Board of Commissioners - Regular Meeting

Thank you.

you Thank you. full house could see your money

Additions to the gender changes.

He left. He was here. The guy on the West Robertson Road, we told him. Mr. Melvin. We weren't quite here on the I's dot and the T's cross. So he has left. So that won't be added. Okay. Do you have anything you're adding?

No. Well, yes. Which is not on here, but the contract for the IT support that we discussed. Anything else?

No, but when it gets to the claims and minutes, I want a few more minutes. I looked yesterday, but I'm looking at some new stuff here. Minutes, Kevin, we have for June 17th?

Yes, we do.

Can you go ahead and get that out of the way, Ron? You can go ahead on the minutes.

I'll look at these claims and Pretty big. Okay. So I went through the exercise. There were some changes that I saw that you did, updates. I made some updates. I made those final lines. The final versions are in the packet in front of us. Those minutes are for the June 17th meeting. Auditor's been dealing with the budget stuff, so we're cutting them a little. Been a busy, busy, busy, busy month. So I will make a motion that we approve the minutes for the June 17th meeting. That is final, second. Okay, roll.

is tim yes kevin yes all right i'm gonna give you a few minutes for you to claims i just move on with the next business if you would all right there's quite a bit here i looked yesterday and this wasn't there and i've looked on my phone at some of them and since they are so much i do want to look at them okay bring that up yeah all right

What I did on the agenda, folks, is made a change. I had to distinguish old business and new business. Old business just means we covered it previously. New business means it's the first time you'll see it. So that's the change on the agenda. First one is the YMCA access brand campaign procurement policy. This is just a standard agreement that we've generally approved in the past. So it's 64 pages. I mean, I scanned through it, but... Any comments, guys?

Yeah. I mean, it's a typical large document that outlined the procurement procedures, I think, if I'm not mistaken, for the access to Brown County, right? Yep, pretty much. That's it. Is she here? She is. She's online.

I'm on Teams. I'm here on Teams.

Oh, okay. Hi, Kim. Hey, Kim. Ron Sanders. Is this going to cost us any money?

Oh, my gosh. Same answer. Not a page.

Okay.

So, and again, I think the other answer he fails to ask this time around was, this is exactly what we did the last time.

Yes, you've done it a couple years ago.

Thank you very much. Thank you, Kim.

I'm sorry it's so long. 64 pages? It's not on YouTube. Yeah.

Not you. This is just the federal money passing through here, correct?

Correct. This is, yes. You're just a pass-through agency. We do all of the work.

Okay. Thank you.

You're welcome.

Thank you guys for your support.

Thanks again. I don't have any other comments on that, so I'll make a motion that we approve the procurement policy presented by Kim. Yes. Tim?

Yes.

Kevin?

Yes.

Ron?

Yes. Okay. Next order of business is Law Enforcement Center, the camera replacements for the interview room. Thank you. Thank you, Kim.

Kevin, you want to brief on that? Yeah, so last year, I can't remember exactly the same time as, we went through the exercise of getting approval to have body cams provided for the Sheriff's Office because the body cams that they were using were Very basic, almost like GoPro. So the system that they went with was through a company called Utility, which I understand now they're called Core Force or something. Core Force. Core Force. Thank you very much. And as part of the efforts of updating outdated infrastructure for the sheriff's office, there was a need to go and update the system in the interviews, the interview rooms that are used when processing or engaging with individuals that are engaged in questionable activity, I guess. So that system was needing a replacement, so we used, or they went through the exercise with Eric's assistance to put a system or negotiate the pricing on a replacement system for them. This contract that we're looking at today is an amendment or an addendum to the existing contract for the body cam. So we went through that with a fine tooth comb. Ron's got copies of it and it's here. It's a rather lengthy contract, but... They were willing to negotiate and work with us to offer favorable terms and help us get through that. So based on that and the review that was done by our attorneys, I make a motion that we approve that contract for signature.

Okay. That's fine. I'll second it. Eric did a very fine job explaining it. Thank you. It's not like we were saving some money by paying up front.

We are saving a significant amount of money. I think somewhere around $13,000 or $14,000. Great. Thank you. Yeah. I second. Roll.

Kevin?

Yes.

Ron?

Yes.

Tim?

Yes. The next item is the contract for the IT support services.

Yeah, so that particular situation is we're dealing with, we're a two-man, Eric and Bill are a two-man team. We've got some situations where we're going to have to have some support interim. We're not exactly sure what that is. We've engaged with a company out of Bloomington called E-Town IT, I think. Yes, he's IT, owned by Steve Mascari. Okay. And so the agreement there is he'll be filling support to cover and help support when we're down the resource that we have. It's a standard contract for us, so they went through and accepted our standard terms and conditions, so there wasn't any activity involved. On that, they went through and provided a scope of work compensation, and that compensation was $100 an hour, if I'm not mistaken, for the services they plan on providing. So I would make a recommendation and proceed with approving and signing the contract for V-Town IT. Recommendation is the same as a motion. Sorry, I'll make a motion that we approve the contract from Newtown IT.

That's fine, I'll second. Okay, safety roll.

Ron?

Yes. Tim? Yes.

Kevin?

Yes. Let's go ahead and do the claims. It was a lot thicker, but yesterday all the contracts weren't in there, and they are now, which I've had the contracts since yesterday. for most of it, except for the sheriff thing.

All right. So are you okay with the claims? Yeah, let's roll. I didn't see any issues, so I'll make a motion that we approve the claims as presented. Second. Roll.

Tim.

Yes.

Kevin.

Yes. Ron. Yes. So, Kenneth, before we jump into the next topics, I want to just make a mention. So there's two contracts, one that we approved last time around with Everpar, We've been able to prove that, and we were going to sign it, but the version that I gave us to sign did not have the correct sum on it. That document is in there. It's already been approved, and the total is correct. Thanks for catching that mistake, Mr. Sanders. Hang on. Avopark, the generators. I'm not seeing it. It's in the yellow folder. Okay, and what is the number? $7,300 and I think $12.50. So it's like a thousand bucks off. Well, so it was because we ended up adding a generator that we installed for the corner.

Okay, I'm fine with that then. I just knew the number didn't look right.

Yeah, that number was, yeah. We had the old, before we added the, that number you were looking at when you signed that was excluding that one generator. Please don't change. Good catch. If you want to make the motion now.

Please don't forget to sign it if you approve it.

Yes, that's the problem. So I'll go back and basically make a motion that we re-approve the Ever Park contract for the $7,312.50. That's fine. I'll second it. Roll. Kevin. Yes. Ron. Yes. Tim. Yes. And so the other thing here was just, again, disclosure on our part. The NDOT has changed the format in which they went through and do bridge amendments to the bridge inspection contracts. We had approved that amendment in May of 20, May 20th of this year. The format, so we need to re-sign that document. We don't need a motion to approve because nothing's changed there. It's just a slight modification in the way the data is summarized for NDOT. So just an acknowledgement that that's there for us to do.

Can I ask a simple question?

Sure. Are they doing the ones also for the Elkinsville Bridge? Or is this federal? Aegis? No. So Aegis is our bridge inspector. Right. USI is the company that's doing the actual design for Elkinsville Bridge. Okay. And start date might be? So I believe, if I'm not mistaken, we're doing the preliminary engineering. They're going through, I saw the claim this time around for environmental studies, and they're doing all of that because, again, it's a federal grant. It requires a lot more detail and inspections and design work. I believe, if I'm not mistaken, the target for construction is either late 2029 or early 2030. So...

That's all I have. Thank you. Anything else before we start? Next item is the letter of support to expand the Charles Dean Wellness Area and the Ben Harrison National Rec Area. To give you a little background, on our meeting on July 1, we introduced the idea that that was the suggestion, the recommendation that we approved that. That was on the agenda for June 17th, and we had a presentation on that one. Jeff presented that one. I have our attorneys draft a letter of support that will go to Senator Banks and Senator Young and Congressman Houchins. Let me read that and then we'll start with the presentation of those in favor of this project. Jeff, you do the recap and then we'll follow with those that may be opposed or have concerns. And then after that one, your And then your kids will bring it up back to the board and vote on that. So the resolution, let me read it. It's a dear Senator and Congressman. We write to express our support for federal legislation to expand the Charles C. Dean wilderness and create the Benjamin Harrison National Rec area on surrounding lands and Hoosier National Forest. As you know, legislation to accomplish these objectives was introduced in the 118th Congress as Senate Bill 4402 and House Bill 8535. We respectfully urge you to reintroduce this legislation in the 119th Congress. This legislation would be a monumental step forward protecting and enhancing Indiana's public lands while honoring President Benjamin Harrison's commitment to conservation. If passed, the act would preserve the natural beauty of this region, protect lands of pristine ecological condition, and provide a significant boom to local tourism, commerce, and quality of life. The case for prompt action remains compelling. Wilderness areas are critical for preserving biodiversity, protecting water sources, and offering unique opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation. By expanding the size of the deemed wilderness beyond the current boundaries, Congress can help ensure these lands are not overused and will remain for generations to come. The proposal also continues to have a solid foundation of local and regional support. State Senator Eric Cook, State Representative Dave Hall, Columbus Mayor Mary Cade Ferdinand, the Nashville Town Council, the Monroe County Council, the Monroe County Board of Commissioners, and the City of Bloomington Common Council have all urged action on this legislation, reflecting broad recognition that the proposal benefits conservation, recreation, tourism, water quality, and local economic vitality. For these reasons, we respectfully encourage you to reintroduce the Benjamin Harrison National Recreation Area and Wilderness Establishment Act in the 119th Congress and work with the Indiana congressional delegation and relevant congressional committees to secure its enactment. Taking this step would demonstrate a deep commitment both to conserving Indiana's natural beauty and heritage and to provide accessible outdoor spaces for the well-being and enjoyment of all. Thank you for considering this position on a critical issue for your continued service to Indiana. Signed by the three board members. So we'll start. Jeff, if you want to.

clarify, that's not necessarily been approved at this point. Correct, it has not. It's drafted.

I think that's kind of clear, right?

