I am also a member of the House Environment, Energy & Technology Committee. On Wednesday, H0482 was presented to the committee dealing with air quality emissions, and is currently being held in committee. The purpose of this bill provides authority to the Department of Environmental Quality to establish a vehicle emission testing and maintenance program. Currently, District 21 already has emissions testing with a maximum cost of $15 per test which is administered by the Air Quality Board.

H0482 currently has unknowns that could negatively affect District 21. In one case, the required testing could be expected every six months, whereas we are currently on an annual basis. With the passing of this bill also brings potential for a complete overhaul of the current system, and that could amount to a lot of unneccessary spending. I understand the reasons for emissions testing and the benefit that it provides to our local valley and the nation as a whole, however, I am uncomfortable with the unknowns of this bill. When these questions are answered, we will have a better understanding of the ramification of H0482 and its affect on District 21.

What I am doing for you: my bills

HB0439, Income Tax Credit - Groceries (read full bill text here)

This bill has been printed and is currently in the House Revenue and Taxation Committee. This bill would provide for income tax credits or refunds for certain resident individuals to offset the cost of sales tax on groceries.

Other important bills for District 21

HB0482, Air Quality Emissions (read full bill text here)

This bill is currently in the House Environment, Energy & Technology Committee. This bill provides authority to the Department of Environmental Quality to establish a vehicle emission testing and maintenance program.

HB0524, Relating to Annexation (read full bill text here)

This bill was presented, revised and has again been presented to the House State Affairs Committee as a routing slip. This bill deals with the clarification of annexation, and implied consent.

In the last two weeks, Congress has voted on two bills proposing dramatic expansions of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). I voted against both bills and the people of Idaho deserve to know why. While both bills have been hyped as healthcare for poor kids that is not what the legislation is about. In fact, the expansion would end up potentially providing coverage for rich kids, adults and illegal aliens. Here’s how–

• Currently Medicaid – not SCHIP - covers poor kids up to 100 – 133 percent of the Federal Poverty Level.  The current federal SCHIP program then kicks in to cover kids above the Medicaid level up to 200 percent of the FPL or about $42,000 per year. The average household income in Idaho is about $46,000 per year. Someone making almost average household income is not really poor but might have trouble affording healthcare.  That is the whole point of SCHIP.  But the expansion of the bills at issue would expand SCHIP coverage up to 300 percent of FPL, or about $63,000 per year.  Therefore most of the expanded SCHIP benefits would be provided to households earning above-average income.

• Currently about 700,000 adults are enrolled in SCHIP and receive children’s health care.  In Idaho only about 350 adults receive SCHIP, but in Minnesota, 90 percent of SCHIP enrollees are adults.  In Wisconsin, about two-thirds of SCHIP enrollees are adults.  Seven states enroll more adults than children in their current SCHIP programs.  The expanded SCHIP proposal would grow those numbers.  In fact, the number of adults receiving SCHIP was projected to be 780,000 if the bill passed.  Because Idaho hasn’t gone that route, Idaho taxpayers are subsidizing health care for adults on SCHIP in those states.

• Last year the Republican-led Congress added requirements for proof of eligibility for Medicaid and SCHIP.  Today, it takes a driver’s license, birth certificate or passport to prove eligibility. But the Democrats’ proposal would reduce those requirements to a Social Security number. This change in documentation would potentially result in a large number of illegal aliens receiving SCHIP benefits.  The Congressional Budget Office estimates that taxpayers will spend an additional $7.5 billion providing SCHIP to illegal aliens if the proposed expansion becomes law.

• Not only would it raise cigarette taxes, you would have to have 22 million new smokers just to pay for the expansion. Obviously that’s not going to happen, nor should it.  That means tobacco tax revenues will not come in, and the expansion will be “paid for” by deficit spending.  That is a burden to place on our kids and grandkids.  When they become adults they will be paying the debt for today’s health care for rich kids, adults and illegal aliens at the same time that they are trying to provide health care for their own families.

• Expanded SCHIP would move 2 million children from their current private healthcare on to government healthcare.  Unless you favor government-run health care for all, that is a move in the wrong direction.  Government-run healthcare is the most expensive and poorest quality health care that one can have.

