Forestry will stay in Medford

Committee tables any discussion of possible move until June 2022

The forestry department offices will stay where they are, at least for another year.

At Friday’s forestry committee meeting, members tabled action on a proposed move of the department until June 2022. In making the motion to table the topic, committee member Mike Bub said it was necessary for the department and committee to “get off the treadmill.”

The discussion on a possible move of the forestry department had originally been prompted by plans for the highway department to build a new shop in the Rib Lake area. With the county forest located primarily in the towns of Rib Lake and Westboro, forestry staff raised the topic of gaining some storage and office space in the structure and moving the office from the courthouse to be closer to the forest. The highway committee has since moved forward with planning for a structure to meet just the highway department’s needs. This would mean that moving the forestry department would require either the purchase or construction of a building.

According to Taylor County forest administrator Jake Walcisak, the proposed move has broad support from stakeholders including the loggers that the department works with on a regular basis as well as groups the forestry department staff works with for recreational use of the forest.

Walcisak said that they have gotten input from 70 different individuals with the majority showing support for the proposed move. Walcisak said some supported the move because of the potential for cost savings with eliminating the driving time between Medford and the county forest. Others such as Butch Clendenning of the Ice Age Trail organization supported it for the efficiencies in working with the department staff without having to drive into Medford. He said he was appreciative of the work the county does noting that they are often in no-win situations of people being unhappy with whatever they do.

Bob Rusch of the Rib Lake Historical Society spoke in support of the proposed move in part, because it would be moving some of the county business into other portions of the county rather than being concentrated in Medford.

Bub also spoke in support of the idea saying that it would be beneficial for the department to be located near the forest. He said it was a disappointment that the highway department and the forestry couldn’t have worked together to get space in the new shop building.

“I think it is a missed opportunity for Taylor County,” he said, noting he did not think it was financially feasible for the county to build two buildings right now.

Committee member Gene Knoll said the structure of how the county is run does not lend itself to having the department located remotely. Rather than a central administration, Taylor County is supervised primarily by the oversight committees of the county board.

County finance director Larry Brandl was also opposed to the idea on a financial standpoint. “We are going to have budget issues come fall,” he said.

“I view this as a want, not a need,” Brandl said, noting that last year the county cut operations by 2% and that he didn’t think this year’s budget would be any better.

County board member Lester Lewis also expressed concerns about a proposed move. He noted that with construction materials increasing in price the $128,000 estimated cost of a proposed building is likely to be $160,000 by the time it is built and at best they are looking at a 30-year payback.

Committee member Gary Beadles said there were concerns with the markets for lumber, that the forest would not be able to generate the type of revenue it has in the past. “I am all for building stuff. I like new things,” he said. “I don’t know how the county can afford it.”

His views were echoed by committee member Myron Brooks who noted that neighboring counties were unable to sell all their timber and revenues are uncertain.

Resolution defeated

An anonymous resolution that was drafted to try to limit the amount of carryover reserves in the forestry department was shot down by committee members.

The proposed resolution would have placed all forestry revenues into the general fund rather than the current process of retaining two years worth of operating revenue for the department. Historically, the county forest has generated revenue far in excess of department operations through timber sales. While money is moved into the general fund to help with overall county operations, an amount is kept in reserve in the department.

Zenner noted that these have always been viewed as being the county’s money and is set aside for things such as repairs or replacement of dams and other projects.

Brandl said the resolution was intended to address the perception people, especially other departments have, that forest revenue is not general fund revenue.

Committee members were strongly opposed to the proposed change and voted to reject the resolution noting the money is designated for specific purposes to address county needs.