I was asked a few common LCDC questions in another post. Short of creating an LCDC FAQ, here are the answers to those questions:
What would it take to get the LCDC closed down; is it even possible?
Of course it’s possible. If cities in Idaho can vanish, so can the entities they create. First, how the LCDC can die a clam, natural death:
The LCDC has a term limit. They’re proud of it. Their two current projects have the maximum life span of 24 years. The Downtown/Lake project closes in 2021. The River project closes in 2027. (How old will you be in 2027?)
Of course, the LCDC could exist longer. Should the city annex the Atlas mill site for Marshall Chesrown (and they will), the LCDC can create another project/district to encompass it (and they will). If they did so in 2009, and that district will last for the full 24 years, then the LCDC could be with us until 2033. But that’s not enough: The LCDC could be with us even longer.
Toward the end of its lifetime, the LCDC can do something sneaky called “bonding out.” During their last year in business they can borrow heavily. They can then continue to exist until the bond is paid off. This trick hasn’t been tried in Idaho. Yet.
Now, for un-natural causes of death: The Mayor could end the LCDC tomorrow. Their projects can be shut down and all financial transactions put in receivership by the city. The LCDC’s assets could be sold (though I’d prefer an open auction), and their debts paid. End of LCDC.
The City of Post Falls is currently evaluating their urban renewal agency. They may decide to close the whole thing down and, if so, it would prove to be a model for shutting down the LCDC.
I must note, however, that presently the Mayor shows no intention of shutting down the LCDC. Hardly. It gives her and the City Council a pot of money they can spend without public approval. Also, because the LCDC lacks any sort of plan, it can be viewed that its existence allows City Hall to buy allegiance and peddle influence.
The people cannot do anything to shut down an urban renewal agency other than make such a request of the Mayor or City Council. My feeling is that until we clean the slate at City Hall, the LCDC will not only continue, it will flourish and expand.
Are all the LCDC board appointed by the mayor?
Yes. They LCDC board serves at the pleasure of the Mayor. She could ask anyone to resign and not give a reason. They City Council doesn’t even need to hold a secret court, as they did when they dismissed Mary Souza from the Planning Commission.
Does City Council vote on the appointment of LCDC board members?
No. But I believe (and Susie may correct me) that a Councilman may object to an appointment.
Does the LCDC board serve for a pre-set term or forever?
Commissioners serve for a preset term, which I believe is four years. Without exception, they all get re-appointed. Worse, they all re-elect themselves to the same positions on the board, making it very static for the last 10 years. A few do resign, but the norm is constant re-appointments. In effect, they do serve forever.
LCDC Chairman Charlie Nipp has stated that he’d like to retire as chairman. But — get this — the LCDC said that a new chairman must be “groomed” to replace him. This is utterly bogus; the purpose of an urban renewal agency board is simply to ensure that plan and policy is implemented by staff. However, because the LCDC utterly lacks a plan, it places more importance on the people running it. The chairman should never be so crucial that a replacement must be groomed. That notion should be offensive to any student of American history.
Where urban renewal is practiced elsewhere in Idaho, there is a solid plan and direction. In Twin Falls, for example, board members typically serve two years and are rotated off so that others in the community are represented. There is no requirement, nor should there be, that any urban renewal agency board member be anything other than a concerned citizen. They do not have to be in construction or banking or an attorney. To claim otherwise is disrespectful to the public, not to mention arrogant. It discourages public participation in the process.
Oh, and one more thing: Of the LCDC’s current 8 members (their one shy of a full load), 5 of them live outside the city of Coeur d’Alene.
Dan, thanks much for the quick response to my questions.
I really appreciate your answers and all your work to get this info out so more people will know.
Comment by reddy — September 1, 2008 @ 5:31 pm
That’s the key, reddy. The more the public knows, they more outraged they’ll be. Mary, Bill, and I take a lot of heat and personal attacks. Yet all we do is make the public know what the LCDC is up to. If they don’t like it, they can change their ways.
Comment by Dan — September 1, 2008 @ 6:03 pm
Dan, what makes you think the Post Falls URA might be shut down? This agency has consistenly operated project specific districts with specified time frames. They have a plan! They have created a substantial number of jobs. Mayor Clay Larkin and the Post Falls City Council oversee the actions of the URA as they are supposed to do. This is the way urban renewal should operate. I would hope that all of the development corporations masquerading as urban renewal agencies would take a clue from Post Falls on proper operating procedures.
I agree Lake City Development Corporation is not about any firm plan. They have been unable to differenciate between public and private use, thus public dollars are used for private enrichment. They don’t have a plan as what their tax increment will be used to fund. They are not forthcoming with information. If an Urban Renewal Agency should be shut down, it certainly isn’t in Post Falls. Is there any further word on the public meeting referenced at the last LCDC meeting? My understanding is that the public could ask uncensored questions of the LCDC Board.
Comment by doubleseetripleeye — September 2, 2008 @ 10:33 am
The Post Falls URA is under review by the city council. They may shut down one or all of the districts, depending on whether the plans or being implemented properly or not. It’s just oversight.
I’ve heard talk of the LCDC holding an open, no-questions-filtered meeting this month. Their web site (which their PR person told them to update) indicates nothing about this meeting. Perhaps we’ll be illuminated by tonight’s City Council meeting? One thing will be telling: when and where the LCDC plans on holding its meeting, and whether it will be televised live, will tell you how eager they are to hear feedback.
Comment by Dan — September 2, 2008 @ 10:43 am
Nothing on the agenda about LCDC. No surprise there, everything dealing with LCDC is done in Executive Session. My favorite part of tonights Coeur d’Alene City Council agenda is #2 under public hearings. The annual appropriate? (what?) for FY2008-2009. Since it is under public hearings maybe they really want to know what is appropriate. Sorry for the sarcasm.
Comment by doubleseetripleeye — September 2, 2008 @ 10:59 am
It is note worthy also that several members of the LCDC are also City Council members. Are they there to provide oversight or are they there to direct and/or initiate activities? This provides a direct umbilicus and controlling vote back to the Mayor. They are not independent but are dependent groups. One has become the other and vice versa. And because the LCDC is not elected and they handle a lot of taxpayer funds it is most decidedly taxation without representation.
Comment by Wallypog — September 2, 2008 @ 3:37 pm
Presently, City Council members are allowed to serve on the board of the URA. In fact, the URA could be composed entirely of the City Council. A case is pending before the Idaho Supreme Court that may determine whether this is allowable in the future.
My guess is that the LCDC chair and executive director report directly to the Mayor and that the two City Council representatives are there for their own interests. Controlling vote? Never. The LCDC votes unanimously 95% of the time. The other 5% you’ll see a single no vote. I don’t believe that anything divisive would ever be discussed in their meetings or come up for a vote, at least not in the public portion.
Comment by Dan — September 2, 2008 @ 4:04 pm