By Patrick Tepoorten

The Chisago County Board spent a significant amount of time discussing money at its Sept. 26 meeting. Whether it was salaries, fees, or grants, no dollar amount was off the table.

An amendment to a $200,000 grant contract between the state and the county for a biofuels feasibility study had Commissioner Ben Montzka concerned about local tax dollars being used on a project he called "window dressing."

His primary concern was $2,500 of local tax money that is included in the study.

At first Commissioner Lynn Schultz insisted that levy dollars were not included in the project, but upon further explanation from Montzka acknowledged that the dollars do exist, although she noted that the money is to be reimbursed as part of the project.

Beyond the $2,500, Montzka did not speak highly of the project in general. "This research is unlikely to generate much," he said, except more large bills. "This is a multi-billion dollar concern," he said, adding, "It is not the way research is handled." He concluded that the $200,000 grant should be given back to taxpayers.

Schultz disagreed, noting that, in researching the feasibility of a biofuels plant, the county was addressing the state's mandate to produce 25 percent of its energy from renewable resources by the year 2025. "I do not agree that this is a waste of taxpayer money," she said, and noted that the benefits to the county as a result of the study could "far exceed" the up front costs.

Board chairman Mike Robinson agreed. "We've got to start somewhere," he said.

The amendment to the grant contract was approved by the board, with Montzka opposed.

Money was again the issue during a discussion about Ki-Chi-Saga ball field policy language changes. Among those changes was a memorandum of agreement that included a $100 deposit for bathroom usage, that didn't sit well with Commissioner Bob Gustafson.

"I will never support making organizations pay $100 just to use the biffy. It's the taxpayers park," he said.

Gustafson's primary concern is that the reason for the deposit - to insure bathrooms are not damaged - is an unenforceable policy. He noted that at any time there are multiple teams using the fields, many of which did not pay a deposit, and asked whose deposit would be taken if the bathrooms were damaged.

Parks Director Laird Mork responded that the only time a deposit would be kept by the county are in cases where there was a clear culprit.

Ultimately, the deposit rule was changed to include only sports organizations as a whole, not individual teams. Still, Gustafson voted against the deposit, which was approved by the rest of the board. Montzka abstained, giving his participation on a softball team as a reason.

A request from the county attorney's office to fill vacancies, including that of departing Assistant County Attorney Sue Drabek, brought yet another discussion of money.

Montzka noted that the estimated personnel costs to fill the position, at $102,200, seemed high.

"We have an opportunity to get service for a lower cost," he said, and asked County Attorney Janet Reiter to explore that option.

Reiter responded that the estimate was at the high end and that the package would be looked at, adding that there was no commitment to pay the maximum amount.

County Administrator John Moosey suggested that Drabek's position was a "critical" one in the county, adding, "A person with experience makes a big difference." He also said that the county court system does not stop and wait for the county attorney's office and concluded, "Our reputation with the courts is extremely important," and cautioned against taking away room for the county attorney to find a qualified person.

"We are in a budget crunch," responded Montzka. "I don't buy that we can't get a qualified attorney for significantly less. We need to be tighter or we are going to end up in the red during the year."

Moosey replied that he agreed with that sentiment, and asked the board to set some priorities for savings, rather than just "taking savings as they come."

As for the county attorney's office, Schultz noted it is perhaps the one department the county can't do without. "It is the department that every other department counts on. That sets the priority," she said, adding, "One bad decision puts us in litigation. It's a place you just don't scimp."

The approval to fast track a replacement for Drabek was approved, with Montzka voting against.

In other county news:

• The board was informed that county health insurance premiums are estimated to increase 19 percent in 2008. A primary reason for that is that claims have outpaced premiums over the last few years.

Comment from Carla Heinke, 10/3/07

"As for the county attorney's office, Schultz noted it is perhaps the one department the county can't do without. "It is the department that every other department counts on. That sets the priority," she said, adding, "One bad decision puts us in litigation. It's a place you just don't scimp.""

Such as the County Attorney's decision to ignore pending litigation until it becomes a reality?

Comment from Wade Vitalis, 10/4/07

If the quote of commissioner Montzka on the subject of the cellulosic feasibility study (and I have no reason to question the authenticity) can be confirmed.

And if his vote and his related thoughts can be confirmed by going "straight to the horses mouth", there may be reason to be disappointed.

Those of us who support the study may need to talk more about the benefits of leveraging the billions of public/private investment to be spent in energy indepedence and alternative fuels to the benefit our our local economy.

But the simple fact is the cellulosic study proposed for our region is our foot in the door to access these dollars.

Being one of just three studies selected, we are in the "game". Why would we want to be taken out? And how would that benefit me as a tax payer?

Those are my questions. And I'll wait to pass judgment until I speak with the Commissioner directly.