Assessor details DMV revenue shifts, seeks clearer line items after state online renewals cut fees

Bonner County’s assessor’s office presented adjustments to its motor-vehicle budget at a county budget workshop, saying state-driven online renewals have cut local DMV fee revenue and that the office is reorganizing line items and notes to improve transparency.

The changes matter because local offices lose fees when the state directs transactions online, the assessor’s staff said, and the office is trying to reconcile that loss with regular operating costs and a projected 7% decrease in its overall budget. Chairman Bryant warned the board that online renewals had reduced local revenue by about $1,000 last fiscal year.

Assessor staff opened the DMV section by reviewing revenue-line changes for duplication and title fees, saying they increased some lines based on a three‑year average and reduced others where recent trends showed declines. "We're increasing the expected revenue... of 5,850," staff said while walking through the spreadsheet. Staff also attributed a reduction in some title-fee revenue to recent years' trends.

Chairman Bryant noted a recurring loss tied to state online renewals: "there's going to be a thousand dollar loss to the Internet renewals. We experienced the same thing last fiscal year. We lost a thousand dollars because the state offers renewals online." Assessor staff described the practical effect for the office: customers who complete transactions online save about $9.50 and often do not visit county DMV offices, which reduces local fee income and can shift correction work back to county staff when online transactions are inaccurate. "It's hard to compete with a $9.5 savings going online," the DMV staff member said.

Staff asked the board to approve specific line edits: small increases for duplication fees and temporary-registration adjustments tied to state ITD changes, and reductions in title-fee estimates where year-to-date trends did not meet prior budgeted increases. The assessor’s packet lists multiple object codes (for example, the duplication-fee object and several title- and registration-related objects) updated to reflect three‑year or two‑year averages; staff said those notes will be added into the budget worksheet to explain each change.

Board members pressed for clearer presentation. One commissioner asked why motor-vehicle workloads are split across Sandpoint and Priest River accounts and whether that split is an historical choice or a statutory requirement. Staff said the separation "has always been done that way" and proposed reviewing whether the county should consolidate the accounting with the incoming board. "As we go through the budget, can we look at what it looks like to not make it this way?" one commissioner asked; staff replied they would review options and provide the reasoning for whatever structure they recommend.

Beyond revenue lines, the assessor described proposed reductions in supply and copier costs where contracts now cover more expenses, and asked that departments populate the budget notes field with definitions for lines such as "small assets" so auditors and departments use consistent categorizations. Staff recommended moving recurring items now in "miscellaneous" into defined line items (for example, water service and shredding) and keeping a small miscellaneous cushion for unpredictable costs.

The assessor also flagged possible extra staff time when correcting state-processed transactions that come to the county for fixes; while the state collects the online fee, county staff sometimes must correct inaccurate filings, which increases county workload and can offset some savings from reduced in-person transactions.

Next steps: the assessor’s office will add explanatory notes to each changed line item, provide averages on variable costs such as shredding, and work with county procurement and the incoming commission to evaluate whether to restructure motor-vehicle accounting across locations. No formal vote on policy changes occurred during the workshop.