County Council - Regular Meeting

Yeah. All right. All right. Pledge allegiance. I aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. All right, I call the meeting to order. January 14th, we did the pledge of allegiance. Uh, budget adjustment. Judge Davis, please come forward. I hope everybody here had a chance to talk to Judge. If not, he will present a short presentation, I hope.

Um, Gail Connley came here today from probation to h to help out. Gail, if you come on up. Um, what I'm dealing with is I have to hire a new coordinator. I'm not asking for any more money. promise you a no. But I'm asking to transfer money from my field officer position. Um he works 8 to2. It's going to be difficult to hire somebody for like a couple hours to be able to fill up that budget item. And what I have and then what I found out is I um I found for the last couple years behavior health courts is going very well. We got a 80% success rate meaning they don't run into trouble again after they graduate. But what I found is we really need some more supervisory. You know, the courts are busy. Our new number. So, you don't knew we're 4.7, we're 4.76. So, yes, we are busier. Um, but I need to have more somebody that has that experience of being a supervisor. If you get the position as a coordinator, you not only have to have your degree, bachelor's degree, you have to have three years of experience in either social work or counseling or working at probation. Um, if you're at probation, you know how probation has those every five years you get these ups. So, right now I'm at 61,801. I would like to take $8,500 for my field officer position. That covers my field officer plus gives me a couple more hours in the field officer position. And then I have we got we got a grant for drug screens. I believe I can take uh $2,000 from that. That would give me $10,500 transfer to take my number from 61,81 to 72301. And the reason for that is this. If I looked up, I called and talked to every county, Hamilton, Hendricks, Johnson, Dearbornne is is where uh Judge Clearary's at. And uh but Madison and all those I can forget Hamilton. We all just need to ignore that because that's

116,000. Okay. So we're But Hendricks [snorts] is 91,000. Johnson's 81233. Uh Matt Dearborn's 765 and Madison is 75755. Uh we're 6183. Um Gail can tell you about the probation things cuz we ha I have somebody interested that works at probation, but the reality of it is I need to at least get to 70 in order to get somebody over probation. That's just the reality of it. If I'm going to have this program go into what I want it to be, I have to have somebody that can deal with the mild and high risk. We don't have any low risk in behavior health court. The state said we have that mild and high risk and that's what we have. And we have my understanding Gail could tell you more, but burnout with with social work is about two two years. I want somebody that's consistently been with the county, that's consistently stays with the county and be here so I don't have so much turnover. you have any questions for me or Gail? She can speak about probation, but if you want to tell them just a little bit about why? Um,

can you can you come up to the microphone? Sure. Sorry about that.

Loud. In speaking with Judge Davis um in regards to um perhaps raising the salary for the director of BHC, it was my recommendation to him that he wasn't paying them enough and that he would never get someone um with a degree and experience um in the field that would take the job probably. Um it makes sense to pursue probation. I'm not sure if any probation officer would apply. Um but if they do, they certainly he would not be able to pay them what we pay them because of the state schedule. Um officers bump up. The first year they bump up. The first three years they bump up and then after that it's about four to five years they bump up anywhere from 5 to $6,000. So that's a guarantee. and you've been very generous with also um paying a little bit above the schedule. Um I think that that job in particular in BHC and in drug court, those are high-risisk cases, maybe at the very least a moderate risk case, which means you have to contact. Um they these are cases that are too burdensome for probation. and probation does not have the time or the ability to supervise them the way the problem solving courts do. Um that being said, by having a problem-solving court that helps the def the offender, it helps their family. It keeps our community safer. Um it is proven scientifically, we have the stats that um those courts do well. People respond well to those courts. Um, so I would recommend that you do allow him to move that over. Oh, I'm sorry. That that you allow him to transfer money over so that he can pay the director adequately. That is still below what other counties

are paying um smaller counties are paying. Um, so I in order to get a good person that will stay that is equipped that can handle that type of case load and that can monitor um the success and um staff. I I really think that um it would need to be at least $72,000 for that. I can also tell you that you pay probation supervisors and assistant chief and a chief um above that. So, [clears throat] I think that makes sense if that helps you. Do you have any questions for me? Yeah. But bottom line, is this a new position or you're just paying you just want to pay more?

Let me move over.

Yeah. Uh Carrie Wall is my current coordinator. She has uh asked to step down to become a case manager. There's it's a very stressful position. She's had some personal issues happening in her life. So case manager position which does pay a lot less. It's not as stressful as it is a coordinator. When you're a coordinator, you're managing the whole department. You're man you you are supervising the whole department. You're supervising your managers. You're having a case load yourself. So there's a lot of things. There's a lot of administrative things. Deb can say that you know you're you got to have right things going on because there's tons of things going on. And I'm busy. I I'm right in my eighth jury trial since June. I can't be down there all the time. I have discovered that I got to get somebody that has supervisory experience that knows how to supervise people. I don't want to consistently have my coordinator. I had Kevin Minnick, as you know, and then he retired. Carrie Wall moved up. It just isn't working. And so, she's stepping down. It's not a new position. and she's now interim coordinator, but she's going to f keep that role until I hire a new person.

So, bottom line, it's not a new position. You're upgrading the responsibilities for the position. Well, I'm getting somebody that I believe can I'm getting trying to get somebody that I can believe can make fit those responsibilities.

Har's been in there two years. As I said, it's a very stressful position. She's had some personal things going on. She's asked to resign from that position and go back to be a manager. So, the the only thing that that really matters to us at this point, I think, is well, how is this going to affect 2027's budget? Cuz if it's already in the budget to move the money over, if it's already in your budget, you move the money over, it's not going to do anything in 2026. So, then how does it reflect into 2027? You got to replace the money you moved over into those other things. So, it'll increase. Now, my part-time my field officer position would would uh go down to $36,500. And I already know it's there. I wouldn't ask for more. Okay.

Um unless for some reason uh we we thought we could. I realize

I plan to go to Ninstar this year and ask for at least $10,000. They funded that field position in the beginning, gave us $35,000. Um I'm comfortable with believing they're going to give us some money to do that. I'm not saying that's what we're going to ask it for, but I believe we're back up to be able to ask them for more money, and Dinar [clears throat] has been gracious to grant different organizations money. So, I will continue to do that. The reason I believe we can take 2,000 from the drug court, I mean, drug screens is because the state gave us $5,000 for those drug screens. And we are collecting more money from participants. We're collecting doing better job of collecting money from taking those drug tests. We've had less drug tests where people have failed. So therefore, we don't have to send it in as much. Gail's also agreed to work with the coordinator to see how can we lower this down. So basically, I'm asking 8,500 from the field officer position to go to the coordinator position and $2,000 from the drug screens to go to that position. That's not a change in any that's not asking for any more money. It's switching money over. I did talk to Mr. boards when I brought this cuz I knew he was president and going, "Hey, what can you do outside of somebody else's money? 2,000 is the most I can get outside." As you guys know, there was a lot of cuts. I realize there's different things that have to happen. You guys are strong on things, but there was a lot of cuts made. Luckily for us in behavior health court, we got a lot of grant money, so we're okay uh in regards to that. But if I fill this position and I can get it up to where I think I need to be, I can get a supervisor in there. I think we're going to shine. I believe we're going to get probably 20 new participants this year and that'll be the most participants we've ever had. But I got to have somebody in that position to be able to lead lead that when I can't.

I'll make a motion. Uh I want to clarify though. Do you need account numbers or line [clears throat] item numbers assigned or do you already know? We know what they are. So you're good with what? Where was the drug? So, it's going to involve a budget transfer and a salary ordinance amendment. Okay. I'll make a motion that uh we allow the transfer of $8,500 from the field off officer position to coordinator and also $2,000 grant money for drug screening to the same uh account coordinator. All right, we have a motion. Do we have a second? Second.

Oh, Robin want second. Okay. Any discussion? All those in favor say I. I. I. I oppose. Same sign. Motion carries. Thank you. I really appreciate it. Thank you. [clears throat]

I can pro read.

One other thing while I'm here. I'm sorry. Terry was not on agenda nine. And it was about the getting an a getting a vest and a and a bean bag gun as your insurance agent said. That's on the donation. Uh she asked for it last year. We just didn't spend it. She's asked we're asking to get that. So the field officer will have a vest when he goes out and not a gun. I know Sheriff Burkhard does not want him to have a gun, but Brian Breeze came up with the idea of having a beanag gun. So I guess it shoots and it shoots a beanag and knocks people down for about 20 seconds. So, you got time. I have a field officer now that's going out with his cell phone. He can't carry a gun because I can't allow that to happen. So, um in regards to that, since I was already here, um it's the same thing. You already granted it last year. I promise you you did. Um

do we have to have a motion for that? We're asking for Well, it happened last year, so I I I don't think it since we didn't spend it. I don't think I think we have to come back and ask. So that was budget $250 requesting $1,724.95 a vest of firearm and ammunition. That's an Ace Link armor bulletproof anti-stab vest $1,000 and fire firearm and ammunition. Again, that's bean bags. That's not bullets. 700 7,200 $24.95. Um we did get a radio from the county. Robert Harris was great. Uh, we're working with 911. They're giving us radio. That would have been another 1,500 bucks. We don't have to have that. Um, 1724.

That's an appropriation. It's just thumbs up, right? Yeah. So, that's not in your budget for your 26. We already have money in our budget. It's just allowing us to spend appropriated. It's not appropriated for what to spend it for. So, you want to give a thumbs up to advertise appropriate. Okay. Circle back to the Yes. I I caught what you guys said and I want to amend my motion to uh say that the money that we transferred is a prrated amount for the rest of the year and it's not the full amount starting in one one if that's agreeable. Sure. That's fine. That's fine. Okay. I think that you want this one for the gun.

Any discussion on the second motion to on amending the first motion? All those in favor say I. Any oppose? Same sign or she carries. Thank you. Is that all, Judge Davis? Give a thumbs up. [laughter] All right. So, we got you taken care of. Interested? Hey, we'll be going all all morning over there. Okay. Okay. [laughter] I may not have time for that, but All right. [snorts] Let's see. We'll go back to 8:45. Full-time employee John Canantis, come on up. Good morning. Morning. We

talked about this late last year and uh it seemed to be favorable for everybody. Um and this is to bring in another full-time employee on or around March 15th to replace an employee that we know is going to leave in Septemberish. Um, could be early, it could be a month earlier, could be a year later. All we are all we we are not filling our part two part-time positions that we had. We're we have we're only we only have two part-time positions left and those only work a handful of hours every month. Eventually going to be um what's that? Oh,

it's eventually going to be a replacement. Correct. Yes. Yeah. So, we would transfer the money from part the part of the 75,000 from our part-time line item to our full-time line item. That money would cover FICA PERF as well as salary. So, John, will you have any part-time at all?

I have I have two part- timerrs left. I have part-time tech that helps me with radios and then I have a part-time uh employee. She works she used to work for us. She's in Henry County as a deputy director now and works once twice a month at times. So, uh, we we probably only need about five five to 7,000 left in that line item to cover the two of them for the year. And that might be that might be a overreach as well. So, um, but I'm assuming that takes a amendment to the salary ordinance and to move to create the full-time position. Um, and then we're we're still really not sure what we're going to do with that position for 2027 yet. [snorts] Um, I don't know if we're going to need that additional body or not still. So, but we can talk about that in June. So, like I said,

did you say I don't know if I misunderstood what you just said. You said that they are expected to leave in September. Could be a month earlier. Could be a year later. No, a month later. A month later. Month later. Yeah, it'll be it'll be sometime between August and October. Oh, okay. But but you aren't committing to pull that extra position back out for 27. Is that what you're saying?

We don't know. We don't know what what I mean I don't I don't want to. So, it's a temporary position right now. As far as we are concerned, we don't plan on replacing the person who leaves when they actually leave [snorts] because we probably won't have the money within the budget to do that. So, this person is we're just doing this so we can get that person trained and then when that other one leaves then we can get we can push them right into that full-time right into their spot in the rotations. So that's but as far as 2027 goes, I we'll decide that in June if we we need if we need that additional position still. So [snorts]

I move that we make the appropriate uh changes to the salary ordinance. Second. We got a motion on the table. Is there any discussion? I hear any. All those in favor of the motion, please say I. I. I. Any oppose? same sign. Motion carries. All right, that's all I have. Welcome. Nice to nice to meet you. Uh, anything else for me? Hopefully not. And then I'll get everything to the auditor's office here today. So, thank you very much. Okay. Uh, we'll move forward the uh, opioid fund discussion. We're teeny bit ahead, but Oh, we're early. Was Gary coming? Gary was coming.

