Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Social and fconomic Environment <br /> <br />The amount paid to counties isthe higher of these two methods: <br /> <br />A. Seventy-five cents per acre of entitlement land, minus the Federal land payment money <br />received by the county in the previous fiscal year (Table 11-7, column G), or <br /> <br />B. Ten cents for each acre of entitlement land within the county. There are no deductions based <br />on other payments (Table 11-7, column H). <br /> <br />Here are some limitations/exceptions to the calculation of these two methods: <br /> <br />1. Payments to each county are subject to population payment limitations or ceilings. Payment <br />ceilings are based on a sliding scale, starting at $50 per capita and rising to a maximum of <br />$1,000,000 (Table 11-7, columns E&F) <br /> <br />2. Under altemative A. if the total calculated payment of 75 cents per acre exceeds the payment <br />ceiling based on population, then the ceiling is used, not the 75 cents per acre figure. <br /> <br />3. Under alternative A, the amount used as payments to counties is the amount paid to the <br />county, and does not include payments to other entities in the county, like schools (Table 11-7, <br />column D). <br /> <br />Further review ofTable 11-1 reveals that the PILT paymentfor federal Fiscal Year 1993 (10/1192 to 9130193) <br />completely offset 25-percent payments for sir of the ten counties. Four counties, Hinsdale, Mineral, <br />Saguache, and San Juan, received considerable payments from 25-percent payments, which when <br />combined with PILT payments were more than the PILT ceilings. These large payments are the effect of <br />several factors including: a large amount of entitlement lands, small population, and increased revenues <br />from Forest Service activities. <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />\; <br /> <br />11-8 <br /> <br />"" ~ ('" ~ ,,,, <br />U' '/ lc . V'. <br />......._ :1:..... <br /> <br />~ <br />