City to discuss taking over maintenance of Coeur d'Alene Lake Drive - Coeur d'Alene Press: Local News

City to discuss taking over maintenance of Coeur d'Alene Lake Drive

Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Posted: Monday, October 1, 2012 12:00 am

COEUR d'ALENE - All roads lead to public discourse.

The Coeur d'Alene City Council open house meeting regarding the Idaho Department of Transportation's offer to give the city roughly 5 miles of Coeur d'Alene Lake Drive and $3 million will be 5 p.m. Monday, Oct. 8 in the Community Room of the Coeur d'Alene Public Library.

ITD no longer wants to maintain the old highway, and is offering the stretch of road to the city.

Annual upkeep on the road would cost the city $13,160, according to the street superintendent, which the department said it could afford.

The property up for grabs traces the old road but extends to water's edge in spots, creating public access to the lake, including an area at Silver Beach that the city has said would make a good location for a boat launch.

Officials said before they make a decision on the offer, they'd like to hear input from neighbors and others about the possible deal.

The 5-mile stretch is just east of city limits, but in the city's identified area of impact, meaning it could be annexed into the city at some point in the future.

More about

More about

More about

  • Discuss

Welcome to the discussion.


  • meidaho posted at 4:03 am on Wed, Oct 3, 2012.

    meidaho Posts: 249

    This is a bad idea for everybody...
    1st – there are property owners along CDA Lake drive that own property on both sides of the road down to the water. Is the city of CDA going to take some of this private property for a boat launch or parking? Will the existing property owners along CDA Lake drive get fair compensation for the loss or use of their land? And how many millions will that cost the city?
    2nd – there is not enough space for parking. So the public and/or CDA will be encroaching on lots of private property owners for space.
    3rd – The right-of-way along CDA Lake Drive does not extend from the road all the way down to the water! I know for fact that some of the stuff placed along the trail was outside of the rite-of-way and was actually on private property!!! The only reason this was not made an issue was threats made to private property owners that their property would be condemned!!! So the private property owners were afraid to fight for compensation for the illegal use of their land by the state/county.
    4th – CDA has no business owning and running a business outside of the current CDA city limits. This is a major liability and many lawsuits just waiting to happen.

  • Betrayer of Hope posted at 8:33 am on Tue, Oct 2, 2012.

    Betrayer of Hope Posts: 135

    "All roads lead to public discourse."

    ha ha. That's funny.

  • estatetracker posted at 1:23 pm on Mon, Oct 1, 2012.

    estatetracker Posts: 348

    There is a bigger reason the State wants to pawn it off; there is a bigger reason the City of CDA would even consider taking over the road--there is alot more at play here than meets the eye.

    Roads alone don't generate any income that can be used to maintain said road, the City will need to cover those cost somewhere, whether it be in forced annexation, rent of the road to Hagadone for his hydro races, another LCDC expansion, or, when all else fails an increased tax for the rest of the City.

    The income needs to come from somewhere and this isn't a cheap road--old highways along lakes never are.

    I certainly hope that a line-item analysis is done on the long-term "true" cost of ownership of the 5 miles is done by the City. Hope that analysis would include, liability, law enforcement, fire, emergency services, Legal, Planning and Zoning, repair of an already congested right-of-way (what is under the road and ditches), maintenance of the shoreline park (including age old trees that keep falling apart), etc, etc.

    Or in other words, there is no way "ownership" can cost only 13k a year, unless you believe that the State of Idaho is so rich that it would give the City the equiviliant of over two-hundred years of money (the $3-million promised) for the City to "take" the road.

    Something is amiss--and I would NOT look for it at OpenCDA.

  • spudman1 posted at 9:56 am on Mon, Oct 1, 2012.

    spudman1 Posts: 486

    And how many California Citys have gone bankrupt? !3,000 dollars a year maintence for five miles of paved road? Who can believe that? Also, for the dummies, there no private property to tax on a State owned right of way.

  • LTRLTR posted at 8:19 am on Mon, Oct 1, 2012.

    LTRLTR Posts: 1171

    To the Coeur d'Alene Press: Will you interview ITD and print your findings here?

  • LTRLTR posted at 8:17 am on Mon, Oct 1, 2012.

    LTRLTR Posts: 1171

    Below are a few of Idaho Transportation Department minutes. Please note the maintenance costs noted in the April 18 minutes. Now ask yourself if the City is telling our community the real facts?

    July 18, 2012-Idaho TransportationDepartment (ITD) minutes: Coeur d’Alene Lake Drive. DE Allen said negotiations are continuing with the City of Coeur d’Alene on the relinquishment of Coeur d’Alene Lake Drive. The City Council plans to consider the draft agreement in mid-August. The proposal includes the state’s relinquishment of the route and $3 million. The agreement includes other components, such as ITD’s removal of the bridge and assistance if a significant slide occurs at Redman Hill, impacting the road. Removing the bridge is estimated to cost $300,000.

