Sandpoint adopts $20.1M budget

SANDPOINT — It took them four workshops and a preliminary hearing, but the City Council was finally able to find common ground on a 2009/2010 budget Tuesday night, voting unanimously to pass the $20,135,627 ordinance.

Council members Michael Boge and Helen Newton were absent, but Newton participated in a portion of the meeting via telephone from Alaska, where she is on vacation.

With an uncertain economy over the horizon, the council opted for a leaner budget, cutting $6.7 million from last year’s document. Fifteen percent of the budget is funded from property taxes, which equates to approximately $349 per $100,000 of net market value, according to city documents. 

Among other items, the budget freezes most employee wages and cuts funds from the mayor’s office, Finance Department, sewer collection, water distribution, Public Works Administration, Planning Department, Recreation Depart-ment and police protection.

It took a good deal of time and a number of tough decisions to make the budget a reality, but Councilman John Reuter said he is happy with the final product.

“There are things here that aren’t great, obviously, because of the tough times we’re in, but I think the city of Sandpoint has done one of the best jobs of responding to this economic crisis,” he said.

Despite the unanimous vote, not every member of council was happy with the way the meeting transpired. Newton was especially upset, and showed her displeasure by hanging up the phone before casting a vote on the matter.

At issue was the way the council handled the debate, or lack thereof, on amendments to the budget, according to Newton. Before any discussion began, Reuter called for the question, which puts an end to debate and brings the matter to an immediate vote.

Newton, who planned on offering up an amendment, said the tactic was meant to stifle dissent.

“The motion by Councilman John Reuter to immediately call for the question, cutting off any and all discussion of the city’s budget before it could even begin, was a manipulation of the process that flies in the face of open or transparent government,” she said. “It and the unanimous approval and acceptance by (four) other council members illustrated blatant disrespect for a colleague, arrogance and immaturity.”

In defending the move, Reuter said everyone had been given ample time to voice concerns with the budget and said he was only trying to speed up the meeting, which has been a goal of many council members in recent months,

“My thinking was that I’ll make this motion and if I have four votes then we don’t need to let a single member of council, whoever that happens to be, grandstand or try to derail the budget process,” he said.

Reuter said his motion was not meant to be disrespectful, but Newton sees it differently.

“In my 28 years associated with city government, I have seldom seen a council act as shamefully as the City Council acted last night,” she said.