City Council met tonight and, as expected, passed the 99 year “lease” of the Harbor Center building to the University of Idaho. At least 6 people stood up and spoke during Public Comments at the beginning of the meeting. I was one of them. All 6 people, some of whom I did not know, asked for a public hearing or a time for the public to ask open questions and get answers back. It made no difference. The council voted unanimously to approve the lease.
Here’s a copy of my comments to them:
Good evening Mayor Bloem and council members,
This morning’s Press had a nice article about Scott Reed’s new book on the history of Tubb’s Hill. Everyone in this community loves and appreciates Tubb’s Hill, so it was with great interest that I read some of the “opportunities” past civic leaders wanted to put on Tubb’s Hill. First, according to Scott Reed, Tony Tubbs tried to sell residential lots on the hill. Local officials obviously allowed and recorded the platting of those lots. Luckily for us, enough of the public didn’t buy them and Tony Tubbs dropped that effort. Then, later, the city bought much of the land for a power plant. Can you imagine what Tubb’s Hill would look like if city officials had gotten their way back then? We’d have a big power plant up there–that was the city’s vision back then. Again, fortune smiled on us, and the deal was blocked by strong opposition. In the 1950s, Mr. Reed points out, a large shopping mall was proposed near the base of the hill, but voters rejected the deal. Let me repeat that historic detail: Voters were given the chance to weigh in on that important decision and they rejected the development. The public was an integral part of the decision making process that saved Tubb’s Hill.
Let’s fast forward to today. At this moment, tonight, you the city council have an important decision in front of you. Leasing the Harbor Center building to the University of Idaho for up to 198 years is a big decision that will have a great impact on our community. Will you follow the example of history and bring this issue to vote of the people? As Scott Reed’s research shows, we, the people, can be a great force in wise decision making. Our own new CdA Comprehensive Plan, that you approved just months ago, recognizes how important the public is in the decision making process:
Comp Plan Objective 4.01 calls on city officials to:
“Make decisions based on the needs and desires of the citizenry.” We are here tonight, asking for a chance to tell you our opinions. Please hold public hearings and take this decision to a vote.
Comp Plan Objective 4.06 is titled: “Public Participation” and reads:
“Strive for community involvement that is broad-based and inclusive, encouraging public participation in the decision- making process.”
The Harbor Center Building was purchased with a Public Revenue Bond that was passed by a vote of the people for the expressed purpose of future expansion of the Wastewater Treatment Plant. Now your plans for this site have changed. Before you sign away lifetime control of this building and land that we, the rate payers bought, please hold public hearing and let us vote on it.
So, again, Mayor Bloem and Council Members, with all due respect, as our city council we are asking you for a public hearing and vote before you sign away a building that we all voted for and paid for.
Please let us be an integral part of this historic decision!
THANK YOU MARY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Comment by casper — June 18, 2008 @ 6:25 am
Mary, while I certainly agree with your stance, I can tell you exactly why they ignored your request on this subject and why Deanna Goodlander made that snotty comment to you at the previous meeting. A council member stated that whenever they see you (and some others) comming, they say “here we go again”. They close ranks (what else is new) and whatever you say, they are against. This isn’t going to change and while I am more often in agreement with your efforts, I do believe that constant negativity is the reason. There will never be a consensus in this (ridiculous) town because of stubborness and a lack of even handedness. Group A despises Group B. A believes that absolutely everything B does is wrong. Group B despises Group A and believes everything A does is wrong. Both sides are incorrect. Not everything is wrong. There are shades of gray and by making everything black and white, nothing is gained. All one can do is vote and support their conscience and hope for the best.
Comment by Diogenes — June 18, 2008 @ 8:16 am
Thanks, Casper, I needed that. Diogenes, your remarks certainly reinforce what I’ve experienced first hand, except the “group” thing, but that’s too long to address right now. The interesting thing is that the label “negative” has been slapped on anyone asking for public information or input.
Last night it was incredibly obvious. My comments to the council, as you can read above, were not negative. My words and those of at least 5 others, were a plea for public hearings and to include the citizens in the decision-making process. How is that negative?
But the council did exactly what you described as closing ranks, and they never, never, never addressed the question of a public hearing or a vote.
