Taxpayers within the bounds of Special Improvement District 42 raised several questions during a recent Polson City Commission public hearing about SID 42 after the City of Polson posted a document detailing the properties due for a possible refund, which totaled about $6,000 less than the approximate amount in the SID account.

Finance Officer Jodi O’Sullivan and City Attorney Dave Michie presented two resolutions to the commission on Monday, Sept. 21, regarding this SID. One was to dissolve SID 42, and the other was to return the SID funds. 

According to previous Leader reporting, O’Sullivan said the typical procedure when closing an SID is to transfer the remaining funds to the revolving fund and later use them to cover the initial cost of opening a future SID. However, during the Aug. 18 meeting, the commission “indicated” that these funds should be returned to taxpayers, Michie said, prompting the presentation of this resolution. 

During the Sept. 18 meeting, Polson resident Becky Dupuis said that, according to her research, $37,500 was placed in the revolving fund when SID 42 was created, meaning that transferring the overpaid taxpayer funds, combined with the original transfer, would total over $60,000 not returned to taxpayers. 

This previous public comment prompted Commissioner Lisa Rehard to ask O’Sullivan during Monday night’s public hearing whether she had determined where the $37,500 came from. O’Sullivan replied, “I have not.” 

Rehard also asked whether there was a plan to reimburse the city’s expenses incurred in connection with this SID, and O’Sullivan confirmed that there is one. 

During public comment, resident Steve Speckert asked why the funds were being returned to taxpayers over a five-year period. O’Sullivan explained that she and Susan Nicosia, the former city manager of Columbia Falls, felt that this was the fairest distribution of funds because it wasn’t overpaid in one payment but over the life of the SID. 

They are also looking at property owners during that period because they “were most likely affected by the overcollection.” 

Dupuis also asked during this hearing why $26,000 is being refunded to taxpayers, when she still hasn’t received answers about the initial estimated $37,000 transferred out of this fund when it was opened. 

Interim City Manager George Simpson explained that finding the answer about the initial transfer would require some research. However, Michie explained that tracking those additional funds is a “whole different issue.” He added that right now, they are looking at the estimated $32,000 left in the SID as what remains and is the amount being transferred back into the revolving fund. 

When asked why the amount changed from an estimated $32,000 to a $26,000 refund, Simpson said in a separate interview with the Leader that he’s “pretty positive” some money is set aside for writing checks and mailing the refunds. 

Dupuis added in her comment that two properties currently owned by her LLC, Showboat Land Holdings, are not included on the refund list, likely because those properties were under her parents' LLC, Pickerill Family. She said they paid a total of $3,100 per year toward the SID and would like a full refund instead of the $600 listed for their LLC. 

Simpson noted which addresses were missing from the list and said he would get back to Dupuis. 

In a separate interview with the Leader, Dupuis said she requested documents clarifying the accounting for this fund, and was told it would cost $120 to cover the city’s staff time. She declined to pursue her request for this information, but said she told staff they should still have the accounting for these funds as they proceed with closing the SID. 

Dupuis also expressed that city staff doesn’t seem to know much about this fund, but she also hasn’t spoken with O’Sullivan. From her understanding, the documentation she would like to see is included in the regular information provided in the city’s annual reports, which leads her to believe it wouldn’t be difficult to obtain. 

“The thing I was most concerned about was … the information I was asking for should be information that was provided to us, and to the commission,” she said. 

She added that she’s a bit confused about why the city is looking back at who the owners were five years ago, because this overpayment should come from what owners overpaid last year. 

Lake County Commissioner Bill Barron, who owns property on Main Street, also commented during the hearing, asking why the refund is limited to one and a half payments. O’Sullivan explained that the funds remaining in the account equal one and a half annual payments, distributed among all the taxpayers in the district. 

Other residents also raised questions about being omitted from the list or having incorrect addresses, but Mayor Laura Dever said she didn’t want to put people on the spot and suggested that residents call the city during business hours to speak with O’Sullivan. 

Resident Cindy Willis also spoke during public comment and said the finance department should have been notified when this SID ended to prevent overcharging taxpayers. She suggested the city look into this to avoid the issue in the future. During the later commission meeting, Commissioner Carolyn Pardini also said she would like to see a plan to prevent this issue in the future. 

Retired city treasurer Bonnie Manicke added during public comment that she served on the streetscape public relations committee during the creation of this SID. She explained that the project was lengthy and shut down businesses during construction. She added that any remaining funds should be returned to the people. 

After the public hearing, the resolutions were presented again at the regular city commission meeting. O’Sullivan added that the refund numbers will likely change after corrections are made to the issues taxpayers raised. 

The commission unanimously approved the resolution to dissolve SID 42. 

When discussing the second motion to return the funds, Mayor Dever asked what the procedure would be if the refund list changed. Michie explained that they would reopen the resolution and present the changes to the commission for approval. 

Rehard explained that she believed it didn’t make sense to pass it and then reopen it, and she suggested tabling the item. Pardini moved to table the resolution, and the commission unanimously agreed.