OpenCDA

February 17, 2012

Planned Deterioration?

Filed under: Probable Cause — Bill @ 4:04 pm

There is compelling evidence proving the City of Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, has intentionally failed to maintain the 3rd Street boat launch ramps while continuing to collect launch fees for that purpose.  A portion of the launch fees collected are intended to be used to maintain the boat launch ramps.

This evidence was provided during City Parks Director Doug Eastwood’s presentation at the meeting of Coeur d’Alene’s urban renewal agency, the Lake City Development Corporation, on Wednesday, February 15, 2012.

The planned deterioration of the boat launch ramps would then bolster the City’s desire to relocate them as part of the McEuen renovation project.

Here is a link to a two-minute YouTube excerpt from that LCDC meeting.  You will hear LCDC Commissioner Dave Patzer questioning Parks Director Eastwood about the condition of the 3rd Street docks and boat launch ramps.  Pay particular attention to this statement by Patzer at the beginning:

Doug, the current condition of the, uh, docks and the launch ramps, the approaches, how much more life expectancy do they have in their current condition?  And will we have to put any money into that to repair it?  ‘Cause I know that sitting on Parks & Rec, we’ve kind of put off doing any kind of improvement or maintenance and repair on that facility, thinking that eventuality was going to, going to possibly be moved.  What’s the life expectancy in your assessment now since this is going to be continued to be ah, ah, used?  [emphasis added]

Eastwood responds that the docks have been repaired and maintained when needed, but then he said this about the boat launch ramps:

The ramp itself?  Now’s a good time to go look at it, because the water is so low.  Ah, the ramp is breaking up.  That concrete ramp is not in real good shape.  [emphasis added]

Then Patzer asks:

The launch fees that are collected, or have been collected, those are dedicated fees to maintaining this facility? [emphasis added]

Eastwood replies:

Yep.  We keep those in a line item account for waterfront improvements.” [emphasis added]

So in this two-minute segment, an LCDC Commissioner who also sits on the City’s Parks & Recreation Commission acknowledges the City has intentionally not been spending money to maintain the boat launch ramps, money which Parks Director Eastwood acknowledges were collected as dedicated fees to maintain them.

According to the City of Coeur d’Alene website, the City’s Parks & Recreation Commission consists of:

Scott Cranston, Chairman
Mike McDowell, Vice Chairman
Mike Kennedy, Council Liaison
Bridget Hill
Jim Lien
Dave Patzer
Ginny Tate
Mitchell Shellman, Student Rep
Doug Eastwood, Staff Liaison
Steve Anthony, Staff Liaison

Here is a photo taken today of one of the boat ramps:

One of the 3rd Street boat launch ramps (click to enlarge to full size)

Readers might wonder why the City would apparently only let the launch ramps deteriorate.  Why wouldn’t the City let the docks go as well?    There are a few possible reasons.  First, someone can trip and fall if a dock plank comes loose.  That translates into a tort claim and potentially a costly lawsuit against the City.  Second, the public can clearly see the docks and would complain about them if they too badly deteriorated.  That is less of a problem with the boat launch.  Third, if the City is able to remove some of the docks, the docks may be reused at the new location or sold.  The boat launch is concrete.   Its concrete cannot be economically recovered, sold, and reused.

Was it honest for the Mayor and City Council, the City’s Parks & Recreation Commission, and the City’s Parks Director  to not spend money the City had collected and allocated to maintain the 3rd Street boar launch?   Was it their purpose to allow the planned deterioration of the boat launch ramps to further bolster their argument that, as McEuen Steering Committee member Tina Johnson stated in public comments, “McEuen Park is tired, worn out, and vastly underused”?  To which it is fair to ask in view of Commissioner Patzer’s admission, “How much of the “…tired, worn out, and vastly underused,” results from the intentional neglect, the planned deterioration,  by the City of Coeur d’Alene?”

18 Comments

  1. Wasn’t that the same method used for the tennis courts?

    Comment by concerned citizen — February 17, 2012 @ 5:24 pm

  2. concerned citizen,

    As I recall, the tennis courts were removed because they had deteriorated.

    I also seem to recall that proponents of the project to spend millions to turn a park into a park cited reduced boat launches as a reason to relocate the boat launch. So let the boat launches deteriorate so they are less attractive or more inconvenient to use, drive the usage numbers down, and then justify shutting the launch down because the usage figures are down.

    Comment by Bill — February 17, 2012 @ 5:58 pm

  3. Concerned Citizen, you are right. The tennis courts were originally sponsored by the Downtown Rotary Club, and I was told they left a hefty bank account for their upkeep. The city, in the years leading up to late 2009, let the courts go. There were cracks and weeds and sagging nets. Routine maintenance would have kept those problems at bay, but we did not know the hidden agenda of the city.

    You can read my newsletter from Jan.29,2010, entitled “Watch Out for McEuen Field!” Here’s the first part

    They’re gone. The tennis courts at McEuen Field are completely gone. Did you know this? Neither did I. But I’ve been busy with family and post-holiday activities so when I heard about the tennis courts from an alert reader, my thought was that there must have been some public announcement and I just missed it.

    So I went to the city’s web site and checked everywhere, even under “CITY LAUNCHES BLOG TO ENHANCE COMMUNICATION”. There was no info about the tennis courts. Then I thought maybe they announced it at a recent city council meeting. So I checked the last two months worth of meeting minutes, reading all the way through…no info on the tennis courts or McEuen field. So much for enhanced communication! Heck, they publicize when they’re going to do slash burning and cleanup on Tubb’s Hill, so people won’t get worried, but they take out the tennis courts without the same concern?

