Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Community Development Fund topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Libby council debates limits, application process for Living Development Fund
Summary
Councilors debated tightening the Living Development Fund to prohibit infrastructure spending, separate loans from grants and create clearer application rules after earlier ad hoc awards drew criticism about accountability.
Libby city councilors spent significant time at their meeting discussing proposed amendments to the city's Living Development Fund policy, focusing on what projects should be eligible and how the city should allocate limited community development dollars.
Council members agreed on one clear change: the fund should not be used for infrastructure. Several councilors asked that the word "infrastructure" be inserted in the policy's prohibition so that applicants and staff avoid confusion about what the fund will support.
The larger debate centered on whether the city should issue loans, grants or provide partnership funding. One council member said the city should not make loans from the fund and recommended the policy explicitly state "the city will not issue loans from the fund." Other members argued for continuing to partner with local organizations — for example, contributing funds to leverage outside money for projects such as ball fields — rather than writing unrestricted checks.
Several councilors raised concerns about the prior process for handling fund requests. Councilor Burgerer said he lacked confidence in the existing application and evaluation process and urged the body to design a clear application and follow-up accountability, including basic reporting on how awarded funds were spent. Others pointed to examples of local private foundations that require a short budget and a final use report as a workable model.
City staff said they would redraft the policy to (1) add a prohibition on infrastructure spending, (2) separate explicit language banning loans from language permitting grants or partnering support, and (3) clarify the application and follow-up reporting process so council members can evaluate competing proposals side-by-side.
The council did not take a final vote on the amended policy at the meeting; members asked staff to incorporate the changes and return the draft for further consideration at a future meeting.
