City has three options to fund land deal
Three main funding options are available to the city of Whitefish as it looks to generate $8 million for a 3,000 acre conservation easement in Haskill Basin.
The city needs the funds to finalize the easement with F.H. Stoltze Land and Lumber Co. The Trust for Public Land has secured the option to purchase development rights for the property. Stoltze has agreed to contribute and funds will come from federal grants to go toward the $20.6 million purchase.
However, that still leaves the city with a significant amount of money to raise by the end of the year. The three funding options to back the deal are an increase in the resort tax, a general obligation bond or an increase in water rates.
City Council in January voted to pursue a 1 percent increase in the resort tax. At the time, Councilor Andy Feury said he is committed to finding a way to raise the money.
“We’re going to fund this come hell or high water,” Feury said. “This [resort tax vote] is the first option for people to take a look at.”
Whitefish voters will decide in an April 28 special election whether to increase the city’s resort tax from 2 to 3 percent to fund the easement.
The resort tax is collected at restaurants and bars, retail and lodging in Whitefish. If approved the additional 1 percent collected would go toward property tax relief and a general obligation bond for the easement.
The 1 percent increase is estimated to generate about $1 million in additional funds annually. The city estimates it will need to generate about $9.9 million in revenue to pay for the 10-year loan backing the easement.
In the first year of the increase, the city expects to generate about $1.15 million in revenue. The city predicts collections from the tax to grow by at least 5 percent annually.
Over the 10-year span of the bond, the city predicts it will generate a total of $13.8 million from the 1 percent increase.
City Council has said that if the resort tax ballot measure fails it would be forced to look at the other funding options.
A second option is a general obligation bond, which would also have to be approved by the voters.
Two potential general obligation bonds would be possible to raise $8 million.
Under the 20-year bond, the cost for an average house would be about $100 per year for the life of the bond. Under a 10-year bond, the cost for an average house would be about $180 per year for the life of the bond.
A third option is for the city to increase water rates to pay for a water revenue bond. This could be done by a vote of the council.
Two potential water revenue bonds would be possible.
For a 10-year bond, the average residential water bill would increase by about $219 per year. Under a 30-year bond, the average residential water bill would increase by about $80 per year.
The financial impact on all commercial properties, including restaurants, is estimated based upon the average annual water bill. For a 10-year bond, commercial properties would see about a $900 increase per year. For the 30-year bond, the average commercial water bill would see an increase of about $330 per year.
The financial impact for restaurants only is estimated based upon the average annual water bill. For a 10-year bond, restaurants are estimated to see an increase of about $1,300 per year. Under the 30-year bond, an increase of almost $500 per year is estimated for the average annual water bill.