Kalispell council to talk budget

The Daily Inter Lake

The deadline is creeping up for the Kalispell City Council to start nailing down figures for its 2008-'09 budget.

The state deadline for city governments to finalize budgets is Sept. 30. But Kalispell is thinking about applying for an extension.

The council is scheduled to adopt the easy parts of the budget tonight, while chewing over the difficult pieces.

At its regular 7 p.m. meeting, the council expects to adopt about 80 percent of its overall 2008-'09 budget. That would be the $42.373 million that is not part of the general fund.

The council also is scheduled to vote on whether to add a fire-engine-response fee of $250 for every vehicle accident within city limits, and an ambulance-response fee of $200 for every out-of-town call.

Kalispell residents would be exempt from these fees, if passed.

Also if passed, the resolution would allow the Fire Department to charge insurance companies for medical supplies when permitted by a patient's insurance.

The tough part of tonight's meeting will be during the workshop session after the regular meeting, when the council continues about three months of mulling over the general fund. No votes are legally allowed during workshop sessions.

The general fund pays for much of the everyday operation and administration of the city. About 80 percent of the general fund pays for firefighters, police officers and parks employees, plus some Planning Department, municipal court and city attorney's workers, as well as the council members' salaries.

Right now, the last general fund proposal called for $10.78 million in expenses. But that still is about $167,000 more than predicted revenue for 2008-'09.

The $167,000 could come from the city's cash reserves, dropping that fund from roughly $473,000 to almost $306,000. However, the rule of thumb for a city of Kalispell's size calls for cash reserves of more than $1 million to be considered financially solid.

Throughout the summer, the city staff has resisted pressure to cut jobs, pinning its hopes on the council approving a parks operations-and-maintenance tax that would raise roughly $540,000 annually - removing that amount from the general fund obligations.

But in mid-August , the council decided to put the proposed parks tax to a public referendum in November - killing the staff's hopes of raising the extra income for the 2008-'09 fiscal year, which began July 1.

City Manager Jim Patrick has told the council several times that a balanced general fund without the parks tax probably would lead to job cuts. At the same time, the council gradually increased pressure on Patrick to trim the work force.

The city employs roughly 200 people.

At a Sept. 8 workshop session, council members balked at the proposed job cuts, contending six is too many and budget cuts should be sought elsewhere

All six targeted jobs are held by union members. They have chances to bump less-senior union workers in other city jobs they are qualified to do.

The six positions are:

. The Parks Department receptionist, plus a recreation coordinator.

. The Planning Department code enforcement officer.

. Two fire prevention specialists in the Fire Department.

. A municipal court clerk.

Patrick also recommended that the hours be cut for two Planning Department employees plus the Police Department's crime analyst.

The number of seasonal recreational employees also would be trimmed, and there would be a major reduction in recreational programs.

The removal of two of the Fire Department's three fire-prevention inspectors, plus the elimination of the code enforcement officer, brought protests from the council.

Council members said - and the staff agreed - that removing two fire inspectors and the code officer would hurt the city's ability to head off future troubles, especially when new buildings have been sprouting at a fast pace. Cutbacks in inspections now could lead to major safety problems within a few years, council members and staff said.

Council members have made numerous suggestions about where to look for potential general-fund cuts.

Some wanted to trim money for education, traveling and memberships in associations. Gasoline savings also were sought.