[
As promised, here is Judge Mitchell’s decision on the defendants’ motion for summary judgment in the lawsuit against NIC and its Foundation. Because of the size of the file, I had to scan it in two parts: Part 1 and Part 2.
March 22, 2010
9 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
So, does this decision mean that NIC and the Foundation WILL NEVER gain actual title to the property?
Comment by Stebbijo — March 22, 2010 @ 1:18 pm
Stebbijo,
No, not at all. In fact, the “lease” agreement explicitly states on page 7, paragraph 20, “Upon payment, defeasance or retirement of the Note, the FOUNDATIONshall convey unencumbered fee simple title and exclusive possession and use of the Mill Site to the COLLEGE for no additional consideration. COLLEGE agrees to accept title to the Mill Site upon payment, defeasance or retirement of the Note.”
You might ask when the Note is scheduled to be paid off. The answer is August 1, 2012. The purchase price was $10 million plus interest. On or about July 23, 2009, the College made a $4 million downpayment to the Foundation which the Foundation passed on to the bank. The Foundation took out a loan for $6 million from Mountain West Bank. The College agreed to make six equal semiannual “lease” payments, each for $1,074,134.02 to the Foundation. The Foundation will, in turn, make six equal semiannual payments, each for $1,074,134.02 to Mountain West Bank to pay off the loan. The loan is scheduled to be repaid on or about August 1, 2012. At that time, the mandate of paragraph 20 kicks in and the College has agreed to accept title to the property. In other words, the College “leases” the property for about three years, and then it owns the property.
Comment by Bill — March 22, 2010 @ 1:31 pm
The judge takes on a terrible assumption that it would ever be NIC’s desire to back out of the transaction. Without reviewing any written agreements between NIC and the Foundation, the judge’s arguments are flawed. This case should have gone to trial.
Comment by Dan — March 22, 2010 @ 2:03 pm
Well, I guess it’s over then? It is constitutional to set up a lease/purchase that is really a very complicated set of books that bypasses the citizen so the COLLEGE and the FOUNDATION and other entities do not have to put the big money items up for a vote – untill they need more money from us sometime in the future, that is.
Thanks to all of you in your efforts to actually represent the people – there are so many who don’t and are elected. That was huge work. Now we know that real pro se litigants are not well received in Corrup t’Alene, Idaho.
Too bad there was not an ‘opt out’ form so the folks who don’t want it don’t have to pay and the others who are all for it can put up the cash. Passing resolutions in the “”in the best interests of the students, residents and taxpayers of Kootenai county…” sure does not have my name on that tune. But then, that probably would not be constitutional.
Comment by Stebbijo — March 22, 2010 @ 2:14 pm
Stebbijo,
Over? Don’t be too hasty…
And thank you for the compliment. We appreciate it very much.
Comment by Bill — March 22, 2010 @ 4:49 pm
Today’s CDA Press displays a legal notice requesting proposals to be submitted to the City for Education Corridor preliminary infrastructure design.
Comment by Gary Ingram — March 22, 2010 @ 5:52 pm
The proposals are supposed to be sent to the CITY? The CITY has nothing directly to do with the Ed Corridor. The mayor said so. She said it’s NIC’s thing. (we all know that’s not true; she’s been pushing this from the start because it’s not about education it’s about commercial development using taxpayer dollars!)
Comment by mary — March 22, 2010 @ 7:44 pm
Mary,
By the time the proposals have been “coalesced” (dig the Bernsian lingo), the Mill Site will have been finally annexed into the City. The City will be responsible for the infrastructure like streets, water, sewer, accepting contractor payoffs, stormwater, etc.
Comment by Bill — March 22, 2010 @ 7:51 pm
There goes the excess cash LCDC has been skimming from all of the property in the District. No tax increment from public development; nothing private to generate tax increment.
Comment by Gary Ingram — March 22, 2010 @ 8:32 pm