Mailbag: Karen Aikman Writes: RE: Minutes: Economic Development November 2007

Karen Aikman has left a new comment on your post "Minutes; Economic Development: November 2007":

Within these minutes for November, the motion to grant our Chamber of Commerce such a generous sum of $4, 500 surprised me. Not that the Chamber isn’t worthy, but so are a number of other organizations that serve to make our community a desirable location for business. Not to mention the big question mark that hangs over TIF#6, which makes the payback of some $5,000, that was presumably requested of TIF funds by this committee, to contribute to the Market Research Study, a more responsible use of their remaining budget, to my way of thinking.

Of course privately I began to make fun of this, but guilt over my lack of information got the better of me and I decided to educate myself on what lead up to this decision. I decided to review all of the minutes for the calendar year 2007 for this committee, in an effort to give them the benefit of the doubt. After all, while $4,500 or 83% of $5,400 seems like an awful lot, perhaps the percentage of their actual budget would make it more reasonable for me.

What I found confuses me and I submit this to the readers of this blog to correct or expound on the information presented in the minutes of the Economic Development Committee from January until November of 2007.

Within the published minutes for 2007 I found:

A. In January they authorize the production of 6 CD’s of the Smart Growth plan to be sent to 5 employers. They don’t offer a cost of this.
B. In Feb. Ald. Juergens identifies that $1,000 of a budget of $1,500 had been spent on the website. Since it is a new year, and money unspent from 2006 should have gone back into general fund, it is unclear if this is from the 2007 budget.
C. In May, they motion to hire Whalen and Associates, but without specifying a fee. This appears to be for something other than the Market Research that was mentioned in the January minutes.
D. In July they motion to pay the School Ag depart to water flowers and to presumably pay for Jeff (Vrstal) to spruce up an Evansville sign by the Pig. These costs are not identified.
E. In August Ald. Juergens motioned to spend $300 for lunches;$1,000 for the summit; and $400 for a speaker. Totaling $1,700.
F. In Nov. They authorize $4,500 to go toward a Chamber project for a Business directory.

6 cd’s…………….....$?
Website……………..$1,000 ( or $1,500)
Whalen et al……..….$?
Watering & signage...$?
Summit……………...$1,700
Chamber…………….$4,500
_________________________
Total $7,200 (possibly $7,700)


One problem that arises for me is the conflicting information on the budget for this committee. In the July minutes we learn the yearly budget for 2007 is $5,150.

“Review 2007 committee budget and discuss any changes to the 2008 budget. A proposal was made to increase the budget from $5150 to $5300 to the Economic Development Committee and to keep the $1000 support for the E.C.P. with $6300 as a total. Fed Juergens moved on this request and David Olsen seconded. Motion approved.”

Yet in these November minutes we find a balance remaining of $5,400:

“Decker distributed an expenditures ledger for the Committee; there is $5400 remaining in the budget. It was noted that some expenses for the Summit may be incurred prior to the end of the year.”


So here I am stumped on how to wrap this post up. With so many holes in the minutes, it would be irresponsible to draw many conclusions. But there are questions:

How did the budget go from being $5150 for the year to a remaining balance of $5400?

What happened to the Market Research Study? Where did it go for authorization?
From where did the funding come? Did we get the CDBG for the study and at what amount?

Who paid for Whalen and Associates? How much was it?

Are the minutes lacking enough information or am I misunderstanding them?

I could go on, but I think this is will do for now.

What’s troubling here is not just the flow of money and if you agree with it, but that it is public tax money and it is seemingly impossible to discern how it is being spent. Minutes are not required to be transcripts, but they should not raise questions of what is happening with money that belongs to all of us.



.