Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Municipal Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lewiston council approves first reading to place $22.54 million infrastructure bond on November ballot
Summary
Councilors approved the first reading of Ordinance 49-55 to order a special bond election not to exceed $22,540,000 to fund wastewater, water, stormwater and road improvements after staff described changes since a failed May ballot measure and outside funding from the Idaho Department of Transportation.
The Lewiston City Council on Monday approved the first reading of Ordinance 49‑55, ordering a special bond election on whether to issue up to $22,540,000 in general-obligation bonds to pay for wastewater, water, stormwater and road infrastructure improvements. The motion was moved by Councilor Schroeder and seconded by Council President Klieberg and carried on a voice vote.
Public Works Director Dustin Johnson told the council the measure is a reworked version of a $25 million package the city placed on the May ballot that failed to reach the state-required supermajority. He said the city surveyed about 450 respondents after that election and used the feedback to refine the proposal. "That bond was not successful in its need to reach 66 or super majority of vote. We were short, I think, a hundred and 5254 votes," Johnson said, and the council directed staff to return with a revised proposal for the November ballot.
Johnson said the primary change is a reduction in the city’s portion of surface-transportation work after increased involvement and partial funding by the Idaho Department of Transportation (ITD). "ITD is picking up cost difference, they will handle all the surface transportation for the area within their right of way. So that lowers our bond cost," he said. Johnson also told the council the project bundles trunk-line sewer and water replacements with street work to avoid repeatedly digging up downtown roads.
City Treasurer Amy Gordon explained that the city’s reserve balances are fund-specific and cannot simply be shifted between enterprise funds; water, wastewater and capital-transportation reserves would still be relied on for portions of the project while the bond would fund the remainder. Gordon said the enterprise funds have capacity to repay debt without using property-tax levies.
Christie (Christy) Stoll of Clearwater Financial Group, participating remotely, reiterated that borrowing once for a consolidated project generally reduces financing costs and shortens the timeline for completing the work. City Attorney Jennifer Tingano confirmed the ballot will include a standard "for" and "against" line for the bond as drafted in section 4 of the proposed ordinance and noted city staff can provide informational, non-advocacy materials about the proposal. "Public entities are not authorized to use public money to advocate for or against a particular ballot measure," she said, but they can distribute educational materials.
Councilors debated whether re‑placing the proposal on the November ballot was appropriate after turnout concerns in May. Councilor Wright said the May turnout was low and that a November election could produce a higher turnout; Councilor Spickelmeyer asked questions about technical parts of the plan and about public education around the measure. The first reading passed by voice vote; the ordinance will return for additional readings before being forwarded to the county for placement on the November ballot if the council approves subsequent readings.
Votes and next steps: Councilor Schroeder moved approval of the first reading; Klieberg seconded. The council approved the first reading by voice vote. If the council approves the subsequent readings at future meetings, the city will file the ballot language with the county by the stated candidate/initiative filing deadline later this month.