Comment by mary — June 18, 2008 @ 9:08 am
Sometimes they get it right for a while but they still end up doing it wrong. What they did right is debate the issues for a first in council meetings. But then they couldn’t stand by their guns when they didn’t get answers. It still would have passed but with a tiebreaker from the mayor.
Woody should have voted no. Why? Because two questions he asked of Wendy got a response of “I don’t know”. He wanted to know how county residents would be impacted by the lease. Then he tried a different way and got stonewalled again. In his usual Woody style, he then told stories, expressed uncertainty, and pretended he never took issue. What a weak representative, he is.
Edinger wanted 2 weeks to delay a vote in order to determine if as much as “3 and a half or 4 million” could be paid by the U of Idaho. He said he had many “knowledgeable” people whose opinion he respected, tell him the city was giving it away at 1.3 million. He was rebuffed with the warning from Wendy they might lose the whole deal if they had to re-negotiate the lease. He then caved in with the statement, he’ll “take the heat, what the heck.” It is also interesting to note that Edinger asked no questions as a member of the general services committee when they made the recommendation to move forward. Then he starts asking questions at the council meeting, like it was all new to him!
Then Hassell made a substitute motion to require a new lease with new terms at the end of 99 years instead of allowing the option to contine for another l00 years at the same cost. It failed to be considered, also with the we may lose it argument.
In my experience as a lawmaker years ago, these unsatisfactory responses, would have resulted in a no vote. So it would have been 3 nays, 3 yeas, a tie and the mayor would have scolded the naysayers and got it done. I must say however, the the council did address the questions asked by the public and discussed them, which is highly unusual. I suspect the reason is because the hurried negotiation with the U of I by Wendy and their guy Brannen, didn’t give them the time to put together a consensus behind closed doors.
Comment by Gary Ingram — June 18, 2008 @ 11:12 am
Come on, Gary. That would be illegal! 😉
Comment by Dan — June 18, 2008 @ 11:19 am
We can only hope that our soon to be new Prosecuting Attorney has dusted off the public corruption volumes of the state penal code.
Comment by Will Penny — June 18, 2008 @ 11:26 am
Gary, what questions from the public did you think the council addressed? They never spoke about holding a public hearing or a vote. They never discussed taking time to review the studies, appraisals and other information with the public before the final decision is made…what questions did they answer?
Comment by mary — June 18, 2008 @ 11:42 am
Gary mentions that the council did ask questions. That was good. But I feel his larger point is that when those questions were so obviously not answered, the councilmen dropped the ball and passed the thing. That’s bad public policy and it shows no representation or even courage by those who represent us. It’s shameful. Yet the citizens of Coeur d’Alene forgive these people and keep re-electing and re-electing them into office. We get the government we deserve. Or lack of it.
Comment by Dan — June 18, 2008 @ 12:14 pm
Yes, Dan, but what Gary wrote was that the council addressed the questions from the public and discussed them. In my opinion they took the public’s comments, mine especially, and twisted them around so the council looked better. Like the Comp. Plan, for example. I used two Comp Plan objectives in my remarks, pointing out two policies that encourage public participation in decision-making. The council, later in the meeting, pulled out pieces of the Comp Plan regarding the Ed. Corridor and how the concept was encouraged by the Comp Plan. But they never answered my points about public participation in decisions. And I couldn’t say anything, as a member of the audience.
And yes, the Comp Plan talks about the Ed. Corridor. But as an idea to be considered and studied. Not as a “done deal”. I’ve always been a supporter of the concept but expected to be informed of the details and plans BEFORE the decisions were finalized. That’s why I’ve been more and more suspicious of the process…because they are hushing everything up.
Even Al Hassel, who tried to change a word in the contract so the U of I would have to re-negotiate after the first 99 years was shut down. The reason? It would slow up the process because the contract has already been sent to the State Board of Education and is on their Agenda for this Thursday. This was a “done deal” before the city council ever opened the meeting. It was a sham.
