At its June 17, 2014, regularly scheduled meeting, the Coeur d’Alene City Council approved a five year lease (see item 10 on the Consent Calendar) for space at 1424 E. Sherman Avenue in Coeur d’Alene. The space is to be a police substation. We first reported on this proposal in our May 31 OpenCdA post entitled Coeur d’Alene Proposes (Another) Police Substation. Also approved was a five-year contract for fiberoptic service to that substation.
The online packet for the June 17 Council meeting included a draft of the relevant agreements including lease (see packet pages 35-55/118). According to the lease for the office space, the lease was to commence on July 1, 2014.
On August 15, 2014, we did a drive-by of the address and saw no signage anywhere indicating that the police substation which the City began renting on July 1 was open for business. The existing all-tenants signage (visible in the lower right corner of the photo) makes no mention of the police department, and the proposed 4′ x 8′ police department sign has not been installed. There’s nothing to indicate that it is a police substation that is open for business to the public.
So when is the highly-touted Coeur d’Alene Police Department substation at 1424 E. Sherman Avenue going to be open to fight crime in the big city?
Begs the question: How bad did the City really need another outpost? Or maybe they are still waiting for the new Chief to bless the Council’s decision. I’d bet the Mayor has that one on the new guys to-do list. Either way, I see the facility as a waste just like the booth in the park. What’s next, inflatable cop cars on every corner?
Comment by Old Dog — August 19, 2014 @ 9:53 am
Old Dog,
Like you, I hope the City has solid reasons why the East Sherman substation is essential to meaningfully address the City’s law enforcement policy concerns. I also hope that this isn’t just another of the City’s now-obvious attempts to enhance the bank accounts of some of the City’s crony contractor buddies by an unnecessary, make-work, just-write-the-checks project.
As I did in my May 31 post, I still question the wisdom of agreeing to a five-year lease on a makeshift police substation now, knowing that a new police chief just might have some better and less expensive ideas to address the issues the Mayor hoped the substation would.
Here are some more questions. Why is the City so hot-to-trot for a police substation of questionable utility and effectiveness when we know the City’s rank-and-file firefighters are very concerned that a fourth station is unquestionably needed in the northwest quadrant of the City to cut response times to an acceptable level? Does the City intend to blow next May’s bond money (assuming it’s approved) on unnecessarily new equipment and a storage building, then declare an emergency and extract the money for the fourth fire station?
Comment by Bill — August 19, 2014 @ 11:20 am
Knee-jerk reactions that lead to spending “yet to collect” taxes seems to be more the norm than the exception in CDA–but increasingly for non-essential services and facilities. Take for example the decision to buy the railroad right-of-way just outside city limits. Kikki Miller summed-up during the motion that the purchase was 1) to leverage the adjacent property owner, and then, 2) to possibly obtain more “public” waterfront. The purchase for a direct, legitimate, immediate and essential service was never mentioned. Just $2.5M, Oh well.
Today, the City needs to amend their budget to pay for liability insurance (to which they have never had), police overtime to cover special events for parades that have been held every year for decades, expansion of the wastewater facility which cost has been know for many years, to pave a street that has been planned to be paved for years–yet they keep spending like drunken sailors.
I sure am glad I, nor my companies no longer pay taxes to the City of CDA–the Finance Director may have jumped up the flag pole but the ship is still going down.
Comment by Old Dog — August 19, 2014 @ 2:56 pm
Please remember that the city has a substation in the fire station on Fourth. It seems that surveillance cameras were not included at Mc Euen – the open space or the garage.
Comment by Susie Snedaker — August 20, 2014 @ 5:32 pm