyone — as you point out, some people don’t have access to technology, others can’t travel within the city, and so forth. That’s also true of scheduling in time: if we schedule meetings for the evening, some people are taking care of children. During the day, some people are working. We try to ameliorate that by holding meetings in many formats, at many times, and in many ways. We also solicit and read all forms of written input.

In this case, we had many hours of public meetings in the last 1.5 years, and prior to that we had a four year outreach process that included multiple public surveys, open houses, focus groups and six months of meetings with a diverse advisory group of 20+ citizens who had expressed interest in this issue. It’s never perfect but I think our city staff did a pretty admirable job of reaching people here.

Frank, actually, we have two separate mailers. The first is one going out soon and it will be followed by a late October reminder. The vote is November 2.

Would a bond issue eliminate properties that DON”T pay property tax from participating in the cost? If one looks at the properties between Broadway and 15 st. BSU, St.Lukes and Boise High school probably have more waste in one day than most homes have in a year! This is a question

Thanks for the clarification. I think of bonds being listed on our tax bill.

EDITOR NOTE–These sewer bonds would be REVENUE BONDS repaid by user fees. Bonds repaid with taxes have the “full faith and credit” of citizens and are known as GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS.

Hey, give Pat Bag a break: the City will to TWO… TWO mailers just before the election, to ‘encourage’ your vote.

There has been NO public engagement, to date.

GregN:

“Gee what would happen if all or a big percentage voters left it blank?”

Gee here is the answer: the Ada County Clerk would count the votes cast and certify the election for whichever side received more of them.

There is no “none of the above option” because the city of boise is legally required to upgrade its wastewater system. It’s nice of them to ask how you prefer to pay for it and you should express your voice. By voting.

The Idaho Statesman described four major projects in today’s paper (Oct. 21); Lander plant upgrades, recycled water program, expanded capacity at the West Boise facility, and a new facility in southeast Boise. The new facility will primarily support manufacturing. I need to see more info for the $570 million investment for these 4 items before I can make a YES vote. The new facility is probably the most expensive and should receive funding from the corporations and not the citizens of Boise. I agree with the need to address the two existing facilities.