Stevensville council debates budget and wages resolution after packet spreadsheet discrepancies

Stevensville — Councilmember Wagner moved and Councilmember Rose seconded a motion to approve “resolution number 5 7 4, a resolution adopting budget and adopting wages and salaries for the town of Stevensville, Montana, fiscal year 2526,” prompting extended discussion about the town’s worksheets, cash reserves and line-item calculations.

Why it matters: The resolution would adopt the town’s budget and the wages and salaries schedule for the coming fiscal year, decisions that affect municipal services, employee pay and how the town spends reserves. Residents and council members pressed staff about apparent mismatches between the packet materials and the state-form numbers used for submission.

During public comment before the item was taken up, resident Jim Cruz asked the council to publish wages and salaries included in the resolution, citing the Montana Constitution. He said, “The people have a right to know how much each position in this town is costing them, and what to expect for their hard earned money.”

Council members then asked for staff to explain a set of summary worksheets that accompanied the detailed appropriation pages in the packet. Town staff (identified in the transcript as Robert) and Finance Officer Gina explained that the official appropriation and revenue lines sent to the state did not change; the additional “cheat sheet” worksheets are working summaries designed to show cash-on-hand and reserve percentages. Staff said the state sheet requires specific fields (appropriation and taxable valuation) and that the summary view can change how cash-available numbers display, which led to questions from multiple council members.

Council discussion focused on: the meaning of a “balanced” budget under the state form (total requirements equaling total resources), whether cash reserves meet the council’s target percentage, and which figures should be relied on for public distribution. One council member urged trust in Robert’s bookkeeping, saying he has “stepped up” since 2019 and knows the numbers. Other council members pressed for corrected formulas on the summary worksheets before final approval.

Council members and staff identified several specific items and clarifications during the discussion: an intended $3,000 allocation for EMT training that had been discussed previously but not clearly reflected in the packet; planned purchases of pumps (staff said pumps were budgeted at approximately $6,000 each); a continuing annual net cost for the municipal pool (discussed as a recurring loss council members referenced when considering cuts); and the approximate annual cost of a police officer (cited in discussion as about $113,000).

Council members also flagged a numerical discrepancy between the numbers in the packet and the numbers produced by the state-form calculations; one participant calculated a difference of about $202,009.48 between the packet’s “cash-available” column and the state-sheet result. Staff said the appropriation lines that constitute the formal budget had not changed and that the discrepancy related to the auxiliary summary worksheet formulas.

The transcript records the motion to approve Resolution 574 and its second, but the roll-call vote or final outcome is not recorded in the provided excerpt of the meeting.

What’s next: Council members asked staff to correct the summary-sheet formulas and to provide the state-form numbers and the summary worksheets that match what will be filed. Several members asked for clearer itemization for items discussed (EMT training, pump purchases, pool subsidy). The council did not record a final vote in the provided transcript excerpt.