    Another involved citizen told me he asked City Finance Director, Troy Tymeson, directly, about the tennis court removal. Troy responded that the city is going to build a PARKING GARAGE on that site. Troy said it will be a two-story structure and the plans have already been completed. Now that’s a surprise!

    Maybe the Mayor and City Council don’t know about it yet, because the Mayor told Dan Gookin just last November that the city had “no plans” for McEuen Field. And city councilman Mike Kennedy told Susie Snedaker, a few months ago, when she asked about the old tennis courts, that he “knew nothing”.

    So who does know about them, or is willing to admit it, other than Mr. Tymeson? LCDC, of course. McEuen Field is directly in the cross hairs of LCDC; it’s their #1 priority for this year.

    Read the rest by clicking here

    .

    Comment by mary — February 17, 2012 @ 6:27 pm

  4. Do these people really think we are all that stupid?
    That’s just a rhetorical question for the omniscient city fathers.

    Comment by Ancientemplar — February 18, 2012 @ 8:05 am

  5. Ancientemplar,

    No, actually many of them know the honest citizens are onto their game. They simply don’t care that we know.

    Comment by Bill — February 18, 2012 @ 8:10 am

  6. You are probably already looking into it but I guess I would like to see the accounting for the “line item account for waterfront improvements”.

    Comment by Joe Six-Pack — February 18, 2012 @ 12:21 pm

  7. Joe Six-Pack,

    Follow this link to the 2011-2012 Preliminary City Budget, then scroll down to page 39/97. It’s in the Parks Capital Improvement Fund.

    Comment by Bill — February 18, 2012 @ 12:37 pm

  8. Past and present Mayors and Council Members have discussed what to do with the boat launch, parking lot and McQuen Field over the last zillion years. Yes, they have delayed improvements because of funding, protests from the community and being unable to decide on a specific plan. As they have made improvements through out the downtown core, this area is the last (well, perhaps not the last) piece that needs upgrading to be able to encourage people to empty their wallets having a good time near the lake.

    Comment by LTR — February 18, 2012 @ 1:14 pm

  9. LTR,

    There is a clearly defined difference between maintenance and improvements. In my mind, it is highly improper for the City to represent to those patrons paying launch fees that some or all of their fees are going to the maintenance of the launch facilities when that clearly is not the case, at least not according to Eastwood. Patzer admitted they have been intentionally avoiding maintaining the facility, yet the City couldn’t bring itself to tell the fee payers their fees were apparently being used for a different purpose than the City represented.

    Driving down the boat launch ramp usage figures allows the City to say that a replacement boat launch ramp (e.g. Silver Beach) can be inferior to the present ramp yet still be “equal or better” based on use.

    Comment by Bill — February 18, 2012 @ 1:21 pm

  10. It is called intentionally deferred maintenance. Private property owners do it to save money. But civil authorities have no real excuse other than their particular designs. They capture revenues specifically for these purposes. Dereliction of duty. The City Parks Director should be immediately fired, unless, of course, you approve of his inaction. Mayor?

    Comment by Wallypog — February 18, 2012 @ 1:52 pm

  11. Wallypog,

    Eastwood’s response to Patzer’s question about the remaining life expectancy in their present condition was very telling. While Patzer clearly understands the accounting concept of asset life expectancy, Eastwood doesn’t have a clue what that means. Eastwood answered the question he wished he had been asked, not the question he was asked. How can Eastwood prepare an annual budget which includes maintenance, repair, and replacement of Park Department assets if he doesn’t know that?

    Comment by Bill — February 18, 2012 @ 2:52 pm

  12. Bill….. There is no need to budget for that which you do not know, or were told to ignore. The bigger question is does his proposed budgets ever balance? If done correctly the income should surpass the expenses. And if not where is the money going?

    Comment by Wallypog — February 18, 2012 @ 3:40 pm

  13. Bill,

    I agree that it is improper for the City to be collecting boat launch fees and parking fees and not use the funding to maintain those facilities. The practice has been going on for years. I believe the money may have been used to purchase properties and anything else the Parks Dept. desires to spend the collected fees on. I believe this practice is unregulated after fees are collected.

    Comment by LTR — February 19, 2012 @ 7:43 am

  14. LTR,

    It’s more than improper; it’s dishonest.

    Comment by Bill — February 19, 2012 @ 7:58 am

  15. What about the sign in the window of a commercial building on 3rd Street that says “FOR RENT. CONTACT THE LAKE CITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION”? That should REALLY tick off legitimate private sector building owners. There is so much competition between government and private sector in CdA.

    Comment by concerned citizen — February 19, 2012 @ 8:59 am

  16. Another aspect on the launch discussion is that for what time remains for it to be available, it’s use will decline because parking fees are charged in addition to launch fees. The parking fees are time driven resulting in a very expensive launch. In spite of being considered the best launch facility on the lake, because of this expense it will continue to be the launch of last resort.

    Comment by Gary Ingram — February 19, 2012 @ 11:15 am

  17. Concerned Citizen,

    Wouldn’t you think that the CdA Association of Realtors and the Chamber of Commerce would be screaming to get this government interference with private commerce stopped? They’re not. The behaviors of these supposedly commerce-promoting organizations reminds me of the YouTube video showing sheep (C of C, Realtors) being herded by a rabbit (LCDC).

    Comment by Bill — February 19, 2012 @ 11:22 am

  18. Gary Ingram,

    The planned deterioration was economic as well as physical. By allowing the launch ramps to crumble while still keeping launch fees high, the City was effectively driving people away. That enabled the City to say, “See? Look how little use they’re getting.”

    Comment by Bill — February 19, 2012 @ 11:25 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Powered by WordPress
Copyright © 2024 by OpenCDA LLC, All Rights Reserved