OpenCdA’s post on April 13, 2015, titled The Coeur d’Alene Deception questioned the legality of the City’s planned use of approximately $925,000 of the proposed $6 million public safety bond for police expenditures, mostly equipment.

We pointed out that Idaho Code § 50-1019 identifies very specifically which municipal expenditures are permitted to be funded by bond proceeds.   Based on the explicit wording of subsection 6 of Idaho Code § 50-1019, we did not question the legality of any of the proposed bond’s expenditures which would be used exclusively by the Coeur d’Alene Fire Department.

However, we pointed out that nowhere does that section of Idaho Code make any specific or even implied reference to bonding for police expenditures.   Given the permission is granted to not only the fire departments but also other specifically-named municipal departments and functions (hospitals, cemeteries, public parks, monuments, recreation facilities, libraries,  aviation facilities, flood control, transit systems, and zoos), we conclude that for whatever reasons, the Legislature appears to have intended to explicitly deny municipalities permission to use bond proceeds for police expenditures.   The statute makes no references to vague possible associations using such terms as “public safety” or “joint use.”

We put our concerns in an email to Coeur d’Alene City Councilmen Dan Gookin and Steve Adams on April 11, 2015.  We simply asked, “What is the statutory authority for having the bond proceeds used for anything except the Fire Department?”  We have received no response from Councilman Adams, however Councilman Gookin responded in his comment appended to our original post.

We will comment on some of Councilman Gookin’s bullet points.

•  “The primary purpose of the bond is to replace our fire equipment and to purchase a new truck for Station 4 when it goes online sometime in the future.  This purchase makes up the majority of the cost, nearly $4,500,000.”

Comment:  Leaving approximately $1.5 million to be used exactly how?  What assurance do voters have that the money we approve for the vague term “public safety” won’t be shuffled into another city fund and used for some other purpose?  Our concern is justified by the fact the City originally intended to use part of a ten-year bond to buy depreciating assets which are likely to be rust before the bond is even paid off!

• “The mobile command center is intended for joint use between fire and police. […] Bond counsel (Danielle Quade) has assured the City that this is an allowed purchase under current code.”

Comment:  Since when was the mobile command center intended for joint use?  We had never seen that assertion until after the legality of using bond money for police purposes was challenged.

In fact, an examination of the fire department’s “2015 Proposed Needs” (slide 12 of 25 of the City’s slide presentation still appearing on the City’s website) makes no mention of a “mobile command center.”

On the other hand, an examination of the police department’s slide entitled “GO Bond – Police Department” shows that this was and, frankly, still is intended to be exactly what it labeled as. Furthermore, the Frequently Asked Question section of the City’s 2015 Public Safety General Obligation Bond webpage asks:  “Why does the Police Department need a Mobile Command/Crime Scene trailer?”  And the answer the City provides?

Over the past few years, the Coeur d’Alene Police Department has investigated a multitude of serious crimes and worked countless special events. These are complex scenes and events and many of these include several agencies and hundreds man-hours to handle appropriately. If acquired, we would be able to address the problems associated with communication and command at large scale incidents that require multiple agencies to cooperate under complex and demanding conditions. This vehicle will be outfitted to house computers, communications and other equipment that will allow us to efficiently administer law enforcement services under a multitude of situations.

Neither the question nor its answer make any mention of fire department involvement.  “This vehicle … will allow us to administer law enforcement services under a multitude of situations.”  [emphasis ours]  Law enforcement service; not fire services.

We recall that the City has deceived the public before when it pitched Boopsie’s Bunker in the Park as a police-fire substation.  It, too, was sold to the public as being “intended for joint use between fire and police.”

OpenCdA happens to agree that a mobile command center is a good idea, and we also agree that it could effectively and wisely be used as a joint command post for all municipal entities involved in incident management.  We first raised that suggestion for a mobile command post in Part 5 of our Toilet Not Included series seven years ago in April 2008, and we restated our support for it in our post entitled A Wise Investment on January 12, 2015.    It’s not purchasing the mobile command center we object to; it’s the intentional deception used by the City to fund it.

Comment:  You listed Danielle Quade as the bond counsel for the City.  Does she not perform a similar function for the Lake City Development Corporation, the LCDC?  If so, that is a concern since the LCDC may, in fact, receive money from this bond even though that fact will not be disclosed on the ballot.  As we know from the Attorney General’s letter to Senator Steve Vick on March 30, 2015, “… there is no uniform statutory requirement for disclosure in elections for taxing district levies,” and, “… there is no current statutory requirement to disclose whether taxes will be or may be shared with an urban renewal district, nor would it be possible to state with certainty whether taxes will be raised for such a district or to quantify what they would be.”  The City simply cannot truthfully say that some of the money the public may approve thinking it’s going to public safety won’t end up going directly or indirectly to the LCDC to be spent on some of its ill-conceived projects.

Comment:  Is Danielle Quade’s opinion to the City binding on the bonding entity and its bank who would actually fund the money?  What happens if the City is unable to find any entity to purchase the bond?  What happens if the bonding entity or its bank determines that the City’s bond election did not comply with state law?  Does federal law not already regulate  bond issuers and lenders and prohibit them from purchasing a bond sought contrary to state law?

Danielle Quade’s assurance to the City that this is an allowed purchase is based on exactly which statutes or on which Idaho case law?   We have repeatedly asked for this basic information but have yet to receive any plausible answer.

• “The Fire/PD storage facility and carport for the police vehicles is allowed under IC 50-1019(9), as stated in the staff report presented to Council.”

Comment:  We don’t know.  An examination of the publicly-accessible online Council Packet for the January 6, 2015, Council meeting showed no such staff report.

OpenCdA appreciates Councilman Gookin’s responses.  We think that unlike our mayor and some other members of the Coeur d’Alene City Council, Councilman Dan Gookin responds to the public’s questions and is trying to be a good steward of the public’s money.