County Council - Regular Meeting

indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Approval of minutes. Does everybody have a chance to see those? Any questions? We have minutes from September 3rd, the budget hearings of July 28th, 29th, and 30th. from 79 and a work session from August 6th. Anybody want to make a motion on that? Make a motion on that. Yes.

I'll second it.

Motion to second. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Changes to the agenda. We have a Parks and Rec Board appointment that we need to revisit. And Hamlin Fire District is here for their public meeting for their budgeting. Motion to accept those changes and approve the agenda.

Motion to accept those and approve it.

Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? We'll start with the Hamlin Fire District. Budget has been posted and now opening up the public hearing for public comment on that. Do we have any public comments? I think I need to ask three times, correct? Yes, you do. No public comment on the first one. Do we have any public comment on that? public comment on the second one.

Do you think maybe there would be public here to comment on it if it had been on the agenda? Just wondering.

Fair question. I doubt it.

There wasn't last time.

Historically it had been too popular.

Is there any public comment on the Hamlin Fire District public budget?

Okay.

Okay.

My name is Sherry Mitchell, and I have reviewed some of the SPOA reports that we've gotten since the beginning of the year, and they passed with flying colors. I thought you should know.

Thank you. I live in that district, and you're doing a good job. Yes, sir.

You did. Thank you. There were only one of three agencies that didn't get any citations, and there were one. The other was the library and the other was CBB.

Any other comments? At this point, can we take a motion to close the public hearing for the Hamlin Fire District?

I move we close the public hearing for the Hamlin Fire District.

Second. Motion to second. All in favor? Aye. We're all done with that part. There's plenty more to go.

You're all good. That was quick, wasn't it?

Thank you. Well, we tried to do a good job. I'm the one that actually created this district 20 years ago. So we've done very, very well. Gotten new equipment. We got two new trucks, got another one on the way, and they're very expensive, come next December. But we just received a new brush truck that could actually put out a house fire. And it's a four-wheel drive, it's pretty high up. And it's perfect for the county for what we do. So if you come to the fish fry next weekend, you'll be able to see it.

I was just going to say, I've been out there for a couple of fish fries and got to see some of the equipment stuff.

We just got some new coolers and everything and try to keep up with that. But yeah, we pretty much back up everybody in Brown County. because we've got people that, enough people to run, make runs if we have to, and we do a lot of backup for these people in the rest of America.

Great.

Thank you.

And when's your fish fry?

Next weekend, next Saturday. Next Saturday? Yeah. Hours? I don't know, I think it's a...

It'll be on Facebook.

Probably around... 11 o'clock or 10 o'clock or something like that. And there's a carryout and everything.

You've got to drive through and all that, don't you? Oh, I do. I feel like I should drive. Yeah, go ahead. Thank you. Yeah, thank you.

Congratulations on your honor. Thank you. You're welcome. Thank you.

Okay, we have advertised for the appointment for Parks and Rec to fill out the rest of the year for John Kennard's appointment that he was unable to complete. And we have had a letter of interest submitted, and we've all talked to him. We've all heard from him. I think for... Clarkson Rec has asked for that seat to be filled and with one letter of interest. I am open to a motion to accept that letter of interest and make the appointment with Clarkson Rec for the rest of the year. Who's in comment? Questions, discussion? Brandon Harris, sorry. Yeah, it's helpful. I was looking at him. I mean, you know, everybody should know who I'm looking at. And his name, I mean.

I'll make a motion to accept Brandon Harris for the Parks and Rec Board. Second. I'll make a motion to second.

All in favor? Aye. Aye.

Thank you, guys.

Yep. Now you can go in and enjoy your sunset.

Appreciate you getting me on the agenda early, too.

Yeah. Thank you. HRSB transfer of the $175,000 stock factory funds. Do we have any updates on that, Julie?

I do not. I could not get the state board to call me back, so I'm still... Kevin was saying something about the possibility of having an interlocal agreement. Yeah, that's what he said. I've never had to do that before.

We'll have to search that too. I don't know if we can ask the board about that or who.

I've never, I've never, we've never had to do that before.