I think Gary McDaniel was going to come. So, if you want All right. Let's skip ahead and let's since Greg Geras is here, is it okay if we do the budget meeting update at this time? Uh yeah. Okay. Sure. Thanks. And the budget. Well, first we elected the president and vice president and we re reviewed all the fund balances and they look good. And uh we did uh as we went through the fund balances, we said in the general fund,

we might want to look at uh shifting some of that balance to uh four different things that we mentioned. Self- insurance, health reserve, maybe sheriff's retirement fund or rainy day would take that up probably in this meeting with [cough] Greg. [clears throat] Uh we needed we discussed needing probably to shift some uh lit ed to the lit jail. Uh Scott Binky was going to send us proposed uh prosecutor efficiency study RFP wording 1782 was received and needed answer by today. So we'll answer it right. And Sheriff Birkhart gave an estimate uh for uh our 2027 budget should we decide to continue the um recovery program that's going on in the jail. He also made a proposal for the manpower change at the courthouse and for uh purchase of cars and that led into the discussion of the need for a 2026 bond um which would include courthouse windows a association, sheriff's cars, 911 radios and IT equipment. If anybody remembers anything else while bring it up,

I can comment on the RFQ. I will have I dictated it. I will have that either yet today or I'll get it out to you guys early next week for your review for the prosecutor's office. Okay. [cough] Um, [clears throat] if you want to, shall we just go on into going down through the the budget issues there with Greg? If you if you'd like to move to the budget issues, um, we can then we can stop around 9:15 to do the opioid. That's fine. Yep. You can pull me off anytime. Okay. So, [clears throat] first things up is 1782 notice, I believe.

Yeah. I'm going to pass around the paper which would be the response to the 178 that we worked out. Sorry. Take one and pass it around. This is Deborah what you got yesterday and what Jim and Deborah and Mary and I kind of all worked out on a preliminary basis. And so once you get this um it um I'll go through it but I want you to have it in your hand so you can read it. Um, so we the big one is we worked with Gary and because they have and you'll see that the very front front here. Please increase the 2026. This is our response to them. Okay. And Deborah, this is the same as what you got yesterday and we worked out. Please increase the 26 highway budget to 10 million 025907. The actual combined 1231 cash balance in 1173 and 76 is 4 million. So i.e. Gary did not spend as many appropriations as he thought in 2025. So this compares to a balance of 1.3 million that was in the June 30th. The higher cash balance should allow the 26 budget to be increased by 2.6 million from the 7.3 million and currently [clears throat] showed in the 1782. The county originally requested a budget of 117. So if Gary gets more revenue and Clark, I'm Greg Geras. Very nice to meet you. Um and so if he would need to increase to that amount then we would do that as an additional appropriation. Is that your understanding Gary? Is that okay?

Yeah. It's not covert later but yes I okay I have a bunch later but

yeah. Okay. So but this is the response that we're trying to get today. Yeah. Next. The county received 358 in bond premium at the closing of the general obligation bonds of 2025 and deposited that money into the debt service reserve for the 2025 geo bonds. The 26 budget for the debt payment of the go bond 2025 geo bond is 3 311,000. What we're basically able to do is eliminate that. Okay. And so based upon the information, please remove the property tax levy for fund 184. So we'll ask them to remove that. That'll drop it about a half a penny and things like that. The final in order if the council wants to maintain the same tax rate, which the it was Jim's uh Jim's guidance that we at least recommend that. And so please reduce the general fund tax levy and the general fund tax rate the total to not to exceed.2769 which is the same rate as this year and same rate as last year. The we estimate the levy reduction to be $85,000 after the debt service tax rate adjustment above is completed. So, this should then if we get your approval, she'll write it up and send it in today.

Excuse [clears throat] me, Greg. In and in layman's terms, does the 85,000 come from the balance in the general fund? Yes, that's so we would be bringing down the balance in the general fund a little bit and we can restore it next year if we want. If we have fun, if we do that. Yeah. Yep. But that's keeping the tax rate the same level. Yes, sir. For the third year in a row. For the third year in a row. It's [clears throat] worth saying in the meeting. We'll say that a lot. Yes. Excuse [cough and clears throat] me. Does anybody have questions on this for Greg? Do we need to vote on that? I I would recommend that.

Yes, we need to vote on We have to have a motion because I have to sign it. So, you're the budget grew. [clears throat] Okay, Greg, how should the motion read? The motion should read that we you approve this write up and to be submitted by the auditor. So move second. All right, there's a motion on the table. What? Kent seconded. There's motion. Is there any discussion? All right, for the motion of uh the write up must the order to write it up today and to submit it with I believe my signature being granted. All those in favor say I.

I. I. Any opposed? Same sign. Motion carries. Um Deb, let's make sure this gets part of the record and the minutes. Absolutely. Yeah. So it it says response to pay 2026 1782 notice just so it's clear. Yeah. Well, it'll it'll we'll attach it to it and we keep going. And remember to mark it. Mark that bottom [snorts] one. We want these adjustments. Yes. Do I have time for the next subject, Scott? Which is the Yeah, you can go ahead.

Okay. Um I've got a hand out here. Take one round. This is our current debt service uh geo bonds that we have. Jim put together a list and emailed it to us. Jim, I came up with 4,850 given the list that you sent me on January 8th. This is our current uh obligations uh back to 2019 and what we are proposing if you are moving ahead with the 2026 bonds. Number one, Scott, we want to get this done early because I thought it was kind of funny where I said all the rich and famous after Thanksgiving go uh down to islands and there was a big plot map showing all the rich and famous outside of St. Barts on their on their ships after Thanksgiving. [laughter] And so the answer is we want to be very very competitive on our bond sales and we want that competition because that means the interest rate to the taxpayer is lower. Okay. So we want to make sure if we're going to do it we get it done by mid year. So so the resolution need is what I do and then the exhibit A. So we need to articulate exactly what everybody including the commissioners want in exhibit A. [clears throat] So that's part of that resolution. So the sooner I have that,

so the question at hand is if it's 4,850 or my assumption is we would absolutely round that to five because of cost of issuance, maybe discount or things like that. But would we want it to be higher? Uh is there anything else to add to it? I guess right [clears throat] that's [cough] the Yeah, there's no commissioner here, but I think Oh, Gary's here. Gary McDaniel's here. Oh, Gary. Yeah, you would want more, I think, wouldn't you? Here's there's the items. The only thing in there is the windows, Gary.

Windows, uh, it equipment, and I don't know that it's a full list. We may have something else we're meeting tomorrow night to kind of take care of some administrative needs. What about the 911 center? Was there windows on that too that needed I think [clears throat] I think there is, but I'm saying we're John's here because I I think he's asked that windows be replaced. I think so, too. So, and this could be up to six million. Is that

So, yeah, if you want five, but now given this, I think what we would do is not to exceed six. And we're thinking 10 years amortization. We can't we got to keep our the law requires us to kind of have level debt service. So that's why you see all of these are level pretty much. And so we would uh model it in behind the 25 bonds. But you can see overall, you know, we we've been doing really really well with our overall debt service. And we'll in in few short years we'll have the 19 dropping off. So So

so the the the past bonds that we're paying off the past bond. Okay. The past bonds. Yes. Okay. That we're paying off every year. They're when we let those bonds, those were 3 to 4%. Oh, sure. Okay. And then our cash balance is getting interest at four to 5%. Not even. Oh, sure. Not now. Okay. Well, probably four. Yeah. Still treasure. I don't know. I'd be shocked if that Are you in like something they're locked in? They might be locked into something. Are you locked into any CDs or That's the treasure. Okay. If we're just in like a money market, I cannot believe we're still making much over three and a half. That would be

okay. But we're not to a point yet where the bonds we're paying off are more expensive than We've been We've been making money Yes. by not paying them off. We've been making more interest than the interest we're charged. That was my point. When we when we get to a point where where it pays us to pay them off sooner, Yeah.

and we have cash balance at the end of the year that's excess, then we just need to have the conversation whether that is a and you're going to say no, we need to do something else with that money. Well, so I'm going to say you [laughter] you know coming up on the subject will [clears throat] be future tax changes and you [laughter] heard my you can go on uh typic county you can go on Lafayette's web uh TV show and hear my two-hour spiel of how they're going to have challenges and you're going to have challenges now too. Okay. [clears throat] I did. That's all I I'm just saying. You know,

great point, Kent. We have been getting [clears throat] more to keep money and borrow. We've been netting a positive margin from that for years. And so, it's made sense to borrow since you could make more. But it could come to that not being the case. I just have my own personal life. I follow a certain schedule and it's not exactly what you guys that we do the government. So, and also I guess let's let's talk about that in a moment because what we are trying to do is cash flow the jail addition totally from cash from those resources. So, we are doing debt and equity.

There's no doubt about it. Okay. And sure, if if we get to a point and you don't believe anything that I'm going to say on the on the future that is now uh hot down at the state house, um then you can also lower the bond before we issue it. Nope. So, at this point in time, we'd go probably with a not to exceed 6 million, probably have an amorization not to exceed 15, uh, and begin the process based upon the resolution of need and just kind of take our time and do it methodically.

One question, Sheriff, we have 800 pencileled in here flat. Remind me, was it 835? Was that the quote for the cars? I believe Jim's email said 833. Yeah. 833. Did that include the cost of equipping them with all the equipment or is that just the vehicles? So that might be another consideration because there's what 25,000 give or take dollars of equipment that we have to equip in. That's what I thought last time we talked about it. It ends up being roughly a little over 100,000 time we're all done [snorts] everything. Oh, a h 100,000 for all the cars equipment. Okay. But that's not in that number.

So that's another Yeah, but maybe we are able to, you know, do [cough] pay that out of cash or something. But that's why I guess Keely, the 6 million makes sense, right? Yeah. And we can't always pay it off. I mean, you're already originating something with issuance cost anyway, and you can pay it off early if you stop earning more interest than you're paying. Yep. Yeah. But the the the bond says uh it doesn't I don't it doesn't specify specific numbers for items, does it? I mean, it says sheriff's cars, right? Correct. Okay. So, if if it ends up being 833 or 900 or whatever. Okay. As long as it's sheriff's cars is what the

Well, can't direct response to that. That's why if we take our time and do the ordinance and do it right, the appendix A that's part of that ordinance will be broad in nature and but give us flexibility to do the right thing. I think we have some follow-ups for the treasury, but I don't know if we have any money in Trust Indiana, but I just looked and Trust Indiana is at 3.6% today and just a few months ago it was over four. And I just I follow that closely since my agency manages about $33 million for farmers. So that number has quickly went down and probably will most likely keep going down, but it's at 3.6% today in case anybody was curious.

And and that's exactly where we're going to have a challenge going forward also. So except that our balances are going up. So you got a bigger base to they won't be in 26. [laughter] Oh. Oh. Yeah, I heard that before. [laughter] Okay. So, at this point in time, if we just have a a consensus, we, you know, my assumption is we'll be using Ice Miller for the bond issue. So, once the commissioners agree to that, then we would get the process going. Do you need a official

or thumbs up? Yeah, it'd be nice if you give us some kind of guidance, you know, officially the 15 years the uh not to exceed 6 million and we go from there. Okay. I'll make a motion uh to support moving forward with the 2026 GEO bond not to exceed 6 million or 15 years in duration uh with the proposal presented and any additional needs made by the commissioners. I'll second it. Good. Are there good on that? Any discussion? Not hearing any. All those in favor say I. I. I. Any oppose? Same sign. Motion carries.

Okay. You want me off the stage for now? Um nine minutes. Nine minutes. Target. I think you do target fund balance.

Well, let's go. So, we reviewed the target fund balances and you should have that res. We are a we are suggesting no change. Now we are suggesting that you reauthorize it in a resolution so it's dated in 26 because remember we're to do this each and every year. But if you want to change a specific number and for Clark's benefit, this is we kind of consider this a minimum target fund balance. We're over that in in most [clears throat] of these and these are these are I I kind of spoke about this in typicanu yesterday. It's when we would push the panic button, you know, that we might have to really start uh nailing some things down. And so given your background and everything, I think maybe you kind of understand what we're trying to set is a minimum. We did talk about increasing self- insurance by half a million because Janine Gray told us our stop loss on that's like 900 some thousand.