Yeah. So, I'm making a presentation here recapping what we talked about on the first, what I presented and also responding to some claims that the U.S. Forest Service made. Next slide. Again, the Benjamin Harrison National Recreation Area and Wilderness Establishment Act Number one, it expands the deep wilderness in the Ocean National Forest to 28,253 acres. Right now it's just under 13,000 acres. It expands it by adding lands to the east, north, and southeast. Number two, it establishes the Benjamin Harrison National Recreation Area on about 30,000 acres surrounding the deep. Three is it allows mountain biking to continue on six non-wilderness corridors in the wilderness expansion area And four, it includes no private land and will not restrict access to private property or cemeteries. Next slide, please. I think one of the most important aims of this legislation is to set aside rugged, erosion-prone national forest land to protect the Monroe Reservoir water supply permanently. And it's important to understand that the lands in the proposed wilderness expansion area have been already set aside from timber harvest for the last 35 years as administrative wilderness under two successive forest management plans. What we're trying to do here is rather than have to review and debate and push for that redesignation every 15 years, simply add them to the Wilderness Act so that we settle the issue for good, that those areas should be protected. It's very similar to what New York City did with the Adirondack Mountains to preserve its water supply and the state of New York also with the Catskill Forest Preserve on its mountainous terrain to preserve water supply. And then what Boston has done with the lands around Quabbin Reservoir to preserve its drinking water supply. To let nature maintain the land and with as little soil disturbance as possible. and the most absorption of precipitation. Next slide, please. I pointed out that this legislation would establish the largest protected island of wild nature in Indiana, Ohio, and Illinois, providing unmatched wilderness recreational opportunities at Nashville's doorstep. Now, we did a study, Indiana Forest Alliance commissioned the Earth Economics firm to do a study about what the ecosystem services of the area, the forests out there now in the Dean Wilderness, in the expanded area and in the National Recreation Area are individually and collectively producing as far as benefits in holding storm water and in protecting drinking water and providing recreation opportunities That's just the status quo. It's not more recreation if we expanded the wilderness so that it could accommodate more people. It's just looking at the status quo of the use there now. What the economists came up with was an annual benefit of $235 million from the lands in their current condition. And then over 30 years, that added up to $5.4 billion. I think that was a 2% discount rate. I handed out the study, and I think you all still have hard copies of it. The next slide, please. Now the Forest Service raised some concerns at the meeting. The first one, they talked about hindering management. Actually, they may have done it in a different order, but these points I remember. Hindering management. Actually, the non-wilderness corridors in the legislation allow mechanized equipment, ATVs, small dozers, chainsaws, to be brought into the heart of the expanded wilderness area along the Nebo Ridge Trail. and the Combs Road and Trail D and the trails 18 and 19 and 20 in the Hickory Ridge area. So that actually they can fight fires right in the heart in addition to from the county roads on the edge We haven't had a natural fire problem at all in the Dean Wilderness in the 40 plus years since it's been a wilderness area. And generally the forests of Indiana don't burn naturally, so that's really not much of a problem, but to the extent it needs to be addressed, the non-wilderness corridors actually help you address, forest service address that effectively without having to just use hand tools. Another issue that was brought up was these mountain biking trails. If you've got to reroute them in these non-wilderness corridors, you might go into a wilderness, and then it would be immensely difficult for the Forest Service to actually accomplish that and keep the trail open. And the answer to that is the non-wilderness corridors were expressly written in the bill to be 200 feet wide, anticipating that there would need to be trail realignments. And so there's more than enough room to widen it. I mean to put alternative alignments for the Nebo Ridge Trail and the trail of the pathway that's at Combs Road right now and Brown County D Trail in this bill. That problem is that it doesn't exist and won't exist. The third issue was that vacating Combs Road will stop mountain biking and horseback riding because the Forest Service will want to do an extensive Nebo analysis, National Environmental Policy Act analysis, something it hasn't been willing to do for vastly larger projects just south of the area. But nevertheless, that it would have to do that process and that in the meantime it wouldn't want to allow mountain biking or horseback riding on the vacated road. We take strong issue with those contentions, but the point here is that this proposal does not vacate Combs Road. We withdrew that from our proposal on July 1 when the Forest Service made that statement, made it very clear that we were going to have the mountain bikers and the horseback riders all of a sudden denied access to a trail that they've used for many, many years. We withdrew that. That's not part of the proposal. The fourth point is that the wilderness locks up the forest. I want to point out that this There are about 45,000 acres involved in this legislation. Two-thirds of those acres still allow for silviculture logging and wildlife management and prescribed fires as the Forest Service would deem fit, provided it's showing how it's protecting the Monroe Reservoir water supply. Two-thirds of those acres. And from the board, forest-wide, the expansion of the deemed wilderness will still leave 86% More than four-fifths of the H&F's forest acres left up to the Forest Service to use its discretion and management for other multiple uses. This legislation sets aside something that's totally unique in the whole lower Midwestern industrial heartland of the country, and certainly in Indiana. This was wild forest. Yeah, it is divided by the Corps land, but there's a lot of river bottom forest in that Army Corps land. Part of the reason we didn't put it in was because we talked with the Army Corps extensively and they said they didn't want it in. To deal with their concerns, we kept it out. The reason why the non wilderness corridors are there is we spent four years talking to the mountain biking. And so the idea that we just are sneaking this up here and there hasn't been input is just not true. The people have voiced support and opposition to this from the get-go and we've made efforts to accommodate people who were opposing it where we could. And that's pretty much it. The next slide, I'll just point out that the forest supervisor said that there were non-wilderness corridors like spaghetti going through the wilderness. Well, non-wilderness corridors are a fact of wilderness. They exist throughout the wilderness preservation area system, and I just wanted to point that out. For example, here's some examples in the eastern United States where the wilderness areas are smaller. In the Headwaters Wilderness in the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest in Wisconsin, 22,047 acres is cut into three sections by non-wilderness corridors. You can see them on the map there. In the Indian Mounds wilderness over on the right there in the Sabine National Forest in Texas, 12,214 acres, it's cut into six sections by four non-wilderness corridors. That long straight one, that's a natural gas pipeline easement, and then those other lines are dirt roads that the local community wanted left open, so they kept it open and established the wilderness on both sides of them. They're dirt roads and trails. Next slide, please. In the larger areas out west, it's common. You see those blue lines in the White Mountain Wilderness over on the left? Those are all non-wilderness corridors. The southern part of that 230,000 acres is riddled with them to allow people to get into towns and there's car and truck traffic along those roads and all kinds of mountain biking opportunities allowed there. Go over to the Collegiate Peaks Wilderness on the right, look at the The Collegiate Peaks is the one that's in the south-central part of the picture. Now look at how irregularly shaped that is. That's not that uncommon. So the idea that our wilderness area addition is so tangled that they can't manage it is crazy. They've been managing much more irregularly shaped wilderness areas for some time. And look at the non-wilderness corridors that are in there. They're actually in all three of the four wilderness areas up there. Maroon Bells over on the left has got one going right into the center, and then Hunter Fronting Pan on the top has got two that go in pretty far. But Collegiate Peaks has got them going almost all the way through, and it's one of the most heavily used wilderness areas in the entire country, in the Denver, not far from the Denver metropolitan area. Next slide, and the last one before I wrap up here. Rattlesnake Wilderness recently designated just north of Missoula, Montana, about 34,000 acres. What's not shown in the photograph there is the legislation that established it also has a large national recreation area on the southern flank because mountain bikers were going from that area up into the heart of the wilderness to a high point in the center of it They drew the legislation to allow them to continue doing that, and ATV traffic as well was driving up that road. And then the next slide over there, that is the southern end of the River of No Return Wilderness, the largest wilderness area in the US. And you see all those little white lines? Those are all non-wilderness corridors. There's dozens of them in the River of No Return Wilderness. It's two and a half, almost two and a half million acres. It spans four national forests. In addition to the non-wilderness corridors, which include one of the longest ones in the country, the Magruder Strip, 40 miles, there are airstrips in this wilderness so that people can take planes into it. There are jet boats that are allowed on the Salmon River so they can do tours on it, just like the Boundary Waters in the area of Minnesota wilderness that's had motorboat corridors all along. maintained in it, established in the initial legislation and continue to be established. So I'm just trying to point out that this idea that, well, we can't manage it because these wilderness corridors are all over in it and it's irregularly shaped, that is a myth. And I was quite frustrated to see the top person in the U.S. Forest Service in Indiana come in here and try to infer that to you. They have been managing much more complicated wilderness areas with non-wilderness corridors that include roads and highways and pipelines that are much larger than anything we're talking about here. Ever since the Wilderness Act was passed, the first wilderness area in the country that was created, the Gila out in New Mexico, has a 20-mile road going through the heart of it to the Gila Cliff Welling National Monument that the legislation said we're going to leave that as a non-wilderness corridor. So they're a fact of life in the establishment of wilderness areas and communities. Of course we want to keep large areas not permeated with them, but where there are interests that already have been established, folks who are trying to establish these areas have tried to accommodate them, and so have we here. And so that's my presentation. Thanks, Jeff. Thank you.

I just want to bring that back. You guys have questions, and then we turn it back to you. Yeah, I have a couple questions. So with regards to once an area's been accepted as a wilderness or deemed a wilderness, how many changes to those wilderness areas have ever been made as to add additional access for maybe a case of resource management or anything of that nature?

Well, there's a lot of wilderness areas in the country, so I can't answer that question. But I know I've been... privy to bills that were going through that changed boundaries and added new areas to wilderness areas. When each one of the non-wilderness corridors was established, you'd have to go back and look at the history for each wilderness area. Most of the ones I know about were established with the original act, but

Not necessarily. And so the other thing I understand is the original act didn't accommodate any exceptions. So it sounds like some of the activity related to biking trails and those things are NWC's core orders, the non- Yeah, the original act is the area over there you see that's in the green, behind the big green boundary.

And there's a wilderness, not a wilderness corridor, the towerage road going right through. And you can take cars, motorcycles, trucks right down it. And it's been a major access point to the Dean Wilderness. But it didn't allow for any non-wilderness corridors beyond that. And I would ask the Forest Service who's saying they're going to have management problems with the stuff to the east. If they have problems with the Dean, with the Tower Ridge, we're going through it. They are... They have closed off access for a year or so to the Grub Ridge campsites and that peninsula that goes up into the Monroe Reservoir because of overuse. Adding these additional areas further east in Brown County is gonna allow for rerouting of hikers and campers and also mountain bikers to camp over in those areas more. And so it allowed to spread the wilderness usage out And it gives the Forest Service in the expansion area access to the core of the wilderness with mechanized equipment because of the non wilderness corridors. So I think all in all, the legislation is very well conceived and the Braun staff bent over backwards to accommodate interests and concerns that were brought to them, but still meet the objective that Mike wanted to meet of saving the Nebo Ridge area and Padre Creek and Bad Hollow for future generations to enjoy this is old growth. And also if you look at the tree coring that's been done by IU and others, their actual old growth stands now of forests have come back in the Bantam Hollow and Browning and Nebo area. So it's very much worth preserving. Also that's come back in some of the areas in Houston South that would be logged. So under their Forest Service, project that has been stopped now three times in court and that we're working with the agency to try to come up with a remedy that would allow for some of it to go forward, but it would still need to meet the idea behind the National Recreation Area to protect the Monroe Reservoir water supply.