There are other problems too numerous to list, but with these examples folks should understand my “no” vote.  Whether you agree or disagree with my vote I would appreciate hearing from you.  Clearly we have big problems to solve in health care and I want to play a part.  I look forward to hearing from you on this or other issues. Go to my website, www.sali.house.gov, click “contact” and then “Email Bill.”

Do you agree with Sali’s decision to vote “no” on the SCHIP expansion? Tell us about it here.

For about a year the appointed commission worked on creating a URA district, but by January 2005 the KURA commission was disbanded as it did not have council support.

Currently Kuna mayoral candidates Trina Stroebel and Richard Cardoza and two city council candidates, Chad “Hoss” Grigg and Brian Critchfield have publicly stated they support reinstating the KURA. Stroebel, Cardoza, and Grigg all own and operate businesses in or near the downtown Kuna area. Critchfield is a Kuna Chamber of Commerce member.

The candidates who support reinstating the KURA said the purpose of the agency would be to improve the look of the downtown area. Business and homeowners’ taxes would be used to achieve this goal.

One of the major problems with urban renewal districts in general is the lack of voter approval. City government is not required to get a vote from the citizens to create an urban renewal district unlike city bond issues which require a two-thirds supermajority to pass. If a URA is created it can continue for 25 years whether the voters want it or not. Additionally, the commissioners who make decisions regarding how urban renewal money is spent are appointed–not elected.

In 2004 the citizens of Nampa and the Nampa city government butted heads on Nampa’s URA. The issue came to the forefront of public debate during Nampa’s general elections. One candidate for Nampa city council, Robbi Blessin, ran on a platform of getting rid of Nampa’s URA.

Blessin, a certified public accountant, said she became aware of the wasteful nature of the NURA and began researching the problem. She found that the NURA made promises about neighborhood improvements but did not follow through. One example is Nampa’s Kings Corner overpass project. The NURA promised to solve the train problem by building an overpass, but never did as they were losing over a million dollars a year keeping the Idaho Center running and also pouring URA money into the Nampa Recreation Center–neither of which had broken even and still do not support themselves with earned revenue. Blessin was encouraged to run for city council by NURA watchdog citizens who knew about and had been fighting the waste of the NURA.

Blessin lost to the incumbent, needing less than 200 more votes, but her effort did force Nampa mayor, Tom Dale, to bring the NURA issue to Nampa citizens for an “advisory” vote. The majority of Nampa voters voted to disband the NURA. The Nampa city council and mayor disbanded the NURA for a year, only to bring it back the next year without asking for the approval of the citizens of Nampa.

“[A URA district] is taxation without representation,” Blessin told Kuna Chronicle. “[In Kuna] the wolf is at the door. Once a URA district is created it is virtually impossible for the citizens to get rid of it.”

Interim mayor and current mayoral candidate James Dowdy does not support reinstating a KURA at this time. Dowdy said revitalization can be accomplished through community block grants and Local Improvement Districts. “[Urban renewal] works for larger cities like Boise and Meridian, but will not pay off enough in a smaller community like Kuna.”

Dowdy said part of the problem is the tax rate, “[Urban renewal] locks in the same tax rate for 20 to 25 years… [the tax difference] would have to be made up by private home owners,” he said. “It takes four to six years before a URA makes enough money to make a difference. The city should look at all our options before we lock ourselves into something.”

What do you think? Kuna Chronicle welcomes the input of Kuna citizens.

Guest opinions solely represent the opinion of the author and do not represent the opinions/values of Kuna Chronicle’s staff or editor. Guest opinions and/or Letters to the Editor may be sent to the editor via news@kunachronicle.com.

In the last few weeks, there’s been a flurry of reports in the U.S. media about Chinese products exported to the United States.

Toothpaste imported from China was found to be tainted with diethylene glycol, a thickening agent - and an ingredient in anti-freeze.

Five types of farmed fish and seafood that supposedly contained traces of potentially harmful antifungal and antibiotic drugs were placed on hold by the FDA.

The popular wooden toy trains of Thomas and Friends, made in China, were recalled in early June due to the presence of lead in some of the surface paint.

U.S. regulators ordered New Jersey tire importer Foreign Tire Sales to recall about 450,000 Chinese-made tires that were missing a gum strip, a safety feature that prevents tread separation.

