|
Thursday, November 17, 2005 |
|||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
Archives
Incorporation question looms Posted: Thursday, Nov 17, 2005 - 02:30:54 pm PST By RUSS MILLER Bigfork Eagle
If people pushed for it, by this time next year Bigfork could be an incorporated city on equal footing with places like Columbia Falls, Whitefish or any of the other 40 Class 3 cities in Montana. Someone would have to come up with a boundary map, a charter, and a petition signed by at least 300 voters to get the proposal on the June 8 primary ballot.Then, if voters approve the idea, people could be voting for a Bigfork mayor and two city council members in the November 2006 general election. There are many big "ifs" in there, however, and the biggest being that no one is proposing such an idea, yet. "If we rush to judgment we would be making a huge mistake," Don Loranger, Bigfork Steering Committee chairman, said after last Thursday's five-hour meeting at Flathead Lake Lodge. Such a proposal would take a lot more research than what already has taken place, he added. The results of a community survey and a few meetings are not enough to warrant an excursion into incorporation. But it could happen. Ken Weaver, senior research associate at Montana State University's Local Government Center, came to Bigfork last week at the request of Bigfork Steering Committee members who wanted to know just what it would take to incorporate Bigfork. Weaver, along with Judy Mathre, associate director of MSU's Local Government Center, spent the first three hours of the meeting trying to determine whether incorporation was viable for Bigfork's future. What's at stake? A crowd of about 30 was on hand to discuss the reasons why incorporating Bigfork would be a good idea--but Weaver and Mathre dug deep into whether the community would be better served with some other form of local control. Land use advisory boards and community councils work well for other Montana communities, Weaver said, pointing out that they are widely used and accepted near Missoula. But land use advisory committees aren't working that well here, according to some Bigfork and Lakeside residents who attended last week's meeting. The problem, they pointed out, is that the boards have only an advisory capacity. The Bigfork Land Use Advisory Committee's recommendations are forwarded to the county planning board, which can choose to ignore the local board's wishes. The planning board's recommendations, in turn, can also be ignored by the county commissioners who have final say on land use issues. Incorporation may not solve that issue, Weaver replied. "The word 'control' doesn't fit well with municipality government," Weaver warned. "Municipalities can't really control land use in general terms." People at the meeting said they want to "control the destiny" of Bigfork. They want to "preserve the small town" atmosphere. They want "local authority" and a local government "responsive to the people." Those are good reasons for incorporation, Weaver admitted, but it may just be one form of government being exchanged with another. The difference would be felt mostly in accountability. "The government that's closest to home is the government most trusted," Weaver said. "The farther you get away from home the less government is trusted." But government at the local level isn't like "sliced bread," he added. Municipal government may not solve Bigfork's problems, "but it can be decisively important to a community." Incorporation--a primer "Many of us have opinions," Loranger told Weaver during the meeting, "but not many of us have the facts." Getting the facts on what it would take to incorporate is what the crowd came for, and Weaver and Mathre obliged. Only three communities have incorporated in Montana during the past 25 years: Fort Peck, Colstrip and Pinesdale. Each had concrete reasons for incorporating as well as financial incentives in doing so. Bigfork, on the other hand, isn't inheriting a money-maker like a large power-generating plant, factories, a dam, or nearby military base--things that offer communities a strong tax base. Bigfork offers only tourism. Furthermore, incorporation is not a simple process. Title 7 of state law addresses incorporation, and according to Weaver, "it's an absolute rat's nest." "Incorporating a community could take years to do," Mathre said, "and it's not an easy thing to do." It will definitely come at a cost, Weaver added. One that would be expensive up front for taxpayers but in the long run could have eventual payoffs. If incorporated, Bigfork would be a Class 3 city (cities with 1,000 to 1,500 inhabitants). On a per capita basis, people in a Class 3 city pay on average about $430 a year in taxes. That's comparable what people in Flathead County pay on a per capita basis. People in an incorporated Bigfork, however, should expect to pay more once the city is up and running, probably $500 a year in taxes because it's on the upper end of the Class 3 City scale. And that's for a city that's already up and running, Weaver and Mathre noted. A startup city would cost taxpayers much more. Once incorporated, Bigfork could apply for resort tax status like Whitefish has. A resort tax would add a 3 percent charge on such things as restaurant meals and hotel rooms that tourists typically pay for, but not grocery store items that local residents typically buy. Resort taxes are dependent on tourism. High gas prices and bad weather--even a washed-out road, like what happened recently on the Beartooth Highway--will cut into resort tax revenue. Cities with