The question is the economics aspect of it, which when I went through the study that you organization. I don't know if you're the lead in the organization. You're saying, so the economic aspects of it, there's like 12 key categories where you're basically putting a financial value, one I guess like non-market items like aesthetics and waterways and climate or not controlled with temperature control and the water absorption and all those things right now. So how are those I think the one I read, I actually saw some data there on the aesthetic side of this thing, where they were looking at property values and comparing the property values between homes that were in, I guess, what you would call scenic areas compared to homes that wouldn't necessarily have that view.

Is that how the approach is for these other categories, or is there something- My understanding for the aesthetics one was that was most of it. Yeah, they have studies. a whole database of studies from across the world that value these services. They take the studies that are from areas that are the most similar to this exact area, and then they extrapolate the values from those studies to this area based on the amount of acres and the condition. Is it forest? Is it open ground? What is it? And so that's my understanding of how they came up with that.

And then at the beginning of your presentation, you basically say every 15 years you're treating this particular area that you're wanting to amend or include into the deemed wilderness as a wilderness itself.

The management plan is set aside under management prescriptions that don't allow for timber harvests. With most of the acres, they don't even allow for wildlife management. But for some of the, you see the areas that's just south of the wilderness there, what we call Hickory Ridge, that they do allow for maintenance of the ponds and the wildlife openings on the exterior edge. The same thing over there on Berry Ridge Road, on the inside of it, that's a 6.4 area. That's actually in the purple there. I could go point to those areas, but the National Forest, the Forest Service, you know, taking lots of public input, and to its credit, in our view, has set these areas aside. But there's been heated debate each time. And actually, before they did it the first time, there were proposals to do clear-cut logging throughout the Nebo area and into Bad Hollow and up into Panther Creek and Porter Hollow. And we ended up in court over that and got that stopped. But that was a very demoralizing time in the 1980s leading up to the first management plan that then set those areas aside and then they, for 15 years under the first plan and then in 2016 they did the second plan and that actually was 20, when's the second plan? It was 1991 to 2006. And then the second plan was 2006. It was supposed to be renewed several years ago, but the Forest Service is backlogged and they're not getting to it. So the current designations stand until they get to reviewing it for a new plan.

I thought I had one more question. If I remember it, I'll ask it later. Sure. Thank you. I appreciate the questions. Good questions.

I'm good at this time. Okay. And Jeff, I appreciate the information. You sent it to us about a month ago. Got the legislation. I reread that a few times. That seemed pretty cut and dried. And then the additional information you gave in your presentation. So I appreciate that. Yeah. I'll tell you what. We'll open it up to the audience. But how many folks, just to show hands, how many are in favor of the proposal? Most everybody? Okay. The camera pans. Okay. We've got about up to three minutes, so if you want to comment on anything new that you want to add to the conversation, if you're for it, that's fine. I mean, others have talked last, our last meeting explained about the Combs Road and things, and that's a different issue. That's kind of out of the scope of this one, but nothing we're... not aware of and concerned about and definitely want to keep it close as far as I know. So again, I'll open it up to the audience. Three minutes. Do you want to add anything new? Just step to the podium. Okay, just step up to the podium then so people can hear you. The acoustics are such that the microphones will pick up. They won't pick up audience comments ridiculously.

Hi, my name is Randall Fluder. I have an interest in this for reasons of the Nomsom Trail, which might not be obvious, but here we are.

I just wanted to ask Jeff to clarify about sort of the other argument which would for or against this proposal, which would be maybe we want to harvest more, for example. Is that what's on the table, if the wilderness is not expanded?

It would be open to plants to harvest more when they get around to renewing the management plant. All the area that's outside of the deemed wilderness is up for consideration for that. It's what the reality is. Including the areas that we're proposing to be added to the wilderness. which were the original areas that were proposed to be eastern wilderness back in the 1970s, the areas to the east of what ended up being.

But once in the wilderness, they'd be out of the timber base.

Once they're in the wilderness, that's right. They're out of the timber base. But right now, technically, that land is out of the timber base. It's just that every 15 years, that land gets reviewed for whether it should be put back into the timber base that the deemed wilderness doesn't. If you added that land to it, you'd still have 86% of the national forest acres open to some kind of silviculture or logging and other management for wildlife and maintenance of a certain forest type or whatever.

Jeff, who's the decision makers on the management plan? Is that what's identified in the legislation?

The U.S. Forest Service takes public input, it drafts a plan, it has a whole office in Washington, they've recently decentralized it all, so now I think it's out in Utah, but it's a planning staff that does the plan with a lot of input from the H&M professionals, then that's presented as a draft to the public. They've recently dramatically reduced the amount of public input the public's going to be allowed to have on the plan and that's another reason why we would like to get this wilderness area established because we don't trust the planning process that much anymore because of what's happened to it. But the decision makers of the U.S. Forest Service ultimately on the areas outside the deep wilderness.

Thank you. I'm Dr. Christy Crandall. I'm a hydrogeologist and I've I grew up in Brown County and I also moved back here in retirement. And I'm on the board of the Friends of Lake Monroe, a non-profit organization that works to protect water quality in Lake Monroe and also to improve land use practices and try to encourage people to have land use practices that will keep the water quality in Lake Monroe at least at current levels and hopefully better over time. So I'm here tonight on behalf of the Friends of Lake Monroe organization to say that we wholeheartedly endorse this expansion of the wilderness area and the recreation area. And we hope that you will write the letter and send it to support this because we feel it's critical to protect the water quality, which has already been suffering from logging that does occur. especially in the South Salt Creek Basin, which has more agriculture and has had more logging proposed in that basin in the South Haston area, which is just part of, is it part of this area? So anyway, we're hoping that Brown County commissioners will write this letter. Thank you.

I'm Dennis Tibbets from Bartholomew County. I wore my Take a Hike t-shirt. I laundered it today for this occasion to remind myself and some of us that we have a bunch of Bartholomew County hikers that spend a lot of time and a lot of money in Brown County because of this. When we're on the trail, we meet folks from all over the Midwest, sometimes all over the country that are doing the same thing. Staying in your hotels, drinking your craft beer, eating at restaurants, grocery stores, camping. So it's a big deal, big draw for hikers.

Thank you.

Hello, my name is Marcia Veldman. I'm a 30-year resident of Brown County and the state coordinator for an organization called Citizens Climate Lobby. And we're a national nonprofit that advocates for good climate change solutions in Congress. And I wanna start off by saying thank you to the persons or people who wrote that resolution, just the wording of it. And it's just very comprehensive. And I'm gonna be super brief because Yeah, there's a lot of people in the room, but for all the reasons mentioned in that resolution, including climate change, we are very interested in this resolution being passed and ultimately the expansion of the Dean Wilderness and the creation of the National Recreation Area. So thank you for this opportunity, for the public to have input on this, and for your dedicated service to our community.

Thank you. Our attorney, Stephanie Crandall, is the author on the letter of support.

Yes, I'm Richard Martin. I am the president of the Monroe County Redevelopment Commission. One of the activities in which we get engaged is monitoring and trying to assure that redevelopment activities are appropriate in Monroe County. The thing we hear most is that we want predictability in the environment in which people are thinking about doing any kind of development. And for Monroe County, predictability about our water supply is one of the number one topics that has to get addressed. For the last 40 years, I've been engaged in trying to assure that Lake Monroe is a high quality source of water for the residents of Monroe County and in some cases surrounding areas. The predictability that we can gain by setting these areas aside to assure the best opportunity for quality water supply is really important to us and I'm sure it's important to many of the people in Brown County as well. And that has to be the focus here. The predictability of our water supply into the future. Anytime we allow change to occur in this watershed, there is always an impact on the quality of that water. We've done a better job in the last 20 years of protecting that quality and improving it than we did in the previous 20 years. I've been involved in many of those activities. And I just want to encourage you to help us and to help all the residents of South Central Indiana achieve predictability and the quality of the water in Lake Monroe. Thank you. Thank you.

My name is Laura Kemp. I am a lifelong outdoor enthusiast. I have spent 60 years recreating in the rolling hills of Brown County, Indiana, enjoying the natural beauty of this area. I am here today to ask you to support the wilderness expansion to support the Benjamin Harrison Recreation Area and continues the legacy and tradition of not allowing orbs on the Columns Creek area. I know that one's settled, but I just want to put my two cents worth in about it. Couldn't make it last time. I'm with the Sierra Club Hoosier Chapter Conservation Committee, and I'm on the board of directors of the Indiana Forest Alliance, and I also represent the Heartwood Organization. From an outdoor adventurer's perspective, creating the recreation area is essential. Hoosiers enjoy their outdoor recreation experiences, including mountain bike riding, horseback riding, hiking, and bird watching. Outdoor recreation is one of the top industries in the nation. Bird watching brings in over $90 billion nationwide. And when you bring in the bird watchers, you also bring in the pollinator watchers and the pollinator enthusiasts. So there's a whole economic development aspect to look at when we are looking at our natural areas and our wild areas that are depleting and wild nature shrinking. By expanding the Dean Wilderness and including the Nebo Ridge area, nature can be left with little disruption for natural evolution where untrammeled areas are becoming hard to find and leaving untrammeled areas in this day and age is very important for wild nature. By expanding the deemed wilderness, you are creating habitat for endangered species like the cerulean warbler and Indiana bats, just to name a few. I was writing up a wilderness proposal for a wild area in the big hurricane area, and that's when I realized that birdwatching, I mean, I have friends that birdwatch, but it's a huge economic factor, and by expanding the deemed wilderness will not only support these areas for this wild nature, this habitat will bring in people from all over the place who care about these endangered species. So the wilderness area offers sanctuary to those deep wood creatures that cannot survive in other habitats. Future generations of Hoosiers deserve to have the opportunity to enjoy the natural beauty our state has to offer, and you have a chance today to help us expand our recreation opportunities, expand our financial opportunities, and help save and protect some of Indiana's most vital ecosystems, helping preserve Indiana's native flora and fauna. As Hoosiers, this is our wilderness area. It is the only one that we have. We need wild areas for wild nature for the wild and all of us. Hoosiers enjoy their outdoor recreation.

Thank you.

Hello, my name is Mike Jensen and I'm a 30 year resident of Brown County and I live within the border of the proposed area. I'm a recovering city boy and the reason that I've lived out there for 30 years is because I'm very fond of that neck of the county. The wilderness area around Panther Creek and Porter Hollow is a gem for the state in terms of biodiversity, in terms of natural beauty as well. And so I wanted to give you the perspective of someone who lives within the county and within the area and let you know that I fully support you endorsing this letter. Okay, thank you.

