Living within our means, a summary of this year’s county budget

By Elizabeth Morgan

Between a myriad of Monday meetings on Sept. 22, I spoke with Clearwater County Commissioner Don Ebert concerning the 2014-2015 Fiscal Year’s budget.

I asked how this year’s budget compared to last year’s and if there had been any significant changes to report.

“We held the line on our budget, because as always we don’t know what our PILT or SRS funds are going to be. We were pretty conservative,” admitted Ebert. “There were no wage increases given this year to staff. There is no expansion. We don’t try to take on more than we can pay for, because we are pretty well where we need to be as far as what we can afford and live within our means.”

Ebert reported that the county has good fund balances and they want to keep it that way. “We cut back on our spending a long time ago, before we ran out of money so in that sense the budget is healthy.”

“There are a couple of things to consider when planning a budget based on projections,” Ebert said, “which in a lot of ways are just an educated guess. The main thing in my mind is how much is spent. Even though something is allotted for in the budget, doesn’t necessarily mean it must be spent.”

As in the process of setting most any budget, Clearwater County Commissioners put together the best estimate of what they believe the next year will hold as far as revenue and expenses. However, as in the case of funding from SRS and PILT, there’s really no way to do anything but give it their best guess.

I asked Ebert how severely the funds from SRS and PILT fluctuate from year to year. “The funds don’t fluctuate so much,” he responded, “the question is more about if congress will act and if we get them out or not.”

In the past, the county has received them every year. Some would say it’s a pretty safe bet that they will continue, but how far is the county willing to go out on that limb? “If you start talking about spending money that you don’t have yet, it’s kind of precarious.” said Ebert, “We’ve always opted towards the more conservative side and we have good fund balances because of that.”

Ebert shared that when there is an excess it is carried over to the following year’s budget. Auditors recommend sufficient money in the balance to run for three months or around 25% of the year’s budget, and in that case, there must be cash on hand to run the county.

As in other budgets, there are also the unexpected expenditures that come up occasionally, so the county budgets must consider budgeting more money than what is actually intended. The excess is always carried over. “It’s kind of hard to predict,” he said.

Winter weather plays into the ways the county’s unforeseen expenses. Depending on the amount of snow, time and resources to maintain the roads accessibility could consume a substantial portion of the budget. “I’m not sure if during the wintertime, the county could ever plow the roads often enough to keep everyone happy. But the roads are what they are and this is rugged terrain,” stated Ebert. “We do the best we can with what we have. Fortunately winter comes first and we have the rest of the year to adjust if needed.”

Ebert explained “You have to spend enough to keep the county functioning properly, but at the same time, we don’t want to spend it if it isn’t necessary. It’s a constant judgment call. We examine each item on a regular basis to make sure it is necessary. It’s a fine line and so far we’ve been pretty lucky. I feel we have provided adequate services and have done so within our means.”

“The county has enough to operate a couple of years to avoid running into a brick wall, should funding from SRS and PILT be cut,” assured Ebert, “but there would certainly be significant changes in the manner in which the county spends their money.”

Forest reps meet with commissioners

By Alannah Allbrett

The U.S. Forest Service travel plan proposal, to close over 200 miles of trails for motorized vehicles, is being challenged by Clearwater County Commissioners who filed an appeal with the forest service Feb. 22. County Commissioner Stan Leach said an appeal is designed to stop an action, and it’s the first time since he became a commissioner in 2003, that they have had the need to do that. “Typically, we want them to do more than they are doing, not less,” said Leach.

Explaining how the forest service process works, Leach said “When a travel plan is enacted, that’s the direction the forest is going to take for the life of the plan. You can challenge their decision or identify a certain portion of it as flawed. There may be certain things they didn’t envision when the 1987 plan was adopted,” said Leach, and that’s why the county is filing an appeal.

In an attempt to hear the issues and see if some things can be solved easily, Forest Service Supervisor Rick Brazell met last week with Clearwater County’s three commissioners, the county’s Prosecuting Attorney, E. Clayne Tyler, Sheriff Chris Goetz, and Alan Deyo (who has filed a separate appeal as a private citizen). Representatives from Idaho County were included in the meeting via a telephone conference call. Idaho County has filed a joint appeal to protect their interests in the trail system.

Both counties are heavily dependent upon recreational and tourism dollars, which include the use of motorcycles on the many backcountry trails. Leach pointed out that motorcycle riders are chiefly the ones maintaining those trails in useable condition. “If those trails are closed,” said Leach, “all that goes away.” Ironically, if a trail falls into disuse and is no longer maintained, then it eventually gets pulled off of forest service maps – from lack of use. It’s a “Catch 22” situation.

