City needs to rein in spending

Whitefish has gone from an affordable place to live and raise a family to Montana's most expensive community — in less than a generation. Most citizens have a simple question. Why?

To compound this situation, the city government is proposing spending more than $73 million over the next five years for capital improvements projects or deferred city infrastructure repairs or replacements. Thus, the budgeting process of Whitefish is seeing increased scrutiny. Regretfully, the current explanations are as clear as mud.

Part of the problem is that Whitefish has been on a spending spree on a variety of nice-to-have features that cost a lot of money to build and even more to maintain. It appears that Whitefish pays a premium on these features compared to other communities.

Will we be expected to pay a premium on getting caught up on the deferred maintenance needs as well? More importantly, has Whitefish been so focused on the niceties that the necessities of city government were ignored?

For example, Whitefish city staff size has reached the point where their work environment is like sardines. Employees are packed into every nook and cranny in the current city hall, which was greatly expanded less than 15 years ago to support the then-size city staff. It is increasingly clear that at a minimum, an emergency service facility is needed.

However, many citizens of Whitefish have little sympathy for city staff's plight because of the increasing size of city government and the corresponding cost this is having on Whitefish taxpayers.

More importantly, city staff brings forth increasing costly projects without the corresponding satisfactory budget explanations. If this pattern continues, Whitefish City Hall will soon have a sign hanging in the Great Northern Bar.

When I questioned why it cost the city more than $1 million dollars for less than a mile for a city street (JP Road), it was explained that "things cost more in Whitefish."

Yet, the two-lane major highway construction taking place between Whitefish and Kalispell this summer is costing less than $11 million. The complete rebuild of the upper Big Mountain Road, with seven huge retaining walls, frequent blasting and tremendous earth-moving requirements, is less than $10 million.

Can someone please explain why Whitefish's bike paths cost more per mile than major two-lane highways?

The budgeting process for Whitefish's city government is a fair amount of smoke and mirrors and gobbledygook explanations from city manager Gary Marks. Budgets and their explanations should be understandable to each and every citizen. Whitefish's budget is not.

Whenever Gary Marks uses statistics to explain how "affordable" it is to live in Whitefish, I am reminded of former British Prime Minister Disraeli's observation: "There are lies, damn lies and statistics."

For example, Marks states that "unlike many cities, (Whitefish) will see no (property tax) increase for the fifth straight year." Folks, Whitefish properties have seen the largest property valuation increases for any community in Montana over the last decade, resulting in significant increases in "taxes" we paid.

When Marks parades out how much cheaper it is to live in Whitefish compared to other Montana cities, by citing governmental statistics, he fails to point out that Whitefish residents pay something each day that none of the other Montana communities Gary compares Whitefish to — a resort tax.

When we shop locally, which I encourage, and pay the resort tax (which is not included in the references cited by Gary Mark), Whitefish's "tax-supported budget funds" easily approaches $1,000 per city resident.

I certainly contributed well over $2,000 a year through the resort tax because I live, shop and dine in Whitefish — not to mention run various resorts and homeowner associations.

I am a big fan of the resort tax. I would have no problem having it raised to 3 percent — but only if I was more comfortable in city government being accountable. Right now I am not, and based upon the increasing number of citizen editorials, neither are an increasing number of Whitefish taxpayers.

If Marks wants to honestly compare how much it costs to live in various cities throughout Montana, he can simply compare Whitefish's total budget spending each year to total yearly budgets of Miles City, Laurel, Havre, Lewistown, Missoula, Bozeman, Kalispell and Columbia Falls.

Perhaps this actual comparison will better let us know the value we citizens of Whitefish are receiving compared to those spendthrift communities.

Tom Muri is a resident of Whitefish.