My name is David Haberman. I'm a citizen of Monroe County, but a neighbor, so I spend a lot of time in Brown County. And I just see this as such an exciting, exciting possibility for those of us who are living in this part of the country. And to have the governor of a state so supportive of something like this, I think just really provides a great opportunity for what is before us right now. It sounds like you've been given a lot of information, so I thought I would just add one small anecdote to that, and that is that I have spent a lot of time hiking in the Nebo Ridge area, coming in with family, with friends, and we always have breakfast if we're coming in the morning at the story inn. and then go hiking, or maybe we're hiking and have dinner in the Story Inn on our way out. And I've also spent nights in the Story Inn having breakfast and dinner and hiking out. So I think there's just an example. I have friends in Illinois who are just looking at this expansion of the Dean as a possibility for them. And these are people who are going to come more and more into Brown County. So there's just an anecdotal expression of the kinds of economic possibilities that I think something like this really does hold. Thank you. Thank you.

Commissioners, my name's Tim Maloney. forty-some year resident of Brown County. I spoke at your last meeting and I don't want to repeat what I said then, but I did want to come up and say thank you for your in-depth consideration of this proposal and considering a very well-drafted letter that sets out all the rationale for taking this action and for this legislation being introduced and moving to enactment by Congress. I do want to just add one factoid. Jeff and the study that IFA did looked at the value of the ecosystem services of these protected lands, which are very substantial. But the other economic value of these lands, which I know most people in Brown County realize, is for tourism and outdoor recreation. in the state of Indiana, according to studies done by the U.S. Department of Commerce, brings in nearly $16 billion a year to the Indiana economy. And that's statewide. So this is people who spend money on lodging and food and beverages and buy equipment and do all those things that other speakers have mentioned as being connected with their visiting or outdoor lands. And we are so blessed in Brown County in this area to have so many wonderful public forests and parks and recreation areas, but a lot of parts of Indiana don't have this. And I know that a lot of them would like to have it. So I really appreciate your considering this letter. I hope you will approve it and send it off. And thank you again.

I'm sorry I wasn't prepared to speak so I don't have the information that's required, but I was out helping do research on Burry Ridge a couple years ago and that's when I realized that the people in Indiana who founded the state park system, like Lieber, when they founded Brown County State Park, they preserved forever this beautiful area. And when I was out there, I realized that that area is just as beautiful, just as perhaps more diverse than Brown County State Park. The only thing it doesn't have is the big cutaways where you can see way out into the distance. But this is just as beautiful as the state park, and it really has as much right to be preserved forever. Thank you. I'm from Monroe County, but I come to Brown County. at least once a week to hike and go to the bird's nests. Can I ask your name? Oh, Jack Dosko, D-O-S-K-O-W-O. Thank you.

Hi, I'm Rebecca Lorenz. I live in Bartholomew County. I'm out here a lot, hiking and everything, and my favorite place to go with my kids is during Thanksgiving, the day after Thanksgiving, we come out here to Brown County to the Dean Wilderness And we go hiking out there with like the Sycamore Trail. There's all sorts of trails out there that I really like. But when we were out there, that's hunting season then. And we run into hunters and stuff. And I know that one nice thing about making it a wilderness is that it preserves the beach trees out there that turkeys eat and a lot of wildlife does. The Forest Service, when they come in and they strip the trees down, They hate beach trees, they take them out. So it would be nice if it was wilderness just like the Dean Wilderness is. Also, just in case you didn't know, we have a lot of diversity here. Hawaii only has two orchids that are native to Hawaii. We have over 30 here in Indiana and especially in the Dean Wilderness. So I think a lot of people come out to see these things and I think we should preserve it. I think it's well worth it. It's our heritage as people from Indiana.

So, thank you.

Any more else? Faith in favor? Want to speak? Then we'll turn it over to those with concerns.

Good evening. Thank you for this meeting and for that Well, research is a beautiful letter. Thank you. My name is Mary Bookwalter. I live in Marion County, but my grandparents brought me here in, oh, probably 1950, X, X, you know, those days. And my husband and I also own 170-some acres right next to the Brown County line, and we treasure this. But the cabin I was taken to is a child was a Booth Carvington's and he sat there and he wrote it was one of those hillside cabins with the fallaway porch and he loved that spot as did my grandfather and grandmother and I just want to say it did overlook Lake Lemon and when it started to get filled in he said the hell with this and left and sold his cabin but anyway He thought that was extra. But I know it's special and we need it. But I just appreciate when others write letters about the diversity, there's groups that say diversity and they focus on deer and turkeys. And I just want to say I appreciate that the folks here and yourselves realize we're talking everything from those orchids to the songbirds, the Guys don't name, but they are manifest here. And the deep woods birds are very different from the ones that live around the edges. And the more edge, the more at risk they are to the predators, like cat birds, like the cowbirds that parasitize their nests, lay their eggs, and the little warblers work themselves to death feeding that one gaping mouth. Everybody's got one in their family, right? But anyway, so we've got those guys. But it's just the less edge, the better. And the more continuous force we can preserve, the better for all of us. So thank you very much. And I'm just so delighted that you would look at this favorably. Thank you. Protect us all. Thanks. Give him a word of favor.

My name is Jim Jean. I've lived in the county for 30 years plus. Border up to State Forest. I've seen what's going on in the forest for years and years. I'm also very familiar with that area we're talking about. I've participated in some of the studies down there. I thought we were coming here because of the comb road, but we're going to open it or not, which I was just going to say, as a citizen, we can't afford it. But as far as preserving the area and for your letter, I congratulate you on that. I think it's very good, and I think we need this. What doesn't come out is the amount of erosion that goes on after any manipulation in these areas. And to open them up even for hiking, mountain biking, horses and all that, opens it up to severe erosion. Okay, I've seen this go on like every time it rains anymore because they've done some cuts here on 45 where it never used to flood. Now every time it rains it floods across the road. I've seen in the road where they've had culverts and log roads and all that and about 20 years ago the culvert was in there. Now the culvert lays on top of the ground and all the dirt's gone. Where's all that dirt? That's all in Lake Lemon and we know what the problem is in Lake Lemon and we can't have that problem in Lake Monroe. We have enough siltation. enough volume of organic matter going through the system now that we don't really need to increase the speed and the rate at which this happens. Plus we're now spraying all this surface chemical and all this stuff on our crops and all that stuff. and we have really no idea, but I mean, it's been stored in a mud layer, it's there, so I would just say that the ongoing erosion problem is very much undocumented, and it's a very serious problem, and if we can get this into an area where we know that's gonna be stable forever, then that would be a great thing. Logging's a one-time income. If you have recreation, you got annual income, and you have something to build on, and I appreciate your time for this matter. Thank you.

My name is Susan Hollis Bassett. I am a property owner down in the Berry Ridge area since 1968. However many years, that is a lot of years. I have two points. First, I very much appreciate the explanation of the non-wilderness corridor. I guess that surely that is a plus for us that we can... get into the area without much trouble, and older people like myself can access the area with those corridors. Secondly, if we step back and just look at the whole picture of this proposal, the quality of our lives would be so much richer for everyone. Even the people that might be opposed, their life would be enriched with the passing of

Proposal that would save this area for all thank you Okay with concerns My name is John Mattingly I live in Brown County from here and And it looks like I'm probably the only person's room who's not retired. There is no such thing as wilderness in Indiana, especially the area that Indiana Forest Alliance wants to restrict access to for their own self-centered and myopic reasons. Hoosier National Forest didn't exist until 1951. Southern Brown County towns, farms, and homes were not stolen and flooded until the early 60s to make Lake Monroe. The area proposed for wilderness was populated less than a century ago. Any map of significant age will show a network of roads and homesteads. I've spent quite a bit of time in the proposed area, mountain biking, camping, and hiking. I have found old foundations and wells. In fact, almost all of the trails on Nebo Ridge, Browning Mountain, and the surrounding area are old road beds. Most of these trails and old road beds are not official trails, and cyclists will lose access, and even maintaining and possible reroutes of official trails will become a bureaucratic nightmare, no matter what lies they try to sell. The forest that covers these ridges and ravines is beautiful, but far from what any honest person would call mature or old growth. The majority is second growth hardwood, with pockets of sickly red and white pine plantations that as they age and die will need to be managed for a healthy forest. A wilderness designation will prevent the Forest Service from using labor-saving tools such as chainsaws and mechanized vehicles to maintain these forests for clear trails. There's also the issue of who is pushing for this. I've looked into the Indiana Forest Alliance and from everything I have seen, the organization is pompous, short-sighted, and with no knowledge of forestry. and what access to public land means for the common person. When I see other people in that area, I see normal working class people, people that probably can't afford week-long excursions out west or to the Boundary Waters, people that can only take a weekend here and there, whether that's mountain biking, backpacking, hunting, or just sitting around a fire. If this area becomes wilderness, the people of the Indiana Forest Alliance will get to slap another sticker on their Prius or Tesla and get some extra toast in the expensive mid-century ranch homes on Bloomington's east side. Us normal people will once again lose access to places we love because some people with money from out of town decided they knew better than us about what places we should be allowed to go to. Do not send the letter. Thank you.

Anyone else with concerns?

Closing off to public discussion, bring it back up to the board. Is this, do we want to introduce the Benjamin Harris National Recreation Area and Willard's Establishment Act to a To include the Dean Wilderness, are we just going for the Fort Benjamin hares if we was to vote for that National Recreation Area? What is the proper... That's right there what I was looking at. That's okay. No? No?

So, Jeff, it's both, correct? The legislation establishes the increase in the size of the Dean Wilderness and then the Benjamin Harris National Declaration. That's right. Correct. So it's both of them. That's both of them. Okay. Well, that's my question. I'll let you guys... I think I went back and actually remember the question, and then this back, and again, Jeff, when we're looking at this, this is legislation, meaning it's going to follow through the rigors of Congress, meaning the House, the Senate, and then before that. The issue that you raised with regards to this, it's currently under a management plan, which is following the guise of it being managed as a wilderness area right now. Through the foreship, correct? I didn't hear that incorrectly. The proposed wilderness expansion area, that's correct. Okay. So, again, if this is going through and this legislation passes, going back to it, that's why I was asking the questions with regards to modification to existing wildernesses. Again, have any of these wildernesses, once they've been adopted as a wilderness, been changed in any way? to refine access, to allow more, or has it been curtailed to adapt for changes in the public's opinion with regards to access and those kinds of things?

I believe so. I know one good example, but there's like several hundred units in the wilderness areas in the system. And so it's just that it's a very big question. But I know, for example, of at least two actually I think about a number, several, that they have actually changed the boundaries of.

And again, I assume that process follows the same procedures establishing it, correct?

Yeah, that we're talking about here. And then it gets introduced and then it goes to a committee and it goes through committee consideration and markup and then it gets sent out to the floor. Oftentimes they'll get tacked on to a larger bill once they go through a committee markup.

Okay, so that's a key point, it's tacked on to a large bill. Yes. Okay, so then my next question is, how often is that management planned?

