The City’s Pulse Newsletter
By Mary Souza
Timing is critical in comedy as well as finance. The use of public money for a well-intended project can turn a good idea into a bad joke when the timing is off. And right now it has.
The City of Coeur d’Alene has been collecting 1.3% of its above ground capital improvements for a number of years. This money is kept for public art projects, and the fund has been growing quickly with our recent development boom. They’ve used this money for feathers, benches, moose and more. Now the boom has turned to bust; our local economy is limping along, but the public art fund remains fat and sassy.
So last week, the city announced a Request for Proposal (RFP) for an art piece to welcome visitors coming from the East. It will be installed on the triangle of grass near the cemetery on the SW corner of Sherman and Lake CdA Drive. Price tag: $100,000.
Ouch. The timing could not be worse. We have cutbacks galore coming out of our state capitol, school budgets are being gouged and the unemployment lines are getting longer by the day. Does anyone at city hall understand what regular folks are going through? Do they see the plight of small businesses laying off workers and/or closing their doors?
The city’s level of insensitivity can be noted in another important way as well. At city council meetings. It’s incredulous to watch various council members randomly stand up and walk into their side chamber during public comments! Maybe they want some coffee, maybe they have to make a call or use the restroom but it is rude and unprofessional. Then they walk back in a while later and casually take their seats without apology.
In the six years I spent on Planning and Zoning, none of us ever left during public testimony. We would not leave the meeting at all unless it was a dire emergency. If we were in want of a break, we would ask the chairman to call a recess at the next convenient opportunity, then we would all take a moment.
The council’s lax manner of walking out while a citizen is speaking at the podium is shameful. Mayor Bloem should put a stop to this behavior at once.
It takes a lot of time, effort and courage for a citizen to attend a city council meeting and speak up on some subject of concern. The brave souls who do so should at least be received with warmth and grace by our elected officials.
Timing is critical but so is respect. It’s a two-way street and I hope the give and take will improve as we go forward in 2009.
*****************
Dear Newsletter Readers,
Just a reminder: My CdA Press column has now changed to every other week, due to economic cutbacks, so this newsletter is the first in awhile that was not a newspaper column. You can tell it’s a bit more relaxed. Please feel free to send it on. If anyone wants to sign up for this free newsletter, you can go to www.thecityspulse.com
Thanks for your ongoing support. Have a great week! –Mary
Warmth and grace? That seems to be reserved for the chosen few.
Comment by Susie Snedaker — January 15, 2009 @ 7:24 am
Dan Gookin wrote on Jan 13, 2009 8:40 AM: ” The LCDC raises your property taxes by as much as 23%. Its mere existence ensures that you pay more in property taxes here in Coeur d’Alene. It’s a fact. That’s the way Tax Increment FInancing works, but the intent is to ensure that the pain of that tax increase is worth it, being offset by benefits to everyone. Does the LCDC benefit everyone? That’s a question to be asked next election. Until then, yes, you pay higher taxes here in Coeur d’Alene, not only because of the LCDC but also because the Mayor and City Council spend your money freely, e.g., the $18,000,000 they were over-budget in 2007, which could have been used for tax relief. ”
(1)” The LCDC raises your property taxes by as much as 23%”.
I think that’s an incredible percentage and wonder how Dan arrived at that figure.I don’t think that LCDC Commissioners should own property in any Urban Renewal Districts,lest it should increase the value of their properties and creat a conflict of interest.
(2)the $18,000,000 they were over-budget in 2007.
That’s a staggering figure for Kootenai County, with over 131,000 residents in the county.One would presume that had LCDC never existed we wouldn’t be having this problem.
(3) Does the LCDC benefit everyone?
That’s the big question and it doesn’t appear that LCDC does benefit everyone.They have made only a very minor impact on workforce housing.They did help to build one condo complex on third street in CDA that was supposed to go for workforce housing.But,those condos cost around $200,000 and is not affordable for working families. Maybe,this depression were seemingly in,can do what LCDC has trouble doing and that is to provide affordable housing in this CDA area.
Comment by kageman — January 15, 2009 @ 8:37 am
Last year the LCDC took in $4M in property taxes that would have otherwise gone to the city. The city, in turn, asked residents for $15M in property taxes. $4M / $15M = 26%. Had that property tax money taken by the LCDC gone to the City, they could have asked for 25% less from us. Now, knowing our civic leaders, they wouldn’t have; they would have spent it all on more grandiose schemes. But, with the right people running our city, we could get a massive tax cut.
Point #2: Yes, they were that much over budget. They spent it. All of it. And more, they also spent most of their “rainy day” money.
Point #3: The answer is a resounding NO. They know it, which is why they don’t like it when I tell people what the LCDC is doing.