Comment by mary — June 18, 2008 @ 12:37 pm
Of course your comments on this weren’t negative. My point is that, in general, Open CDA is “agin ’em”. And, in general, I agree with you. My point is generic, if you will. As are my group descriptions. That was a very broad based description. As I see it, there are two main factions working here. Those who agree with CDA city govt. and those who do not. I’m (for the record) in the latter catagory. But even I must admit that not “all” they do is wrong. When you nit pick at every little thing, for instance the $50,000. for a police presence at the public beach, you back yourself into the corner of constant nay sayers. You lose verisimilatude
and gravitas. That accomplishes nothing. I have never lived in a town with such an atrocious lack of honesty. The hubris of this city council simply sucks all the air from the room. Talk about conflict of interest and ignoring what is right for the tax payer. They are the quintessential example of that. But, sometimes they do get something right. It appears to me that Open CDA battles everything and gets virtually nowhere. There is a saying, not attributable to me, but very appropos. Don’t sweat the small stuff and pick your battles. Home in on the most important and let the little stuff take care of itself. It’s hopeless!
Comment by Diogenes — June 18, 2008 @ 12:44 pm
Mary, I had in mind, the observation from Ann of the Mica that county taxpayers feel like they are losing their community college to CDA. Woody tried to address that by asking Wendy, ‘how about it’, so to speak. She said she didn’t know and Woody let it go. Wendy, I think, because of your continued insistence for public hearings, gave a very detailed history to show that there has been public involvement. It was not a satisfactory response,as you point out. I thought Ron tried to address someone who brought up the give away lease price, but he too caved in when Wendy brow beat him into submission. No question, Wendy earned the mayor’s approval for her performance.
Comment by Gary Ingram — June 18, 2008 @ 12:58 pm
Diogenes, I agree with you. Picking battles is important and the city is not wrong on everything. There are many things they do that are great. The good part and bad part of being three people running a blog, is that we all have different views. Sometimes we agree, sometimes not. Bill was incensed by the Cop Shop in the park. I was not. It was not important to me, but it was to many others in the community.
My big issue is, and always has been, public transparency. And that took a huge dive last night!
Comment by mary — June 18, 2008 @ 1:15 pm
Gary, thanks for the response. Wendy Gabriel, city administrator, did try to conjure up multiple dates from the past when “opportunities for public input” were available on the Ed Corridor issue. What she didn’t say was that those “opportunities” were simply the 5 minute Public Comments section at the start of every city council meeting. If you speak at that time, you can never expect feedback or any answers to your questions. It’s certainly nothing like a public hearing.
The other thing Wendy failed to mention is that those past leases for the U of I were on the Consent Calendar at the council meetings back then. They were buried. No one from the public would have even known they were discussing the lease, so how could they comment, even for 5 minutes of one-sided discussion?
After last night’s meeting, Susie Snedaker and I were leaving the room at the same time as Councilman Ron Edinger was rushing out for a smoke break. Susie remarked to Ron that those lease MOUs from 2002 and 2006 were probably buried on the Consent Calendar back then, just like the Person Field MOU was, and that even Ron didn’t know about them. Ron said, “Well, you’ve got a good point there, Susie.”
Comment by mary — June 18, 2008 @ 1:26 pm
>>> 1. No question, Wendy earned the mayor’s approval for her performance.
>>> Comment by Gary Ingram — June 18, 2008 @ 12:58 pm
Indeed, Wendy was reading direct from Sandi’s script. Since when does city staff put on such a biased presentation? In CDA – all the time. Job security. How about a staff report with objective information and the council can then ask questions and debate the issues. Not in CDA. This was a dog and pony show from the start. Some council members tried to ask a few weak questions – which they didn’t get the answers to, but it didn’t really matter, as they were just lamely trying to appease those in the room asking the questions. Didn’t work.
I realize the council is not obligated to respond to public comment, but don’t they realize how arrogant they look when they just turn a deaf ear and move on with the agenda?
I’m appreciative of those who took the time to speak out and demand the council and mayor start respecting the taxpayers. Won’t happen, but at least they got an earful!
I thought Mike Kennedy’s head was going to explode when he went on his rant about getting this lease done NOW.
Sandi and the current council: losing credibility – one voter at a time!
Comment by Damn Yankee — June 18, 2008 @ 2:19 pm
And when Ron asked his questions and made his comments, he mentioned people he knew and respected, not like the crap (his word) you read in the newspaper, these people are INTELLIGENT.
What a putdown on the ones of you who spoke last night! I used to have some respect for Woody, but now he just goes along with his boss. Yes, it was a done deal, the council members who dis ask questions were just going through a rehearsed script. Such a shame.
Comment by reddy — June 18, 2008 @ 2:53 pm
I see it as part of the same problem, which is the process, not the product. Don’t confuse the two, or you fall into the “us verses them” trap.