Yeah. the the concern I've got is I if the general fund if you once we update it for 2025 numbers our concern is remember in 26 we're going to be hitting the general fund balance pretty hard what I'm suggesting is that these are the targets doesn't mean we can't become back between now and June 30th and fund more if we see that we want to remember we can you usually want to fund between January 1 and June 30th because of the 18month budget process right we want to get any type of transfers done in the first six months so it doesn't affect our 18month budget and So that's what I'm suggesting is let's get a little bit more information. The target looks great. The funding can be addressed in these between January and June. Does that make sense?

Yeah, I'm fine with that. I'm fine with that. I do agree though that if possible, I would like to see that maybe an extra 500,000. And that is in which one again? I'll make notes. The the insurance, the self insurance. The [clears throat] self insurance. Yeah. the 1 million be 1 million. Yes. Yes. Because that's very close to our stop loss. Yeah. [snorts] No, not 1 million be 1 million going to 500 million. Gotcha. Yeah. I don't have that one in front of me. So it's Yeah. The self insurance target balance was new. What? Last year, the year before. And then she just pointed out if you really wanted to be covered on your full annual stop-loss, it's short. But like you said, we can pay it regardless

or we can fund it, you [snorts] know, anytime between now and June if we want to fund it further. So, back to the minimum target fund balances, you know, is everybody Thank you. Is everybody okay with that? Can I have this one? Yep. I gave you my copy. Okay, your copy. I don't think we do anything. So, would [clears throat] it have a new resolution number alto together? Yeah. We would want it 2026, right, Greg? Yeah, he doesn't want Okay. What What would be the new resolution number? Have one typed up. So Oh, okay. So, we're not voting on that today. No. Okay.

This was a discussion on our recommendation after looking at the uh January or the 1231 balances. Well, I'm [snorts] agreeable to making no changes. That's your recommendation. Thumbs up. Well, I did have a thought, too. It would it be possible to fund that 500,000 from rainy day? Sure. I mean, it would. You know how I feel about rainy day. That would be a big deal for me.

Remember, you defined the rainy day as as your last bottom dollar for emergencies. Okay? And that's how it's been portrayed to the rating agencies. And again, when we do the 26 bond, the rating agency will review all this. That's why we want this to be 26. And so, you know, if you're considering moving your last bottom dollar to a reserve, you you'll need to discuss that with the rating agency as we go forward because there'll be a question. Probably not worth that.

I'm I'm I'm I'm thinking not. I think we could find some other places to do that if we want. And of course, we hope that in no year we hit our stop loss on self- insurance liability. So, it's a just in case anyway, right? That's not our actual cost going up. But we learned a couple years ago in the last couple years that something can happen very quickly. There's no doubt the world is changing and everything is possible. [clears throat]

All right. So, do we want um to to have it typed up so that we can do it next time to keep it the same? I would support that because I guess we have to do it in 2026 at some point. Yes. Okay. So, hopefully in February then or March fine. All right. You said future tax change is going to take two hours. We don't have that time today. We we have a prepacked schedule. So, now wait a minute. I didn't think I said two hours. Did you take two hours? You said it took 2 hours. TV debut. Oh, that was a TV debut. I was like, you got a lot shorter time on that. But it's 9:12, so we're going to uh pull you in then. Perfect. Move on to the I'm glad it came a little early. [laughter] Well, thanks for coming early.

Yeah, I feel the cane already. Thank you. All right. 9:15 opioid fund discussion. I could lead that off if you want, Scott. Sure. Go ahead.

Reiterate. So I did uh take the opportunity to uh look at this and I was asked to do that. So just by way of reiteration of the email I sent you all and the commissioner. So IC4-5-15-4 governs [snorts] the distribution of funds received from the opiate settlement litigation. And within that statute, there's a discussion of the majority vote of the legislative body, but that section pertained to selling the right to receive the funds. So, however, that's indicative in my legal opinion of what the what the legislature intended and that is that the legislative body would have ultimate authority on this on the distribution of funds. So, who is the legislative body? That's defined in 36-1-2-9 uh-1 as the board of commissioners. Now having said that I asked Deb and she was very helpful in making inquiry to the DLGF. So what

state board of accounts?

Okay thank you. State board of accounts sometimes I use those interchangeably. Um and they as you know she provided that opinion said that the commissioners and accounts should work together for the reasons we already understand and that is that you decide what's appropriate. So if the commissioners ask something be spent but you don't appropriate it doesn't happen and we all know that. So that was their opinion. So the best thing from a legal standpoint would be for there to be some cooperation and some consensus all the way around between the commissioners and the council. But that was my legal opinion. I stand behind that unless some and Scott I know you're an attorney. Yeah, the I when I looked at it, the Indiana lawyer like last year had an article which talked about how county councils have been doing it. So I don't know if that's necessarily true, but so my question if if I was wanting to really dive into it, really had we had a really big issue on it. We couldn't get it along, which hopefully we can with the commissioners is that I'd ask the attorney general for their opinion because that's what the statute the statute was written for them because they're the ones that sued for the opioid money.

It is. And so that would be my my ultimate. I think that's who I would turn to see what their opinion is. And and I wouldn't have an issue with that. Although I think based on what I just said, I think that's what they're probably going to say the same thing as the state board of accounts, which is you two need to get along and decide it together. Yeah. And I it's for the reasons that I just said irrespective of who had the ultimate authority. If you don't appropriate it, Yeah. doesn't happen. But then good people don't [snorts] get any money. So, I'm sure you've all considered that. And so, that's the legal part of it. The policy part obviously is outside my purview and it's up for you guys to make that decision.

I just want to say that um I wasn't here the day the uh council passed the recommendations on to the commissioners as to how council would like to see the money split up. And um I think we didn't really know a lot about what the commissioner's overall opinion was. that uh they saw the need greater at the church of god as um needing to get up and get started because they have zero right now. So I don't know if it would be worth the time to uh redisuss the recommendation now that we have more information about the decision that the commissioners made or not. I think my biggest question was on December 3rd in the public meeting here prior to Kent making any motions. We heard here that 250,000 a piece would get both projects done. That there were other supporters that would cover the difference and that when Kin's motion was for 300,000, we were told that the total [clears throat] Church of God project was going to cost 300 to 325,000 including furnishings. when they went to the commissioners a week and a half or whatever later, they said they did find an additional expense that was 35 to 50,000. And so that puts us at 335,000 to 375,000 total costs including furnishings from what we've heard in public meetings. So if the church wants to explain the gap between that and 500,000, I think that's the first question. I'm not sure where I our request always the paperwork we've always given you from back in April said 450,000.

Were you here on December 3rd?

I don't recall. And if there was ever a comment like that, we said that money would build a structure. It would not furnish it. It would not build it. That's the 450,000 that would complete it from beginning to end. Now, let me correct you because I don't know if you were here, but I have the quotes written down from what we were told December 3rd. And we were told that 250,000 won't complete it. It would catapult us forward. You talked about having other uh donors of construction costs and cash and said it will be 300 to 325,000 total to include furnishings. That's what we were told here before Kent made his motion. So,

ever was 250,000 ever. There's no way possible. You Okay. All I'm saying is you told us it was going to cost you to include furnishings 300. I'll have to I would want to look back to that because we've never that's never been a number that we've used except to say it would build the structure. It it won't even build the structure. Now, let's watch what you said in the December 3rd meeting because you said specifically including furnishings 300 to 325,000 is what was said here before Kent made a motion to allocate 300,000. So, that's the biggest concern now is these numbers don't line up with what we were told before a motion was made in the first place.

Our application has said 450,000. The paperwork we gave you back in April said 450,000. So, I'm not sure. I I don't believe I was here on December 3rd, but I want to go back and look at that before I say anything because I know conversations we've had beyond that 300,000 would complete the structure. It would not furnish it. It would not complete the project. Early in the presentation, what was said was in light of finding now that your project didn't qualify for the 500k state match app, that you had found savings, gotten cost down on materials, and that now 300 to 325 would build it and furnish it. That's what we were told before a motion was made at all. I was there [clears throat] and I if if that was stated it was a misspeaking because I know the intent was that the 300,000 will do the structure the 150 is at least going to be furnishing and getting it open to the residents.

That only makes sense. the the I mean there's no way you could have the when we started this in April and I know pastor can speak to that the the stepping back and the savings that we've had to do is because a decision hasn't been able to be made our material costs continue to fluctuate and we're not able we've had to reduce the the floor plans the the original one we came back or we presented in April with the 450,000 we had we've now had to change that floor plan because those material costs have gone up $40,000. So we instead of trying to stay with that and increasing an ask or anything like that, we made an adjustment in floor plans and did a different unit that we're the plans we're going to do

to bring us back into now since this has happened since December to now even on the [laughter] new plan costs have gone up around $5,000. So they're continuing to rise the back and forth as we go. So So we have the the application's upstairs. Uh De I asked Deb, they're going to bring it down here. Bring it down right now so we can see it. And so you said there needs to be it needs to be amended. It sounds like you may need to amend. No, our application says $450. Okay. So whatever it says that's you're fine with what that says the application. Yes. Okay. I mean we can make it work. You mentioned 5,000. I'm like of course I'm pretty sure raise 5,000. The costs have gone up 5,000 just material. I know it does. It does inflation shift

and so we have a contingency and right now we're digging into that contingency pretty heavily and in the conversations with the commissioners they were asking about some additional things we found out we're not going to be able to sew that would be about a $300,000 project right there itself just to connect our house to the city sewer connected right so we can't do that so septic costs we're looking at that um and that's where the 35 to 50,000 was we've got [clears throat] some money allocated for that within the 450. I think the commissioners were and I'm not going to speak for them. I'll let if Gary wants to come up and speak, but they listened to what we had to say and made that their own decision.

So, it does say it says total amount requested $450,000. Correct. Okay. It does say that on page three. Well, let me speak because this is this is my motion

that that we came out of the council with. Um, you know, we have two good projects. Um, when I look at this, we have a new project that hasn't proven itself yet, and we have a another project that's a continuation from something we've started years ago. Um, I believe both projects uh warrant some some funding to get them started or to do them. Um, I will tell you I won't support giving all to one and not to the other. Um, because I think the the TK project is an extension of what we've started and what we've been able to build over the last few years. uh and it's the next progression for that uh for that scenario. It's proven. It's been successful. We know that it's going to that um it's going to keep on. This is a new scenario. Um I'm not saying that it could fail or it might have more problems. I'm sure whenever you start something new like this, just like them, five or six years later, you're still struggling for money. There's it never ends because there's [clears throat] different tier levels. There are different things that happen. Um, we've already we've already proven that.

I see this.

Um, so you're going to be back for more appropriate money, which is fine. There's going to be more money in the future. Okay. But, um, um, I think we need to come up with something, you know, maybe 33. I did 33 because we had six. Okay. Uh, I do remember you saying initially 250 when you walked up there would would would be a a a godsend for you at this point because you don't have any. And then when when I said, "Well, [clears throat] let's put a 33." I thought that that it was going to be, you know, fairly okay. If if that three needs to be a little bit more and the other be a little less, I'm still agreeable to that, too. But to go to five to one for me, it's a it's a no for me appropriating the money. But that's

all of that we we're not that's that's not our discussion. Yeah, I agree. I think we we are spending time discussing that we could have an opinion forever and the commissioners could have their opinions forever and then the needle never moves.

Correct. I just want to say that historically, and I know Robin, Deb can probably remember too, that it was um several years ago that the um board of commissioners came out and indicated to the council that they did not want any raises for the employees for the next year when we did budgets. That was their opinion on salaries. Well, that got around the building in like half a second. So, um, there was discussions going on with the individual council members and office holders and them trying to explain how valuable the employees are and they don't want to lose them. And then the uh council voted to give that the employees a raise and it worked out great for the employees, but it was construed that they made a recommendation and then the the final decision of the council is just to appropriate. It's not to engage in the dollars and cents. That's the commissioner's job. And so we are now just doing the reverse. We are making a recommendation to the board of uh commissioners. They can accept it or not accept it. It's their purview in my opinion that uh we have I can't remember ever once in all the years that I've done this that um it became a battle over who was getting to make the decision as to where the money goes because then what you're saying is the council gets to decide the appropriated amount and who's going to get it and that's not the way it's set up to be. It should be two separate components. That's my opinion. And and maybe ultimately what needs to be done is a um committee between council and commissioners might need to be formed at some point to to handle nonprofits [clears throat and cough] and other things and grant money. Um I know I've talked to comm one or two commissioners about that and maybe that's a possibility. I'm not saying we have to do it right now. Just say it's a possibility in the future to do that and and maybe work better. Gary, I'll turn

the floor over to you to speak. I think Robin has I have a quick comment um Okay. Okay. I'll let you guys speak about that. Just before before you do that, one thing I need to point out is that application was for 450. So 500's over that also. But that's again the purview of the commissioners. No, no, I agree. I I gave my opinion. But I'm just saying though [clears throat and cough] in any event, we shouldn't be exceeding the application. People are slicing and dicing it too much. They can modify the application [clears throat] if they choose to. But that would need to be done. Yes. Yeah. Yes. And we could modify the amount too. Well, and what Mary was Well, go ahead, Robin.

