County considers new funding sources

Faced with a mounting list of infrastructure and capital replacement needs, Flathead County officials have identified several "revenue enhancement" opportunities to help pay for these projects.

It remains to be seen, though, whether they'll get the political support needed to pursue any of the alternatives.

Several department heads met with the county commissioners to discuss this issue on Tuesday.

The meeting began with a summary of the major capital needs. These include unsafe and inadequate facilities, such as the courthouse and county jail; unmaintained parks and bike paths; old, worn-out equipment and vehicles; and deteriorating roadways.

"We have extensive needs that cannot be met with the [existing] paving program," County Administrator Mike Pence said in a memo to the commissioners. "The county road levy also doesn't provide enough revenue to replace equipment on a regular schedule. Large sums of new revenue will be required to begin to meet the desperate needs of our road system."

Pence then highlighted eight funding sources that could be used to bring in more money, including:

-Special improvement districts or maintenance districts, in which property owners would be taxed to pay for improvements or to pay the maintenance costs for roads or other services.

-Impact fees or capital facility extension fees, in which developers would pay certain infrastructure costs.

-A voter-approved gas tax, which would be capped at one or two cents per gallon.

-Voter-approved bonds or voter-approved property tax increases.

-Grants or user fees.

"Basically, we need some firm direction from the commissioners on this," Pence said. "If you just want to maintain the status quo, then we need to hear that from you. If you want us to pursue any of these alternatives that would generate some more revenue for our facility and equipment needs, then we need to hear that, so we know we're pursuing what you want us to pursue."

That direction wasn't forthcoming on Tuesday, though. The hourlong meeting ended without a clear indication from the commissioners on which, if any, of the funding options they would support.

In fact, commissioners reacted cautiously to most of the alternatives.

Commissioners Joe Brenneman and Bob Watne, for example, seemed to like certain aspects of the special improvement district and maintenance district options, but they pointed out potential difficulties as well.

Commissioner Gary Hall said he doesn't favor going to voters with a bond proposal, except for emergencies and possibly for the proposed jail expansion.

The commissioners also have hesitated on impact fees for several months, holding off on ordering a formal study that would ensure that the fees are based on actual costs.

Tuesday's meeting ended with a vague reference to "scheduling another workshop" to continue this discussion, but no firm date was set.

Reporter Bill Spence may be reached at 758-4459 or by e-mail at bspence@dailyinterlake.com