Can I reply to that too? I just looked up and there's several examples of wilderness areas being expanded. The Oregon wilderness, New Hampshire wildernesses, to name two. The Roxon Islands wilderness in Northern California was expanded. So yes, there have been expansions.

Expanded but changed in the sense of removed from the wilderness. classification. Has there ever been a situation where something has gone in and you've increased its size and it's been reduced? That's my question.

Oh, ever gone, become smaller? Probably not. That's the whole point.

I'm not sure about, I don't know the answer to that question. I know that there's been, like at the Sipsi Wilderness in Alabama, they increased the size, but they put a non-wilderness corridor in it. The Cranberry Wilderness in West Virginia, they increased its size to include some black bear area that they thought it would help them. The Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness in Minnesota, they didn't change the boundaries, but they modified the motorboat corridors that are allowed through it. There still are corridors that allow motorboats to get to lakes and up through the wilderness area up to the Canadian Boundary. And they change some of those routes. Those are examples that come to my mind of wilderness areas that were changed, but I don't, in none of those cases did they shrink the boundaries.

There's a few where they were shrunk, but it's a pretty small amount of acreage. But boundary adjustments have happened, property swaps have happened, where a piece of wilderness is given to a private landowner in exchange for private land that maybe makes it a better wilderness. So Congress can do that, Scott.

So I think I heard the statement earlier on, well, this kind of settles this conversation that begins at being deemed a wilderness. It does.

What I meant by that was that it no longer is a part of forest planning. It's a wilderness area and it's managed as such under the Wilderness Act. But it's not subject to multiple use designations under the National Forest Management Act that is the law that requires these plans to be developed for managing national forests.

And the current plans today, how often are they updated by the forestry?

It's supposed to be every 15 years, but it's taking a little longer than that this time.

Thank you. No, I think that's it.

A lot of support here. This is a support letter. Do you entertain a motion? Not yet.

Yeah, I do. Okay, go ahead. I'll just address on the legislation two things, macro, micro. At the macro level, legislation is always subject to changes. And then the fact you had so much stability on these wilderness areas and either staying the same or increasing or decreasing a little kind of tells you there's a lot of support for once that's there to keep it there. But, you know, again, legislation's always something to change if there's a need out there and people get fired up and lo and behold, that's how our system works. On the micro level, when I go through and I look at this, it's kind of painful if I had to be on one of these committees. There's a lot of committees and discussions when it comes to tweaking different things and allowing different options within that wilderness area. So it seems like there's a lot of flexibility in there, but they have to be negotiated with various groups and then work through the process under the different stipulations they have and the different kind of acts. So at a micro level, it looks like there's a lot of tweaking or adjustments could happen if they've got between the stakeholders involved in some of these things. The other thing when it comes to economics, and you guys have heard this pitch from me forever, and I mentioned it last time, our county is, our economics is based on really two major drivers. Over half our land is state, federal, major, the conservancy force that's out of the tax rolls. But yet, given that, and then we get complaints that, hey, a lot of our land's not taxable. Well, that's what attracts people down here. 77% of our income is generated outside this county. And so our number one economic driver is people want to live here because we've got so much land, you know, in forests and state parks and national and that kind of thing. So that's a big driver. And I think all state economists back the same thing. Our major driver for economics is attracting more people to live down here. And that's what we've seen, especially after COVID, just an upward trend on income levels and everything else. And the other thing we talk about so much, you say Brown County, we talk about tourism. Well, tourism, Rockport Antelope Studies bring, I think, tourism on gross wages. And we're primarily, our two main source of funds are income tax and property tax. And so we've deliberately went high income, low property. And we went high income because the number of people at their higher income levels that want to live here but work somewhere else. And again, I mentioned 77% of that income is earned outside the county. And so number one is attracting people to live here, and that's the wilderness areas and the parks. And number two was really tourism recreation. It was another driver from Ball State. That's what funds us. So when you look at where that revenue comes, let's say for income tax, gross income, I mentioned on tourism, $21.3 million, I think, on the last Rockport Analytics study. I saw it was reduced by the state. And when you look at the adjusted gross income, that's taxable income for everybody in the county. It's over $520 million. million dollars, 520 million dollars. So that's how we're funded when you look at income and then the low property tax. So when we talk about tourism and recreation tourism, it's a driver of our economy for the county. So that's on that point. On Combs Road, it's not within the scope of this particular agreement. I think Kevin and I are new. We started in 2025 and then Ron voted to keep it closed And the first thing we did in 2025 was put it on the agenda and close it by resolution because it expires, I think, every five years. So we renewed that. And so I don't think there's any, at least the current administration, there's no desire to ever open that up to roads. We could afford it anyway. But anyway, there's no desire. And we went through that last meeting when it comes to Cone's Road. So what I mentioned on some of these things, we look at if we abandon that road and allow access to the hikers, bicyclists, and the horse riders, yeah, that's something the forester is gonna have to agree on, and I'm assuming if the legislation passes, that probably falls within one of these committees. to make that kind of arrangement within there, I would think.

There's a requirement to develop a plan for all of the non-wilderness corridors, their use of them, the trails and so forth, and then another plan for the management of the National Recreation Area. Okay, thank you. And a advisory body set up to work with the Forest Service on that plan for the National Recreation Area.

Okay, thanks. Ron, that's all I had. Do you have a motion? Yeah, we'll enter a motion.

I'll make a motion that we get a letter of support to create the Benjamin Harris National Recreation Area and Wildlife Establishment Act, which would include the Charles Dean Wilderness in Brown County. Is that enough?

I think so. Attorney? She wrote the letter, Ron.

Yes, yes. That's my motion.

Yes, that works.

That's my motion.

All right. Is there a second? I'll second.

Come on.

Yes.

Tim?

Yes.

Kevin?

No. Okay. Motion's passed 2-1.

I'm just sure you want to get a break five minutes.

you

Next item on the agenda is the Ellensburg RSD, a resolution. We were asked, commissioners, support for a change for HR Ellensburg regional sewer district boundaries to include the future customers they will be supporting. And approval of that decision is decided by the two boards and I-DEV. So let's start off, Ellensburg guys.

Carl Myers, I am the Vice President and Treasurer of the Helmsburg Regional Sewerage District Board.

Is his microphone on?

Turn it back on.

Okay.

Well, you guys are the best.

I think I can hear you. Is it on?

No, I'm okay.

A little closer. Kyle Meyers, I'm the Vice President and Treasurer of the Helmsburg Regional Sewer Distribution Board. I'll just give a quick update. I'm going to turn it over to Adrian to kind of give you an update on some meetings that he's had with Mr. Hamlet. We did open bids for our new treatment plant at our June meeting. The bids did come in higher than we had anticipated. In June, we worked back and forth with SRF for a little while, trying to see what they could do. We kind of maxed out on the amount of grant funding that they can give us for this project. So the only thing that they could really do at the time was really offer us the additional end loan, which we can't afford. We did already raise our rates. in May to $118 a month, so we said that's not gonna happen. We've at least been coordinating since with our engineering firm, Locke Miller Group. They're in the process of actually kind of downsizing a few different things and kind of trying to make this project a little bit more affordable. At our July meeting, we did reject all the bids that we had opened in June. But our plan is, Lockneader is redoing our plans right now. They've been in communication with SRF on what we've been doing or what we're trying to do. And they've been relaying to me and to the board as to what some changes are going to be coming with our plan. Nothing from the standpoint of an operational standpoint for the plant or changing the size of the plant. It will still remain a 14,000 gallon per day plant, which is what we were originally doing. We're just kind of taking away a few, mainly a building that we had that was going to be housing mostly future things for expansion and then kind of right-sizing a few other things. At least with the numbers that they've ran, we're well below the amount that SRF was telling us our budget was for grant funding. So we feel pretty confident that in a couple of months, once they kind of fix those plans, coordinate with IDEM to make sure they're not gonna make us re-permit and that they're okay with the changes, that we would be rebidding this here in the next couple of months. and then still breaking ground by spring of next year at the latest. So, any questions about that before I turn it over?

Yeah, I'm curious on the delta, on the money. How much did you need to make that work, or how much did it go over?

So originally, SRF told us they weren't gonna give us anything more than 6.4 million in grant. When we opened bids, the construction costs along with the non-construction costs paying our attorney, our legal counsels, our financial consultants, everybody else, the engineering firm. We needed to shave off about $1.7 million. So we did, in coordinating with SRF, they did try to search to see if they could come up with some more grant money. They were able to come up with another $200,000, which is great. I mean, pennies in comparison to what we needed, but every penny's going to help. from that standpoint. So, like I say, at least the things that we've kind of shaved off and we've trimmed down, we feel very confident that we're going to be able to get underneath that number when we read the kids.

And Collin, correct me, on the grants, doesn't that help keep the rates low? I mean, does that subsidize your

Basically, with us receiving everything as a grant, so if they're offering us now $6.6 million as grant funding, we don't have to pay any of that back. So yes, that does affect our rates tremendously, because any loan that we would have to take out to be able to build that plant in excess of that, basically our rate payers have to pay for it. And with us raising rates already to 118, we weren't entertaining the idea of taking on any additional loan at that point in time to raise the rate any more than that. So, I mean, our goal is add more customers as time goes on, and then hopefully we can either maintain or start reducing that rate if we can add on enough customers.

Okay, thank you. Guys, any questions? I might come back to it. I kind of like to see the whole picture. Okay.

Hi guys, how's it going? Adrian O'Shea, I'm the president of the Holmesburg Regional Sewer District. And I'm going to update you, because the last meeting I was at, Kevin, you had asked if we could, the boards could meet and talk and that kind of thing. Now we haven't had a full-on both board meeting, but Matt Hamlin and I have been meeting a couple different times, two times. And we did have Darren Bird, who had an interest in it, so he wanted to be there, almost kind of a mediator type thing, but it was great because ideas were shared. We started those conversations out about what each district wants, and I mentioned that we really do have the time and personnel resources to take on the Bean Blossom Project. We are really in a good spot. Our engineers are handling these last little bits to get our project to spec. At the end of the first meeting, we did have a conversation that ended with a suggestion that we look into expansion on Morrison Road. And I know that I probably did not seem very enthused, but it's partially because I've not heard any noise from that part of the county at all. So that doesn't mean it's dead or that we wouldn't look into that, but we're looking at next steps between the two boards. We're looking at what it would take to check with those people to see how it is.

So, Adrian, before that, help me with Morrison Road because I'm not an expert in your area over there. Is it below Helmsburg?

Proximity. It's a little south of, it goes from south to east.

It goes from Hellsberg Road up to 45. Okay.

It's the one that's just past the horse farm, or the Hope Heart, again, we're in 45. Yeah, same corner.

