Renderings of a Boise Library project and former proposal for a stadium in Downtown Boise.

A group calling itself Boiseans Working Together wants voters to decide if city funds should be used for a stadium and library.

But the interim city attorney for Boise found fault with the petition, which was first reported by KTVB and verified with the City of Boise by BoiseDev. KTVB:

In certificates of review for the proposed initiatives, interim city attorney Natalie Mendoza says they are unconstitutional because the proposal is administrative, relating to the municipal budgeting and appropriation processes. Mendoza also wrote that Idaho Code on city finances would preempt the initiatives, and would place improper limitations on future city councils.

The projects have attracted high-profile proponents of a citizen vote, including John Gannon, who represents the Boise Bench in the Idaho House of representatives, and former Boise State University Bob Kustra.

The group can still decide to move forward without changes as the certification of review is only an opinion from the city attorney and is not binding.

[Project Tracker: Stadium] [Project Tracker: Library]

Natalie Mendoza is serving in an interim capacity as Boise City Attorney after Robert Luce left the position in October. The city is searching for a permanent replacement.

The City of Boise has been working with developer Greenstone Properties to bring a stadium to Boise for professional baseball and soccer. Separately, it is also proposing to build a large new library using city tax funds and other sources on the current Capitol Blvd. site.

Correction: The petitions can go forward and are not halted as was stated in an earlier version of this story. The city attorney provides its opinion during a certificate of review process but the letter is non-binding.

Support our journalism: Sign up for BoiseDev FIRST and get a daily newsletter filled with news & scoops


  1. Don, do you have access to a link that would allow us to read this legal brief? The State law governing initiatives does not specify what topics can or cannot be run in an initiative effort. The very recent, successful initiative for Medicaid expansion directly affected “administrative” and “budgeting and appropriation processes”, and most definitely placed requirements on “future” legislatures to adhere to the will of the people. So I am very intrigued how this legal brief from the City (who, we know, will fight this initiative allowing public input with all they have) can argue the opposite.

  2. They should know what’s constitutional. They worked hard to circumvent the constitutional requirement that the people vote on long term debt!

Comments are closed.