Comment by Dan — January 15, 2009 @ 8:43 am
Could anyone tell me what is going to stop investors and speculators from buying up the “workforce housing”?
Are/were there any limitaions like owner occupy or did/will the members of the LCDC OR the LCDC itself buy into them?
What is going to KEEP it affordable?
Comment by concerned citizen — January 16, 2009 @ 7:03 am
CC–Good question about workforce housing. Right now, with the markets down, it does not seem to be a problem. Workforce housing is for people making near the median income, which was $50,000 a couple years ago and has probably changed now. There are currently many houses on the market in the low $100,000 range I’m told.
If housing is subsidized in the future, they will have to build-in methods to retain the subsidized portion for the next person in need. There’s something called a “soft second” mortgage that is one possibility, but I’m not clear on all the details.
Comment by mary — January 16, 2009 @ 10:37 am
The answer, Concerned Citizen, is to do what private organizations do, such as Habitat for Humanity. They have an excellent track record of providing affordable homes to people who need them, not to speculators. Our local government can best help by A) getting out the way, B) providing a level playing field, and C) promoting jobs for our citizens.
Comment by Dan — January 16, 2009 @ 10:44 am
I just watched the beginning of an LCDC meeting and watched the public comments part of it.Some CDA Press reporter named Tom,spoke first and said his story that the CDA Press ran about how LCDC raises property taxes wasn’t factual.He said that he quoted an un-named source for the story and said that it is NOT true that LCDC raises peoples property taxes in the county.He promptly apologized to the board for his supposed error.
Dan,says that LCDC raises property taxes by at least 23% so,what is going on with the discrepancies?Was this reporter reprimanded by Mike Patrick for writing a story that might be damaging to LCDCs image with the public;even if it was true in an indirect way?
Now,I’m interested to know how they(the CDA Press)can say that LCDC doesn’t raise our property taxes;
when Dan just ran the figures summarily,proving that they do raise them.
Comment by kageman — January 18, 2009 @ 10:42 am
The LCDC argues that the property tax impact is negligible. They proffer that without the LCDC that extra development wouldn’t have happened and there would be no “extra money” available. Even so, the growth created is still there, and it’s not paying for itself. Bottom line: if the LCDC truly doesn’t raise property taxes, then what is the so-called benefit that takes place when their districts retire?
Comment by Dan — January 18, 2009 @ 11:18 am
Dan and kageman,
That the extra development wouldn’t have happened without the LCDC is speculative at best. It is equally (in)valid for me to speculate that it would have been better and taken a different form without the LCDC. The “I wouldn’t have done it without the LCDC” comments from the recipients is self-serving.
I do not own property inside the LCDC boundaries, but I wanted to know how to calculate the effect the LCDC had on my property taxes. I sent this email to the County Treasurer and the County Assessor:
Apparently replying for the County Treasurer as well, Assessor Mike McDowell replied:
I appreciated Mr. McDowell’s prompt reply. However, his answer really amounted to “It depends what assumptions you make.” It seems to me that before the LCDC or any URA can say definitively it does not have an impact on my taxes or your taxes, the County officials responsible for assessing, collecting, and disbursing those taxes ought to be able to demonstrate that with mathematical and fiscal precision.
Comment by Bill — January 18, 2009 @ 12:15 pm
What about the school levy money? Doesn’t the LCDC get some of that? If so, doesn’t everyone in SD-271 district, city OR county, pay for that?
Comment by concerned citizen — January 18, 2009 @ 2:42 pm
About 18 months ago, Sharon Culbreth, Kathy Sims, and I organized a presentation on the topic of URDs and School Levy’s, held at the CDA Inn. While we sensed there was support for removing the SD levies from being impacted by urban renewal, we understood that the school district and city at the time wanted to keep the status quo. It was at that meeting that Senator Jim Hammond announced that he would be sponsoring legislation for the 2008 session that would remove school districts from levy impact. That legislation passed last year, and school districts are no longer impacted by urban renewal. The LCDC’s taxpayer-funded lobbyist in Boise did urge lawmakers not to pass the bill, but her efforts failed.
Comment by Dan — January 18, 2009 @ 3:44 pm
I must add that had we not seen that law passed, then School District 271 would be in even more dire straights than they are currently. It was a good law, and helped school districts around the state.
Comment by Dan — January 18, 2009 @ 3:45 pm
Trackback by fjbnheipsssf — January 31, 2009 @ 3:18 am
What does ‘trackback’mean?
Comment by kageman — January 31, 2009 @ 8:22 am
I don’t know, Kageman, but I took it off. I think it’s some sort of spam thing.
Comment by mary — January 31, 2009 @ 9:17 am