casinos receive gambling receipts from the state and that will provide a little revenue, as well. But what it comes down to is property taxes, Weaver said, and that revenue will be determined by city limits--the boundaries of an incorporated Bigfork. Setting the boundary There is a lot of research that would have to go into deciding where the city limits of Bigfork would begin, for example. That boundary would likely make or break whether an incorporation proposal could pass with local voters. At its smallest, the city limits would follow the Highway 35 corridor from the intersection of Highway 82 south to the village, and include everything west to the lake down to the county line. No city, however, can cross county lines under present state law. You wouldn't want the city limits to extend over an agricultural area, Weaver pointed out. Most farmers wouldn't want to be stuck paying city taxes for their rural area. "When you draw the lines, it also becomes a political question," Weaver said. "Why invite a fight with someone who doesn't want to incorporate?" By state law, a municipality would have to have at least 300 people to get started. Towns are classified as having fewer than 1,000 citizens. Then comes third class cities and second class cities with populations of 5,000 to 10,000 people. First class cities, like Kalispell, Bozeman and Helena, have 10,000 people or more. Each have different tax classifications. The best gauge of Bigfork's population would come from the U.S. Census that lists Bigfork as a community of 1,427 people. Although door-to-door surveys may come up with different numbers, there's no point in trying to come up with a higher number of residents for incorporation purposes, Weaver said. Even if you did come up with a higher population, you would have to convince state and county officials that the number is a better figure than what the federal government has come up with in the census. That's would be a tough argument, he added. Bigfork Steering Committee members have already drawn up three proposed boundaries for an incorporated Bigfork; the largest includes the Ferndale area north of the county line. That, however, would likely encompass too much rural land to make a municipality feasible, Weaver said. It would be best to start with a smaller city limit and then proceed with annexing nearby areas as time goes on. Annexing later is easier than trying to convince people on the fringes of the settlement with large property holdings to buy-in to the incorporation plan right off the bat. By state law, there would have to be "up to 500 people per square mile" for incorporation. That's a tricky and confusing formula, Weaver pointed out. You can have 500 people in one square mile and one person across the road to make 501 people in two square miles in order to incorporate a two-square-mile area, for example. That leaves a lot of playing room for setting boundaries, he added, but again, you'd look for smaller, not necessarily larger, boundaries. You would also want to look at the tax revenue generated from within the proposed boundary; excluding areas that would be burdensome on city services. An example is the situation with Evergreen and Kalispell, some people at the meeting pointed out. Kalispell wants the Highway 2 corridor where the stores have moved into for their tax revenue; but the city doesn't want to have to pay for extending city services into the Evergreen residential area. If someone working with the county's geographical Information System office was to come up with a proposed boundary of city limits, and 300 people signed a petition to incorporate this area, and voters passed the measure, the new city would have to have a charter. That, too, is fairly easy as MSU has "model charters" Bigfork could borrow. The next step would likely be finding three people to form the first mayor-council city government for Bigfork. A small city government Third-class cities typically have one mayor and two city council members. They can serve at large or represent wards. Now a "ward" system could be arranged for an incorporated Bigfork, Weaver said, but why make it difficult for people to run for office? "You want things to be a simple as possible," he explained. "You don't want to have to turn somebody down for office simply because they live on the wrong side of the street." Getting three people to run for office would be fairly easy in Bigfork, according to people attending last Thursday's meeting. What Bigfork doesn't lack is people who want to be involved. These people won't work for free and you can't expect them to, Weaver said. For a city such as Bigfork, it would have to pay a little something to make their time worthwhile. How much would have to be determined. "Mayors may come cheap," Weaver said, "but staffing can be expensive." A city such as Bigfork could get away with hiring a part-time attorney. Many small cities and towns "rent" an attorney to handle everyday legal duties. In Bigfork's case, however, as a startup city, this rental attorney is going to putting in a lot more hours than typical part-time attorneys working for established towns and small cities. The City of Bigfork would also likely need a full-time secretary and maybe at least some part-time help with book-keeping. Since planning and zoning are important issues to the residents, there would have to be a city planner, and now the costs are really adding up, Weaver said. Then there's the question of office space. Bigfork would have to have some form of a City Hall. Will taxpayers be willing to pay or this or settle for a