Well, what Mary was talking about when we had that issue with the commissioners and the council, um there was a lot of push back from the department heads and elected officials, which usually that doesn't happen. And uh we finally the commissioners listened and the council and the commissioners talked and that's what we did at that time was we finally ended up agreeing on you know having the raises. We weren't they weren't asking for huge raises just the standard raise. So I think that's really what we need to try to do is get the council and the commissioners to weigh in on it. uh

because it is a [clears throat] two-part, you know, it's their policy call, but yet we have to appropriate the money. So,

the idea behind this was to actually get a men's recovery. Okay? We we we've served everybody else in the community, TK, where it be the landing, whatever it may be, but we've not helped them in. And this is a program that is going to transition from the sheriff over to this group. [clears throat] Okay. And yes, they're they're going to modify their application because the septic system into it is is going to be expensive. And that was one of our ideas that went behind that. But going forward, we we realized that during all of this, we finally figured out we don't have a process. Okay? There's no process in in in vetting the people that get this money. So, [clears throat] we are we are going forward, we're actually going to create a process that we're going to I mean pull different members in that way. It's not just the commissioners actually talking about it back and forth. I mean, uh what members that will be, we'll ask council possibly there. So,

if I may interject, actually with the opioid money and he probably test us too, there's actually if you go to the the website for I think to attorney general or something, it tells you there's actually you it's optional, but we can set up a committee and it gives you a list of people that could be on it. So, go ahead. And that's that's what we'll be looking at. I I don't know all the details right now. This is something new that we're going to create. So, that way going forward, we won't have this this back and forth. I mean I I would ask that you appropriate the money that we we suggested for that reason Gary [clears throat] if if I may

um I would interject too that uh whatever we do we'll be doing something here and I think there needs to be followup on uh the the programs with these people we are going to require every six months to actually come in and tell say how we're doing what the success uccess rate is what I mean what what they're feeling at that point in time and have numbers behind it. I guess my

my other thing though is you've mentioned both when you made your motion and now that the the main driver is supporting men, but you've already endorsed a half a million dollars for 24 level two men's beds for submission to the state. So, if that's approved and we went with the commissioner's recommendation, you're talking about 32 men's beds and not enough to do even one woman's bed. Are you aware that you the commissioners have already sent a state application aspire? Yeah. Yes. That just come about and we don't have that in our hand either. They have to approve it.

Right. But we have already allocated of the 1.1 I'm rounding, it's a hair less than that that's available, 500 of that was already allocated specifically to men before we got to talking about this 600. So I don't know if anyone else has even seen the Aspire application for the state match, but that is for 24 level two men's beds. And [clears throat] I I guess in in in my opinion I I'd like to see us support um the if we can both projects at the requested levels and that would be for the women 250,000 that's what they say they need and um whatever the the the church of God request is 450

becomes 450 50. Um, there will be, excuse me, it can be amended. Yes, they're going to amend what we the tape we got.

Okay, let me finish. There will be more money coming into the opioid fund. U, last year it was about 300,000. So, probably there'll be more money coming in there. And so I would uh I would think that we could do both of these [cough and clears throat] at the uh recommended level. We might have to put some money in to get it going, but the money will come back in. You know, we could use food and beverage or something. You know, I think that that's a great idea.

One more one more point. We did not go out and look for other um uh people in the community that uh either are serving the transition function or would want to. And as it turns out, we probably do have a um uh transitional uh function going on right now that includes both men, women, and families with children, and we didn't even recognize that they exist. They'll be coming to the meeting in February. It's called Hope House. And so there is a a a third possibility. Well, we we did an application process,

right? Well, we discussed it. That's why there's an application. I don't think we have one. How did how did they apply then if we didn't do it was a year ago, I think it was not it was not marketed and promoted as committed in the June 4th joint meeting. Well, we got an we we reached out or I [snorts] remember us having we need to get applicants and we did have applicants come in. We do need a process. You're right, Gary. do need some process.

Well, we made a committee on June 4th that committed to a very specific set of things that did not happen. And regardless of what happens from this request, I will not sit back would we've only given away opioid money one time two years ago and you guys authorized me to spearhead that committee and I followed the Indiana adopted John Hopkins guiding principles of distribution of opioid funds. I compiled a 15 person committee uh that included two other councilmen, a commissioner, it had all four school superintendents. It had the CEO and director of the mental health from Hancock Health. It had the sheriff and it had all four nonprofits currently providing prevention and treatment for opioid use disorder. And we got together and we compiled ideas and everybody put in and 100% unanimously agreed on the allocation amongst themselves of that proposal. and then it was taken before both the council and the board of commissioners for approval. That's how that's supposed to work and it has to keep working like that going forward.

Well, I think it's important that we get an application process so we do know what the needs are out there, but the the problem at hand is we have two projects we're trying to fund. I think it was a great idea that we fund both projects to the application which is 250 and 450. That's more money that's in there right now, but we are going to get more money this year. If we have to borrow a h 100red,000 from food and beverage or something and then put it back when the open money comes, so be it. But I think that's a great idea. Um, it would it would f keep both projects alive. My question is for Greg. Can we do that, Greg? Be reimbursed.

Well, I don't if we take it out of a different fund, some of it can within something in the Y. Okay. So that's that's what I thought year with the assumption that the reimbursement occurs in the current year. And do we need do we need to reimburse it? Uh you don't.

We don't have to. We we we might want to give ourselves that opportunity because maybe the hope house comes in with a project next year that we think is worth funding or something like that. But we we can just give ourselves that opportunity, but we don't need to if we don't have to. Well, I'm a little concerned about that if we didn't reimburse it because a lot of people have said they're for it, they like it, but they don't want to use any type of tax dollars. They want to use grants or the opioid money or whatever. Okay, that's fine. The opioid money is not tax revenue. It was the settlement, but I know that from the

That's the extra money that I'm talking about where we get it from. I think it needs to be reimbursed. And Robin, it would technically be a grant reimbursement transfer. That's how you are you okay with that? Write that down, Deb. [laughter] I Yes. Yeah. I I think it's also important that we do get this, like you said, the policy change, we get a group together like said, where it's, you know, so many people and that and that all nonprofits go through this process.

Can I can I make a comment from the auditor's perspective? Sure. the the work that Keley [snorts] did on that opioid grant and the application process and the whole vetting process, working with our office and making sure that we had what we needed to be able to fulfill this and help the people of the community. It worked out very well. We still use the similar application and it would be nice to have that process to be able to to put that out there. It it worked very well and we were able to to get that money out and they all knew what we expected and what we needed. So, I was a good process.

I I think that we could take that application that we had and just kind of change a few things in it and it might work because we already know it works. The problem isn't with the application. The problem is with the committee and process. That's going to be the big, you know, tough scenario. I think the commissioners are going to they're going to undertake that and formulate it. And I talked to Bill too and Gary and Janine. So there will be a process. So do we need another motion? Um and then it go back to the commissioners to for approval. I think I think the thing is is they need to a they need to amend because we have a a possible legal issue that they need to

they need to amend their their recommendation [clears throat] for approval or for appropriating. Well, I don't did you say 500,000 or 450? Oh, I said the the applications stand which is 250 and 450 and then and then we just figure out how to uh reimburse or fund the difference. That that's that's all I said. I mean that I I I commend Jim for coming up with that. I've wrecked my brain over this for about a week now. And uh man, Jim, you're you're on it today. I mean, [laughter] I can't hear you now. Say it louder. Need to say that again. [laughter] I don't get to commenting complimenting very often, but that's a great deal.

So, what I think you would do is make a recommendation back to the commissioners, right? And then the, you know, then they don't need to amend their application if the commissioners agree right with that. Um, and then the process that would be the cooperation that's being looked for. So, Well, if you need if you need that in a form of a motion, I I would because I made the original motion on this. I would um

um you know, amend my original motion off of this and and say that um um my motion is to fund the original applications as they were presented for 450 and 250. Um and then um with the uh uh commissioner's uh approval on that, then we would um uh fund the excess with um if we needed to borrowing money out of food and beverage and then replacing it as the new opioid money comes in in 2026. 100,000. Yeah, the 100,000 over I I'll second it. I agree with that. All right. In the discussion, is Greg and the attorney good with that motion? Yes.

Okay. And are you good with good with the auditor? Yes. Okay. Any other discussion? I would like just to I mean you may get tired of me hearing the saying the word study, but I I'd like to know from the experts. I know nothing in this area what the need and potential need is. So in the future, we may not be arguing about are we going to fund men's or women's, but we have it could always fluctuate, but if we know there's an estimated need for 50 men's beds and 28 women's beds or whatever, then we could also that committee could look at that. So I think that's something I'd like to see future money or just the experts, they already know those numbers, what an estimate of each gender's bed needs are so we know that and are educated making the decision.

Yeah. The good thing is that uh we have women's beds because of Tithkum and so the people the people but when we have a criminal case and we have to and the judges want them to go to a place we don't have any men's beds in Hikah County ship them all out respectfully that's not I don't think that's true tokum is a recovery program that's similar to what we have in the jail we're talking here about transitional housing it's different there is no Pai County courts don't send anyone uh to to do collaborate at the jail to hold beds for women coming out of the jail.

We do have six beds at Progress House that we pay $20,000 a year for and and the same thing with Dove House and Progress [clears throat] has been and the and Dove House. We will probably have to keep this recovery though. So, but they're they're in Indianapolis. They're not here in our backyard. That's right. Well, I'll I'll call for the question. All those in favor say I. I. Any oppose? Same sign. All right. Motion carries. Abstain. Okay. Thank you.

All right. That takes care of the opioid fund discussion. Then we're back to Greg Guerreras with the future tax changes. when you put that down. Mhm. The um you want your board. Well, it's available. Yeah. And I agree with that statement. Um

what what what I had in mind was particularly since we have a new uh council member that if you [clears throat] would start off and just summarize what you did before. Well, and Mary wasn't here either. summarize what we what we need and then go on into the rest of the story. Well, yeah. And and the rest of the story will include House Bill 1259. Okay. And Senate Bill 238, which should start to worry you. Okay.

Well, [snorts] I [clears throat] know that's all changing, but At least for myself, I would like to know what the ramifications of the current legislation is knowing that it may change. But if but if we don't understand the basics of what exists, I mean the basics aren't going to change. I don't think probably maybe the the numbers will change the Okay. And that's a a basic, but whether it's a oneyear, fouryear, whatever the heck, still the basic is the same, right?

Yeah. So So I we're going to be funding fire, townships, that part of it, that's not going to change, right?

Yeah. So So for for Clark, we'd want to get him what we passed out in October. Okay. which is in my opinion what we what we gave you before which was Senate Bill one. Okay. SB1. And and you knew you knew from that document that [clears throat] the county government our our county Hancock County was going to have authorization for a 1.2% 2% tax rate lit rate on the entire county it was going to be levied. Okay. When we sat down and looked at the break even point which is what we were to collect in 2026 for lit the break even was 65. The runway difference is 65 to 1.2. to up all points bulletin Mary and death. We believe we've had two counties already that their January distributions that were reertified on 125, not the November certification of lit. So I'm interjecting this to to the auditor's office. We've had two counties say they're wrong. Okay. So, and [clears throat] county commissioner asked me yesterday, why are they wrong? Well, the the Indiana Department of Revenue, something went wrong in their computer. Okay? So, check your distributions you receive in January and make sure they match up to 125 certification. If you don't have that,

we've got it. So Gary, we've got that runway. So now, should I interject where I think that runway is going to go? That runway of 1.2 in what I call Senate Bill Two, which is going to come out in March. The 1.2 is going to I think there's no doubt it's going to be lowered to 70. Okay. So, you've got 65 as an absolute break even. You had 1.2. Sen Senate Bill 256 258 is now saying not above.70. Okay. So now that Jim asked me and we put together in our last budget committee that if we were at 65 and we had to we wanted to fund uh mental health. We wanted to fund the estimated revenue loss. We wanted to fund the justice center and some other things. What would we need? We need well up to 1.2 2. I don't think we're going to get that now. Okay. So, what I'm saying is the break even of 65 versus what is going to highly be probable of the limit of.70 is all the runway you're going to have left.