Or if you're heading up, if you're heading north, it's the first road to the right past Grandma Barnes Road that goes through. I got the property number.

Anything else? I'm sorry. No, that's okay. You would think working with the highway department, I know every road by now.

I got you. So, yes, we ended that conversation with next steps. So we are talking about that. We honestly felt that pausing this beam loss project is going to be detrimental to businesses in the area. They have been shouting for this and we just feel that that is where we want to keep the conversation. I did ask in that first meeting if we could have some transparency and if we could see the project plans. I felt like I needed to make that more formal, so on June 15th, I sent a formal request to Matt Hamlin's email. He did an excellent job, got back to me within a couple hours of that, and that, what I had asked for was engineering plans, specs, and or feasibility documents related to the Bean Blossom project, okay? I do have some documents for you guys, do you mind if I bring them up? So the first part of that, that very first document is the official request that I made. So you guys can see in detail what I asked for. If you look at the second page, That has got a reply from Aegis talking about what they have given me. They are preliminary in nature, subject to change. I understand that it's not been certified by a professional engineer. If you look at the two pages after that, that's what I got. So... I've not talked to anybody about this. I got this around 2.30 today. I got it about 2.30 today. I'm not feeling that that's very substantial. It is low readable. That is squished in on the page. But I pretty much got an aerial view of Helmsburg I'm sorry, Bean Blossom and 45. So what I would like to bring up here is I didn't receive any kind of information citing any kind of IC codes that would have prevented any of that from coming to me. And I haven't talked to them yet. So what I do want to do is make sure that I reach back out to them in writing Let them know that I feel like we may be missing some documents. And I'm hoping that that doesn't end up in a battle where I go make a formal complaint to our PAC. I don't want that. Try to be as transparent as possible. But if you guys have more knowledge about this and can tell me that those two documents could help me make a plan for a particular project, I'm more than willing to listen. But I feel like I couldn't approach any company or any part of the government to ask for any kind of funding based on what I currently have. I will mention that the document I've got here, so this is what we presented to all of our rate payers during a public meeting. Not the official documents we're using for anything, right? But we want to give them as much knowledge as possible. The other thing, I've got a thumb drive here that has all the documentation that I would hand over if I were asked this request. It's 1,400 pages. I know our projects a lot further along than theirs. We've been hearing 60% plans for quite a while. But if that is all that they have, which I assume it's not, but if it is, we've put a whole lot of money into something that we're not going anywhere with. That is a concern to me. So like I said, I've got the thumb drive. I'm more than willing to hand it over to you guys so you can see where our project is in its entirety. I got all the permits. I have got all of the bidding documents. It's about 1,200 of that. And then we've got the official plans. And if someone were to ask me for that, I can hand that right over. And so we've also got it on our Google Drive. We have a website. This is a cheap plug. HelmsburgRSD.com. And we will have those documents up and available for people. by the end of the week. So we're doing everything we can to be transparent. We also are really trying to drive this home that we are looking for your guys' support, not because we want some massive takeover. People need something. It's been paused. We have the time and effort. And the other thing I know that Matt had a concern with is the amount of money that we have. We're pretty low, guys. But Look at the project that I'm presenting to you guys that we've done. We've done a whole lot with quite a little bit of money. We definitely know that we are resourceful enough to get this. We're also to a point where we're debt free. Everything that we start bringing in, instead of going out, we're going to be able to keep this and start building some assets. It's going to take a while, but we're on the right track. That is what I want to come back to is just let you guys know that these meetings are still happening. We had a second meeting and that idea covered a joint development agreement, which I believe is the very last section of what I sent there to you guys. And it was just mentioned, not that there were facts dropped, but it was just mentioned that maybe we were not following it. It wasn't really clear which of us or both of us were not following it, but It becomes a moot point because in 2024, it did cease to be an agreement between the two boards. We also have talked about an interlocal agreement. I'm not opposed to one, but I also brought up the question, if they're not going to be sending anything to us anytime soon, we're not going to be getting anything from Bean Blossom because that's on Paul West. We aren't going to get anything from Lake Lemon because as they presented last time, they're planning on putting a whole separate plant there. There was talk about maybe in the future we could send the waste to the cheapest plant. I'm not opposed to it, but I don't see a need for an interlocal agreement right now. I did ask if they had interlocal agreements with the other sewer districts that they touch, which would be all of them. And I don't believe they do. Matt did not know if they did. So I figured he may have a rebuttal to that tonight, which is fine. So they don't have interlocal agreements, to my knowledge, with any of the other RSDs. I don't know that a piece of paper that apparently wasn't being followed in the first place, the joint district or development agreement, is something that I really think needs signed. We just aren't. We need to talk about how to deal with being blossomed I'm not interested in the Lake Lemon part of this because they've already taken that to a different area. So we seriously feel as our district that we're looking for you guys to help give us support. Again, not to take it. We still have to talk to them. We still have to talk to IDEM. So you guys giving us support is not a be all end all, obviously. But we are asking, since you guys appoint all of us We feel like you guys are kind of the final authority for us, and we would really like to make sure that the people that are putting us in our places here can stand behind us when we need something here. So that's what I'm asking. Again, Matt and I are going to continue having these conversations. I don't know that the boards, you guys have seen the passion. You saw that in the last meeting, right? I think everybody on both boards truly wants to get to a point where we've got sewers and clean water to all the different areas. We have different philosophies on how to get there. So, yeah, in the end, I'm just asking you guys to at least consider the resolution. And if not, that's okay too. We at least appreciate the conversation. Good for now.

Okay. I've got a question for you, Amy. Yes, sir. So... You say that you have the resources, you believe you have the resources and the time, and again, provided some information, you believe you put a plan together for that. So my question again, and I don't even know if this is even possible, but because I spent all my time in the private sector, I didn't spend it in utilities. Any time that we went through the exercise and placed things in place from a performance perspective, is there any way to make an arrangement to say if Helmsburg RSD agrees with Brown County RSD saying going in and identifying these areas like Orson or other areas to go through and get the necessary support for that to move that forward? and document that in either an agreement in between an MOU, a contract, or whatever the heck that is. Is there any way that you would consider that?

We definitely would. Nothing for this group is off the table on our end. We also still go into this plant that we are currently building to still take flow from them when we get to that point. So that's never been something that we... And we tried to send an interlocal agreement with that very basic thing being set. We can't give them rates yet. We can't do that because it costs what it costs to treat the sewer. So we are trying to give it as cheaply as we possibly can. And that's why we're pushing with this bee blossom is we feel that if they push, and get this project to completion. It's great because it does get people sewers, but I don't see how that's going to keep their bills low because Bean Blossom is going to need to make money to keep running. We've got to be paid for doing all the sewer. That's why we thought if we could make those people our direct customers, we'd take care of everything. We directly bill them with the billing system we've been using for probably a decade here. So we just felt like our resources, Kevin, were to a point where we have quite a bit of knowledge on how to do this with very little. And we've got the go to do this, guys.

Did I answer your question or answer any of it? So again, that's just for me. That's not the problem. Again, it's a matter of you say you can step up and identified as a potential moving forward, right? Because again, I sit here as I don't want this commission to take a side of one RSD over the other. That does not bring cohesiveness to this county, right? And it's more about Helmsburg. It's not just about Nauvoo and it's not about Nashville. It's about Brown County and doing the right thing. That's where I'm at. So I look to two boards trying to work through the challenges that you have. And again, I'm disappointed in the fact that if there's not information exchange, again, I think this board itself, to us when we're doing certain things, when it goes to contracts and those things and all that other stuff that you've seen, we bring about transparency because we want those that we're representing to know exactly what we as the board of commissioners are doing. With claims reviews, with letters, with all of those things. And a lot of that stuff happens in public. To me, it is a cooperative team effort because it always takes consensus, right? And again, that's a management, that's a whole perspective of that.

To your point, kind of our thinking behind it was since right now BCRC's kind of changed focus and their focus is now Lake Lemon area, they can continue focusing on Lake Lemon area. I mean, they need sewers out there just as much as some do in Bean Blossom. I'm not gonna stand here and tell you everybody in Bean Blossom needs a sewer because I don't believe that they do, but there are people in Bean Blossom that need it and have been asking for it for a while. So while they can focus on the Lake Lemon aspect, we're asking for, to allow us to expand our district so that we can focus towards the Bean Blossom. So that way basically both can be happening simultaneously you know moving forward versus just well now we're taking the focus away from bean blossom we're going to focus over here in lake lemon and then maybe in a few years we'll change that focus back to bean blossom and all that we're trying to say you know if the agreement can be reached to at least let us you know take on the bean blossom area as a project for us then we can focus on that while they focus on liquid. And we can try to make both happen in a relatively faster manner than what is planned at the moment. Just to point out too, I mean, I do agree, you're dealing with two different RSCs, okay? But in all reality, Helmsburg has been operating as a utility for 30 years, okay? Because for 30 years, we've had a treatment plant. We've had customers. We've been treating waste. We've been helping. We've expanded our area a little bit here and there to be able to accommodate more customers that have come to us and said, hey, we need sewers. On the other side of that, the other RSD, BCRSD, has been around for 20-plus years, and they've been trying to focus on being awesome, but still nothing's really happened except for putting paperwork in front of it. as studies and partial plans in that aspect. So just ask you to keep that in mind. We are a functioning utility at this point in time and have been for 30 years and trying to expand, trying to help the community, trying to expand outside of that to people that are saying, hey, we need help. So we want to be able to continue doing that and helping even the bean blossom area or areas in between or anywhere that we can possibly serve. at that point in time. But going forward right now, we've got a treatment plant. I know it's gonna get re-bid. The treatment plant is gonna happen. Because quite frankly, if it doesn't, I'm gonna have at least 64 homes that have nothing to do with their sewer and you're gonna have to issue condemnation letters to people because I'm not doing that if my treatment plant fails. And honestly, we are days away from that potentially happening. I mean, we're band-aiding that thing constantly to keep it going. So a treatment plan is coming, and we're doing everything in our power to make that happen sooner than later. Anything else?

No, I'm just saying, again, as I stand here, stand, I'm not standing, as I sit here, I just look at that as it is the, it is unfortunate in the world that we're doing it in government, especially in that, when you're dealing with boards, it's the art of compromise.

Yeah. Okay. And we're willing, we're willing, and I think they are too. I just, I feel like our philosophy is so different, and they're, I think they're egos on both sides.

Mm-hmm.

And we need to drop the egos and focus on what really matters.

Like I said, it doesn't always come together.

Like I said, you saw the disconnect tonight with regards to these kinds of things. That's where it's at. Okay. Kevin, you have the decision makers on that. You've got IDEM has functional responsibility for these RSDs. And IDEM coordinates with the State Revolving Fund. They have their requirements as well. So it's just not two boards. It's a...

