Sandpoint council rejects proposal to waive employee memberships at James E. Russell Sports Center

The Sandpoint City Council on Dec. 4 voted against a proposed resolution that would have waived membership fees at the James E. Russell Sports Center for city employees.

Council members framed the discussion around employee recruitment and retention, program costs and fairness; public commenters and some councilors urged alternatives or narrower approaches. The resolution failed on a roll-call vote after more than an hour of debate and public comment.

Council members and staff opened the discussion with background on the center and earlier council direction. Mayor Jeremy Grama noted the item had been postponed from a prior meeting and that staff had circulated poll results and comparisons to other municipalities. Director Jason Welker presented operational details about the new sports center—membership pricing, proposed hours and early membership uptake—and summarized the employee survey that city staff had returned: 30 responses, most saying they would not use a free membership regularly and that they would not pay $40 per month if the benefit were not provided.

Public comment was mixed but included sharp criticism. Catherine Fardick Farrick told the council, “There is no free lunch in economics,” and said she opposed subsidizing memberships with taxpayer dollars. Rebecca Pollan, a long-time local resident and frequent commenter, argued the proposal “reeks a conflict of interest” and urged council focus on affordable housing instead.

Council discussion ranged from legal and tax implications to narrower alternatives. Council members noted steps other cities take—complimentary or discounted employee access to municipal recreation centers—but also raised the point that many of those facilities do not rely on membership revenue to cover operations the way Sandpoint’s fee structure is intended to help. A council member said a staff-provided membership would likely be treated as taxable income under the applicable tax rules; staff advised the council that payroll and legal would need to verify those details.

Council president Rolle moved the resolution; a second was recorded by Espiro. Council debate produced two alternatives during the discussion: (1) a one-year pilot to collect utilization data, and (2) purchase of a small number of corporate passes that the city could check out to staff. An amendment to make the waiver a one-year trial was proposed, then rescinded during debate. Legal counsel advised the council that, depending on how a benefit is structured and the justification offered, there may be defensible, nondiscriminatory ways to limit the benefit to employees who work in the facility, but staff said they would need to work with HR and legal to craft policy language.

At final roll call the motion to waive memberships failed. The clerk recorded the vote as follows: Councilor Duquette — No; Councilor Ruhl — Yes; Councilor Howard — No; Councilor Espiro — No; Councilor Spiro — No; Councilor Schreiber — No. The mayor declared the motion failed.

Councilors and staff left several next steps on the table: pursue a defensible carve-out or job-level benefit for Russell Center staff, explore non‑membership corporate-pass options, and return with clearer payroll/tax guidance. Mayor Grama said he would support a limited one-year trial if the council chose that path, but he did not cast the deciding vote.

Votes at a glance

- Consent calendar (regular payables and payroll): approved on roll call earlier in the meeting; clerk recorded the vote during the consent item roll call. - Resolution to waive James E. Russell Sports Center membership fees for city employees: moved by council president Rolle, seconded by Espiro — outcome: failed (roll call recorded above). - Motion to enter executive session under Idaho code for legal counsel consultation: moved, seconded and approved by roll-call vote; council adjourned the public meeting for the executive session.

For now, the center will operate under the existing fee schedule. Staff said they will return with further legal and fiscal analysis if the council asks them to pursue an employee-limited benefit or a pilot approach.