Well, the [clears throat] 65 did not include the library either. No, no. I'm I'm keeping that totally out of the mix. Right. Well, but today it's in there.

Well, the PTRC portion is Yes. So, for So, the library is Now that you went out on that diving board, let's go out there. The libraries are funded by two sources of revenue. a special dedicate special purpose lit and property tax replacement that comes in as certified shares to the county and is basically lit revenue. Okay. And they get part of that. Okay. So that is not within the 65 and would make the 0 65 higher if we had to replace [snorts] that. Now the good news I if along with the bad news of.70 is that all special purpose lits have been defined to be outside of any 2.9 cap. So overall, Clark, there was a 2.9 cap and basically that was cover the city of Greenfield's rate, the county's rate, the replacement of the small town's rate, and you're going to be drinking from a fire hose before this is all over, and the the um basically the fire rate. Okay? All those rates could not exceed the ultimate cap of 2.9. That 2.9 I don't think is going away. So far it's not being lowered. [clears throat] But my concern about cash balance, okay, and my point about the all points bulletin is that if we thought we had our runway for county

services of 1.20, [clears throat] our break even of.65, 65. That window I think is going to get slammed shut hard. Well, that makes more sense on not changing the target balance for self insurance. [laughter] Why do you That's why I said you got to hear you know Paul Harvey page two.

Did you say that the uh let special purpose lits are going to come out from under um our our max? That would be the jail lit. That would be the library lit. No, those were not special purpose. Our only special purpose here in Hancock, remember I told you there was about when Rhonda was up here, I said there was about 18 of them, right? Statewide. One of them is I we believe the library, but not the uh jail lit. That was not a special your jail lit was not a special purpose lit. Okay.

Rush County's jail lit is a special purpose lit. So you got to do it county by county. Okay. So our only special purpose let is the library. That is correct. And you're saying that is now out from if approved. If approved. Yeah. There's a House bill and a Senate bill and they're going to be merged together. The Senate bill is the strongest and [snorts] that's the one that is saying, "Yeah, you know, get those 18 out of there. Let's make it clear." Okay. Well, the lit if the special purpose library lit is in there, we're already over 70 cuz it's about 0.20.

Oh, correct. Correct. So, so that would make no sense and we want it out of there like we've said. Yeah.

Keep it out of there. And so so ultimately now you know what we had then is then you had the small city and town rate and that's kind of where we left off the last meeting and uh what what was happening there Clark is that the small cities and towns here in in Hancock were identified on our sheet on or page 11 and that was New Pal, Shirley, Spring Lake, and Wilkerson. They were all below the 3500 threshold. The 3500 threshold in in Senate Bill 258 is going to get lowered to something and they're going to pick up 65 municipalities across the state of Indiana. They just didn't say in the summary what it was going to be, but it'll probably be lowered to about 3,000 population, but that won't affect new pal Shirley or Spring [clears throat] Lake. So, the county council will in in Senate Bill one, okay, have to levy about 7/10 of 1% or seven basis points to fund those municipalities, those four. Okay. The state has has a caveat in SE in in Senate Bill one that says if you do that the county council can elect to keep 75% of it. Okay. Share 25 collect 75 which means the.70 which we calculated with no benefit coming back to the county. Okay. would have to be that much higher because you

would be taking a slice off for yourself. That made no sense. Well, guess what? Senate Bill 258 is saying, "Well, that makes no sense. [laughter] We're taking we're probably going to take that out." Actually, that's probably a House bill. House Bill uh 1259 said, "That doesn't make any sense. Let's not do that." Okay? Because why would you raise why wouldn't you just raise your county rate higher? Okay, if [clears throat] you really need it more money. So now we're back to under Senate Bill 1, you would need about.70 to fund those small cities and towns. Am I losing you, Jim?

Mhm. [laughter]

But and and the new one is going to allow that to be like 1.9%. But that makes no sense here in Hancock County. This this statute these statutory changes of one sizefits all is not going to fit everybody. You know it's it's not going to work because the you don't even need the 1.2 that Senate Bill one allows, okay, to fund your small cities and towns because you only have four, right? Not a lot. And what we showed at the 0.07 7/10 of 1% is that you could fully fund your towns, your four small towns. And you want to do that obviously as we go forward because you otherwise you're going to have to run and you really don't want to do that as a county council. Okay. So, Senate Bill One and and that authority is is there and all of this was supposed to take place in 28. And as I told you before, I think it was going to be moved back and Senate Bill 25 uh 238 is going to move it back one year. It's going to go into effect in 29. So, you'll be doing all this in 28. Now, Deborah, [clears throat] you're going to become the head of GIS for the entire county, [snorts] whether you knew it or not.

Yeah. But going forward, you're going to be in charge of the boundaries of Shirley.

And making sure it's darn right. Okay. Because, you know, surely not. if you got it wrong, you know, or if you get the city of Greenfield's boundaries wrong, they will collect less money. So, going forward, the state is saying, in order to get this correct for for imposing new tax rates under Senate Bill One, we got to make sure exactly how big Greenfield is. and you've got to tell them annually how big they are with annexations, deanexations, anything else that occurs. Okay? So, you may need some help on your GIS.

Um, that help. So, [snorts] because Clark, what we're running into is, and they say it right now in the in the current new statutes, we don't know how big Greenfield really is. Okay? When we go to Scott and we say, "Give us your zip code." Scott gives us, you know, his zip code, but he's not even in the city of Greenfield, let's say. Okay. Even though his zip code says it is. That doesn't work. Okay. So, now we're going to bestow the duty on Deborah to tell us, does Scott live in Greenfield or not? No, he doesn't. So,

the assessor's office can run reports because every parcel number is unique to its taxing unit. So, I would think that would be an easy source to go to to get information for very specific taxing units. And Mary, you won the star for today. Okay. Because that's what they're not going to go to the assessor though. They're going to go to the auditor and get it from the auditor who's going to get it from the assessor who's going to validate it [clears throat] and it's going to go from there. Have those partial numbers already? Yeah. Won't GIS be involved in that also? Well, GIS does what the assessor tells. Yes, they will. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. I know a lot of things jump into that.

And can't I I want to make sure you want to understand this because I'm trying to get a kudos from you today, too, since you're giving a [laughter] got it for today. Jim already blew my mind today. I figure you're only good for one. [laughter] U so you know that's where we kind of left off on Senate Bill one and the small cities and towns. How much other tax revenue does like New Palestine or Shirley have that's not under this? Is there any other tax revenue? Well probably income tax not lit

not lit. We used all their lit in our calculations on page 11 and we had surely at being around current revenue was 277 under the certification of the 26 and yet the seven basis points it would be 270. So pretty much break even. Okay. They're still going to control their property tax. Absolutely. Okay. And do they do they collect income tax? That's what we're talking about here. Okay. So this all all future lit. Okay. And when we say lit remember we're putting it all of it the certified shares the addit whatever they get as lit.

What if they're paying debt with their lit now? Yeah, I Okay, let's So, so right now if they're paying their debt,

the assumption is that they're using part of their 277 their total lip package and the, you know, that's why you want to make sure that they break even at the seven basis points, which we did, and they would have still money for their new debt. Now the state has heard the argument about you know don't go in and torpedo you cannot torpedo the lit if it's paying debt service and so that is going to be a change that's what if they take this is 2029 what if they take debt on between now and then

it would probably be sunset more than likely under that so was your example of Shirley and it sits in two counties Is is it possible that our county's approach and and the other counties approach are different and they literally are paying at a different Absolutely. Wow.

Yeah. And so the supreme commander over here of how big is Shirley and what is the right Shirley and what is the right Shirley not? Um you know then she will probably be making that up. Okay. But yes, you could probably have your next door neighbor with a different you that'll happen within Greenfield, right? Because you could have someone in Greenfield and someone across the street in the county and you have two different lit rates. Yeah. One would be 2.9 max, the other could be 1.7. [snorts and laughter] And where do you want to live? Yeah. Yeah.

Across the street. I'm assuming surely would get less money than they get now, right? Everybody.

No, no, no, no. What I said was you would authorize a rate of 7/10en of 1% which would make them break even you know and so you the the thought is when you enact under SB1 or anything when you enact a rate you will provide them enough money to fund their services as they have funded. Now the question's going to be then do you revisit that each and every year cuz surely we'll want to give a raise of 3 or 4% right and or something in their salary or they might want to hire a new employee and you might want that to happen and so the rate may have to be bumped up to point8. Well, I we got a phone call from uh one of the people on their um

council. Yes. Okay. And um he this person was wanting us to talk to the city of Greenfield because they had raised their contract and it really wasn't that much, but they don't have much money and they said they're not sure they can make it after they pay more on their contract. So, I'm just wondering how that affected them because we got that phone call.

Yeah. So what you might what the what the envision under Senate Bill one right now is you may have to go in and revisit that each and every year and you may have to have those smaller municipalities come into you and and kind of submit your budget or something like that if you want to micromanage that process or you know you also don't want to say well we just need to raise the rate you know and the prior priority of the rate is going to be set. So what if you raise that rate it may cut into you? Of course it will. Yes. [laughter] Yeah. We've got to keep ourselves from being

eaten alive. Eaten alive. Yes. And and so yeah, so under Senate Bill one that you know that's going to be the assumption uh Robin so that we we fund that. Okay. and things like that. So, the other thing we had left off, Jim, was um the final page under Senate Bill One was page 12, which did look like in the city of Greenfield that the 1.2% under our current estimate [clears throat]

uh that they would be uh funded uh at the 1.20%. I am telling you the under 258 and going forward there are about 75% statewide of the cities and towns that are not going to be able to be funded at the 1.2. So they're going to probably make them 1.5 out [clears throat] by taking, you know, giving them some of your, you know, 1.2. And so, but again, this is where in our analysis at this point in time, it kind of worked in Hancock County at 1.2 under Senate Bill One.

Okay. Now, the difficulty was Cumberland because if you according to the Hancock County population, they're below the 3500, but in total population, they're probably above the 3500. So the question is, do you just use the demilitarized zone and only the demilitarized zone? [laughter] Okay. Or the none or the Maritan County? Or do you say they get the authorization to do their rate in total? Does the state say anything on that? No, they haven't said anything.

But that might be one of the 65 that comes in in the future, you know, because they were at we had them at 3461. I'm like, "Go find 40 people quick." [laughter] Is it And it's could you could you end up with [clears throat] two different rates in a town like that? Absolutely. Oh, yeah. Because you're different counties. Yeah. Just like we said with Shirley. [clears throat] You said surely and surely not, right? [laughter] Yeah. Is the is the That's too easy. Sorry. Is the fire department rate of point4 has that been discussed to change or is that Yes. Okay. I was curious. I didn't want to muddy Jim's water too much more. I didn't I I don't mind. But Senate Bill One.

Yeah. Okay. Senate Bill One has said uh40. And in my analysis I gave you I said okay that's kind of looking okay. Um what is that? Um I'm going there point uh let's see 40 was this

on page nine. And um the the under Senate Bill one, the real significant question was you had the ability to give it to the volunteers. You didn't have to give it to the volunteer fire department. So in our analysis on page nine, we said if you give it to them and if you don't give it to them at this point in time. Can we pause you? I don't know if we all have I don't. No, you don't. No. Okay. No, you don't. I don't have I think you in the package for budget. Yeah, for the budget.

Oh, it was last week. Okay. I was I'm so sorry. There was I was looking at the 1782. I was like, "This isn't matching up." [laughter] So, but that's going to be the big big question. And by the way, the 040 now is being cut to 20. Really? What? Hey, Greg. Newly merged territories, right? Uh that's not how I'm reading it. Okay. Well, they time it was

Yeah. So, so what you're saying is um probably in the past. Okay. Because right now it just says fire and EMS rate decrease from 0.40 to 0.2. So 04 to 0.2 cut in half. Does maybe there's a sentence in the dark deep you know whatever abyss that says only for new but at this point in time it's Originally when this generated uh from Senate Bill one they talked about any newly formed territories would get a cap rate of 040. Well there was actually two caps.