I understand that, but again, I also understand that just like we had a whole audience full of people in here tonight asking about a wilderness forest, the letter that we submit carries weight with other elected officials when it comes to going through that exercise. So I'm very cautious about what I want to go and put my name on when I'm carrying weight and that kind of thing. Because my expectation, again, is that the boards have the authority. You work through those things. I place my confidence in the people that we appoint to go through and do the proper representation of this is for the good of Brown County. Right? So that's where I stand with that. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you.

Matt Hamlin, Brown County Regional Sewer.

So appreciate everyone taking the time here after a long meeting. So yeah, Adrienne and I have met a couple of times since our last, I guess your last 6 p.m. meeting. We've met once, went through some of the issues. I think Adrienne actually did a pretty good job of summarizing it. I would have a few different notes here. One of the things he actually pointed out, which does actually make a lot of sense, is why don't we have interlocals with some of the other utilities? I'm gonna bring that up to our next board meeting. It's actually a good idea, why don't we have that? I didn't have a good reason why we didn't. We should work on that. Thinking more about the interlocal, I guess at first with this resolution here, when I saw those back on the agenda, I was a little bit confused, because when it was tabled, The assumption was we would keep working together, keep moving forward, which I think we are doing. I have a few notes on some of our teamwork that we're working on. But yeah, there's a lot of work that does need to get done. I think we can do it. And some of my little notes here going through is interlocal. I was pushing in our last meeting, let's do the interlocal. Kyle, I can't remember when you brought that up. It's going to be maybe March that he said we were unable to get an interlocal agreement. There's no reason that we can't do it. It is a little bit of a catch 22. So do we get the interlocal before we get the flow or do I have commitment to get flow and then get the interlocal? My thought is from a teamwork standpoint, get the interlocal and it lets me essentially get a hunting license. To find flow. The more flow I can find and direct to Helmsburg, the more that's going to help them out. Because they need the flow, they need the expansion to help their rate customers get rates down. So if we were able to get an interlocal that uses some sort of accounting measure, that it's written abstractly, beyond just if you give us flow, we'll treat it. something that's, if this is our treatment cost per month, if this is our chemical cost, we use activity-based costing and this is how it's gonna be set up. That would make a lot of sense and whatever the rate is is what it is because it is objective and it's written down. So that was what one of my proposals was and that's been tabled for now. The Other thought with the Morrison Road, I had actually talked to Adrian about, well, how many more customers can you take on your plant before you're at capacity, before item says stop? He made an estimate, I'll say it was around 50 homes. I don't know the exact number, don't quote me on that. So looking at that Morrison Road area, we looked easy win. What's an easy win for the community? What's an easy win for the utility where they could collect some more flow and they don't have to expand their plans. That makes a lot of sense, easy win. So we're gonna look on that and see if there's something there to actually come to an agreement on. I would like to do the joint development agreement. I do think the boards need to work closer together. Again, I'm more on the side of long-term consolidation. I think it's better for the community. So I have no secret of that. I'd like to redo the JDA. We're tabled on that right now as well. So I do think we can restart that and rewrite that and keep going. I am hoping to get another meeting here soon. I proposed a date, we haven't agreed on that. That date didn't work for Adrian, but we'll get another one scheduled here. So yeah, trying to get a lot of ways to work together. I know Helmsburg is trying to expand. The more they can expand, the more they can lower their cost, if that makes sense. They're saying that they have the time. I'm looking at it of, well then let's really work together. Let's try to do as much as we possibly can together on this. And hearing a lot of their presentation and hearing a lot of their update is, that's okay, we got it. That's okay, we got it. We want to do it, we're going to do the area. I want to work together. I want to be a team. I want to get interlocal signed. I want a freedom of information as much as we can. With response to Adrian, I didn't know his response to that when I sent it this afternoon. The way I had read his request is, we want to know how far along you are. And talking with Aegis, they're like, this can tell exactly what we've designed and where we've stopped. I had even offered, I would bring Brian into a room with them and they can look at every single detailed print that they want to ascertain how far along is the design. So can I ask you a question on that matter?

Sure. So again, I've given a little experience with you. Professional services and engineering contracts. This is new for me, too. I recently looked at Clark Deets, and there's going to be some questions and conversations around those things and others, and I'm thinking that probably those structures are very similar as far as like the master service agreements. I assume that there's some kind of restrictions on the information flow because they retain custody or control of that at the point where you have that. Is that correct or not?

I'm going to try to summarize that answer the best I can. Essentially, what they had said is when an engineering firm creates prints, you cannot give it to another firm to build off of those prints. There's some legality in there, and he just and Lockemula know that. That's why a lot of times you'll retain the same company if you switch, or you will hire that company to work for another company. So essentially, you subcontract them is the best way to understand that. And that was actually one of the things that I communicated with them is since they are under contract in that area, that they would be the contractor to complete any of the design after the easements are acquired. So they would know how far they're along. We can meet with Brian and say, this is exactly the dollars that's in our spreadsheets and our finances of how much they've spent. So those numbers are known. And if you're just trying to get an update on progress, that's what that key map idea that Adrian had shared. But yeah, to my understanding, that's you can't, company A cannot give prints to company B and company B cannot build off of that. Like an architect can't build someone else, another architectural design. It's a similar idea.

That's my understanding. In response to that, you're assuming that we were going to take that to a lot newer when all I asked for was to understand where that project was in its entirety, okay? Like I said, I got no measurements, no documentation, nothing else. And if you say you guys have that, I was just asking for that information, not to go run over to Locke-Mueller, but to have a look at it. Our board just needs to have a look at it to even know where the project is, how far along are you guys actually And what would we need to do if we were to help take this project on to even get us to a point where we can get some bin-ready plans? That was what we were looking for. That's the frustration of this is because if you ask me for my plans, I'm going to drop everything I have to you because I'm not assuming you're going to go take that to Aegis. I'm assuming you're going to take a look at that, and you're going to make decisions and take actions to get to – what your next step might be. So that's what I was looking for.

So as I sit here behind this microphone, it sounds like you can have the conversations. It sounds like there's some kind of disconnect in the communication that I see going on. So again, and again, I'll talk to Mal after this because I've got several questions with regards to professional engineering service contracts. and guys on that because of direction, because again, like I said, I don't live in the world of government, but when I lived in the private sector, we didn't behave. We didn't have those kinds of agreements from a service engineering standpoint. So I don't know if it's specific to public access or whatever it is, but again, I'm duck out of water here kind of thing. So I continue as part of this to encourage the engagement and the discussions. right?

That's for Kevin, I'll tell you what, I'm pretty familiar with public information requests. I've done dozens of quite a few with the grand county varsity. I don't see why the engineering plans is public information. Because it's not that they're going to reuse them. That's a whole different area. But if you've got tax money paying for a product, I'd be hard-pressed for them to convince me that I don't have access to that document.

I understand that, but if you go and look at the engineering service contract that I looked at, and I'm sure it's typical boilerplate that's probably common across many in the service engineering, that is their property. If I understand that correctly.

But that doesn't mean I don't have access to see where my tax money went, what my tax money produced.

There's also an IC code that should be stated, which was not in the letter that I got from Aegis, which should tell me why I could not receive certain bits of that documentation.

So that's a... Again, like I said, my conversation is going to be dealing with the other aspects because I know that from over on the highway side of things... That's what I've seen, and I'm like, I'm not comfortable with that. And again, I think I actually went through that exercise at one point in time when we worked and negotiated with each of some certain things that that ended up changing. So again, I don't know how that goes, but I don't know if that's the case. I'm pulling off the top of my head if it was a particular project or whatever. So again, my comment is, yes. Again, it sounds like to me, if I were sitting in the private sector and I was sitting in that room, put together a document and then basically an agreement saying these things will not be and this is just information that we're going to go and the utilization of whatever the intent of that information. If that's what you got to do, then that's what you got to do. I understand that. Like I said, I continued to encourage conversation.

I think those are all my notes. I'm going through them. I wanted to keep it very short. All right.

Okay. Any other questions? I'm thinking here. I've seen the Lund-Mueller thing. They're talking some serious money on grants. The county's not producing any part of that money for those grants. Okay. That's one question. We've been a long time working with this. I kind of like to see some movement. You guys are going to be pretty busy down at Lake Lemon. Helmsburg is willing to try to make something happen. I mean, once you guys get Lake Lemon up and going and stuff, you guys might come back together and do something. But I think trying to make that happen now after all this time, I think we need to try and move the ball forward, whether we move it forward or not. It's for the public. I think they've waited long enough. We need to try and make something happen. If the president would entertain a motion, I'd make a motion. I've got comments. You've got comments? And I do have one more. Stephanie, are you there?

Yes, I am.

You've looked at this resolution?

Yes, I drafted it.

Okay, all right, I'm good for this moment. Tim wants to speak, and I'm more than willing to listen. Thanks, Ron.

