Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Energy Fund topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Energy Reinvestment Fund proposal: $88,000 in FY26 spending and EV‑charger timing flagged
Summary
The county’s sustainability coordinator outlined a proposed $88,000 FY26 spending plan from the Energy Reinvestment Fund covering energy tracking software, greenhouse‑gas projects, home energy audits, soil and prairie programs, and a placeholder for ECCBG assistance; EV charger upgrades and metering rule changes may push some spending to FY26.
Becky Saguen, the county sustainability coordinator, presented the Johnson County Energy Reinvestment Fund proposal for fiscal 2026 and described a proposed $88,000 package of projects and recurring items together with a status update on electric vehicle charger upgrades.
Saguen said the fund currently shows about $64,882 available plus an expected $25,000 seed contribution in spring. For FY26 she proposed $2,000 for energy and greenhouse‑gas tracking software; $23,000 for two greenhouse‑gas projects (a potential incentive for energy‑efficient new homes and continuation of home energy audits); $25,000 to augment an Economic Community Development Block Grant (ECDBG) voucher program (an amount the presenter said is unlikely to be spent this fiscal year because of delays); $30,000 for a soil quality restoration program; and $8,000 for a new pocket‑prairie program. Those five line items total $88,000, leaving an undedicated fund balance of roughly $1,882 in the projection.
Saguen and facilities director Dave Curtis discussed EV charger upgrades. Curtis said the charger project is effectively on hold because the administrative remodel is the power‑feed point for the chargers and the county must now include metering to comply with a recent state law change. “That project's kind of on hold because we didn't wanna throw a separate project in with the admin remodel because that's where all the power is gonna be fed from,” Curtis said. Curtis also said the $62,000 price estimated last year would include tracking, but that contractor schedules make it “iffy” the work could be completed before the end of the fiscal year.
Saguen noted the fund rolls over year to year and that federal and state changes in funding or incentives could alter near‑term plans. Supervisors and staff discussed keeping the $62,000 EV‑charger allocation in the coming fiscal year if the project is not finished in FY25.
No formal vote was taken on the Energy Reinvestment Fund at the work session; staff recommended carrying some items forward and returning with confirmations once contractor pricing and grant timing are known.