If you do talk to him, ask him about that aspect. He's here somewhere. He said he was going to come. I know, but ask the state board of accounts about it.

Yeah. He sent you something about that, Aaron. I think on your email. He didn't send it to me.

I have not.

I haven't seen it. What are we going to prove that time? No, we already proved it. I mean, didn't we have to vote on it?

No, we already did. Yeah, it's already been added.

We have the legal stuff. Implementation procedure. Proper channels and getting stuff through the system.

So you just turn the money over to them, or how do you have to do it? We've just turned it over to them before. Yeah. We've appropriated money that they've asked for and turned it over to them and let them spend it. How they're supposed to spend it, or how they...

I mean, that's what happened years ago with Brown County.

Yeah, when it came to the ARPA funds, that was a whole different ballgame. We kept the ARPA funds, and they brought us the bills, and we paid those. Yeah, because they're different. And we kept track of everything.

Different requirements and all that. Right. Okay. Job Classification Maintenance Committee report and update. So I guess... Okay. Is it all done?

Oh, yeah, it's all done. No, we'll have it done by the first work session. We expect to have it done by then. We've got to get the information to WIS and then approve it by the committee here that you described, Job Classification Maintenance Committee.

As of right now, then what we're going to do is just go ahead and forward everything on to Lori. Right. Then we'll forward it back through here. And then she'll look at it. and then once she's done with it, then it comes back to the committee for review. I tried to find my paperwork on that, I can't find it. I think I handed it to someone, he didn't get it back, and I can't find the electronic version right now, so.

Who's on the committee?

Myself, Judy Swipoddle, and Scott.

So it's basically the PAC committee with Scott.

We didn't think of it that way, but I guess it is. It's good to have some crossover because you don't have to share information all the way through the system. Yeah.

Okay, so we'll get Julie's got those. Go ahead and get those forwarded tomorrow. And then get the new maintenance foreman, I think that's what it's called, from Teresa. Get that forwarded up. all at the same time. I'll be able to get that forwarded tomorrow.

Okay. I'm writing my task. I barely have a poem. Now's the day.

Okay. Any other old business that we got? Anything you want to talk about? We have an additional appropriation now for we have $6,000 additional appropriation for the Grand Canyon Sheriff's Department for body armor and other equipment. I have details on that if anybody wants to

They have three, particularly right now, three new body armor vests.

And they can't be reused. I mean, every time they get a new hire, they have to outfit the officer with a new vest. Because you can't wash it.

No.

No. Only washes the carrier.

See any problem there, Patrick?

Say it again.

See any problem? I see no problem with that. Okay. I trust your expertise. You know better than any of us.

No, I said that's fine. Okay. So that's $6,000. We have... Advertised, we had a $60,000 additional appropriation for the purchase of the coroner's vehicle, but we do not need to make that additional appropriation because there was money available for it. That money was used to purchase the vehicle. They have reduced the request for $60,000 down to $7,000. $7,000 is all they need to outfit the new vehicle with a cover and other equipment needed to make it a proper coroner's vehicle. So that has been reduced to $7,000. So our total on that would be $13,000 instead of $66,000.

Are we going to vote on these or wait for mass? Yeah, we'll vote. All at once? Yeah.

Unless you wanted to do it separately. No, it was. Okay. And then we have $8,875 additional appropriation for the Brown County Assessor for the cyclical review and annual adjustment. Do I have that correct?

Yes, that's correct. However, it's not the Assessor Fund. It's not the general fund. It's Reassessment Fund.

Oh, okay. So it's the what fund?

Reassessment Fund.

Yeah, that changes your subject to whatever goes on down there.

No, it's on here, correct.

I mean, you're subject to whatever they dish out to you each year in terms of having to pay it.

Yeah, the tax levy.

That's what I mean. Yeah. Yeah, it's on here, totally.

Yeah, and I have no idea what the balance is in reassessment form.

Okay.

I'm assuming we have enough to cover that.

