Did Your County Commissioners Put the City of Stateline in "Jail"?

Not exactly.

But we may have put its expansion plans into the penalty box.

And judging by the numbers, county taxpayers have been getting the short end of the deal for years.

Commissioner Eberlein and I recently voted to deny the City of Stateline's request for an Area of City Impact, limiting its ability to expand its boundaries through the normal annexation process.

Why?

Because growth should pay for itself. And Stateline has been sending the bill to you, the county taxpayer for many years. Let me explain.

A City of 39 People. A $175,193 Law Enforcement Tab.

Stateline isn't exactly a bustling metropolis. It has:

• 39 residents.

• 12 registered voters.

• And a whopping 447 calls for law enforcement in one year (dispatch and officer initiated).

Yes, you read that correctly.

That's more than 11 law enforcement events for every man, woman and child living in Stateline. Now comes the part that should make every Kootenai County taxpayer sit up straight.

According to the County Auditor, Stateline properties contributed approximately $1,942 in property taxes toward Sheriff's Office patrol services.

Using the Sheriff's Office average cost of $391.93 per call, those 447 events represent an estimated $175,193 in law enforcement costs.

• Estimated cost: $175,193

• Stateline Property tax contribution: $1,942

• Shortfall: $173,251.

That's quite a tab for a city with 39 residents.

And guess who's helping to pay for it?

You are.

To be clear, this calculation uses an average cost per event, not a separate accounting of the actual incremental costs of serving Stateline. Nevertheless, it illustrates the enormous imbalance between the city's patrol-tax contribution and the demands placed on county law enforcement.

What's Happening in Stateline?

You might reasonably ask: How does a city with 39 residents generate 447 law enforcement events?

Well, Stateline isn't your typical quiet residential community.

Within its boundaries are bars, a gentlemen's club, gas stations, tobacco shops and other businesses that attract customers from across Kootenai County and neighboring Washington.

Nothing wrong with operating lawful businesses.

But when those businesses generate excessive demand for law enforcement, somebody has to pay for the deputies who respond. And right now, that somebody is the Kootenai County taxpayer.

Stateline makes its own land-use and business decisions. But county taxpayers pay the public safety bill.

That's a pretty convenient arrangement — if you're Stateline. Not so convenient if you're the one paying property taxes.

So, What Did Your Commissioners Actually Do?

We said, "Not so fast."

Under Idaho law, cities seeking to expand their Area of City Impact must meet certain planning and ordinance requirements.

An Area of City Impact is the territory outside city limits where the city and county establish planning and land-use arrangements. It also plays an important role in potential future annexations.

Stateline did not have the required long-term comprehensive plan in place. Nor did it present a credible plan addressing how future growth would affect public safety demands and who would pay for them.

So Commissioner Eberlein and I voted against approving its requested Area of City Impact.

In plain English?

Before asking to grow your footprint, show us your plan.

And that plan should include how growth-related public safety costs will be addressed.

It's not complicated. It's responsible government.

The Bigger Problem: Cities Want Growth. Few Want the Bill.

This isn't just about Stateline.

It's about a much bigger problem facing Kootenai County and communities throughout Idaho.

Cities make decisions about development, density, annexation and commercial activity. Those decisions can increase demand for law enforcement and other county services.

But when cities don't provide their own police departments or adequately fund contracted law enforcement, much of that burden can fall on the Sheriff's Office.

And ultimately, county taxpayers.

Think about that.

A city can encourage growth, enjoy the economic activity and collect city revenues — while the county absorbs substantial public safety costs.

The city gets the growth. The county gets the bill.

And the taxpayer gets squeezed.

Nearly two-thirds of Kootenai County's general budget goes toward public safety and related responsibilities. These costs already place enormous pressure on county finances.

We cannot continue treating county taxpayers like an unlimited credit card for decisions made by cities and other taxing jurisdictions.

It's Time to Retire the Political Back-Scratching Schemes.

For too long, government relationships have operated with an unwritten understanding:

You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours.

That might make life easier for elected officials.

But it doesn't necessarily make life better — or more affordable — for taxpayers.

I wasn't elected to join the political back-scratching club.

I was elected to protect taxpayers, demand accountability and make sure growth pays its own way.

That means asking difficult questions, challenging longstanding arrangements and occasionally saying NO when saying yes would be politically easier.

Predictably, some city officials don't appreciate that approach. I understand why.

Nobody likes being told the free ride might be coming to an end.

Back to the Vote to Deny.

While we did vote against the City's request, we did provide a viable remedy that we hope the City of Stateline takes seriously.

We requested that the City come up with a plan to address how it will manage future growth and specifically address how it will fund public safety. We also requested that the City enter into an agreement to reimburse the County for the Sheriff's Office calls for service.

The good news is that two of your county commissioners did send a message:

You don't get to expand without meeting your planning obligations. And you shouldn't expect county taxpayers to endlessly subsidize the public safety costs of your decisions.

Stateline isn't the only city that needs to hear that message.

Growth is coming. We cannot — and should not — expect to stop it.

But we can demand that government start treating taxpayers with a lot more respect.

My policy position is simple: If your decisions create the costs, you need to take ownership of the bill.

Because when your elected officials are handing out free lunches, taxpayers are usually the ones stuck washing the dishes.

You deserve better!

P.S. Where is our media with this significant story? Here are the meetings if you want to see how your commissioners address important issues related to growth and your taxes.

First Hearing to Deny (already queued to correct time stamp):

The appeal hearing with the attorney's arguments (already queued to correct time stamp):