Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Local Option Tax topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sandpoint council authorizes public survey on 1% local-option sales tax; sewer funding noted as legally constrained
Summary
Council reviewed draft survey language to assess voter appetite for a 1% local-option sales tax to fund prioritized capital projects (streets, parks, waterfront access, sustainability, or housing). Staff highlighted legal limits on using LOT revenue for enterprise sewer costs and will revise messaging and questions.
Council instructed staff to refine and circulate a public survey testing support for a 1% local-option sales tax (LOT) and to return with clearer, project-specific ballot language.
Jason presented a draft survey that explains what a LOT is, who pays it and why a city might use it. He emphasized the statutory requirement for a 60% supermajority in Idaho and noted a timing issue: Sandpoint is expected to exceed 10,000 population in 2030, which could change eligibility under state law.
The draft asked respondents to rank uses for LOT revenue, focusing on specific, visible projects rather than broad categories. Examples proposed included targeted street and sidewalk projects, downtown-to-waterfront connections, a named local park acquisition opportunity (informally referenced during the workshop), public-access waterfront improvements, and park/trail investments such as the Pend Oreille Bay Trailhead.
Multiple councilors and staff cautioned that using LOT revenue for sewer treatment may be legally problematic because enterprise funds and general-fund LOT revenue typically may not be commingled. One staff member said previous legal analysis suggested constraints on applying LOT proceeds to utility enterprise costs; council asked staff to confirm that in writing and, if legal, to show the fiscal effect on monthly utility bills before including it in public materials.
Several members stressed the importance of clear messaging and enumerated projects. "Voters don't want to support money for something vague," one councilor said, urging staff to provide specific project descriptions and to clarify whether funds would be used to reduce residents' utility bills or to build amenities funded partly by nonresidents.
Staff will revise the survey to use plain language, remove legally impermissible options if confirmed (for example, sewer-treatment funding), add clear project examples and incorporate council feedback. The council authorized outreach to get community preferences ahead of any November ballot decision.