Okay. [snorts] There was a property tax cap of 40 not to be confused with the LIT cap of40. Correct. Two caps. Yep. You're talking about relative to territory or lit.

I'm talking about NAP. Okay. Property tax cap of 0.40 I believe is still correct for any newly formed territories or whatever. I I haven't heard anything on that. Okay. But the lit is like I just read it. Fire and EMS decreased from 040 under lit to20 underlit. We're wondering what happened there to you guys. Can I speak for just a minute? Well, it's up to the boss. Yeah, we don't have We don't have much time, but yeah, come on up. One minute.

Radar real quick for Sugar Creek Township and Chief Will or Buck Creek if he needs to. If Sugar Creek Township loses our lit distribution, we lose $2.3 million. That is over a quarter of our budget. I would not be able to retain the firefighters I currently have. It would destroy us. Just to put that on your folks radar because I know you are concerned as we are, but that's what the raw numbers equal. You're probably one of 50. It's going to tell the state the same thing. Exactly. Yes. I'm going to legislative Dave with Indiana Fire Chief Association to speak on that very same thing. It is disastrous. Take a fire hose over there and wash all those people down. [laughter]

But I feel like it's my job to make sure you guys are well aware of that and where that puts us. I mean, it's which Yes, it would affect Sugar Creek Township, but as I've spoke to before, it affects mutual aid. It affects what we can do. It it it, as you said, demilitarizes Hancock County. It it will drastically affect the citizens of Hanok County as a whole. So when you go down here, my suggestion is keep your 40 cap on newly formed property tax. What it means is that territory separate. Well, it means raise taxes, right? Don't confuse them. Yeah. Thank you.

Sure. [laughter] And and so and so that's you know, so Jim under SB1 we Hancock County is looking was looking good including the volunteers.

Well, cuz we were getting kind of close. We were, you know, we were we were funding there, you know, uh they were Buck Creek and let's see, you're with Sugar Creek. We had you at 3.7 if we, you know, that so that would be good under the 40 we were funding and we were even if we included the volunteers, it was 3.2. So it moved at maybe 500,000 based upon our estimate, but that was still over and above. And so everything was kind of looking good. You know, I'm I'm think here in Hancock County, the dominoes were kind of lining up pretty good. Okay. And so when we create SB2 to come to a theater near you in March, you'll want your we're going to highly label this SB1 and we'll get a new version called SB2 or Senate Bill 238. [snorts] Okay. But uh Okay. So,

well, I just wanted to get the conversation for the other than our stuff, the fire and right and you've gone through that. So, yeah, that's good. And I have two things I want to ask you before you Okay, I'll pause. at a higher level. You know, it's only January and we're already getting requests for new employees in multiple places here in Hancock County in government in Hancock County government. Okay.

And and you know, we tend to go ahead and you know, we're usually heard this needs to happen now, it's already too late. And I'm a little worried about all these unknowns and making decisions like that in the next six months, call it. I mean, I know we'll know sooner than that about the legislature, but would you tell us that we should not be making any major decisions or adding new employees till we know exactly how this pencils out or? Absolutely.

Because um key remember in 26 we got to fund two things, our wages and our 27 pays. You know, I had typicanw county throw out the 27 pay because they couldn't afford it. Okay. And they went 2%. And but they have a million dollar budget, you know, and um so you know, yes, you know, I I think what we've always said, and please correct me if I'm wrong, that we have to fund health insurance and salary first. And as I said yesterday, they they have to really fall in line together, right? Because if health insurance goes up 10%, you know, we can't really afford to give a 5% increase in pay. But if if we're assuming that the county absorbs all the 10%. Now, if you assume you're pass on to that to the department heads part of that 10% increase, then you at least need to probably offset that in the payroll side. But I've got some smaller counties, they're throwing out their salary studies. They're not doing them. Shelby County can't afford to fund to the salary studies because the salary studies are saying, "You need to increase $15,000." Well, thanks, but we can't do it, you know, and so salary studies don't mean a lot. So, that's priority number one. My assumption is bringing in new people would be a lower priority than what?

My other thing was back when we were doing budget, is that correct? Generally, let me let's I mean, I think we have a consensus, right?

Yeah. Because I mean, they'll be done in fe at the end of February, so we could look at March. Yeah. The other thing was I think when we did the 26 budget, which is, you know, 6 months ago now, uh, in the sustainability, if my memory serves me right, I thought we were projecting 4% interest revenue and we're already below that. So, another thing is when we approved the budget, I think we assumed a higher interest rate than we're already at as of January 1st because of all the cuts that happened in the second half of last year. Well, in the No, no. In the sustainability, we cut the interest income revenue.

I thought we cut it to 4%. But I could be wrong. That's why I want to ask.

Well, you may have the percentagewise. Um, we, let me put it this way, we cut the total dollars. Okay? So, the interest rate as, as someone said earlier, is going down. pot of money did go up a little bit for 1231 2025 but overall we cut the total dollars I don't know again we got to get the revenues and expenses slammed shut and you might be real close on uh 2025 but we had 5.495 495 come in in 24 actual interest. We in 25 we have 5 million I believe we'll be higher than that slightly and then in 26 we had 4.5 million in 273. So we cut the total dollars

in the sustainability, but if we were to look at what interest rate would be required based on our anticipated average monthly balances in the coming year, I'm saying I wonder if we will hit that and it's just a consideration that we that [snorts] those revenues might be lower than what we budgeted. My gut feel is we'll and Clark may have better read on this but we'll have that interest sustain until they make a change at the Fed come June [clears throat] and then we won't be at that rate. Yeah.

Okay. And so overall the blended rate for 26 I think I think we'll be okay on the total bucket of dollars. Okay. But what we what the slide will be is do we decrease a million and a half between 26 and 27. Stay tuned for the next version of the sustainabilility and that'll be predicated on where we end up with 25 on actual you I think we've already sent those numbers to you. Okay. So just you might we have not had time to adjust them. So [snorts]

Craig I'd like to interject something really quick because you brought up the salary study. Um Jim is the one that helped us start that and

I've talked to him. I've talked to Mary and everybody that's on that salary study and we think that we've done what we could do. So we've decided not to have a salary study this year, [clears throat] but and everything is so close that I think it should be everybody should be in on the discussions. But I wanted to let everybody know because usually we've already met once or twice. I think we saved the county some money and I think we did what we could do, but it's outside of our expertise and we've taken it as far as we can take it. And I think that the the county and the employees deserve something. If you're going to do an actual salary study, it'll be [clears throat] somebody that's an expert in that field.

And it sounds like there might be no need to study because like typic [laughter] Yeah, it's hard to study zero. Hard to study zero. Okay, I want to keep moving so we don't fall behind. [clears throat] Um, is that all we need for future tax changes? I think I'm at a pause point unless someone has any other further question. And Jim, I'm sorry [clears throat] if if I muddied it with where we're at but or where we're going. Yeah. But, you know, that's when we'll take SB1 and update [clears throat] it for like I said SB2. unders.

But people need to know, you know, the concerns coming and key, that's why I was saying, whoa, whoa, whoa. Let's not move any money. Let's not do anything. Let's take a pause point on that. Don't spend $100,000 on a salary study. Pause on that because the theater's going to come near you real quick. So, yes,

uh, uses for general fund balances. So again, that was where Jim was suggesting that we may transfer money to rainy day, sheriff's dep sheriff's retirement, health reserve, self insurance reserve. And I'm saying we've got till June 30th. Let's sit and think about it carefully. And then any old business f old business was basically stay tuned for SB2. It is going to bite you. Does anybody else have any questions for Greg before we move on? Go ahead. Um I just the report that you were just reading from, I'm not 100% sure that I did pass that out at the budget meeting. So is that your sustainability report? I don't know what that is.

Well, the one that I was reading for on just now from transfers state no for the tax um changes, future tax changes. This right here. Well, future this was SB1 that we we brought we started in October discussing October, November. Okay. But this is the one that Clark should get. And this is the one that's been, you know, we [clears throat] did number [snorts] one last month in December. We did part of it in November. We did part of it in December. And Jim wanted me to do followup. I just wanted to make sure I had that to make sure I could get that out. Yeah. One last question. Excess levy appeal, where does that stand?

So they they they are they highly likely they're going to come back. They're coming back and we're going to we're going to you'll get the right in 26 to appeal. So, did we get our appeal? No. 25. We got make we made up our past and that's it. You know, the money we gave back, that's all we got back. Okay. Oh, the money we gave back the prior year that we didn't take. Yes. Which was like 200 some thousand if I remember right. Two to 300. That's why our levy went up over 800 in total but no but we had asked for right nothing in excess of that. So okay um Mary had a

and under current a great point under the future it looks like excess levies might be possible and it looks like we might get a growth quotient of 4%. Okay. So, okay.

When when when we when we're hearing him say, "Yeah, money money money money money money money money money money money money money money money money money money money money money money is going to be tight tight tight tight tight." Mary had a great point, we my opinion is we really don't need to be throwing money at at um efficiency studies and things like that that we talked about the last meeting that aren't uh designed to save us money like the prosecutor's efficiency study and that. So, cuz that's not designed to save us dollars. That's going to be designed to add dollars. I'd look upon it as as maybe efficiencies. Yeah. Yeah. when you when it wants to add three or four more people then I'll

then [clears throat] I'll tell you that uh that maybe but but unless you in past studies what we've found is that um sometimes people are not communicating and you don't find out that that you know things get put in a rut and unless you get in and do some plowing you don't find out about inefficiency. So, it'd be more from my view as an efficiency study than it is. Well, Jim and I aren't going to agree on everything today. It's just not going to happen. [laughter] You took away his star, huh?

No, I didn't take away his star. He He did good earlier, but [laughter] today it's not going to be 100% today. And we're that was left with going back to the commissioners asking if they recommended it that study or it was he's going to do an RF. He's going to do an RF to all review it. You'll have the next few days to look at spending money to create. Oh, it's already Oh, what? Seriously. [laughter] Any other questions for me? I I don't I And Amanda's going to give a presentation, correct? Uh if I don't think she's here yet. Yeah, at 11 o'clock she's supposed to. As I told Jim, that'll be critical as we move forward in the 27 budget. What will uh Amanda's study?

Yeah. Right. And how we we may want to propose that to the state, you know, to fund. So excess levy based on that, right? Yes. Or or or just outright a special levy. Okay. For it. Okay. you know, because this is unique if you want to fund it going forward and we're going to run, you know, we're going to be running out of money elsewhere. So, there's no other questions. I've had a request for a short break. Yeah. Is that good [snorts] with everybody? All right. We'll reconvene about 10:30. Okay. Thank you. Six minutes.

study be appeal. All right. Reconvening the January 14th meeting. Next up on the agenda is uh the 2025 revenue report. Marsha Moore is the same thing. I don't think so.

And there's there is something in your packets. Yes. Ladies and gentlemen, I did email the auditor um a copy of this report so that you would have it in your email. Thank you. So um as you mentioned last uh meeting Jim had said that the recorders perpetuation fund was approximately a total of $38,000 give or take. Um that amount of money um sounds significant but yet it's not. Um I wanted to let you just kind of a little background especially for Clark's benefit. The perpetuation fund is what runs the recorder's office. Uh, for the most part, the recorder staff provide or the recorder provides a sworn statement to council every year to say how much money um I'm allowed to use for general fund purposes. General fund purposes primarily are salaries, benefits, that kind of thing in which the recorder's office does pay for. It's also important to note that the recorders office went to flat fees in 2017 with a change in 2019 for UCCC's. So when we're looking at the Senate bills effect in 27 28 29 that's going to be close to 10 years the recorder's office will be operating on the same flat fee which means even though we're still uh growing and we're still recording documents. It's going to be um more difficult for the recorder's office with the challenges of inflation and salary increases to always maintain that same level of funding that we give to the general fund and not using it. I

say all of that because I wanted to point out um the recap of uh what we've been um providing with our document increases and the amount of revenue that's been sent to the different um locations. So for instance, [clears throat] the first line of the document recap shows that in 2025 we recorded $14,911 um in excuse me not dollars in records that were done and that's an increase of about 1,400 documents that were recorded. This trend has been we we had our peak as many of you know um with COVID which was crazy. I guess because everybody was staying home and doing things, so they were refinancing or something. I'm not sure. And we had a slight lull, but we are kind of slowly peing back up. The revenue to county general in 2025 was $226,199. The only expense from county general that the recorders office took was $71,9576. This is in excess to county general provided by the recorders office of 154,241. The [clears throat] other annual revenue that goes to other county funds such as the and these are by mandate um are like the uh surveyor's cornerstone perpetuation fund and those kind of things. That total was $103,44. Those went to other county funds. the amount mandated by statute that goes to the state was 10,777,000. Um, so I just wanted to kind of point out that the recorder's office is still able to maintain our staff and we are

still because we are fully digitized and most everything comes in electronically, we are still working efficiently and able to support um our office basically. Now, we did have to come to the commissioners and let the commissioners know that we were not going to be able to support the full increase on the county health insurance benefits. And so, the commissioners had taken up the last I think it was $10,000. Deb, I forgot to ask you that yesterday, but roughly the last um [clears throat] month u the commissioners took our insurance because by statute the reporter's office cannot go over the amount of that sworn statement and our sworn statement was for $300,000 that we could use for um our staff and general fund purposes. So, are there any questions? No, but we might state that um because you know there are some departments that can raise certain rates like costs for things but with you um the state sets how much the recording those fees are control over that. So some people might say well increase it a dollar or two it'll bring more but you can't do that.

