OpenCDA

July 24, 2009

News You Don’t Want to Believe In

Filed under: The City's Pulse — mary @ 10:58 am

UncleSamYou

The City’s Pulse Newsletter, by Mary Souza

Do you sometimes feel stupefied by the news?  As if you can’t believe the lack of common sense or rational thought behind the actions of our officials?

Well, today’s newspaper reports the NIC Foundation has “sealed the deal” for the purchase of the DeArmond Mill site.  It’s not surprising that a college would buy some nearby land for future expansion. Not until you look beyond the face of it and see the astounding audacity of its behavior.  

There are so many details amiss in this transaction that I cannot possibly address them all in one newsletter, so let’s review the top three, starting with the the appraisal.

There was no appraisal on the property.  The college planned to buy this land for $10 million taxpayer dollars, but they had no appraisal before the price was established.  After a great deal of public outcry two years ago, the college finally agreed to get an appraisal.  The problem is they got only one and it was from a very compromised source.

NIC has a professional services policy which requires multiple bids before they choose accountants, lawyers and other such assistance.  But for the appraisal on the $10 million dollar land purchase, they asked only one opinion. Out of the many qualified commercial appraisers in our area, the NIC Board of Trustees chose an appraiser who is a frequent, documented business associate of NIC Trustee Judy Meyer and her husband Steve.

(What?  There’s no conflict of interest there…don’t be ridiculous!  He’s a nice guy and people around town know him.)

His appraisal came in close to $13 million, which is exactly what I predicted beforehand  because it made the deal look like a bargain.

(We should really thank the big developer who somehow inserted himself between the Mill owner and the college, even though the college says they’ve been looking to buy this property for 20 years, so he could “help” the deal along and then the public could never see the actual purchase or cleanup details because it’s a private transaction.)

The second slap in the face for every taxpayer in Kootenai County is the price tag on this property.  The $10 million dollar total was set more than two years ago, before the appraisal, at the peak of the runaway real estate market.  It’s 17 acres next to the sewage treatment plant.  That’s $588,000 per acre!

The local market has now plummeted in value, with assessments down 15-30% and banks dropping another 15% off most valuations because they consider the county’s assessments unreliable in this economy. The appraisal is no longer valid.  But did NIC negotiate the price of the property down at all?  No.  And now they’ve signed the deal for the full amount.

(It’s only taxpayer money, afterall.)

But it’s not just taxpayer money, it’s additional taxpayer money, over and above what we’ve all been paying for NIC.  And we didn’t get any say in the decision.

The third insult to the public is the NIC Foundation shell game.  The NIC Board of Trustees represents the college.  The NIC Foundation is a 501(c)(3) charity which gathers donations for scholarships and such.  The Foundation is a private entity.  It is not part of the college and does not have to tell the public about its transactions. Its members include Mayor Sandi Bloem, NIC Trustee Mic Armon, NIC Trustee Judy Meyer’s husband Steve Meyer, and many other closely connected people.

Before a meeting more than a year ago, I privately asked one of the main NIC Trustees why they didn’t just run a public bond issue for the purchase of the land, and let the taxpayers vote on the issue.  He told me they wouldn’t do that because “we’ve been told it wouldn’t pass”.

So what they’ve done instead is a roundabout-backdoor deal with the Foundation.  The Foundation got a bank loan for the money and the Foundation is buying the property.  The college will lease the property from the Foundation until the college gathers enough of our additional foregone taxes—an extra $2.4 million per year from now on— to pay for the deal.  Then the Foundation will give or sell or somehow get the property over to the college.

(It’s called “how to avoid the voters but still take their money”)

What happens if the NIC Trustees fail to make repayment to the NIC Foundation?  And how can it be proper for the same attorney represent both NIC and the Foundation?

(Oh, and don’t be surprised that the bank which is financing this deal is Mountain West Bank, where NIC Trustee Judy Meyer and her husband Steve have deep ownership interest.  But there’s no conflict of interest there because this morning’s paper said the college asked for competitive bids.  And we all know the Meyers don’t have conflicts, even though Steve Meyer employs CdA councilman Mike Kennedy, full-time, as president of his electronic communications company.  It’s a position Mike was given after he won election to the council in 2005.  Mike had no background in that industry but was brought in as president of the company.  And did I mention that Steve Meyer, Judy’s husband, is also a long-time business partner with Charlie Nipp in a real estate development company?  Charlie was the chairman of LCDC until a year ago when he gave up his leadership title but retained his board membership after the State Attorney General started looking into possible conflicts of interest because Charlie signed 6 loans between the LCDC and Mountain West Bank without divulging his business relationship as a board member of the bank.)

Astounded. Disappointed. Disenfranchised.

It’s not the purchase of the property, it’s the irresponsible process by which it was achieved. The voters and taxpayers of Kootenai County were not well served in this course of action, and this end certainly does not justify the means.

1 Comment

  1. Mary,

    You’ve already covered some of my concerns.

    How can attorney Marc Lyons ethically represent both NIC (the lessee) and the NIC Foundation (the lessor)? How can that not be a conflict of interest? If there becomes a dispute between NIC and the Foundation over something pertaining to this transaction in which he represented both parties, to which client would he be obligated?

    In Maureen Dolan’s July 22, 2009, Coeur d’Alene Press article headlined “NIC to take over mill property”, these words were attributed to attorney Marc Lyons:

    Lyons said the college is lending its status as a governmental agency to the transaction to make it possible for the foundation to borrow money through tax exempt financing.

    “The college has essentially lent its authority as a public entity to the foundation,” he said.

    In return the college is the only entity that can lease the property from the foundation.

    How is a “governmental agency”, the college, able to transfer its authority as a public agency to a private, non-profit IR Code 501-c-3 foundation?

    Lyons was quoted saying only the college can lease property from the foundation, but what he failed to explain was whether or not the college could sublease some or all of the property to other entities (e.g, Parkwood Business Properties).

    Putting a bond to a public vote was not the only mechanism available for NIC to acquire the property. It also had judicial confirmation available. That would not have required a public vote, but it would have required a formal public hearing and it would have required a District Court judge to go on-the-record approving the transaction as meeting the “ordinary and necessary” provisions of the Idaho Constitution. That public hearing would have attracted public attention and public testimony, something both NIC and the Foundation are trying to avoid. Neither NIC nor the Foundation want this to go in front of a District Court judge whose obligation is to uphold the Idaho Constitution.

    Lease-to-buy is an effort to make legal that which is not already definitively legal. If it was already legal, the LCDC bond counsel would not be one of the lawyers supporting an amendment to Idaho’s constitution to formally legalize it. They have failed to answer the questions about what happens if the NIC Trustees fail to make repayment to the NIC Foundation. To what extent does the present NIC Trustees’ actions in effect obligate future Trustees to continue or face some penalty jeopardizing the interests of taxpayers? Is this payment to be the first among equals, paid even if it means sacrificing vocational or educational programs?

    This agreement is far more complicated than it appears, in large part because it leaves many unanswered questions. It is being handled by essentially one attorney representing two of the parties but not representing the interests of the State of Idaho and the Kootenai County taxpayers.

    Comment by Bill — July 24, 2009 @ 12:03 pm

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