FT:
"So including that expense or staffing in the regular sheriff budget would be redundant. The county commissioners are supposed to fund the policing with title III funds. Expecting that it should also be funded by the general fund is redundant. "
Yes, I suppose that could be interpreted that way. But the budget documents, including actuals, also include the income from the Feds in thier income and expense breakdown. Loss of income, loss of expense.... and loss of service. The net general fund is still short after that, and additional cuts will have to be made.
"This link does not provide enough information to make judgements but it does point to where to look in an investigation. "
No one is going to investigate this for you, FT. Allegations aren't going to sway anyone unless you do your own investigating and prove things.
The breakdown of Fed funding by County is available on several web sites (Sorry, FT.... not gonna' provide them - you can find them doing some searches).
All your huge cut and paste points out is that indeed the Feds recognize that they should be providing funding to the Counties for lost revenue to keep the forestland as federal land. That they are going to back out on their promise is what is criminal.
Why should the federal funds be specific for certain things? They are a landowner that provides the equivalent of tax payments because of the land. That would be like you saying that you only want your property taxes to go to schools, or only to police services. The Fed SRS funds drop right into the general fund, like everyone elses tax payments. I suppose that some of it is earmarked, but specialty funding usually comes from specific federal programs and are not linked to the SRS funds.
It also looks like you are trying to make a direct correlation from the Fed SRS funding (income) to the Title III and Title II expenditures. It's not a one-to-one correlation. The counties recieve more than the Title III and II funds from the SRS funding. I find that you do that a lot (make statements with facts, and then throw a few extra things in without backup). It makes the good points you make come across as suspect. It's the same with the huge cut and pastes that you do.
The list of purposes in the last section you posted is broad and far-reaching. It covers the basics, such as schools, roads and also the County infrastructure. The County budget is pretty much roads, infrastructure and services. Since you can't cut infrastructure and still have the roads and services (how would you administer, track, and provide accountability?), the roads and services are the first to be cut. The list of potential cutbacks and total services lost is staggering.
Doomsday? Yup. We got lucky last year, and we might even get lucky one more year or perhaps two. Even with the declining scenario that many are proposing over 4-5 years, by year 2 we will be experiencing major loss of services and road maintenance. It's not all police services, though they are the most prominent service that people see.
I'm not sure of the reason for your last post other than to point another direction that someone else should 'investigate' for you, and to attempt to raise unspecified suspicions in general. More allegations. No substance to back it up. The pattern continues........