No and neither can we and neither can the commissioners

right and that's why I wanted to just point out that the last time it was revisited was in 2017. Uh the recorders association is aware of that. Um they are kind of watching the Senate bills to see how this affects um in general everybody because it is more of a user fee and not particularly a tax you know because you're getting charged a fee to record. Um so I know that um in the recorders association the discussion has um thinking of you know when is going to be a good time to maybe uh revisit with legislators the ability to either put this on some kind of a a cost of living type increase or increase the fee for recording period. You know I don't know. Um it's not going to happen this year. I can tell you that because um we've already set in process what we're working with the Senate and the House on for the legislation that recorders need passed. So it that's not in this discussion this year, but hopefully it will be in the next couple of years. Well, [clears throat] from from what you uh know, do you think the recorders perpetuation fund as we know it here will continue to pay for your staff for the next maybe five years?

I have looked at that. Of course, I don't know um what inflation's going to be or all of those things. Um but at this point we are fairly solvent and I feel comfortable with saying that for the next two to four years. Okay.

Um but uh it does depend on how you know granted right now the county is still growing quickly and that's what often generates the documents that we record are the number of mortgages, the number of deeds that are coming in. So, I would say in that regard, as long as we are continuing to grow with, um, homeowners, um, then we're going to be, you know, all right. Um, but we do have to be very cautious, uh, obviously about that money because even though it looks like a lot, it's really not when you're talking staff. And to be honest, um, our department is so small, but we really cannot cut staff because there's only three people that are employ there's myself and three others. And the reason that's important to keep that level is because I'm often called away at meetings or this or that. Um, well, so like that leaves three in the actual office. And so for instance, today I have an employee who's out six. So there's only two up there right now while I'm out away at a meeting. Uh so and I know a couple of weeks ago we actually had the flu thing going around and there was myself and another person in the office. So you know it can be you know difficult to run with just three people. [clears throat]

Do you see some technology coming down the line that might really affect you? We're already pretty much there. We've already digitized our records by the thanks of council helping me with that process. And since we do do electronic filing of most of our documents, I feel like we're already as efficient in that capacity that we can be. Are you allowed to um retain a reserve account that you would put dollars into over time just in case there were That's what that's 200. So on the line item of the funds that we had um the reporting of funds [clears throat] 1190 is 200.

Yeah. 1190. That's that 200,000 that we have in that the treasur has. It was on uh and I may not have put provided that in this packet. It was the summary from last I don't have that cash from last week. It was the cash balance report from last week. I'm sorry. Okay. I was just thinking that would be something to think about.

Yes. The perpetuation fund is a non-reverting fund and it maintains perpetuating the do the uh record and so as that builds and that's why I was very careful when we came to c when I came to council a couple years ago about the digitizing project and why I needed your help was because we didn't want to deplete that amount of money in case we did need it. I all of us didn't have that so I'm sorry that's okay

I would have re reincluded it. Can I ask you a security question? I mean, I've watched a TV thing where somebody can create a document, come in, and then have it recorded and then take your house from you. So, is that is that a possibility?

That's a very slim possibility. I'm not going to say that with AI things haven't gotten more slick. However, I can tell you that the recorders uh office, we have two partners that we work with that would alert the public to um any kind of a document that might get u fraud. There is a free process called we we our records that are digitized are with a company called Doc Pop. We've used them with um our recording software for many many years and it's a a company that you actually have to have a login uh to get access their documents and then you can review or buy um their documents. Those are used mostly by title companies, things like that. Um so with that though, the general public property owner can go in and set up an account and they can put their property on there to get an alert. So if something goes in that um is filed matching their legal description and name, it can get populate an email that will come to them.

What's that called? Doc pop do x pop. It's on our website. We have a link. Okay.

And that one works best if you live in a city or town or platted neighborhood because it's specific to the legal description. So, for instance, it may say Waterview lot 4, and you're going to get that. Since I live in the county and I have a section, township, and range, sometimes I will get a report that populates that just matches my section, township, and range. So, for instance, my neighbor refinances, I get a notice, but I can always go in and check because it gives me the document number and I can look at it. The other company is known as um Equity Protect and they have uh a different um avenue in which they use. They can also do a risk analysis for your property and then they will do um a they have a patent pending process where [clears throat] they would actually kind of put like a for lack of a better word they kind of put like a lean on your house in your name and then that way documents can't would be they would notify be notified and they would then notify you if um something were to get reported.

Okay. So that and that's something like what Liflock or something would do similar. Yeah. I I don't want to say it's exactly like it, but it's very similar.

Um, on the other side of that, the state of Indiana uh is very good about the type of um documents. There's certain things that have to be on a document, they have to be notorized. Uh, and then on the electronic world, if something is uh done by a remote notoriization, the notary has to be registered in the state of Indiana and ha perform that remote notoriization on a certified platform. One of the things the recorders association is looking at is to ask legislators to make it so that it's mandated that the um recording format is actually named on the document. So, you know, kind of tighten that down because right now the requirement for [snorts] remote notoriization is that they have to state where the um principal is, where the notary is, and then it has to have all the notar notary's information. um that's in that jurat. But um you know at this point it doesn't have to say um the platform that the notary used um but there are certain mandates um and all that's guided by the Secretary of State's office.

Well, and Marcia, I think I've seen it done since you've been recorder, but every so often you put some kind of statement in the newspaper, don't you? Reminding people that you know what they want. Used to be $60. is probably 150 that it's free. They offer it for free. Yes. Yes. You want to project out We do try to let the public know. You want to project out expenses, most state agencies, including me, use 10% and that's without raises for employees. So, if you want to start that project, I'll give you a starting point that I use. [laughter] Well, thank you. Do we need any uh motion or just recognize it in the minutes that you presented the

I just want you to recognize it in the minutes that I presented it for your knowledge and information uh because as I stated when we go through the budget process I will provide council the sworn statement for next year's budget. All right. All right. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Gary P request for additional appropriation of fund 4616 set for 10 minutes.

I'll be quick. I have a few things actually but I know it's getting so So, we have obviously the uh letter that the auditor and Greg got. I'm going to be asking to reduce [snorts] kind of list out the actions here, but I write the whole thing down. I will not read it all to you. Um to reduce 1176 2300 by 2.5 million. There is a plan here. We're going to still do all the bridges and all the roads and amplify

[cough and clears throat]

So the situation currently the school is unable to raise currently the FFN the furniture furnishings and equipment uh for Amplify at this time. They're going to try to get it in the future. Um DLGF is requiring a 2.5 uh million dollar reduction in 1176 to meet the the memo that they sent to us that Deborah will be responding to this afternoon with Greg. Um I had a miscalculation on money line 23000 and the CCMG program were shrinking. So that's why that that's where that $2.5 million shortfall comes from. Um so some of it's my fault. Uh some of it's the state's change of money which we've been talking about all morning. So I'll go through it again. Uh Bridge has been nonparticipating a lot of equipment needs and that that fund is pretty cash uh rich right now and it needs to participate in that to take pressure off the road projects. Uh we have I've secured $3.5 million of the grant increases. we talked about last year. I still got 2 million to go. I'll be finding out about that probably Friday. There the letting is happening right now as we speak and I'm meeting some people down in Orange County Friday to try to get that last 2 million made up for. That'll be good news. We get that. That'll get me out of the fund for you, Jim.

Of the 3 million you might get. I've got 3.5 of the 5.5 covered. We got it. I'm chasing the last two Friday. [snorts] Right.

Okay. Um and Stymire, like I say, is letting today. That's where that 2 million will go and that'll get out of the cap. So the action items um well I say my goal here is to make sure we're delivering all the bridges amplify open in the fall and all that stuff. Um the plan most of this is net zero is moving money from one fund to another uh or moving within. First item would be to increase um $1.2 million increase to line 4616 uh listed there. That would bring the schools portion and the RDC budget to 1.5 million. That would be coupled within the same capital line. So Deborah, it's one I don't know if you want to advertise this publicly. Technically, you can move it between line and line in there with council approval. Reduce line 44312 by 1.2 million. So I got grant money. So I don't need that 1.2 million there anymore. We're going to transfer that to the school. So my road is covered from the state. We're going to transfer that to the school uh near term. Um, so these the the things that I underline when I'm done talking, you'll need to do. Um, I'll need to reduce line 11762300 by $2.5 million. It currently has uh $3 million budgeted in there. And I'll need to advertise. Now, this one will be that'll just be a reduction. I'll need to do an advertisement for additional 700,000 in 1135. That's bridge. Um, I'm basically moving like the mower head, the feon head that reaches over the bridge to cut trees and stuff. Um, one of the traxle trucks that hauls that stuff off, one of the distributor trucks that seals thing. I'm moving all those out of, we've been paying those out of highway because we've been in decent shape. Moving that to bridge where it's more appropriate to be paid for. Just changing our positioning there. Um, the only public hearing, the only advertisement public hearing would be on that one. The other ones you could motion right now to make the changes. I'm going let you guys read through that for a minute and then ask me questions. Then the rest is just summarize.

I've got a question. Just to be clear, we could um just do a budget transfer from 461644312 to 461645. Correct. You could just do that. I don't know because it's 1.2 million if they want to do anything extra, but yes, they could just do that. So moved. [snorts] Well, I can't make a motion, but he made a motion to reduce what you just said. Yeah. 461644312 by 1.2 million to 4616450. Is there a second? Second. All right, we have a motion, a second. Any discussion? Not hearing any. All those in favor say I. I. I. Any oppose? Same sign. Motion carries. Okay. You want to do the next one? Reduce by 2.5. So moved.

Do you need more? What do you need? They need more detail. I think she needs to reduce the budget transfer from 23 or uh 450. Sorry. 4 40050 from 44312. We got that. We got that. We just did a motion. We just did that one. We just did that. So the the reducing your 1176. Great. Just went over with. Okay. So we got that on our 1782. We already got We're good there. You have a motion to reduce 23,000 and 1176 by 2.5 million. So I've got a motion on the table to reduce 1176.2300 23000 by 2.5 million. Yes.

With a first and a second. Any discussion on that? Uh has it already been reduced though? So would we be motioning to reduce it? That breakdown. Yeah. I don't want to reduce it twice by two and a half. Right. We're good. We'll be able to [laughter] We're good on that one, Gary. We're good on that one. Okay. All right. So that one the motion's then retracted for that because we already did it. Yeah. I would retract that cuz Yeah. Okay. I'm sorry. Greg, does that does that sound good to you? Okay. 2.5. We're you because you were we were a little bit off there by 100,000, but 2.5 is fine. Okay.

Last one will require an advertisement $700,000 additional appropriation in fund 1135 line 44406. I need a thumbs up to advertise. All right, we're good on that. I know you're busy. I'll answer any questions and get out of your way. Thank you. Have a great day. What what is the possibility of the three million that we put in lit uh economic development for the Steinmeer project? That's what I'm talking about. I'm hoping to reduce that to 1 million. I'm going, if you want to hear the story behind it, I'm talking to the guy that's going to help make that decision and the gal. We're going to go chucker hunting this Friday.

