SANDPOINT — The Sandpoint City Council adopted the city’s fiscal year 2026 budget and fee schedule at its Aug. 20 meeting.

The two votes were vastly different, with the $49.9 million budget being approved while the fee schedule required a tie breaking vote from Sandpoint Mayor Jeremy Grimm. 

Fee schedule 

The fee schedule was approved without changes on a 4-3 with councilors Rick Howarth, Joel Aispuro and Pam Duquette dissenting and Kyle Schreiber, Justin Dick and Deb Ruehle voting in favor and Grimm breaking the tie voting “yes.” 

The schedule, which sets the maximum amount of fees that the city can potentially charge, faced pushback from councilors on two points: the development impact fees and parking pass costs. Neither being added to the schedule sets them in stone, according to Planning and Community Development Director Jason Welker. 

"We are adopting our maximum fees tonight, if we don’t have parking fees in the schedule we will have to reopen this public hearing at a later date,” Welker said. “[Council] will have plenty more chances to weigh in on what those fees actually are.” 

The parking pass prices were the most controversial item on the fee schedule, with numerous councilors citing a distaste for the prices. The maximum prices for those passes will be: $15 per year for a city resident to park for up to six hours a day, $30 a year for a county resident up to three hours a day, $40 a month for a downtown employee for unlimited parking, $80 a month for a downtown resident for all-day parking and $150 per year for a marina slip holder for unlimited parking. 

Grimm said that the prices can be adjusted down from the maximum, if the council chooses, at the time when the full parking pass plan is introduced to the council, which won’t be for another four to five months. 

"There are several more steps before we actually go, give out passes and say ‘Okay, we are now charging for parking in these areas,’” Grimm said. “We are just now engaging with the technology providers to understand what parking solutions could be available.” 

Councilors Dick and Duquette noted that they were concerned about the optics of having paid parking fees in the fee schedule, even though they aren’t yet being implemented. 

Multiple business owners affiliated with the Downtown Sandpoint Business Assocation spoke during the general comment portion of the meeting against the parking pass plan. They said they felt that the plan could reduce downtown foot traffic and damage the town’s reputation. 

"There’s something very charming about Sandpoint,” Cedar Street Bridge manager Stacey Mueller said. “It’s very relaxing, back to the good old days and friendly and you put those meters in there, it gives a different message.” 

Welker said later in the meeting that the idea behind the parking passes is not only to generate revenue for the city but to reach optimal use for the open spaces downtown. He said that of the 1,052 on-street parking stalls, only around 200 will be paid parking, leaving around 850 free spots open.

“We are not going to paid parking in downtown Sandpoint," Welker said. "We are going to paid parking along a handful of spots.”  

Budget 

The city’s 2026 fiscal year budget was adopted unanimously, after councilors were allowed to make any changes they felt necessary at the council’s Aug. 6 meeting. The two changes made were moving $40,000 to fully fund Selkirks-Pend Oreille Transit and $45,000 to fund a government efficiency study. 

The only comments made during deliberation came from Schreiber, who made several suggestions at the Aug. 6 meeting considering capital improvement projects, none of which were adopted by the council. 

"The vast majority of this budget is reasonable spending on the essential services that our community wants,” Schreiber said. “But I’m concerned that some of the capital projects in this budget will exacerbate community weariness.” 

Schreiber said that the budget had millions going to projects not in the city’s comprehensive plan and that were being done inefficiently. He said that he felt that this budget could go a long way in rebuilding trust in the community. 

“We need to focus that discretionary spending on projects that have a noticeable impact on our constituents’ daily lives,” Schreiber said. “I don’t see this budget doing that.” 

Schreiber did not make any further motions to amend the budget and was the lone “no” vote on the first reading of the budget ordinance. On adoption of the ordinance, he changed his vote to “yes” and the budget was adopted unanimously.