This is additional preparation ordinance 2026. Wherein it has been determined that it is not necessary to appropriate more money than was approved in the annual budget. Now therefore, the result of the County Council of Brown County, Indiana, that for the expenses of the taxing unit, the following additional sums of money are hereby appropriated out of the funds named for the purposes specified subject to laws governing the same. General fund total of $13,000 instead of the $66,000, which consists of the sheriff's body armor of $6,000 and the coroner machine and equipment of $7,000. And the assessment fund, $1,188 for an amount of $8,875. So the total for that would be $1,322. Let me go ahead and do this just to make sure that $21,875. That's what I had in my head. I just wanted to make sure I had enough. All right. Do we have a motion to approve?

I'll make a motion. I'll second it. I have a motion and a second.

To approve appropriation 09-14-001. All in favor? Aye. Do we have Susan on?

Yes. I'm here.

And this is an ordinance, so we have to do two readings, correct? Or two votes?

It is two readings, yes.

And you wait for it. Is there a reason to do this tonight? I mean, there are. If we don't have to suspend the rules and give it two readings in one, if we can stretch it out over two meetings, I'd like to do that. But if you need it, we can... Okay. So I would accept a motion to suspend the rules required for two separate meetings of All in favor? Aye. Susan, is there any problem with us having a forum of only four?

No, no problem with that as long as you have a forum and it's been advertised.

Okay. Okay, so second reading, additional appropriation ordinance 2026. Number 09-14-001, council bill number 11, additional appropriation of $21,875 for body armor for the sheriff, machine and equipment for the coroner, and cyclical review for the assessor. The motion to approve.

I'll move we approve the ordinance.

Thank you.

Motion to second. All in favor?

Aye. Opposed? Do you want to do a roll call on that, Julie?

Gary.

Aye.

Darren.

Yes.

Patrick. Yes. Joel.

Yes.

Thank you all.

Thank you. Thank you.

All council's not there. Are you going to still discuss reading?

I don't know. Does anybody have any discussion at this time on engaging reading?

I would be reserved.

Expectations, limitations, what can be done in-house, and...

I'm going to be reserved in our use of them at this point and bring Edward Deal's skill into play some more. So I think we can lay a good foundation to take control of that. Maybe a year from now, have limited use of them. And they could be good in interaction between what the state's handing down legislation and how that's going to play out. But I think we've been using them too much for some of our integral stuff. So that's my perspective.

There's been a lot of duplicate efforts done, and I'm not interested in ending our working relationship with them. I think there are definitely some good things that they can do for us, have done for us. Yeah, and that's kind of what we talked about at our last work session, is that we have... We have given them information and stuff to do without clear guidance, which has led to some confusion. And until we can come together with the guidance that we need to give them for what they need to do and what we need from what they're doing, we're going to be chasing our tails.

I think we're working towards that. Have a work session with Ed. He's putting out a lot of reports we need to be brought up to speed on. session meeting yeah bring ed in bring jerry in do we have immediate need for jerry i know jim asked about doing the salary implications for the twist stuff yeah that's that's one of the things we really need to work on if we're going to make the adjustments to the salaries we need to put numbers you don't have that salary ordinance ready at the same time as a budget he's not going to vote it And that's not statute, that's just preference.

I know what his preference is. And he's only one guy. But there's seven of us.

Correct. But that means, I mean, you know, in all honesty, I mean, if we can get all of that done, yes, that is a very good thing to do.

I don't get any decisions made by the council. I can't get it done at the same time.

Well, that's the thing. We need to take, well, actually, we need to... When we approve the budget, are we going to approve that extra money for the salaries, figure out how they're going to be applied to each individual salary in the salary ordinance?

Mm-hmm.

There's a lot of work to do on that.

Mm-hmm.

Is that something we want to do in-house, or is there some of that that we want to bring to the end? Mm-hmm. At this time, do we want to keep it in-house?

Mm-hmm.

Are we going to be able to do that?

We're going to be doing it in-house. I'm not bringing it in.

Are we going to be able to do that?

I hope so.

So Kim's working on that?

As soon as I can actually get some decisions made.

I know Kim and Kevin have been working on some of that, so that's good.

