A Dangerous Precedent

The City's Pulse Issue #12 May 24, 2007 by Mary Souza
A Dangerous Precedent "It doesn't matter if it breaks the rules, it's for the children and no one will argue against it." These are words from a top school district official. No one can argue against helping children. You'd be vilified or labeled a child-hater. But I love kids. I stood in support of Sorenson Elementary and wrote a recent column complimenting the great teachers of our Coeur d'Alene schools. So, I'll do it. Let me step you through my argument against the school district's pending "partnership" with Lake City Development Corporation, LCDC, our city's urban renewal agency. Step 1: Sorenson school must comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). School administrators estimate the cost at $280,000 for these improvements. Step 2: LCDC, has been getting the tax increment money from school levies in their urban renewal area since 1997. The increment for all of Downtown, Northwest Blvd, Riverstone and Mill River has been enriching LCDC, not going to the schools. Either LCDC or the City Council could vote to change the rules and give the levy funds back to the schools, permanently, as happened in Boise. Such a move would be legal and would refund hundreds of thousands of dollars back to the school district, to be used for Sorenson's upgrades and more. Step 3: School district officials did meet with the LCDC board, but not to ask for the school levy tax increment back. They asked for a hand out of $420,000 for Sorenson. Yes, much more than is needed for ADA compliance. Step 4: Idaho law specifies that school funding come from the legislature, local property taxes or bona fide charity groups. That's all. I suppose these funding guidelines were set to limit the influence or political ties that might entangle a school district if they accepted money from outside sources. For example, what if tobacco companies wanted to donate to our schools? Would you be concerned about their influence? LCDC subsidizes large-scale private real estate development. Think about that. Step 5: Sorenson school is located outside LCDC's urban renewal district. State law is clear on this: Urban renewal agencies are not allowed to operate outside their designated area. But elsewhere in Idaho, an urban renewal agency helped a sewer plant that was beyond its boundaries but served its district. Using this as justification, LCDC is now considering stepping over their borders to give Sorenson school the $420,000. This action would set a very dangerous precedent here in Coeur d'Alene. What might be next ... maybe LCDC would exercise its power of eminent domain outside its district? The possibilities are scary. The school district is fully aware of all that I have just described. Its school board and administrators know the two responsible options to fund Sorenson are either to pass a bond levy or demand the return of the tax increment from past levies. They realize they are stepping over the intent of the laws governing both the school district's sources of funding and urban renewal's boundaries of influence. But they're choosing the easy way -- and who would ever argue against kids? This perilous decision has not been finalized by LCDC yet, though it seems well along the road to approval. The time to stop it is now. We will be setting a dangerous precedent if this line is crossed. The Mayor and City Council are our only protection, let's hope they're watching.

A Dangerous Precedent

"It doesn't matter if it breaks the rules, it's for the children and no one will argue against it." These are words from a top school district official. No one can argue against helping children. You'd be vilified or labeled a child-hater. But I love kids. I stood in support of Sorenson Elementary and wrote a recent column complimenting the great teachers of our Coeur d'Alene schools. So, I'll do it. Let me step you through my argument against the school district's pending "partnership" with Lake City Development Corporation, LCDC, our city's urban renewal agency.

Step 1: Sorenson school must comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). School administrators estimate the cost at $280,000 for these improvements.

Step 2: LCDC, has been getting the tax increment money from school levies in their urban renewal area since 1997. The increment for all of Downtown, Northwest Blvd, Riverstone and Mill River has been enriching LCDC, not going to the schools. Either LCDC or the City Council could vote to change the rules and give the levy funds back to the schools, permanently, as happened in Boise. Such a move would be legal and would refund hundreds of thousands of dollars back to the school district, to be used for Sorenson's upgrades and more.

Step 3: School district officials did meet with the LCDC board, but not to ask for the school levy tax increment back. They asked for a hand out of $420,000 for Sorenson. Yes, much more than is needed for ADA compliance.

Step 4: Idaho law specifies that school funding come from the legislature, local property taxes or bona fide charity groups. That's all. I suppose these funding guidelines were set to limit the influence or political ties that might entangle a school district if they accepted money from outside sources. For example, what if tobacco companies wanted to donate to our schools? Would you be concerned about their influence? LCDC subsidizes large-scale private real estate development. Think about that.

Step 5: Sorenson school is located outside LCDC's urban renewal district. State law is clear on this: Urban renewal agencies are not allowed to operate outside their designated area. But elsewhere in Idaho, an urban renewal agency helped a sewer plant that was beyond its boundaries but served its district. Using this as justification, LCDC is now considering stepping over their borders to give Sorenson school the $420,000. This action would set a very dangerous precedent here in Coeur d'Alene. What might be next ... maybe LCDC would exercise its power of eminent domain outside its district? The possibilities are scary.

The school district is fully aware of all that I have just described. Its school board and administrators know the two responsible options to fund Sorenson are either to pass a bond levy or demand the return of the tax increment from past levies. They realize they are stepping over the intent of the laws governing both the school district's sources of funding and urban renewal's boundaries of influence. But they're choosing the easy way -- and who would ever argue against kids?

This perilous decision has not been finalized by LCDC yet, though it seems well along the road to approval. The time to stop it is now. We will be setting a dangerous precedent if this line is crossed. The Mayor and City Council are our only protection, let's hope they're watching.