Almost every day, it seems, we hear about a new product from China that may be hazardous to our health. According to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Chinese-made products have accounted for 60 percent of recalls this year…and U.S. consumers are getting more and more wary of any goods from that country.

Even though only 15.6 percent of all U.S. imports come from China, some areas weigh more heavily than others. For example, within the last decade, China has become the third-largest exporter of seafood to the United States. According to USA Today, China produces 75 percent of the world’s garlic, and 2006 was the first year that U.S. consumers bought more garlic grown in China than in California. Also, 40 percent of the apple juice consumed in the U.S. comes from China and 19 percent of our honey.

Since 2002, reported MarketWatch, “Imports of Chinese agricultural, fish and forestry products have grown from $2.9 billion to more than $7 billion last year, a 69 percent jump.”

But China has been exporting goods to America for decades, so why has this problem only come to light recently, and with such a Fox News, seizure-spawning, flashing alert flurry?

Ever vigilant for ulterior motives, we have been wondering why the government-induced, U.S. media machine-hyped “Chinese Contamination Scare” is reaching such a climax these days.

Don’t get us wrong, we don’t enjoy digesting poisonous substances any more than the next guy. And we’re more than happy to see tainted products being eliminated from the market.

But…and it’s a big “but,” we doubt very much that this contamination started only yesterday. Until recently, apparently U.S. regulatory authorities didn’t find anything wrong…or simply failed to take a closer look. It’s true that because of lax regulatory procedures in the U.S. less than two percent of Chinese imports are being sampled by inspectors.

Of course you could say that after the pet food scandal in April, the FDA has become more alert and has been scrutinizing Chinese imports more closely. And it’s probably true.

However, we don’t believe in the inherent benevolence of the FDA, a government agency that has repeatedly proven to be acting in its own self-interest. Thus, we’ve had the suspicion that there might be more behind this sudden scrutiny than meets the eye.

To examine the bigger picture, we have to enter the area of U.S.-Chinese economic policy…an area that seemingly has nothing to do with the recent scandals.

The Trade Deficit

The U.S. trade deficit with China hit a record $233 billion last year. In other words: we’ve been importing cheap goods from China but haven’t been exporting much back to them. Instead, we’ve been paying the Chinese in U.S. dollars, which are basically an “IOU Nothing.”

That fact slapped the Chinese in the face when in June 2005, they attempted to actually convert a few of their paper dollars into real assets by buying U.S. oil giant Unocal for $18.5 billion. Suddenly the free-trade-touting, globalization-supporting U.S. Congress started to put up protectionist fences and ultimately thwarted the deal. And even though all kinds of “sensible” political reasons were cited at the time, that move was the equivalent of flipping the Chinese the bird, telling them that their accumulated U.S. paper was worthless.

Beijing didn’t take very kindly to that. In the last few years announcements have grown louder that China is planning to diversify their foreign currency reserves, which plainly means getting rid of their U.S. dollar holdings and putting their money into other currencies and assets. And they’re not the only ones concerned about the mountain of dollar bills piling up in their vaults.

Meet Congressmen Charles Schumer (D-New York) and Lindsey Graham (R-South Carol.), two Americans the Chinese most definitely have seen more of than they ever wanted.

About four years ago, Washington Conceived of its own masterplan for reducing the trade gap: China, the U.S. government reasoned, should drop its currency peg to the U.S. dollar, thereby raising the value of the Chinese yuan/renminbi and lowering the value of the dollar. Less value, less debt…simple, eh?

Or so they thought. The Chinese didn’t like the plan a bit. Not only was there nothing in it for them but a revalued yuan would make Chinese exports more expensive and therefore less competitive. Bye-bye everyday low prices at Wal-Mart.

China’s boomin geconomy relies on the fact that they can produce and sell goods more cheaply than other countries. And a recent study by China’s National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) stated that the country faces its worst employment crisis ever, due to the children of baby boomers flooding the job market. China, states the report, needs to creat 25 million new jobs each year…that’s the combined populatin of Australia and New Zealand. You do the math.

meanwhile, on the U.S. side, messieurs Schumer and Graham were sent to China to negotiate the de-pegging deal, and were met with some serious stonewalling. Yet, after numerous visits - and some heavy bullying in the form of threats to introduce a 27.5 percent tariff on all Chinese goods - the Chinese government agreed to remove the dollar peg in July 2005.