double-wide trailer, at least for awhile? Bigfork has a fire department and medical crew, so that helps solve that question, Weaver said, but what about law enforcement? The city could contract with the county to put more deputies in the Bigfork area, but they are not going to enforce city ordinances. If you want to establish your own speed limits, for example, you will have to hire your own police officers, Weaver said. That will be very expensive. A full-time police force required at least three full-time officers and a few part-time officers, plus cars, insurance, and a police station of some sort. Then there may be the need for a municipal judge to if Bigfork enforces its own ordinances. The county jail, fortunately, will continue to suffice. However, crime can pay. "You would have to capitalize on the police department," Weaver said. "The courts can be cash cows for a municipality. DUIs are well-known money-makers." A small-town police force would have to be active so as to pay it's own way, Weaver pointed out. An active Barney Fife on Bigfork's streets, however, may not be welcomed by citizens who have grown accustomed to the way things run now. A likely alternative would be a joint city-county police force of some nature. Bang for the buck As Weaver estimated, taxes would run $500 per person in an incorporated Bigfork--that's on a per capita basis. A married couple would pay $1,000, for example. And that's for an existing city. Taxes would be higher for a startup city, and could get more expensive as time goes by, he indicated. This expectation also doesn't include other taxes people now pay like sewer and water fees, for example, as those would stay the same without benefiting the city. "You're not going to get there on the cheap," Weaver said. "It's going to cost money to incorporate." Incorporation, he added, should have happened years ago. It would have been cheaper. The longer the community waits, the more expensive incorporation will become. There are additional revenues that may come from the state but it will mostly be nickels and dimes compared to the big picture of funding a municipality. The proposed City of Bigfork would get some gas taxes from the state but that can only be spent on street maintenance. It could get some gambling money back but the way state law is worded the city would have to "fight" for it. "It's a financial road we can't guarantee," Weaver said. The gambling tax only applies to municipalities already in existence. The county gets 50 percent of the fines in its jurisdiction the state gathers from the highway patrol, so there would be a little income there from Highway 35 speeders, for example. Many of these add-on benefits hardly warrant mention, Weaver said. They will provide seemingly little income toward the city's general fund. It's the property taxes that will be Bigfork's bread and butter. The resort tax, however, could make all the difference. Red Lodge gets at least $1 million and West Yellowstone gets $1 million to $1.2 million a year from their resort taxes, Weaver said, and that's more than enough for a city to conservatively operate on. "It's how you spend it," Weaver said about resort tax revenue. "Don't go out and buy a pickup. Invest it in parks, for example." But Bigfork is not West Yellowstone, he added. And a resort tax would have to be voter-approved. Do the owners of restaurants, bars and motels in Bigfork want to raise their prices to generate this income? A resort tax could take as much as a third off the tax burden of Bigfork property owners; "it could be a significant source of revenue," he said. Nuts and bolts of incorporation John Bourquin, chairman of the steering committee's government subcommittee, said the meeting with Weaver and Mathre "presented good, basic information," but there remains too many unanswered questions. "The big question is what happens to property taxes," Bourquin said after the meeting. "Hopefully within a few weeks we will have an answer to that question." Bigfork Steering Committee members are looking into what kind of tax revenues would be generated under various city boundary proposals but are far from coming up with concrete figures on whether Bigfork could afford to strike out on its own. If control over planning and zoning is the goal, you may get it with incorporation, Weaver said during the meeting, but incorporation will only allow you to regulate conditions within city limits that likely will tightly surround areas already developed. An incorporated Bigfork would have no control over development outside its city limits. A farmer, therefore, could subdivide property for condos without much interference from the City of Bigfork, he pointed out. Bigfork could exercise a sphere of influence, much like Kalispell does, in areas extending one mile out of the city limits. But again, Weaver pointed out, Kalispell is a big city with the existing services of a planning department, attorneys, and the most important word, "power." Something a startup city like Bigfork likely won't have. "Municipalities do not solve every human problem," Weaver said. The only other option remaining would be to try and improve the present form of representation, the advisory council. "This was the starting point for those who have an interest to incorporate or not to incorporate," Bourquin said. "I was glad to see we had a large number of people in attendance." But the question remains. Could Bigfork incorporate by this time next year? "We will have to move at warp speed," Bourquin replied.
Comments
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||