When asked how the county can survive with these kinds of land use restrictions, Leach said, “We’ll always survive, but each tool helps our economy. By doing this, they are taking away one more tool when we are trying to get our economy going. Things like this just restrict us and make it a lot harder to do our jobs. We would love nothing more than to be able to pay our own way.”

Leach characterized the meeting as a respectful one and noted that “Brazell does not have a lot of wiggle room. He has to listen to all 20 appeals (from both sides of the issue) and then send his findings along to Region I headquarters in Missoula, MT. I have a lot of respect for him; there is not a whole lot he is going to be able to do. They will notify us of their decision. We are in a kind of ‘wait and see mode’ right now,” said Leach.

If trails are closed, the only course remaining for Clearwater County is to consider filing a legal suit.

Five Idaho counties propose a land trust to keep afloat

By Alannah Allbrett

Like every other business, counties need money to operate. County budgets must provide necessary services such as law enforcement, road maintenance, and waste disposal. Traditionally, lands in each county were subject to a property tax to provide for those needs. The State of Idaho, which does not collect a property tax, utilizes a system of “Endowment Lands” as they are called in Idaho. These lands are managed to produce revenue. Those revenues have played a consistent role in the funding of public schools in Idaho.

In the past, counties received operating money from the Secure Rural Schools Act (SRS), (originally the Craig-Wyden Bill). Idaho received 31 million dollars of SRS money – last year’s total statewide. Clearwater County’s share of those funds was roughly equal to one half of our Road and Bridge budget.

That act expired, however, and when it was reauthorized four years ago, it had a time limit on it. It was geared to ramp-down with decreasing payments to the counties – weaning them from dependence upon federal money. Clearwater County Commissioner, Stan Leach said the final check to the county is expected any day now.

Leach, said the original intent of the bill was for the counties to diversify their economies and get the forest service timber sales to support the tax base. But with federal controls on timber, the main source of revenue dried up in Clearwater County. “The timber side of it never happened” said Leach. “When the bill expired four years ago, we, of course, asked for it to be reauthorized.”

Leach said that having federal lands within the county is both a blessing and a curse. “People can enjoy the outdoors, but there is also no way to raise revenue to pay for services as federal ground is not subject to property tax.”

Currently, Clearwater County is preparing a Road and Bridge budget based upon half the money they had available last year. “We absolutely have to figure out some way to generate revenue for these services,” he said. “You can’t raise enough in property taxes to fund county functions on public land.”

There are almost 2.5 million surface acres and approximately 3 million mineral acres of endowment land in Idaho. As a pilot program, commissioners from five northern counties are asking Congress to set aside 200,000 forested acres as a trust to benefit rural counties. Fifty-three percent of Clearwater County land is owned by the federal government, 14 percent by the state, and another one percent is owned by the Nez Perce Tribe.

Representing Clearwater County, Stan Leach joined with John Cantamessa (Shoshone County), Dan Dinning (Boundary County), Skip Brandt (Idaho County), and Gordon Cruickshank (Valley County) in the five Idaho counties most affected by SRS payments drying up, in formulating what they call the Community Forest Trust Proposal. The proposal, an alternative to the federal transfer payments, is a partnership with the Idaho Department of Lands (IDL) to “better utilize some federal lands to meet the needs of local communities and county governments,” said Leach.

Leach said several years ago the state was looking into taking over ownership of some of the federal ground, but the public was not in favor of giving up federal lands to the states. “What we are proposing is they don’t have to give up the ground – it would still be under federal ownership, but it would be managed like the IDL ground to benefit the county’s Highway District, the County Road and Bridge, and the local school district.”

“The way we are proposing it, IDL would be the on-the-ground managers; that is what they are doing with the endowment grounds now. They have the people, the knowledge, and the tools to do this. The five of us have been working on this for several months,” said Leach.

Leach said, “We have received support from the Idaho Association of Counties, the National Association of Counties, and we have Senate Joint Memorial 103 currently before the Idaho Legislature which supports this proposal. SJM103 has already passed the senate. Last Wednesday, after receiving supporting testimony from commissioners Leach and Dinning, the House Natural Resources Committee unanimously voted to advance SJM103 to the house floor with a ‘do pass’ recommendation. We feel this may be the best way for us to help the federal government meet its obligations to Idaho’s counties, highway districts, and schools,” said Leach.