Debates about the Kootenai County attorney center have become a regular occurrence in the board of commissioner meetings. Still, after tentatively setting an $18 million budget, the question now is how to pay for it. 

Several weeks ago, county treasurer Steve Matheson loosely explained the funding options commissioners had in their arsenal to finance a multi-department legal building that has been on the county back burner for years. While funding alternatives will depend on various unfinalized factors, there were a few key options Matheson and the commissioners believed are available:

• A general obligation bond
• An annual appropriation lease
• Pulling from county forgone balance

A general obligation bond, Matheson explained, would go forward to public vote for approval — a caveat that puts the project at risk for failure. 

"I think the consensus of you three is that (a general obligation bond) might be the appropriate thing to do, but is it going to pass?" Matheson said. "I don't think it would, but it might."

The second alternative, an annual appropriated lease, would recruit an investor paid by the county on a year-to-year basis and require commissioner approval during each budget process. Technically, Matheson explained, because the lease would not put the county in debt for more than one year at a time, it would not be a voter-approved initiative. 

"It is a way to avoid having the voters weigh in on issuing what I consider long-term debt," Matheson said. "This is a way to get the money you want, pay it back over a long period of time, and not get voter approval."

The difficulty with the annually appropriated lease structure, Matheson said, is it would require subsequent commissioners to appropriate funds years after the current board has passed on. In both situations, whether the commissioners chose the bond or lease, the timeline could stretch upward of 10 to 20 years, Matheson said, making it a long-term decision for the commissioners and taxpayers. 

"If they don't appropriate the funds to service that debt, game over," he said. "The structure itself and the land underneath it goes to the investors."

Drawing from the forgone balance hasn't been done in Kootenai County for about a decade, county auditor Dena Darrow said. The backlog of untaken budget growth currently sits at a little over $10 million, she said. However, depending on potential taxing legislation anticipated from Idaho, lawmakers could become a use-it-or-lose-it situation. Due to the uncertainty of taking forgone — which would in turn increase county taxing on residents, the commissioners remained, for the most part, opposed to the idea. 

"Let's say (the legislature) doesn't do something this year, or they do something mild. That doesn't mean they're not going to come back next year and do something more in the future," Commissioner Leslie Duncan said. "To me, this is sounding more like a general obligation bond is the way to go because then we have the taxing authority that cannot be taken away."

If the commissioners did choose to pull from the forgone balance, Darrow said a taxpayer with a $400,000 home whose property value did not change year over year would pay approximately $100 extra per year. Though the cost was daunting to taxpayers and the commissioners, Darrow contended that in the grand scheme of county operations and financial security, utilizing the forgone balance provides a safer alternative to those affected by legislative changes. 

"If you take that forgone, as other counties have for other big projects, you ensure that you have a backstop against the state limiting your ability to tax," Darrow said. "It will keep the wheels on the bus, and you will have this pool of money that you can use to build your building and build it to what you need it to be. Not just a shell but an inhabitable building."

Commissioner Bill Brooks argued that the idea of forgone is out of reach until after the session, and the lease is too risky, leaving the only suitable option to be going to a bond vote.

"We all three explained to people why they should elect us, so if we're committed enough, we can explain to people why they need to do what they need to do. They're not stupid," Brooks said. 

Duncan also leaned more toward a bond vote by the end of the meeting, noting that she has spoken to three community groups in the past month who have verbally committed to supporting the project after reasonable explanation and answering questions. At least, she felt it would be appropriate to take public input on the building in the form of an advisory vote. 

"I think an advisory vote is a good idea. At least with it, you give the public options," Commissioner Chris Fillios said. "For me, what it comes down to is what is going to cost the least in terms of financing, and two what is doable."

An ultimate decision on the financing options won't be determined until later in the spring, as the commissioners have maintained a want to wait to see legislative action. Once there is some certainty, which they are anticipating to receive by mid-April, the multi-department building's final components should come to fruition.