Folks, for both commissioners, I gave you guys kind of a rundown of all the key points. I've been following this project since 2016. The last RSD and being lost was Steve Staley, and then it turned over to Evan Worling, which I started attending those meetings with. So 10 years I've been following this thing. Kind of dropped out after you get your $39 million from the state. But let me just give you a little history, a little rundown here. Again, I think Kyle mentioned 30 years. 30 years is a track record. They've been, 30 years is a track record. That's a track record, that's success, that's capability. When you look at the timeline, 1995 is when the commissioners petitioned IDEM to create the Helensburg RSD. At that time, ongoing discussions between Helensburg and Bean Blossom from 1995 to 2006 to expand service to Bean Blossom was not successful. I remember following the paper probably 20 years ago when this was coming in, and the personality conflicts between the Bean Blossom folks and the Helensburg folks were kind of like that. It went on. And, you know, maybe we made that close agreement, and then they had personality conflicts, and boom, nothing happened. The other thing that happened was the perception of large-scale systemic system failure from the Health Department, and that was John Kinnard that contributed to impaired waterways and bean blossom. Again, that's the perception. And Kinnard made the same concerns regarding the Cordridge-Sweetwater area. Don't forget being in a meeting, he said, where if you did dye tests around Cordridge-Sweetwater, it turned the water green, and boy, that offended a lot of people, because that just wasn't true. When you see the water quality studies there, it's pretty clean. 2006, the council, not the commissioners, I don't know why the council did this, but the council commissioned, petitioned, helped IDEM to create the Bean Blossom RSD, later renamed in 2015 to the Brown County RSD, and commissioners, they start off with three boards, and then it turned out to five, and we appoint one out of that five. 2013, Commissioner Kennery requested and approved an expansion of territory for the Bean Blossom RSD, Again, no success since that time. No success in justifying funding for service. That went from no success in justifying funding for service. In 2015, you got the name change. 2016, Evan Merling took over as president of the Brown County RSD. Their initial reaction was to get service from Nashville. They got an estimate from Nashville, and Nashville tied it to annexation, and that didn't go over well at all. Evan also tried to get a boots on the ground assessment from the state of Indiana to come through and do a needs assessment in that particular area. And the health department shut that down. So at that point, Evan and two other board members resigned. They tried to identify a need. It wasn't there. So he resigned at that point. He was replaced by Judy Swift-Paderell. The first motion she made was take efforts to justify a need. It was not approved. Then she resigned, replaced by Mike Leggins, who's still there. In 2019, well, from about 17, 18, 19, whenever they were trying to get a plant in Bean Blossom, they weren't successful in getting the landowners to sell land for a plant. Then they shifted to get parkland. DNR came back, and based on the deed that went to the state, that came back to the county, said, nope, you can't put a sewer plant in a parkland. At that point, the area shifted to we've got to rely on Helmsburg. But what was funny there, in 2020, there was a regional assistant program study that the Brown County RSD commissioned. And let me give the good news. I hit you with a lot of facts, but the good news is when you look at the people who had the passion to get service in Bean Blossom, it's been consistent for a long time. I think one of the commissioners' previous mothers, the Reeler, started that little group in Bean Blossom and expanded to the RSD and went on. But you had a committed... group of people, I think a lot of the business owners in that particular area, have been at this for a long damn time. And it's been frustrating, we haven't got it. So when you look at this, I looked at this regional system program, I was involved in that. But they supported, there the new, was for a plant in Dean Blossom in Treblak. But then when they didn't get the plant bean blossom, those plans went down and it relied on health care. 2022, the Branton County RC developed a strategic plan, and that included a water quality study. 2023, they had a public hearing on their PER. And again, that RAP study included from Lake Lemmon to Woodland Lake, great. Lake Lemmon was always a need. They've identified in the Branton County Democrat I think there were 200 homes I said didn't have sewer service when it flooded. So when you look at the numbers, the need was always in Lake Lemmon. So I'm glad to see they're getting support and service for Lake Lemmon area. But that was in the 2023. You know, you got the good news. Again, leadership of Brown County RSD got the 3.7 million on federal money and they're looking to put a shift of priority to Lake Lemmon. That's good. And then they paused bean blossom. On the bean blossom one, I reached out to the SRF, and I think I gave you guys a copy of that, Jim McGough. And I asked him, and he said, like, last October they sent you guys an email asking for if you had 85% commitment from customers, and you never got back to them. And they had what these states is, we have a method in other unserved areas and requested 85% participation if state grant funds are being requested. So that 85% information didn't get back to them. I think the reason cited was cost, and I get that. I think Kyle mentioned it. If you don't get the grant money, then your target for your monthly bill is going to be pretty high. And I think when the time of the RAP study, the estimate was $65 to $75 a month for customers. And I'll bet you that's a lot higher now, especially if Ellsberg's paying $118. So when you look at all that, it's like, what's the best solution for the county? And for the first time in county history, you've got Helmsburg saying, hey, we want to support bean blossom. Ron, that's your point. In 25 years or 30 years, you've been there. It's the first time you had that kind of cooperation to say, hey, let us service that particular area. And given the private money that may be going into Lake Lemon, might be able to get private money for some of those businesses and bean blossom to help defray some of that cost. But if you guys got the energy and the motivation and you know you've got a solid core and bean blot that wants that service, that can probably happen. And again, what's the best interest, what's the best solution for the county? So I'll wrap it up, and one other thing, and I look at this as more of a macro. Similar situation happened in Marshall County. Instead of the county health department claiming there's a wide scale wastewater, problem with septic systems, the state of Indiana went back to Marshall County and said, we think there's hundreds of septic systems that may be failing. And so then they created an RSD and when the price tag came to those customers, there was a hell no and they dissolved that RSD for that. So even though they had suspected hundreds of systems that weren't working, The cost was just too high, and so they dissolved that particular RSD. I don't think we've got to do that because there's a need for an RSD to support Lake Lemmon, and of course Helensburg's already there. And again, I look back, and I can go into detail, and I've got hundreds of pages, and I've got audio of meetings I've attended, and I've also got articles in the Democrat that support some of that. But the bottom line is Helensburg is functional. They're capable. They want to provide that service. and they have the motivation to do it. You've got a core in Dean Blossom that's motivated to get sewers, and to me that just seems like a no-brainer to expand your area to include service. And I never did quite get the fact that we had two RSTs. You had one that was going to bill customers or identify a rate for collecting it, and then you're going to do another rate for servicing it, and then I guess they're going to pass the bill on to you. That just makes no sense from a private sector standpoint. That makes absolutely no sense to me. A one-stop shop will do it. If they have a problem with their pump or their pipe, the customer wants to make one call. They don't want to make two calls, and they don't want to hear, well, that's them, that's us. They don't want that. They want one call, they want fixed, and they want that service. And so I think the smartest, most streamlined, lean way of going about this is give Helmsburg the territory for the customers that they've got to support. So I'll end with that. And then we have a resolution. We brought it up in May 6th. And again, the resolution, I'll read it in. It's resolution number 2026-05-06-000. Resolution of the Board of Commissioners of Brown County, Indiana, supporting the expansion of the Helmsburg Regional Serve District. That's on the table. That's the motion. So Ron, I'll entertain any discussion, any further discussion here. Can you entertain a motion? I'll entertain a motion. Okay.

I'll go ahead and make a motion. Before I say that, let me back up just a hair. I appreciate your point of view that it would be nice if they worked together. That's very valid. That would be good, that we need to try and move the ball forward. And in saying that, I'll go ahead and make a motion to do the resolution from the Board of Commissioners Brown County, Indiana is supporting the expansion of the Helmsburg Regional Sewer District. And Tim's done read the resolution number. And title. And title.

Okay. Is there a second? I'll be the second. Roll.

Tim?

Yes.

Kevin?

No.

Ron?

Yes.

Next business is something about the next thing I see down is ordinance resolution agreements. It's about the amendment for the music center.

Yeah, that's August 19th, so we've got a ways on that one. We've got a month. Software system is American legal publishing. There's an issue between what the auditor is publishing on Gateway versus what we're looking at. So we're going to have two of that, I guess, on our PAC meeting last Monday of the month. At 1 o'clock, we're going to have the folks from American Legal Publishing present to us on what their system does so you can distinguish the difference. For us, what we're seeing is they can be discreet on references to IC code, and when those codes change, they can reach back to our attorneys and see if that's significant on that particular resolution. I'm not opposed to them doing that. Okay. They're just going to brief us on the difference so we'll be able to explain it to people. Indian Hill, Dan Cartwrights, our owner's technical rep, Dan has worked with the Indiana Railroad and got a pedestrian crossing in Barbersville. And so Dan reached out to the engineer that he worked with for Indiana Railroad, and he's reached out to them to see if we could get their support for pedestrian crossing. At the same time, we still want to push forward in finding funding to open that up, and we've got support from all of our elected officials. Policies, Kevin, I got you on this one. I got the capital assets and public records requests drafted to the attorneys to look at for the next couple weeks. So then the tough one will be our contract ordinance. So we get the time, maybe we'll take a look at that one. Then you mentioned the school resource officer on the memo and agreement.

So that one is the document that was presented from the sheriff went to the Martin Bloomberg, they did a very good job of going through the language and then actually James did a very good job of putting together a matrix comparing the differences between the two. And Brad, and that's been sent to Brad and that's been sent to Brian to take a look at that and identify, hey, we didn't realize that that was some of the differences. Hopefully they knew, but at least we'll go through that. So I have got to target trying to get that finished by the end of the week to see so they can move this forward before the end of the month. Okay.

Thanks, Kevin, for the hard work on that one. I don't think we have anything for the Commissioner's side. We kind of covered that one. Highways and supertits on vacation. Any highlights on the highway department, Kevin, you want to cover?

No, just basically a summary. The recent thing is we relieved ourselves of some surplus equipment, and that surplus equipment money totaled $44,151. And that $44,151 was used to buy a replacement piece of equipment, an enclosed cab skid steer that will allow us to take better care of the roadways and take care of the bridges that we're dealing with. So it's a refinement and making sure that they have the tools that they need in order to do the job they're doing. Thanks.

On ongoing business, July 16th, the NDOT is going to present, have a presentation on Pumpkin Ridge Road. Eric, can you bring that one up? They've got a video, they've got a website and a video, and it's gonna be streamed online. So anyone wants to either attend, it's free to get in. All you have to do is tell the gate, if you're not a member, just tell the gate you're here to see the presentation. The gate's open at 5.30, the meeting opens at 5.30, they present at six. It's gonna be online, they're gonna stream it. So when I watched the video, I think it's done a great job. They looked at all the different options and pros and cons of each different option for that. So it's pretty informative. So again, I'd go out to the website, look at the project documents, and get a chance to either attend or see extreme. So Eric, thank you for bringing that one up. And with that, any final comments from the public? We kind of did a good job clearing the room. Yep, legal?

Nothing.

Okay, Stephanie. Hey, thank you. Stephanie, I've got one question for you, which we asked James last time, and It's still a question not to deal with the, it had to do with the Dean Wilderness, but I'd still like to have an answer for it. The comment that I had was, initially there was some conversation about vacating Combs Road, and my question to James was, is it solely the Commissioner's responsibility to vacate a road, or is there a responsibility in concert with the County Council in order to do that? I'd just like to have an answer to that.

Yeah, I think I looked up the statute. I think I sent the statute maybe to Tim. I believe it's only the commissioners that do it. There was a difference between the permanent vacation and the temporary closure. And so one of the things that I, so I sent the two different statutes, I believe.

Okay. Because the only thing, like I said, of concern when I remember dealing with Mike Mogul on this, there was a distinction between real property, but we don't necessarily consider a real property. real property? Yes, you do. Well, then that's my concern, because when he told us that we needed real property that was over a certain dollar.

It's over $1,000.

Yep, disposal of real property, I think, is different than the vacation of the road statute.

Okay, alright. So, my brain confusing it, sorry.

Yeah, the disposal of real property would be selling it, and the vacation of the road would just be terminating it as a road, and And the ownership would revert back to the landowners around it.

Okay. All right. Thank you. The other part of that was on the road. How long would it be before the commissioners could do that? Because there was some time frame. Two years? So it would be the first of next year before that could take place. Okay.

We can go through the exercise of... which I think we all agreed on that, and that part, a permanent closure on that. Again, I just have a hesitancy to relieve ourselves of any responsibility for that road. Or access to that road, I should say. Anything else, Mr. Stephanie?

No. Okay, thank you. Thanks, Stephanie. Motion to close? Motion to adjourn? Motion to adjourn. Second.

Meeting adjourned.