The result, though, was not quite what Washington had hoped for. Instead of allowing the yuan to float freely against the dollar, the Chinese central bank kept it on a tight leash, restraining the currency’s movements. Between July 2005 and June 2007, the yuan appreciated only 8.2 percent against the greenback, leaving the U.S. government fuming in frustration and the trade gap continuing to grow.

Since 2005, Schumer and Graham have been jetting over to Beijing almost every month - negotiating, debating, pleading and threatening. And every time the Chinese officials smilingly nodded and promised that yes, soon, very soon, the yuan would be allowed to rise higher…honestly, cross our hears and hope to die.

Fighting the Wrong Fight

Of course, as with almost all things that occur in one of the world’s largest collection of self-daling poseurs, the U.S. Congress, they are missing the point entirely, which makes this whole battle painful, yet comedic, to watch.

A current account deficit doesn’t necessarily imply either a symptom of a problem or is not indicative of any problem whatsoever.

Any economist or Congressman who is focused on reducing the “trade deficit” is like an auto mechanic recommending ear plugs or a louder stereo as an unequivocal fix to the loud knocking sound in your car engine rather than attempting to deduce the reason why it is making that sound.

For the sake of time and space, and the point of this article, we won’t go into the real reasons resulting in the large U.S. trade deficit, but suffice to say that its roots lie mainly in monetary inflation of the U.S. dollar, which Congress has played a key role in fostering and propagating.

Given that the problem originates with the U.S. government and the Federal Reserve itself, something the Chinese likely know all too well, the monthly visits by American politicos to Beijing must be greeted by increasing skepticism and behind-the-scenes derision.

The Game Continues

Nevertheless, the game goes on.

In the last two years Congress has several times come close to branding China a “currency manipulator,” a hypocritical condemnation that could lead to severe trade restrictions.

In return, a recent China Daily article stated that “China sold more U.S. Treasury bonds in April than any time in at least seven years,” worth $5.8 billion - while Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and U.S. Treasury officials were busy denying that such a sell-off even existed.

And so the skirmishes continue: You slap me, I slap you, an eye for an eye. The outwardly appearance of the U.S. and China being friendly trading partners has become a paper-thin patina for brooding hostility.

And now there’s the U.S. scare about tainted Chinese products that seems to have ballooned into a full-blown scandal. Although we don’t doubt that the contamination is real, we wonder if the new-found diligence of the previously rather indefferent and incapable FDA is just another blow in the tit-for-tat battle with China.

Could it be that, as long as China was considered a “friend” by the U.S. government, officialdom was encouraged to overlook tainted products? Could it be that the sudden concern with Chinese products is one way to punish the Chinese for not complying with the U.S. government’s misguided monetary policy demands? It’s certainly possible…and, we think, likely.

This article originally appeared in the weekly e-letter, What We Now Know (WWNK) — published by, and used here with permission from Casey Research, LLC. Click here to sign up for a free subscription to WWNK, or check out past editions in the WWNK archives at www.caseyresearch.com.

To bring about at least a temporary relief, a number of my colleqgues and I are offering a measure to temporarily cut the federal gasoline tax by 10 cents per gallon when the national average price of gas reaches $3.00 per gallon. Admittedly, this is a temporary “stop-gap” relief for many Idahoans hit by the high fuel prices this summer. While this legislation (H.R. 2448) would help relieve the financial pressure in the short term, a long term solution must also be found.

Any such solution will require America to cut its dependence on foreign fossil fuels. Over the course of the last two days I have been engaged in long and contentious Natural Resources Committee hearings to put together the majority’s “energy bill,” which I believe is a “no’energy” bill. While I had hoped this legislation would be a bipartisan effort to remedy American’s energy crisis, including efforts to cut dependence on foreign fossil fuels, that is not the case. Instead, it has become painfully obvious that the bill cuts domestic production of energy resources with only two exceptions: coal and solar power. That is the wrong direction for our country’s energy policy, as it would severely diminish almost all our energy production capacity. The majority’s proposal says no to nuclear energy, no to the resources of the Arctic Wildlife National Refuge, no to natural gas, no to offshore drilling, no to our vast oil shale deposits, no to hydropower, and no even to wind power. All in the name of “energy!”

