Resolution 6011 - Transfer of KGA Assets to Whitefish Community Fund Public Comment from Brad WrightBrad Wright
233 Arbour Drive E
Kalispell
Jan. 19, 2021 City Council meeting
Re: Resolution 6011 - Transfer of KGA Assets to Whitefish Community Fund
Dear Mayor and City Council,
I urge you to vote against Resolution 6011, which states - "The City Manager is authorized to act
as the Advisor for the Agency Fund with the Whitefish Community Fund and the Kalispell Golf
Association on behalf of the City of Kalispell." As mentioned in the resolution, the intent is to
give the city manager exclusive authority to provide advisory input over capital projects at the golf
course without Council approval.
There is no limit to the amount of funding that could be involved. It is conceivable certain capital
projects at the golf course could be very expensive, which you may want to approve of because
you may object to them or want them modified. Also, with the city manager acting on behalf of
the KGA, the other users of the golf course are not represented, such as the kids who sled down
the hills and folks who stroll down by the river in winter. This resolution gives the city manager
exclusive discretion regarding those discussions, and it is not reasonable to think he would advise
for anything against what the KGA board approves of.
It makes no sense to me the city would send the city manager back and forth to Whitefish to attend
meetings with the Whitefish Community Fund, who are predominately Whitefish residents, to
discuss capital improvement projects on City of Kalispell property. Surely, with all the local
attorneys and accountants being Buffalo Hill Golf Course members, another solution can be found
to not involve having to pay for the city manager to travel back and forth to Whitefish and pay the
Whitefish Community Fund administrative fees for the relatively minor amount of a little over
$7300. I suggest you retain the ability to act in the interests of the city regarding the golf course,
and if other opportunities arise regarding city property in the future, to retain that ability also. I
also think it is important for the public to be involved in the discussion of matters regarding city
property and not just rely on the city manager.
More importantly, this is another example of giving the city manager too much authority without
Council or public oversight. Kalispell Municipal Code Chapter 2, Article 4, Section 2-29, states -
"The City Manager shall execute bonds, notes, contracts and written obligations of the City
Council, subject to the following limitations: All bonds, notes, contracts and written obligations,
including accumulated contract change orders in excess of eighty thousand dollars ($80,000.00)
must have prior written approval of the City Council regardless whether or not previously
approved in the annual city budget."
The footnote to Budget Resolution 5987, the budget appropriation fund resolution you passed on
Aug. 19, 2020 regarding the annual city budget, appears to be an attempt by city staff to
circumvent the Code. It states - "SECTION 3. The City Manager is hereby granted budget
amendment authority for the expenditure of funds from any or all of the following: debt service
funds, enterprise funds, internal service funds, trust funds, federal and state grants accepted and
approved by the City Council, special assessments and donations."
One example of these types of funds is the state grant funded HB 124 entitlement share fund
program. Under HB 124, a variety of revenue sources that originally went to local governments go
to the state general fund. To replace this revenue for local governments, the state provides local
governments with a HB 124 entitlement share grant fund payment which, presumably, the city has
received for years. There are very few references in the city's budget documents with anything
named "HB 124 grant" other than in the city manager's memos.
The city manager's memo for July 17, 2020 shows $2,983,73 8 in revenue from the HB 124
entitlement share grant. These funds are not mentioned in the city manager's memo narrative and
no explanation has been provided for where these funds have or will be allocated. The city
manager's memo also shows a $1,700,000 transfer to "Forestry (FYI 8,19) Westside", but I cannot
find an account that combines the Forestry and Westside funds in the city's financial documents,
they are listed as separate accounts, and it is doubtful there are Forestry Department tree pruning
projects from Fiscal Year 18/19 that were intended to be funded with $1,700,000 in 2020.
Similarly, the Montana Coronavirus Relief Fund grant program webpage shows the city receiving
$2,434,925 in local government reimbursements in 2020. There have been no public hearings for
the expenditure of these funds. Also, there was no prior written approval by the Council for the
Relief Fund transfers because these funds appear to be transferred after being appropriated in
annual city budgets.
The city manager transferring funds through budget resolutions violates the Code. If the Council
had intended for the city manager to have that much discretion over expenditures in annual city
budgets, they would have modified the Code rather than empowering the city manager in a
footnote to a budget resolution. There is a big difference between $80,000 and nearly $6,000,000,
and I am confident there is much more than just these examples. I urge you to approve a resolution
eliminating SECTION 3 from Budget Resolution 5987 and future budget resolutions.
Sincerely,
Brad Wright
2