The Bonner Soil and Water Conservation District asked Bonner County commissioners on May 28 to maintain $25,000 in annual support for fiscal year 2027 and to provide office space for two to three district employees, saying that local investment multiplies grant funding and helps protect county infrastructure.
"Our ask this year is that we request that you maintain that 25,000 dollar funding," said Sara Garcia, the district's executive director, outlining recent programs, grant wins and field work that the district said return far more than the county contribution. Garcia also warned of an emerging aquatic invasive species threat that she said increases the urgency of local prevention and inspection efforts.
Why it matters: Garcia emphasized that county dollars are leveraged to secure state and federal grants, protect roads and other infrastructure, and fund on‑the‑ground invasive‑species inspections and staffing. She told commissioners the district recently completed streambank stabilization on the Pack River that protected roughly 500 feet of bank and likely prevented a road failure during historic winter flooding.
Garcia described several program metrics: about 425 fifth‑grade students attended the district's Water Festival across 15 schools; the Panhandle seedling program distributed about 46,000 seedlings in Bonner County this year (roughly 140,000 statewide among the top five counties); the district performed 26,000 boat inspections in 2025, with 48 boats coming from waters already known to be infested and requiring deep/hot washing.
Garcia warned about the "golden mussel," which she said differs from earlier quagga mussels in being more mobile and tolerant of lower calcium levels. "There is not a way to treat the mussel if it were to be detected in our waterway," she said, and she expressed concern that the Idaho State Department of Agriculture's (ISDA) recent relocation of the Samuels inspection station to a less visible Three Mile site could reduce detection and interception of invasive species.
Budget and match: Garcia told commissioners the district used a brochure based on FY24 statewide data to calculate local impacts. She reported Bonner County provided $18,000 in the referenced year and that the district received just under $27,500 in matching funds. In the presentation the district reported two different characterizations of return on county investment: a figure of $15.56 returned per $1 of local/state funding and, in a separate framing, a "50‑to‑1" return tied to an $18,000 allocation. The transcript contains both statements; commissioners said the county should seek clarification of the figures before finalizing any larger commitment.
Operational shortfall and office space request: Garcia said the district is facing a roughly $200,000 reduction in operations and a near‑term ~$90,000 deficit. She requested that the county consider offering office space (either within the current leased building, via modification of lease terms with the private owner PAC, or in a county‑owned building across the street). Garcia noted that providing in‑county office space could be counted as in‑kind match to strengthen future grant applications.
Commissioners' response: Multiple commissioners expressed support in principle for maintaining the $25,000 baseline and for finding an office solution that increases the district's capacity and grant competitiveness. Several framed the request as infrastructure protection (preventing road washouts) rather than solely an educational program expense. Commissioners agreed to ask legal counsel to review the county's 30‑year lease with PAC to determine whether dedicating or subleasing space in the current building is permitted and noted a county‑owned building across the street as an alternative.
No formal vote recorded: The commissioners did not take a formal vote during the special meeting; they asked staff to review lease terms and return with legal guidance and options. The meeting was adjourned at 11:42 a.m.
Ending: Commissioners signaled likely support for maintaining the district's baseline funding and exploring in‑kind office options, while reserving decisions that would require lease modifications or new expenditures pending legal review and further budget deliberations.