There's a sheet I've got that shows every employee, every position, where they are currently. with regard to external midpoint. And what we need to do is get a definite, what percentage each position is of that external midpoint so we can make the adjustments on them and bring them up closer in line with each other as we work toward that 90%.

Right, the financial implications along with our meeting the budget.

And if we can do the 90%, I don't know if we're going to be able to do the full 90%, but we'll look at whatever we have in the budget as we spread that across the positions that need it more most and need the most attention. As I've done with my hand graph before, we've got some that are down much lower, some that are up higher, some that are above the line that are not going to be adjusted until everybody else moves up with them at the same time. So that's The intricacies of everything we have to look at.

Are you including elected or no?

Yeah, it's going to be countywide. It's going to be everybody.

I just wanted to ask, is the last time they were not included?

No, we're going to have to include everybody countywide because everybody's part of the salary.

If I do this, you're going to trust my numbers, right?

Any other comments, questions, concerns?

You want to ask Kevin about the interlocal agreement possibility?

Yeah.

Kevin, we had a question about the .

How definitive are you about the interlocal?

How definitive are you about it needing an interlocal?

So we went down the path where I, as a commissioner, took the task force in Thornburg. If it would go through the exercises, they could give us an answer on that. And the response is, sure, if you want to pay us for that. That's not a commissioner's responsibility. So it fell outside the retainer. Then basic information that I shared with Darren was a couple of statutes, IC 36-1, I think, and I think the other one was the governing statute that held the regional sewer districts. Because again, They are a political body. They are not a considered utility because, again, the appointments are held by the various appointing agencies of the council or the commissioners. So given on that, at least from what I read, an appropriation is required, which is I think Julie has advertised that appropriation. But in reading the details when I went through those two statutes and highlighting them, they basically said that there needs to be definitive criteria as to what upgrades that is going to be used for, what is the dollars going to be spent on. So I don't think you get that in anything other than in a local agreement. And then the question is, how is that managed? So I think you probably need to ask Susan to do some investigation if we're right. I wish I could have brought a more definitive answer in terms of Thornburg, but we don't want to go outside and go above and beyond our retainer on something that kind of falls on our shoulders.

Especially since we have our own council.

Now would that change if we controlled the money and paid the bills?

You would still have to have an agreement in place because that would then establish what the funds are being spent for. And then it would just be like anything you do from a quote perspective. If you're engaging in services or providing monies, public monies to go through and buy certain things, there has to be a detail of what that money's being used for. Or if they wanted to go through the, even I think at the stand when I read it, it was granting, right? Considering it a grant of funds, it would still have to, but again, I'm armchairing it here. I just want to make sure that the council is going to engage and make sure and honor their due diligence on that.

Okay, they'll be able to define what it's used for. It's very straightforward on their side. The other question would be, and maybe Susan can answer this, what if we just went ahead and signed it interlocal and didn't get the legal requirement just in case? Is that a problem, Susan, do you think?

I would sit there and say, and then kid, even though that, even though.

My question is that if it's already designated, technically the stock factory money was supposed to be designated for Helmsburg in some form. Is that not correct?

And I will go back to that and all the information that I researched for admittance that we had with the letters and all those things. Go back, please. It wasn't specifically designated for Helmsburg. It was specifically, the only commitment the commissioner found when we went and reviewed all that information that we were supposed to be, if it was going to be used as a recreation area or developed, any facility that was going to be built that would be named after the person

A logical settlement place would be Helmsburg from everything we've seen.

And again, is that a public meeting? When we had our last meeting or before that, I said listen.

Otherwise, I haven't heard otherwise.

So the only thing, caution with that, because again, remember, you guys can, it has to be present, but if you do have to have an agreement, it's going to have to go to the commissioner's office for review and approval. You mean the interlocal? Yes.

Okay, that's fine.

Because the business body is the contracting body.

Can we ask a simple question instead of doing a great deal of research that if we just happen to sign it, it's going to hurt anything if we have it in there as an extra?

I don't know, but I know you have to craft a local agreement, which I assume is either something that Helmsburg Regional Certificates will be with and has a template you can work through, or that's something that I would assume that you would have your attorney put together. There's a template out there for it.