I believe such a course is the wrong direction. Rather than cutting domestic energy production, we should increase both domestic exploration and production. That is no radical plan - it’s simple common sense and the only rational response to the circumstances in which we find ourselves.

That is why yesterday, during the hearings on the majority’s “energy bill,” I propsed an amendment insisting that any new energy policy initiative coming from this Congress guarantee lower fuel prices at the pump, for your family and mine. My amendment would require that the major proposals of the bill would have no force or effect if the Secretary of Energy determines that provisions of this bill would increase domestic crude oil, natural gas, or petroleum product prices.

Further, the majority’s “energy bill” also proposes to bury alternative biomass energy development in the red tape and flawed policies of the Clinton Administration Roadless Rule. In Idaho there are 9.3 million acres of these so called roadless areas–more roadless areas than any other state. This is almost half the national forest acreage in Idaho.

The flaws in the Clinton Administration Roadless Rule are illustrated by the fact that not all areas in the Roadless Rule are even roadless! Some areas designated as roadless have two lane roads, powerlines, FAA towers and radio towers. Additionally, there are 422,000 acres of private lands, 43,000 acres of state lands, and 29 million acres of federal land managed by agencies other than the U.S. Forest Service within the inventoried roadless areas. To address the flaws in the Roadless Rule, the Forest Service is working with states and local interests to determine how to manage roadless areas–looking at what’s best given conditions on the ground not what’s best for someone in Washington D.C. Idaho recently submitted a petition and is looking forward to working with the Forest Service to determine how best to manage these areas. Additionally, a Wyoming court is considering whether to enjoin the Clinton Administration Roadless Rule for the second time.

It is simply bad policy to tie-up the developmnet of biomass energy solutions to America’s energy crisis with the problematic Clinton Administration Roadless Rule. The last thing Idaho needs is another edict from Washington D.C. that is proven flawed and has tremendous impact on our rural forested communities–especially Idaho forest communities–and America’s national energy policy.

It is imperative for the longevity of our country that we develop energy independence. America’s economic growth, Idaho’s manufacturing and agriculture future and our families’ ability to make ends meet are all intertwined. We have to take aggressive, innovative steps to make sure our energy future is a bright one. As your Representative in Congress, I’m committed to doing just that.

According to current trends only 34 percent of children in government school now will go on to college.

If the community college district vote goes through, bureaucrats will be able to levy property taxes and assign the first five trustees without a vote from the people paying for it.

In order for the community college district to pass it must get a two-thirds approval from voters. It can pass with two-thirds approval total, not two-thirds per each county. The counties that will vote for and ultimately pay for the community college are Ada and Canyon. As of right now, no one knows how much this district will cost homeowners, but the tax levy is limited to $125 or less per $100,000 of taxable property value.

Two other community colleges in Idaho, the College of Southern Idaho in Twin Falls and the North Idaho College in Coeur d’ Alene levied $91 and $53 per $100,000 respectively. Treasure Valley community college campaign workers estimate the need for the school would be about $4 million in local property taxes. That would be about $11.39 per $100,000 of taxable property value. The assumption is a Treasure Valley tax rate would likely be lower because the total market value for land in Ada and Canyon county than in the counties paying for CSI and NIC.

It is not entirely true that there is no alternative to traditional university for students of college age. With the expansion of online education through colleges like George Fox and University of Phoenix, students do have more choice than ever before.

In addition to virtual campuses, the Boise area also has several bible colleges and health tech schools like Apollo College and the American Institute of Health Technology. These campuses offer 2 year programs to students who don’t want a traditional four-year degree but still want a good-paying job.

Still, is it okay that only 34 percent of government-school children will go on to college? It is a harder question to answer.

Community college advocates point to the expense of universities like BSU. The cost is too much and people have no alternative. This also is a bit misleading.

Boise State is a government school therefore federal grants, student aid, subsidized loans, etc. are all available to students wishing to obtain a degree. Those same students who would rather enter a tech program may do so through Boise State’s Selland College. It is true that Kustra doesn’t like sharing his research university of distinction with Selland College but he is also tied by those funds he willingly takes from Idaho state tax payers. Perhaps his vision for the public’s university should reflect the needs of the people who are paying for it.

At any rate, the vote on May 22 should be one that is considered deeply by all voting taxpayers before they check that simple “Yes/No” box.