Is the cop shop a good idea? I don’t know! They rushed it through without public comment or adequate information. It wasn’t in the Parks Master Plan they just introduced the prior month. Where did it come from? Government must move at a slow, reliable pace. Government must plan. When government moves fast, and operates outside of a plan, it screws up. I could site endless examples.
Bill had major good points about the cop shop. The most valid of his points was why a mobile command center wouldn’t have been better. I believe that type of input is valuable to the public process and would have probably resulted in a better end product, not to mention a better way to spend the taxpayer’s money.
There is a theme that runs here. I question the process, then I am attacked for “being against” something. That’s untrue, unfair, and utterly false. A healthy community has involvement. Public officials must encourage that involvement and participation. I think we can all agree that when the public is attacked for speaking out at a City Council meeting, it does nothing but sully this town’s otherwise outstanding reputation.
Comment by Dan — June 18, 2008 @ 3:09 pm
Sounds to me like we just got a Coeur d’Alene Community College. I agree with the lady from Mica Flats area that the lack of respect for the Kootenai County residents will in the end hurt support for future building goals and ultimately hurt the students. Very, very short sighted and sad.
Comment by Mama Bear — June 18, 2008 @ 3:10 pm
The people who attend city council meetings,tend to be people who either question something or are against something.Isn’t that why the
CDA City Council views the audience at a city council meeting as (CAVE) people?
CITIZENS AGAINST VIRTUALLY EVERYTHING!
Maybe,Mary should write some questions down and give them to the average senior citizen to ask,at a city council meeting.Would that elicit a better response from the council?Or would they get the shaft like everybody else?
Comment by kageman — June 18, 2008 @ 3:12 pm
The “cop shop” was an example Dan, clearly. The point being that, in the greater scheme of things, (re-read several times that last line) $50,000. is chump change. It is the constant shell games being played with MILLIONS of taxpayer dollars that must be addressed. To question this ridiculous lease is a good use of time. To complain about the inexpensive building for a police presence is not. Don’t sweat the small stuff….pick your battles and, for those who took psychology in college, remember the theory of positive/negative reinforcement.
Comment by Diogenes — June 18, 2008 @ 3:28 pm
The “pretty people” want this. The rest of us get to pay. Period. We can whine, they do not care.
Comment by Pariah — June 18, 2008 @ 3:52 pm
IMO-the reason the ‘cop shop’was talked about was because,of LCDC being involved with forking over the $50,000 to buy the structure.
So,if an URA like LCDC is involved in something;it has to questioned.
There was no urban blight,nothings being renewed.There is a vexing problem occuring down at city hall and their mantra is:when in doubt,
have LCDC bail you out.Even woody said:when I think of ways to fund something and I can’t think of any,I think of LCDC.
Kind of funny how the council never thinks of the people and how they would feel about funding something,
like the cop shop.
Patzer,who sits on LCDC’s board voted against the funding.He doesn’t believe LCDC should continue to be in the business of bailing out the city, with their funding problems.
Comment by kageman — June 18, 2008 @ 3:59 pm
Yes, Wendy Garbriel earned her $107,000 salary last night by warding off Ron Edinger’s weak suggestion to maybe, possibly be thinking about postponing the decision perhaps for a little while. She also had to keep Al Hassel from changing one word on the contract.
Comment by mary — June 18, 2008 @ 4:06 pm
What is the list of City, LCDC and NIC officials making 6 figures? How many of the Board and our Council have similar incomes?
Comment by Pariah — June 18, 2008 @ 5:07 pm
I don’t know all of them, Pariah, but here are a few:
CdA City Attorney Mike Gridley: $111,224
CdA City Administrator Wendy Gabriel: $106,784
CdA Deputy Administrator John Ingalls: $100,247
CdA Fire Cheif Kenny Gabriel: $100,245
CdA Finance Director Troy Tymesen: $100,245
CdA School Superintendent Harry Amend: 124,800*
CdA School Assist. Super. Hazel Bauman: $111, 804*
LCDC urban renewal Executive Director Tony Berns: $113,925
Post Falls Administrator Eric Keck: $115,482
Post Falls School Superintendent Jerry Keane: $104,910
Hayden Administrator Jay Townsend: $100,006
Lakeland School Superintendent Charles Kinsey: $103,530
*Note: Hazel Bauman will now replace the newly retired Harry Amend. She does not intend to refill her Assistant position.