Okay.

So what you're looking for on that is whether we need an interlocal agreement?

I would sit there and say, given that, like I said, I think you'll recall there when you and I spoke about this, 36-1-7, I believe, is the one that popped out. And then, like I said, the governing, there's criteria under the actual title that controls the regional sewer districts as well as to what they have as far as contracting authority and all of that. Of course, I've had a lot of codes don't let me in late, so.

Yeah. It's not the most permanent system to use it.

It is what it is. It is written in lawyerese.

36-1-7, interlocal cooperation. Correct.

And it speaks to various kinds of things in there with granting with regards to projects, with regards to upgrades, with the various kind of criteria that this particular funding kind of fits into. So I appreciate what happened with regards to getting the funds to this point. But as we want to make sure, we want to make sure, even though, and that is the other thing, that there's a misconception. You know, you take, even if it's donated money, once it hits the coffers and once it falls into the control of government, it is taxpayer dollars, even though it was donated. So we have to follow the same procedures that we do, as if it had been money received from property taxes or whatever.

36-1-7 is the first one.

And advanced to regional sewer districts is 13-26-7-2. District contracting power, is that the one? Yeah.

In essence, basically, that was the section that kind of identified the governance or what can be done and achieved through the different political sub-organizations.

Now can we go, I don't remember exactly when it was done, but there was a appropriation made to Brown County Regent Sewer District years ago.

300,000.

Yeah.

And again, she asked a question, has something been recently changed? I don't know. Maybe it's just been a lack of knowledge and that's not doing anything.

Can we follow the information on that and find out what procedure was used on that?

Like I said, if I had gotten, if I were able to provide Barnes and Thornburg's answer to this, it would have been shared. All right. Anything else? All right. Thank you. So do we want Jerry to come to our work session meeting?

What do we need and by when potentially from Jerry?

I think, well, I mean, just as part of their discussion of what we're doing and moving forward. What we'll use them for? Yeah. If he has any input on, because I don't know if we have any questions to ask him, or do we want to just concentrate right now on getting... Julie getting the numbers put together, that she needs to have put together, and then see where that goes.

Okay, one point of data is I did ask Ed at the last meeting, I said, Ed, a year from now, where will we be, and how much can we do in-house? He said 100%. So between now and then, how do we get there is part of the question. Is it optimal? What if he didn't come now, but he came in November? Is that a problem? Are we too late for something by November? Is there something critical to the budget? Jim seems to think so in terms of the 90% of the 50%. And you say you could take care of that internally?

We could have money into the budget to handle increases. Jim's whole thing is he wants it done at the same time because Second year salary orders are supposed to be done before. But that doesn't happen.

We moved this meeting up to the 14th from next week. Right. Was that for the Hamlin? No, that was for the AIC conference.

No, AIC conference was that week. Oh, that's right. So we moved it to the 14th.

And then we needed to do something We couldn't move it. We couldn't move it back for some reason. No. What's our next important date?

Your next date is October 1st.

No, no, he's talking about the budget-wise. Oh, okay.

So the budget is October the 8th. It'll be your major meeting.

To approve the budget? That'd be the third Monday you're talking about.

So 19th. October 19th is when your budget gets adopted.

Okay.

And you have to have the salary ordinance done and adopted before the end of December.

December.

Yes.

Okay. You said October. Okay, October 19th. So we're work session on the 1st.

So you're putting a strain on getting both done on that date with no decisions being made with the salaries.

Decisions, what do you mean decisions?

From what you're going to do.

I mean, how it's going to play in the FBS, pay raises or whatever, is that what you're referring to?

Correct. Okay. I mean, I don't know what I don't know.

Right. So that will be our first meeting.

Jim said he got numbers from Kim.

Do you have those? I do not have them with me. Okay.

But do you have them? Sure, I probably do.

Kim sends me everything that she sends up.

Okay. Can you forward those to us so we can look at them? Because we need our first meeting really needs to be centered around hashing all this out, getting numbers. And I'll meet with you if I need to before then in the office so we can get numbers put together.

Kevin may have something to say on the matter. Kevin?

