The county council has tabled a resolution outlining how federal COVID-19 relief money was to be deposited into the county’s general fund and cover expenses related to the pandemic. The council wanted it to go through legal review.
The county received $494,248 in payroll relief funding through the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security (CARES) Act.
A lump sum was requested for public safety salaries, then the money was moved to the general fund so the council can dole it out. The procedure for doing that was approved at the Dec. 14 council meeting.
At the March 15 council meeting, Auditor Julie Reeves presented a resolution that outlines the reimbursement procedure. The resolution was advertised in the Brown County Democrat and Reeves said it would be advertised again upon council approval. “Just making sure it is getting done properly,” she said.
At the Dec. 28 meeting, $50,371.05 was transferred from the CARES Act funding sitting in the general fund. That was to cover payroll related to COVID-19 response from the health department, emergency management, the circuit court, county commissioners, probation department, the auditor’s office, IT and 911 dispatch.
As of Feb. 16, the council had approved moving $326,744.39 of the funding to various accounts. That included $239,000 to the Brown County Music Center after the county used the building to hold jury trials and other functions, like county board meetings.
The council approved moving $37,373.33 to various accounts to cover IT and overtime expenses.
A a request to move $45,000 of CARES Act funding into the commissioners’ budget so they could engage with Waggoner, Irwin, Scheele & Associates for a job description study was tabled to the March meeting. The council did not vote on moving any money or additional appropriations at the March meeting because the agenda was not advertised in enough time, council President Dave Redding explained.
The county now has $167,503.61 of CARES Act funding remaining to cover costs related to COVID-19.
At the March meeting, there was discussion over whether the CARES Act money was in the county’s general fund or a specific CARES Act fund. The resolution states that the money was put into the county’s general fund. The money is in line 1000-230-0000 — or “COVID-19 State Money” –in the county’s general fund, said Auditor Chief Deputy Sandy Cain.
The fund number was left out of the resolution and it was suggested that it be added in before council approves it.
“Just like if the general fund had computers and equipment, it’s in the general fund, but computers and equipment can only be spent for computers and equipment. If you have COVID money in the general fund, it can only be spent on approved COVID expenses. In the general fund you can have other line items,” council member Judy Swift-Powdrill explained.
The council has to approve an additional appropriation out of the general fund to cover unexpected COVID-19-related expenses, Redding said.
The resolution states that once the money is in the county’s general fund, “normal appropriation procedures will apply.”
Council member Scott Rudd asked about the possibility of CARES Act money already being committed to an expenditure before council can formally approve it.
“Would someone spending this have to come to the council before they authorize an expenditure, or we just approving after it has been authorized?” he asked.
“Are we going to be held in arrears for commitments made for these moneys before we’ve had an answer to say ‘Yes, we agree’ or ‘No, we don’t agree’? If we say no we disagree that COVID funds can be used for this, then we have to go find the money elsewhere because it was a commitment made by our county team?”
Reeves said the expense would have to go before the council before they approve the money to be appropriated out of the general fund.
Council Vice President Dave Critser said that there is no budget for this line item for when additional appropriation requests are made.
Redding said the council will be put in a “hard place” if commitments for service or equipment have already been made and the council disagrees with using CARES Act money on the expense. “Then we have to go find the money someplace else because our county government team has already consumed those services or goods,” Redding said.
Rudd also asked if the county’s attorney, Barnes and Thornburg, had looked over the resolution. He suggested the resolution be tabled until a legal review could be done.
“We let the commissioners move it first if they would like to after the review, then go down the road,” he said.
The commissioners’ signatures are also needed on the resolution.
The motion to table the resolution was approved unanimously.
The council also agreed that a memo should be sent out to department leaders or anyone who manages a fund in the county to let them know they need to come to the council before committing any CARES Act money to cover expenses.
Redding said the memo could be sent out on behalf of the council and include a threshold, like $1,000, for when expenses need preapproval by the council.
“Thinking about expenses and rental agreements, outside services and things like, that I think it’s reasonable of us to ask for cooperation from the fund owners, fund leaders and fund managers that they counsel with us first before they obligate the county to that expense,” he said.
Powdrill said the hope is whoever spends the money is “very well aware of what the guidance on usage is for COVID money and that they wouldn’t spend it arbitrarily on something that it shouldn’t be spent on.
“If we find that someone is spending it on things it shouldn’t be, then we need to hold them accountable,” she said.
Powdrill agreed to draft up a memo on behalf of the council to send to the various fund managers in the county.
Redding said he wanted the meeting with Barnes and Thornburg about the resolution to be public. A date for that meeting has not been set.