    April 18, 2012: Proposed Relinquishment of Old US-10, Coeur d’Alene Lake Drive, District 1. ITB Vice Chairman Coleman indicated that the City of Coeur d’Alene is still interested in assuming jurisdiction of Coeur d’Alene Lake Drive. DE1 Allen provided history on this route. As a result of the construction of I-90, the approximately 5.5 miles of old highway no longer function as a state route and dead-ends. ITD conducted document research on ownership (i.e. in fee, easement) and a plan to convey the road to the City. The City is reviewing the draft agreement and intends to provide its comments soon. ITD made a cash offer of $2.5 million based on 10 years of maintenance costs plus 20-years of improvements. The District has submitted this project for funding in the updated Highway Investment Program.

    December 04, 2011: Member Coleman said the city would like jurisdiction of the road and is exploring a land trade with the Hagdone Corporation to construct a boat ramp. Chairman Blick reiterated the desire to keep the road and property in the public’s hands. He asked if the road could revert back to ITD if the city no longer wants it in the future. DAG Allen replied yes, language to that effect could be incorporated into the agreement with the exception of Higgins Point. That property belongs to the Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation.Begin typing here...

  • wheels1 posted at 8:15 am on Mon, Oct 1, 2012.

    wheels1 Posts: 461

    I'm mostly pro everything the city takes on but I would think annual upkeep will be considerably more than $13,160.What's the true net benefit? Annexation,taxes?The land plus $ 3 mil almost sounds to good to be true.Anyone?

  • concernedcitizen posted at 8:01 am on Mon, Oct 1, 2012.

    concernedcitizen Posts: 2530


    I think ProIdaho was just spelling it out for us stupid taxpayers that are footing the bill. After all, EVERYONE should know that spending millions on a park that is already a park will attract career level sustainable jobs.

    Remember what the mayor promised. JOBS JOBS JOBS! She never said they weren't going to be those $3.35 plus tip slave labor jobs serving her elite high-rise condo dwelling friends.

  • concernedcitizen posted at 7:54 am on Mon, Oct 1, 2012.

    concernedcitizen Posts: 2530


    Great comment "Hmmm, how soon after this property "transfer" will LCDC's taxing district get extended to the Silver Beach area........I wonder."

    But those like you and I are just a bunch of ignorant conspiracy theorists and no one is smarter than the FAB4 and their stakeholder friends

  • LTRLTR posted at 7:54 am on Mon, Oct 1, 2012.

    LTRLTR Posts: 1171

    Go to and read a document from Idaho Transportation Dept. and see the real costs.

    Cda. Council already mentioned they plan on talking with East Sherman property owners about urban renewal. I then expect the City to annex Cda. Lakes Drive into the city and extend urban renewal boundaries to help pay for a new boat launch. Can you visualize the new high-rises built on the hill overlooking Cda. Lake like Mr. Hagadone’s Condos?

    Should the City annex residential properties, they will be required by law to have a plan to remove septic tanks and add those properties to the sewer.

  • voxpop posted at 7:48 am on Mon, Oct 1, 2012.

    voxpop Posts: 738

    Proidaho - I think you might have missed Concerned's sarcasm.

  • ProIdaho posted at 7:29 am on Mon, Oct 1, 2012.

    ProIdaho Posts: 260

    Hmmm, how soon after this property "transfer" will LCDC's taxing district get extended to the Silver Beach area........I wonder.

    @concernedcitizen, remember it is just "phase one". The original $40 million will eventually be will just be peace-mealed over time.

  • concernedcitizen posted at 6:55 am on Mon, Oct 1, 2012.

    concernedcitizen Posts: 2530

    And the shell game continues...................

    Only $14 million for McEuen.. Uh huh.

  • Talkjoc posted at 5:47 am on Mon, Oct 1, 2012.

    Talkjoc Posts: 40

    I'm thinking the city likes the idea because THAT's where portable seating would be installed for hydroplane races. If the city gets the road and $3-million, a million could be banked as a reserve fund for maintenance while the $2-million used for a potential boat launch and other public access. IMO, the boat launch is in a bad spot. Moving it is not that big of an inconvience. Additional launches is a good thing.

  • JustMy2Cents posted at 5:36 am on Mon, Oct 1, 2012.

    JustMy2Cents Posts: 40

    You're absolutely right local res - they must still want to move the boat launch.

  • local res posted at 5:27 am on Mon, Oct 1, 2012.

    local res Posts: 1165

    Just say no. The city is only interested in this because of the McEuen park fiasco. They bring no added benefits only increased taxes.

default avatar
Welcome to the site! Login or Signup below.
Not you?||
Logout|My Dashboard