Always do. So the file that she was given, Ed put together basically running, pulling out of the payroll system a mile So what she went through is basically went through the various job categories, the job titles there, and put the categorization from the MPS. I don't think there was any numbers given to them other than whatever the basic salary was. And I think the columns that I think Ed added for Jim to use was the 90% and what the target was. Because I think if I remember correctly in your working session, the goal was to try and find out where the gap is from where you are today versus where you are, right? Right. What's the delta?

And we have some people, say, that are at a level of 72%, some people at a level of 88%, some people over the 90% currently. So what we need to do is figure out how to put actual calculations to the numbers to try to get those waves reduced and get people up closer to the actual 90%. Right. So every... All the classifications are set.

So I don't know how I will... I know what they have down as the amounts that they should be. So is that what you're wanting me to use for percentage?

We'll have to look because the WIS study had elected officials.

What I'm saying is that the elected officials don't have three different or four different things, they have one number that it should be. So do you want me to use that one number for the percentages? Because technically, okay, I'll go for me. I'll go for 60,000. Right now it's 50, I think it's, no, it's like 49 or 8. Just a...

So you're talking about the shortfall, using that as the reference?

Do you need me to do my percentages using those numbers for electric officials?

Yeah.

That's what I need to do. It'll be something.

I mean, we need to look at it.

Yeah.

So we'll have to look at it. I mean, if we don't look at it, we're not going to know.

Yeah, I mean, if you're, because that's the only number they have for them. They don't have an external, internal, or any other type.

Yeah, they had a breakdown on there of different levels for electric officials on them. There's one. We'll go over that sheet.

Yeah, we're going to have to because I did not see one. Okay. I saw all of them.

And it wasn't one number. It was what other counties are paying. So, I mean, it's not.

We don't have the same page. So, you're going to have to bring your numbers. Bring me your numbers. I want to see them.

Okay, start here.

I'll utilize Kevin, too. He's very good with numbers. Kevin. I just volunteered you. Yeah, I appreciate that.

I know. He was telling me he was bored the other day.

So, actually, I do want to make a comment about Reedy, if I can. Okay. Just from the perspective of this. So I think the struggle point with Reedy is, as I agree, Reedy is from the day-to-day activities and the things you've got going on with Ed with regards to the reporting and all that stuff and the conversations that we've had back and forth between Julie and what we can be doing and maybe looking at maybe restructuring funds in order to allow the reporting and allow it to work like it's supposed to. I think your asset, Reedy, is, like you're saying, is your legislative side of things. The legislative impacts that you're going to have to end up dealing with And again, I don't know. I think Jackie actually does provide you with a projected revenue stream, correct? So if that's the case and she's not available, then maybe that's something that they would be viable for as well.

So they can see the legislative impacts, what the laws are.

And they give you that projection. Because I think, if I'm not mistaken, we really don't have a final revenue number as far as for the latter part of the year until sometime in the early part of the next, as far as funds being received. Because you still got collections going on through the end of the year from the state and various things. Yeah, they have.

They have some very useful numbers that they can provide for us. But a lot of the stuff.

I can't agree like that on the day-to-day stuff. It's kind of an expensive outlay for helping us get through the reporting stuff, especially since we've had help with Eric and things like that as well.

I agree, and that's what we need to do. We need to do a lot more of our stuff in-house without duplicating efforts. Okay. We have our schedule for 2027. Has everybody had a chance to look at that? No. It's the same schedule as this year, only different. And it takes into account holidays for the president to stay and such? Yeah. Okay.

Do you want to take a motion on that to approve it? Yeah. Make a motion to approve next year's schedule for meetings?

Any counsel? Second, anyone? I have a motion and a second. On the favor of approving the 2027 meeting schedule for county council. It keeps our Thursday work sessions from 9 to 9 noon. Our Tuesday meetings from 5.30.

Monday meetings.

Oh, sorry. I was looking at that. I know. Our Monday meetings. Our regular Monday meetings, except for January and February, which are Tuesdays because of federal holidays, at 5.30 until whenever we wrap up the meeting. Do we motion to approve? No. You motion. Second. Do we approve? We approve. Okay. Okay. Yes. We have... A hand up from a member of the audience.