Hello neighbors and friends!

I thank you for the opportunity to be your State Senator…I consider it an honor! As the 2007 legislative session closes, please allow me this opportunity to share some comments on this year’s activities.

The 2007 Legislature dealt with a wide range of issues, beginning with a Capitol Building master plan to restore Idaho’s most preeminent public building and to provide expanded hearing rooms in new atrium wings that will allow better public participation in the legislative process. The Legislature approved several substance abuse and mental health service initiatives and adopted the first comprehensive statewide energy plan since 1982. The Legislature also clarified procedures for starting new community college districts and provided incentive start-up funds. Additionally, road-building budgets were bolstered, child abuse statutes were strengthened, abortion laws were tightened, strategies were developed to address a nursing shortage, scholarship opportunities were enhanced, and salaries for teachers and state employees were raised.

The State Budget
The Legislature developed a balanced budget that provided a 5.9 percent increase for public schools and an 8.4 percent increase for colleges and universities, and at the same time held Medicaid spending to 5.4 percent, which is the first time in two decades that educational spending outpaced the fast-growing Medicaid budget. The finance committee and the Legislature also made sure that cash reserves were given high priority. The state now has $121 million in the Budget Stabilization Fund, $101 million in the Public Schools Stabilization Fund and $60 million in the Economic Recovery Reserve Fund. The Millennium fund endowment (not a reserve) now has $58 million, and $98 million was moved to the Permanent Building Fund to address critical building facility needs.

Funding for Roads (GARVEE)
Once again, this issue turned into the most debated issue of the session. The end result was the approval of bonding authority for $250 million targeted at six major roadway projects. The largest project is I-84 between Meridian and Caldwell. Also on the list is the section of I-84 between Orchard and Isaacs Canyon.

Grocery Tax Credit
Rep. Cliff Bayer and I were the primary sponsors of the grocery tax credit bill that passed both the House and the Senate, but was vetoed by the Governor. Unfortunately, I believe the circumstances now in place could prevent relief on food tax for some time in the future.

Education issues (K-12 public schools)
S 1141 - I sponsored legislation that would have provided a mechanism for dual enrollment between public charter schools and traditional public schools for purposes of extra-curricular activities. This bill targeted a particular problem within our district. I eventually held the bill when the issue was resolved at the local level.

H 202 - Allows retired Idaho teachers to be rehired without risking their retirement benefits.

S 1235 - Provides a three percent salary increase for teachers and increases the minimum teacher salary.

S 1088aa - Provides for the creation of regional professional-technical charter schools.

Education issues (colleges & universities)
H 217 - Creates the Idaho Opportunity Scholarship for Idaho students attending Idaho colleges and universities. The intent of this is to provide “last-dollar” financial resources for students based on need.

H 237 - Clarifies procedures for formation of community college districts. It also requires signatures on formation petitions and elections  to be managed by county clerks.

H 295aa - Extends access to the Robert R. Lee Category “A” Scholarship to home-schooled students (previously it was available only to public school students).

HCR 30 - Authorizes Idaho State University to purchase 102,000 square feet within the former Jabil Circuit building in Meridian to be used for health sciences education.

Annexation legislation
Rep. Cliff Bayer and I introduced legislation that includes a mechanism that could necessitate a citizen vote (under certain circumstances) prior to a city doing a forced annexation. After conferring with citizen leaders on the issue, we decided to hold the bill pending the outcome of a related lawsuit in progress. However, legislative leadership is assigning an interim task force to deal with this issue which could lead to further action in 2008.

Abortion legislation
I sponsored S 1082, “parental consent” legislation that makes it mandatory for a single, minor girl to obtain the consent of her parent, guardian, or judge prior to getting an abortion. This bill became law on Marche 27, 2007. Statistics show that states with this law in place have a significantly lower teen abortion rate. Additionally, H 248 was passed. This bill provides that all physicians who use ultrasound equipment inform the patient that she has the right to view the ultrasound image of her unborn child before an abortion.

Agriculture and Natural Resources issues
S 1086 - Creates a wolf tag available for purchase by those licensed to hunt in Idaho, at a price of $9.75 for Idaho residents and $150 for nonresidents.

