Kalispell council debates scope and timing of proposed sidewalk and trails assessment district

City staff returned a subcommittee’s work on a proposed sidewalk and trails assessment district and presented two principal assessment scenarios to the City Council: a 0.015 per‑square‑foot rate and a lower 0.01 rate, with different allocations across programs such as a 50/50 sidewalk cost‑share program, trail maintenance, trail reconstruction, ADA intersection improvements, and bike lanes.

Staff member Mr Russell told the council the higher 0.015 rate would produce larger annual allocations and allow the city to bond for several connecting‑trail or sidewalk projects and increase the 50/50 program funding. Russell said a lower 0.01 rate would reduce the number and scope of possible projects and would require trimming annual allocations for some programs.

Councilors debated program priorities and timing. Councilor Hunter said he views trails and sidewalks as core infrastructure and favored a package that funds multiple program areas, but he favored a level that would keep average residential assessments below about $100 per year. “I believe this stuff is just as important infrastructure as anything else we do,” Hunter said.

Several councilors voiced concerns about asking voters for new revenue now. Councilor Graham said raising assessments at this time would be “tone deaf” to household budgets and noted residents already face costs from homeowners associations and recent levies. Councilor Nunnally, Councilor Carlson and Councilor Pershing urged prioritizing maintenance of existing trails and sidewalks rather than creating a broad new program. Pershing and others warned that without a dedicated maintenance stream, existing trails could lapse into disrepair and create safety and liability risks.

Councilors also questioned specific line items: several members opposed annual funding for high‑maintenance painted “sharrow” bike markings and recommended limiting funding to signage and mapped designated bike routes; others pressed staff on whether the city could reallocate existing budgeted funds rather than going to voters. Councilor Natalie (first name not specified in the record) asked that the council avoid competing near‑term ballot measures if the county plans a jail funding request soon, saying she would not support a new city levy while a larger regional jail measure was expected.

Councilors and staff discussed practical details raised during the meeting: trail maintenance needs were estimated in the presentation at about $60,000 per year under one allocation scenario, and staff listed $677,000 per year as a full depreciation target for trail reconstruction funding (figures from the staff presentation). A councilor observed that it costs roughly $30,000 to place a question on the ballot.

No formal vote was taken. Council members asked staff to further review priorities and available budget options and to return with follow‑up analysis during the budget process. Several councilors said they would prefer a narrower, fully funded proposal (for example, a focused sidewalks measure or a dedicated trails‑maintenance funding source) rather than a broad, lower‑funded package that spreads limited revenue across many programs.

The item remained in discussion; staff indicated it would provide additional budget clarifications and possible scaled options for council consideration later in the budget cycle.