I just want two minutes. Maybe not even that.

If we do more than that, we'll have to move you to the next meeting.

Actually, I just want to read it. My name's Sherry Mitchell. I just want to read it into the record. I'm not looking for an answer tonight. I'm just trying to give you another avenue to think about as you go through your budget regarding CBC funds and key response specifically. I have to take my glasses off to read, sorry. Good evening. Tonight I want to talk about how we manage our multi-million dollar innkeeper's tax revenue and our partnership with the CBC. Not to point fingers at past decisions, but because our current hands-off approach isn't working. Right now we have a massive structural disconnect. We have a permanent resident population of around 15,000, people absorbing the wear and tear of over a million visitors a year. As that innkeeper's tax revenue climbs toward and past $2 million, the visitor volume climbs with it, and our infrastructure burden is already at an unsustainable tipping point. Meanwhile, our county general fund is absorbing standard tourism expenses while the CBC sits on the tax pool. We're told the CBC can't help the county because we aren't a non-profit, yet historical records, which are attached, show the CBC has previously cut checks to private individuals for land options and pledged revenues directly to county contracts. That means either past board members operated outside the law or the current misinterpretation of Indiana Code 6914 is entirely too narrow. Furthermore, our local for-profit businesses, the very heart of Nashville's tourism economy, are expected to carry the weight and market themselves, while funds flow strictly to a select few. The reality is that we, as a county, share the blame for this confusion because we haven't provided clear expectations, code orientation, or active oversight. We just appoint members and hope for the best. Before we move forward, I'm asking us to do two things. Formally review the legal boundaries of Indiana Code 6914, specifically under Section 3, Rule 3, Contracting Powers, so we can determine how these tourism dollars can legitimately Relieve our general fund and support our local infrastructure. Two, ensure that any future CBC funding infrastructure built on county property comes with a binding, lifelong maintenance agreement, MOU particularly, paid for by the commission. It's time we step up as a governing body, clarify the rules of the road, and make sure this tax is actually sustaining the community that generates it. Thank you for your time, gentlemen.

Just like to say we are working on some of those points and some others that we'll be expanding on.

I know that you are, and I was hoping that this information could help, not hinder, but help you so that you can enter into MOUs for maintenance for our tourism infrastructure.

Appreciate you. Thank you, sir.

Thank you.

Let me make sure I didn't miss any paperwork. I have art on hold for you. Oh, the MUST Committee. MUST is an acronym.

Committee Clarification.

Is that how we do that on the 1st? I will...

Hold on, let me... We're not sure the criteria she's looking for. Do you have that stuff? I don't think so. It might be here.

Nope, not here. It's like you just showed it to me. Yeah. in association with HEA House Enrolled Act 1210, MUST meetings, and that's MUST as an acronym for Municipal Unit Strategic Task Force. I will have to look into this more before I can. make any kind of halfway intelligent comment on it. And even then, I might not be able to make an intelligent comment.

I would come maybe to the first meeting on the first. Yeah, you could do that.

Outcomes of the must are not binding. It seems to be a... It's a task force that deals with the lit... rate allocation, the changes that have been made at the state level with SBA1, all of the new property tax stuff, how local income taxes affect the town, the way everything's divided within the county, specifically the town, other cities and towns. We only have one town, so that's what we have to deal with. There are details in here that At one point, I talked about the school and the school budget, how we get wrapped up somehow in the school budget. I don't know how all that has come down, so we'll have to look into that and see. Yeah, we'll have them back at our, or later to our work session meeting.

Good.

We can discuss that.

The money we give the school.

Huh?

I said, other than the money we give the school.

Yeah. Other than that, that's really all I have on that. We'll hopefully learn more at our October 1st meeting. Do you want to be our?

Do we want to do ours now?

We have gone through the agenda. If anybody else has anything or anything else to add or any other comments or questions?

Close it out, Joel.

I'm going to close the meeting. I have a motion to second the return. All in favor? Aye.

Thank you.