This info is from the Spokesman Review, October 14, 2007
Comment by mary — June 18, 2008 @ 6:05 pm
Governor, State of Idaho, 2007 salary $105,560
Comment by Granny — June 18, 2008 @ 8:02 pm
Is Wendy Gabriel a full time or part time employee?
Comment by Susie Snedaker — June 18, 2008 @ 10:18 pm
A correction: Ron did not tell me that he could not remember the earlier MOUs for the Osprey site. He did not remember the Person Field MOU, so I took a copy of it to him.
Comment by Susie Snedaker — June 18, 2008 @ 10:22 pm
One of my newsletter readers attended the city council meeting too, and here are his observations:
Dear Mary,
My observation of last night’s unanimous decision by the town council is that the council is overwhelmingly liberal biased so far as education is concerned. This of course squarely rests on the back of the voting electorate who put these guys in office.
Never mind the deplorable state of public education, where college students are unable to pass the same 8th grade test of some time ago. Never mind that far too many college grads are unable to adequately read. We must ascertain that public education is perpetuated in its steady decline from what once was adequate.
I was very proud of a couple of the speakers attending the Monday night session. The one lady who spoke so eloquently did a tremendous job but she was talking to people with made up minds and for whom no amount or quality of dissent made the least bit of difference.
I was tempted to talk about how ridiculous were the arguments of the U. of Idaho official who was speaking to the advantages of having a U. of I. campus adjacent to NIC. What the hell does that have to do with teaching. He also tried making a ridiculous point that having the campus adjacent to the water treatment facility was beneficial. What kind of convoluted thinking is that and how stupid must he think we are to be persuaded by such logic.
I did not speak because those who spoke out against the board taking action last night did such a great job making their points that I could add nothing to their effort.
Comment by mary — June 19, 2008 @ 7:54 am
Does anybody know what Lisa Key earns per year?
Comment by Diogenes — June 19, 2008 @ 8:07 am
As a county resident I would really like some feed back on my opinion that CdA has taken over NIC. I feel very out of the loop in the conversation. I know that this is a CdA website but the actions of CdA effect us in the county. Hopefully us guys will focus on this City-County issues once in awhile.
Comment by Mama Bear — June 19, 2008 @ 8:30 am
“us guys was meant to be “you guys” in the above posting. Slips of the tongue (or keyboard) can be revealing.
Comment by Mama Bear — June 19, 2008 @ 8:34 am
Joy and Rick Seward were at the city council meeting too. Rick stood up and spoke but Joy wasn’t going to. But after cocky Chris Copstead gave his rude remarks, Joy was so upset she went up to the podium to speak also. She was shaking with emotion and made a strong statement about treating the public with respect and particularly chastised Chris for the tone of his words.
Right after the council voted unanimously to approve the lease, Joy left the room and went to the Ladies Restroom. She came back and asked her husband to take her home because she wasn’t feeling well. It turns out that Joy was having a heart attack. She is in very serious condition right now at KMC. Please keep her in your prayers.
Comment by mary — June 19, 2008 @ 12:44 pm
What exactly did Chris Copstead say? Not verbatim, just the jist and what upset Mrs. Seward?
Comment by Diogenes — June 20, 2008 @ 8:23 am
Chris told the council to basically ignore the public and go forward with the lease agreement. He said the people standing up to speak out were just negative and were against everything. He used the derogatory term often seen on other blogs around here and basically tried to undermine the credibility of all citizens asking questions. His tone disrespectful and his words were insulting. He’s a former city council member.
Comment by mary — June 20, 2008 @ 8:34 am
I had never heard of this man. A friend said he was on the Hayden City Council. Sounds like a local politician….
Comment by Diogenes — June 20, 2008 @ 12:39 pm
Copstead has a long history in CDA. He likes to be liked, at least by those with power or money.
Comment by Pariah — June 20, 2008 @ 12:41 pm
Chris Copstead served on the City Council. He lost his re-election bid in 2003. (Back then they did the “horse race” with the top three vote-getters winning; Copstead came in 4th. Al Hassell basically took his seat.) I’m sure Susie can tell us more about Mr. Copstead’s public service history?
Comment by Dan — June 20, 2008 @ 1:23 pm