Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Fees And Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Ashland County LCC approves new conservation service-fee schedule, including 8% fee on cost-share grants
Summary
After debate about department revenue needs and impacts on landowners, the committee adopted a service-fee schedule that adds a farm soil-sampling service, a garden sampling option, no‑till drill fees, and an 8% fee on cost-share grants; staff said legal counsel limits fee uses.
The Ashland County Land Conservation Committee voted to adopt a new conservation service-fee schedule that includes a proposed 8% administrative fee on cost-share grants, along with fees for soil-sample services and usage fees for the county no‑till drill.
Mary Joe Jingris and staff outlined four categories of proposed fees: (1) existing no‑till drill rental rates (examples: $50 use fee plus $8.50/acre inside Ashland/Iron County; higher rates for out-of-region users), (2) a farm soil-sampling service that would charge $10 per sample plus mileage, (3) a $50 service for garden/food-plot sampling (lab fee additional), and (4) a proposed 8% fee assessed on the value of cost-share grants the department administers.
Committee discussion focused on transparency for landowners, the effect of the 8% fee on funds available "on the ground" for conservation practices, and legal constraints on how fee revenue can be used. Charlie Ortman and others pressed for clear written notice to farmers; Mary Joe said the department will use a service-fee agreement (modeled on Marathon County) to make fees transparent and require landowner acknowledgment before assessment.
Committee members asked whether the 8% fee would reduce the money available for projects; staff confirmed the fee would be calculated into the project budget and that reimbursements would still be processed (example given: on a $20,000 project an 8% fee is $1,600). Legal counsel advised the committee that cost-share revenues cannot be directly allocated to staffing, but fee revenue could be used for departmental support (supplies, fuel, equipment) that is not statutorily restricted.
After discussion, Charlie moved and Liz seconded adoption of the service-fee schedule; the motion carried by voice vote. Several members urged careful messaging to landowners that the new fees respond to budget pressures and shrinking reimbursements, not a desire to raise taxes.
The committee tasked staff with finalizing the fee schedule documents and a service-fee agreement to present to landowners at the time of project enrollment.
