I agree 100%. Has anyone (certainly not the MisStatesman) done a presentation and analysis on all the funding sources that have been mentioned in these threads?

Maybe BoiseDev has the guts to put all the projected revenue and expenditures into one article?

Injecting ‘reclaimed’ water into the aquifer near existing wells? What could go wrong? Really.

Let’s move on to the developers like Clay Carly and his pals who will benefit from pushing the cost of the infrastructure necessary for their unbridled growth on to the taxpayer. I mean after all, if you can get government money or get someone else to pay your Infrastructure costs, that’s more money for you, right? Don’t believe me? Compare the the property taxes paid by business vs what property owners pay.

And now the utilities. There are already horror stories in play about people getting unbelievably outrageously high water bills from Suez with no recourse for challenging the meter readings. Combine that with the fact that the city sewer rates are based in water consumption and what do you get? More money for the city.

And finally Governor Little. Let’s face it shall we? The guy has no courage and just bends with whatever way the wind blows.

Did Steve Burgos and the Public Works Dept. share the WIFIA loan application with you? This has not been shared with the public, as I had to obtain it via a PRR – with an extra hoop to jump through to boot. This document shows $128,415,605 of “Borrower Cash” labeled as “certain” for this Utility Plan, and shows Revenue Bonds at $146,377,805. So why is the City asking the voters to approve $570 million in bonds? This document also references the Federal infrastructure bill that could fund this.

You participated in the May 11, 2021 Council Work Session where the agenda included the topic, “Federal Funding Opportunities” – which addressed the spending of the $36.5 million in ARP funds the city was soon to receive and specifically included a slide for this money showing, “Make necessary investments in water, sewer, or broadband infrastructure.” Mayor McLean spoke and used the water renewal project as an example of a use for these funds. The record for that agenda says this funding is approximately three times the amount of federal grant funding the City currently receives on an annual basis.

And there are also Federal funds that will go directly to the State, which will be funneled out to counties and cities through Governor Little’s office. Since the southern border of the City is where a large amount of this sewer/utility plan is to take place, and where the airport is located, the City could request some of these funds due to the airport’s contribution as a significant economic generator for the state.

CCDC could also use its tax-increment revenue and apply this to the repair and replacement costs in each URD it scrapes the property tax revenue from, and to the cost of new infrastructure in the Gateway URD by the airport. Replacing 100 year old pipes is urban renewal, right?

It is important for voters to understand this binary choice is NOT the only way to pay for this, no matter how pretty the pictures are, how eco-friendly it sounds, or how the words are spun. The manner in which the City is seeking to pay for this is not in the best interest of the voters.

As someone who grew up here, I decry the unmanaged growth that continues unabated. Why are more and more subdivisions approved? My cynical side says someone is receiving kickbacks. Most residents don’t want this aggressive growth. Can we not just pause the growth until we can catch our breath and do better planning to address the problems?

I have no expertise in science– just a concerned citizen who sees the quality of her hometown being destroyed. However, I plan to get more involved. Ignoring this problem is no longer possible.

I agree with WG– don’t limit Richards comments.

As opposed to the City’s public relations ‘biomass’.

The answer to the who-pays-for-growth question is pretty apparent from the graphs we’ve all seen. “No” means current ratepayers front the costs now and then future arrivals to our city enjoy low rates. “Yes” means we build now and future ratepayers (i.e., the growth you are concerned about) have to share in the burden of the expense. Connection fees for newcomers, including new businesses, also help shift the cost to where it belongs.

These are sewer treatment plants, not water renewal, whatever the heck that’s supposed to mean.

And now we are receiving propaganda created and paid for by a PAC, hastily thrown together as the record shows the players listed in this article donated between October 5-25. The players funding the PAC have the most to gain in their bottom line if the citizen ratepayers shoulder the cost of growth for them. If you read the internal documents, approx. 19% of the total capital cost across the four project groups is for the cost of repair and replacement to the existing system. The other 81% is primarily to fund expansion of the current system and extension of this system to the south – to accommodate more growth – plus regulatory requirements. This should be a major red flag to the voters.

$554 million in the Letter of Interest to the EPA–WIFIA Program for total capital costs:

$103 – Repair and replacement of existing system
$233 million – Lander Facility
$61 million – West Facility
$159 million – New Third Facility to accommodate Gateway Urban Renewal District

P.S. I was also one of those “NW nobodies” who testified on this Utility Plan last fall.