Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Intergovernmental Relations topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
KRTA board delays final decision on $180,000 shortfall, plans outreach to county leaders
Summary
Board members debated whether KRTA must cover a roughly $180,000 shortfall tied to a 2017 grant application, proposed asking the county to join the authority and forgive $50,000 annually, and agreed to target an April meeting and meet county chair/vice chair before formal action.
At a regular meeting of the KRTA board, members spent most of their discussion debating whether the authority is legally responsible for an approximately $180,000 shortfall from work related to a 2017 grant application and how to engage the county on the issue.
Several board members argued KRTA was formed after the grant application and therefore "owes you nothing." Speaker 2 told colleagues, "we have no obligation to account," and urged the group not to absorb the earlier debt. That speaker also proposed an alternative: "take a seat at this table and forgive the debt to the tune of $50,000 a year," framing that as an annual membership approach to resolve the matter.
Other board members said they felt a moral — if not legal — obligation to make at least a partial good-faith contribution. One member suggested a smaller one-time payment as a conciliatory gesture, with Speaker 1 saying, "At least come with a gift, you know, of a certain amount." Several members also emphasized the need for a unified board position and requested waiting for absent board member Dan to weigh in before taking a final formal stance.
The board reviewed fundraising history and project setbacks that complicated the accounting: members referenced a DNR grant application (described by participants as a roughly $300,000 award in the original application), a crowdfunding shortfall (transcript references roughly $73,000 raised), cost escalations and construction challenges. Speaker 3 summarized the sequence of events and how COVID-era delays and unexpected site work increased costs.
Members expressed concern about optics if the authority seeks a millage while unresolved questions about prior funding remain. "Perception can be reality at times," Speaker 3 said, arguing the board should prepare a clear packet showing accomplishments and financial records before pursuing broader public funding.
As a next step, the board agreed informally to target its April meeting for a formal position and to pursue targeted outreach beforehand. Members agreed Speaker 3 and others would try to meet with county chair Van Dorn and vice chair Krasny in the coming weeks to "get a feel" for the commission's stance. Speaker 3 said they would coordinate schedules and report back to the board.
No formal vote was recorded that assigned legal responsibility to KRTA; the meeting produced agreed next steps (outreach and materials preparation) rather than a binding resolution. The board also discussed potential county funding sources in the abstract; one participant suggested a portion of marijuana excise tax revenues as a possible source, but no funding commitment was made.
The board planned to compile a packet of accomplishments, finances and a draft resolution to present at the April meeting and to use the interim outreach to county leaders to clarify the county commission's willingness to participate or contribute.
