The problem with Kalispell’s proposed parks district is the fact that it’s not really a proposal. The only way the public can stop it is if 50 percent of the property owners in the city protest its creation. The council would have done better not soliciting our input at all.
Turnout in anything other than general elections in the Flathead Valley is often dismal – as it is elsewhere. Special ballots for various bonds and boards often draw just a smattering of voters to the polls. So for the city to require half of all those eligible, property-owning Kalispellians to protest in writing, or taxes will be raised, is disingenuous.
Or, as Eloise Hill deftly put it at last week’s council meeting, “using this strategy is strictly a way to play for public apathy.” And, unfortunately, an obscure proposal put forth in the doldrums of summer will be greeted with just that.
In this case, the city has sent out 7,400 letters to property owners telling them about the proposed district and, as of early last week, had received just 129 back – most of them protests, but far fewer than the 50 percent threshold needed to stop its implementation. As a Kalispell property owner, I vaguely remember receiving this in my mailbox, but I’m sure I apathetically tossed it away.
The problem with that: I would likely have supported the parks request. One of the most appealing parts of our city is its massive green spaces – from Woodland to Lawrence parks. To me, this helps offset the fact that a busy highway clogged with semis cuts straight through downtown.
The proposed district would assess a rate of 0.0055 of the parcel size in square feet. For example, a 7,000-square-foot lot would pay about $38.50 annually; a 4,000-square-foot lot $22 in that time. That, to me, is well worth the upkeep of area parks, but I’m sure there are many who feel the exact opposite. And the underhanded method of getting it passed is no way to win over those already skeptical of the city’s budgeting priorities.
Besides, City Manager Jim Patrick cited at the council meeting a survey indicating 80 percent of voters support forming a park maintenance district. If that’s truly the case, then an up-and-down vote should give the city its desired result: resounding approval. But that, of course, allows the risk for failure.
Patrick and the council are in unenviable positions. Everything from health insurance for city employees to the cost of filling potholes has skyrocketed in recent years. Meanwhile, city governments statewide have been limited by a law passed in 1999 that limits how much they can raise taxes to one half the rate of inflation averaged over three years.
Since then, municipalities have railed against the cap, tried to get the state Legislature to overturn it, while scrambling to find ways to raise money without cutting staff, allowing infrastructure to crumble or parks to become overgrown. Already, Kalispell’s general fund, which pays for park maintenance, is dwindling. And the city’s cash reserve is projected to have a mere $55,000 left by 2013. The outlook is bleak.
In reality, the council, which is scheduled to vote on the parks measure on Aug. 18, has more pressing concerns than whether Kalispell voters want to pay a few extra dollars a month to maintain parks. But that’s not the point.
Everyone, it seems, is being pinched by rough economic times. While weathering them, many voters have even become a bit apathetic – even more than usual. And this proposal’s good intentions will be lost if implementing it takes advantage of that apathy.