S 1212 - The appropriation bill for the Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation provides for a new bridge access to Eagle Island State Park and a new 70-acre recreation parcel in the Hagerman Valley.

Business and Economic Development issues
H 132 - Simplifies certain licensing, permitting and inspection requirements for HVAC installations.

H 198 - Permits the financing of industrial, commercial, and other projects to promote economic development by allowing partnerships between private financial institutions and state or local economic development entities. It also allows the pooling of loans for such projects to save financing transaction costs.

Criminal Justice
H 124 - Extends from one to four years the statute of limitations against those who cover-up or fail to report child abuse.

H 125aa - Allows victims of child sexual abuse up to five years to sue after they realize abuse has occurred.

These are but a few of the issues I thought may be of interest. I express special appreciation to those that contacted me throughout the session with valuable input! May God bless you and yours!

Senator Russel M. Fulcher (District 21)

Otter’s inaugural ball is scheduled for Saturday in the Statehouse at 7 p.m. The ball is open to the public with tickets selling for $20 each. All proceeds are returned to the Inaugural Ball Fund, a non-partisan fund established to support Idaho’s Inaugural activities.

The new governor and first lady will lead a procession of Idaho’s constitutional officers, members of the Idaho Supreme Court and members of the Idaho Legislature at 8 p.m. The processional will begin on the fourth floor of the Statehouse and circle the rotunda on each floor until it reaches the first floor. The governor and first lady will have the first dance to music provided by the 25th Army National Guard Band.

More information on tickets and parking can be found at http://www.idahoinauguralball.org .

IPTV’s debate is sponsored by the League of Women Voters. Democratic candidate Jerry Brady and Libertarian candidate Ted Dunlap will engage in a 2-way debate. Constitutionalist Marvin “Pro Life” Richardson failed to provide proof that his campaign was serious to the League of Women Voters by the deadline and Republican candidate C.L. “Butch” Otter declined the invitation to appear. The debate will run on IPTV on Sunday from 7 p.m. to 8 p.m.

KTVB-TV will televise live a debate featuring all four of the gubernatorial candidates on Monday night from 6:30 p.m. to 8 p.m. The venue is the Fine Arts Auditorium on the College of Southern Idaho’s campus in Twin Falls. The auditorium will be open to the public with seating available on a first-come, first-served basis. One hundred seats will be available to friends and family of the candidates leaving about 950 available to the public. KTVB-TV affiliates will televise the debate all over the state.

The panelists present for the KTVB-TV debates will be Adam Atchison from KTVB-TV in Boise, Mike Butts from the Idaho Press Tribune in Nampa, Chris Walton from KBOI Radio in Boise, and Doug Andersen from KPVI-TV in Pocatello.

The panelists will be given 30 seconds to ask a question and each of the candidates will be given one minute to answer the question. If time allows the moderator, Dee Sarton from KTVB-TV in Boise, will ask questions at the end of the debate. There will not be time allowed for rebuttal and no questions may be directed at any one candidate. Also candidates will not be allowed to ask each other questions. All questions will be answered by all candidates with the order of answers rotated after each question. At the end each candidate will be allowed to make a two minute closing statement.

The IPTV debate and the KTVB-TV debate will be the last opportunity for voters to hear from the gubernatorial candidates before the election on Nov. 7.

If passed, the bond will approve $7 million, paid by Kuna citizens, to drain the existing sewer ponds in order to make that land available for a recreation complex.

Draining the sewer ponds is only the first step in the process. If the bond passes and the land is made available for development the chosen developer will begin work on the ball fields, the recreation facility (to be operated by the YMCA), the Birds of Prey interpretive center and the Railroad overpass via the Meridian Road extension plan which will be funded in part by ACHD.

City Council member, Trina Stroebel, said the developer will fund construction costs for the new Recreation complex, Birds of Prey center, ball fields, overpass, and golf course. “If we free up the ground with the bond, then the developer will take care of the rest. This is part of the negotiations we have with them…it’s a win/win situation for all of us.”

Stroebel also said if the bond passes Kuna will start seeing new ball fields as early as spring 2008. She said the YMCA should open its doors roughly 18 months after ground is broken. “The sooner we can get the bond passed the faster we can get through the design portion (of the complex).”

After Election Day, if the bond passes, town hall meetings will be scheduled to get Kuna citizens’ input on the design plans.