So, maybe I'll be in a shallow grave somewhere in Orange County. Maybe they will be. Or maybe we'll just get a transfer of stuff. So, good luck with that. I'm going to try to try to uh sell the county, make sure they understand that we have other projects that could really use that funding and uh tell the state as always that we appreciate their partnership and uh I hope to have enough um charisma to get that done. So, I have faith. Well, need somebody to go checker hunting. Orange County, it's a bird. It's a good place. Just north of pioli. That's where I'll be if it doesn't work out. [laughter] They go to super burger. Super burner.

All right, let's keep this moving. We got a lot on the action items still, too. So, we have one last agenda item. We had to average future mental health investment.

We're going to try to keep it brief. I know. I will do my best. All right. [snorts] So, I have [laughter] Thank you. little you. Nice to meet you. Um,

thank you, Amanda. So, I'm here to talk about the grant funding update that we've received. We actually have three grants to cover today. Um, I want to talk a little bit um just for uh for Clark and kind of go over and I always like to do a quick little recap before I get in. I know you guys really want to hear about the money quickly, but I want to talk a little bit about what we do and why we do with the money that you provided us. So, um the funding that uh we received is to support the Hancock Health uh connection center, justice navigation team, mobile response team, and uh rapid access to mental health services. So, our justice navigation team works uh very closely with the jails. We actually have two navigators. um one a peer recovery specialist and a social worker that go into the jail uh three to four times per week. Work on transition planning and assist with kind of like a discharge planner would at the hospital making sure that they have um all that is needed um to the best of our abilities that we all know of so that when they are released from incarceration uh have a better chance of success when they get out including mental health access. But we also look at housing, shelter, transportation, um employment, education, clothing, uh food, all of your basic necessities. In addition, uh the connection center, we're looking at supporting um all of those social needs. We service anyone um that comes through our doors regardless of whether they're connected to our health service and um rapid access to that

mental health treatment. our mobile response team. They have been here, but we have we are still at um we have two peer recovery specialists and a social work clinician who go out into the field and respond um to urgent mental health needs. So, they work on crisis deescalation, stabilization, uh we transport to treatment uh for individuals that need that um and do a lot of community outreach and education. and then our Hancock counseling team where we offer mental health and substance use treatment um and access to services there. So 2025 metrics I kind of since the last time I was here we had Q1 Q2 out. So really if you just want to look at that uh column five or that that fourth column there for the total of 2025 when we look at connection center referrals in general um and these are individuals that we actually connected with not just received the call and were asked to like give them a call back but those that we actually worked with were um just over a thousand 46 so about on target to what we expected. mobile response team and justice navigation. Last year we did uh right at 350 we were at 479 um referrals for the end of 2025. Um I can tell you already in the nine business days that we've been open, our mobile crisis team has responded um 13 times. Um and out of those 13, nine of those were adolesccents. Um so we are seeing a big it's been a busy and our connection center is already at 67. So we have had a busy busy nine days in January um already. I think the holidays did a number on a lot of folks. So um I anticipate that number as we see that level of increase it's only going to continue um especially with as we get

more access because those are the responses that we did um and we still are only if we're able to grow those services. Um I we had a total this year of 46 um attended rapid assessments um from the justice department uh for mental health and addiction um access to treatment. So um that was it varies from the probation department, community corrections or those released from incarceration. And then I just I already put in our counseling numbers just so you can kind of get an idea of what those are. Um next I want to make sure that we take a moment to recognize um our team um was recognized for the Bobby Keane Healthy Community Award this year. Um we were nominated by a community partner um Jeff Megie, you know him for um the the the mission and the impact that we have on the community and the support services that we offer. And then the mobile response team was nominated and received the Indiana business journal um award for mental health advocacy. Uh so they will be going to the IBJ uh dinner here I think next month and being celebrated there. So very very excited to see um that team recognized um at that state level and in a space that we were not ever expecting to to be recognized. Wanted to make sure that you guys um heard of that as well. So into the money piece. So county funding recap, we had the three awards. The initial one um that was received for the justice navigation to do the the work that we do in the jails and in the community. Um and that support the uh ARPA non uh transformational grant, the mobile response team, that's the post community grant award um after uh that

contract was terminated. And then what uh when we took that team on and the um ARPA and opioid unrestricted uh for the renovation of the the building that in so that we can continue to expand and make sure that we're there to have um access to care for those that need it. So, I did a quick um breakdown and um Deborah and I actually brought you another like rounded copy that I'll give you guys today. Oh, thank you.

Um has all of the detail [clears throat] um but it's a a novel, so I didn't print out. So, I apologize, but you're certainly welcome to dig in to those um there. And then I did on the last I think the last three pages, they're broken down a little bit more. Um, but what you see on that page here, the expenses and balance is just the brief snapshot what we spent so far for the the the three years that we've been doing what we've done. Um, and the balance that's remaining on the three various grants. The last three pages break that down by quarter in kind of general um, funding for you. And then as I mentioned like the breakdown breakdown uh Deb would have

I well I'm missing the last two quarters of the reporting. Is it on here? Is that's what you you're turning in of? Which one? The last two quarters of reporting for ARPA fund. So if you just maybe talk to Sarah on this page. Maybe I brought you though a cop a new copy of literally everything. All of the years. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. So, you have all of that in your packet. Okay. Um, what I don't have is year end for um to close us out, but they are prioritizing and trying my crew done quickly because I know that I think it's this week. Um, so we're trying to get the year end done. Um, Amanda, I have a question.

Yes, ma'am. the remaining balances on both uh that that still have remaining balances, those have to be expended by December 31st this year. Yes. Okay. And what you'll see in December, what isn't accounted for like in the staffing piece is that management component. Um so like my budget doesn't fall like my any of my salary, any of my management salary or clinical leadership salary, any of my therapists don't fall into this automatically. that has to be balanced out with the end of year for the counseling team. So, you'll see um you'll get an invoic that that breaks down what those salaries are um for the months and and you'll that'll all kind of hit in December. They balance out my four different budget lines as well. So it's it's hard to get like a third of me here, a sixth of me here. So we just kind of balance that all at the end of the year rather than doing it each month. Um and then same [snorts] for the my providers and whatnot. Um so I will get that sent in. Um I anticipate um we will expend that down. Um, we have a lot of programs, we have a lot of activities, we have a lot of outreach that we plan on doing this next year that'll also help in some of that. Um, [snorts] luckily we're in the building and that piece is done. Hopefully that levels out soon. You'll see a big chunk also come out of that for this 2025. Any questions on that? You are welcome. I'm happy to sit down and kind of go in more depth at any time. Um, questions me a call and we can kind of go through each.

I guess Amanda and Scott, you and I kind of chitchated about this. So, in 11 months, we run out of money.

We do. And so for 2027, what will we have to recognize as an expense possibly going forward? I [clears throat] will say in this moment what I I think the best thing that I can can share is kind of what expense we have currently that's unaccounted for in either hopefully partnerships. Um I I can't say revenue is going to get better um because I think you guys have beat that horse today. Um and Senate Bill one is is going to impact mental health and health care significantly. Um but when we look at in overall for the connection center team, if you take out the counseling component and that access to the nurse practitioners, the doctors and all the therapists and that rapid piece. um the connection um the navigation support the mobile crisis teams we are looking at around um probably 800 to a million dollars allin um on expenses um our endowment payout at the hospital is slowly growing but we receive so it's significant and all of those services are non billillable able as of now. Um we're [clears throat] working to try to come up with some partnerships um like with Aspire Indiana Health who has the CHC. Um we look at partnering in as um the designated care organization for mobile response team and and truly expand that mobile crisis. um

we could see a significant reduction in cost there um if they receive the designation that we're we're waiting on from them. So I heard a million dollars for that team. And then we see when we look at the counseling side, I will say we've we've seen a significant improvement in kind of our efficiency. um we still are at around um probably close to 750 on the salaries expenses that come out of that that covered. Deb, did you get everything you needed for that? I think you've got our two quarters. Yes, I think we're good. You got everything.

You said the million is for just the response team, mobile response connection center. So what we the education the responses in the community the stuff we do in the schools kind of all of that piece that's not [clears throat] mental health doing the therapy and the med and the navigators are they part all of the navigators are part of that million. Okay. So that's [clears throat] all the all the navigators and the mobile response team.

Yep. So that's our three Yeah. three mobile response team members currently and I have five four navigators or other additional navigators. Amanda, what I was always worried about a few years ago when we implemented [clears throat] all these things, and I'm sure I'm on the record then saying that if we didn't find grant funding, you know, this was startup money and particularly the community mobile response team. I was worried about after ARPA, there being enough money to fund that. It looks like we're averaging three enga uh three responses a month. How much of the million is community? Is it three for mobile response? [snorts]

Uh yes. And I think it varies. I mean is that what CISM is? No. So SISM itself is that is where I um so the critical incident stress management response that is a service that we offer to the community first responders. So, if there's a traumatic event, an accident, a death, a line of duty death, okay, where we respond out and do um therapeutic debriefings. Okay. That's not what you're calling what we're calling mobile response then. Those are not those. So, how many that's in that MRTJustice line? I added the responses are in built in with the MRT justice navigation number.

Let me look at what you're looking at. I've just been real curious about how many I mean I've heard people say it's important the um the mobile response but I know you know if that costs a million dollars a year and we're only using it so much not that we don't want to fund it but maybe finding more efficiency to Yes. So our mobile response and the two navigators that go in the jail is 479 responses. Two navigator two two navigators in the jail. Mhm. Our three mobile response team. Three mobile response is so it was 500 for the 2025. 500k. No 500 responses.

500 responses and that include but that includes engagements the navigators did or no? Okay. That's the additional 1,000. And then things like the SISM response, I do that. Okay, that's um the education in the schools. Um CASA trainings, workshops that we do for the community for free. All of the additional pieces are where I pull in some of our other navigators, myself, our clinical man. Two navigators in jail plus three mobile response employees doing 500 responses was 400. And 400 how [snorts] much? But we can even call it 500 if that's Yeah. Okay. Close to five.

And you said none of that's billable. Can is is um peer support services Medicaid billable? I was reading about that this week. It reimburses at $7 every 15 minutes. $7 a 15 minutes. Okay. Are you guys? We are not. We are not. Um because if we bill Medicaid, we have to bill everybody. The cost that we would incur to bill everybody and then chase down the money that we're not going to get paid is way more than the $7 for 15 minutes.

Um and we don't want someone who's not Medicaid, who needs peer recovery support to not come to us because we're villain. Yeah. $23 every 15 minutes. So, none of these are um none of these things are you're not billing anyone or Medicaid for any of it. Okay, good to know.

So, um I want to address the elephant in the room because, um for Clark's sake, the money the $5 million that came from this, we didn't ask for that. the Biden give everybody I call them Biden bucks give everybody money. We had to spend it on something but you can only spend it on certain things. So, you know, the county decided that the the mental health for that $5 million is the best way to spend that money. And we helped some people. Um it was never designed to go on. It was an unfunded scenario. Uh it was never in our budget before. We don't have extra money for it. Um, now maybe there's ways to fund some of it through grants. Maybe there's some some partners, maybe there's some other things we can keep parts of it going, but um, it's going to have to, you know, and and I don't know if it it's like everything else the county does. We don't get any participation from the other cities and towns. We don't get any any help from anybody else. I don't know if Greenfield's willing to help with it or Fortville's willing to help with it and stuff. I'm sure people that we helped through this $5 million came from some of those other towns instead of just the unincorporated areas, but um the challenge is going to be after the money runs out and SB1 hits and all these things. So, just to be aware, um I had to vote at some point to give the $5 million, okay, which I did, but I never in my own mind knew that it was a program that was going to be 100% funded from here on out. And and that's just the nature of federal government has a way of doing that to you. Give you money to start something up, then cut you off, and then expect you to raise taxes

in order to fulfill it. And that's been a conversation we have literally every time I come here, right? Because it's I've been having this conversation with Steve Long when we when we took on the onus of being that partner. The last thing I want to do is to look at a team that I know is needed in our community and say we're closing our doors December 31st. So, one thing to point out is a possibility contract calls for partner to work on sustainability sustainability declining because that was anticipated that that was going to be a problem. The very issue you just raised and I don't know where we're at on that.

So, we need $700,000 I think.

Yeah, I will. And I mention that every time I come in, too. Right now, all of the grants that are available through DMHA and SAMA are not available to Hancock Health. We are not a CHC. We are not a rural health community. We are not able to be 988 designated without a CMHC partner. Um where and they would have to be willing to sign a contract and say we will give you our portion of the funding to do that. Um, so right now grant wise there are not grants that will sustain this program. Um, I will continue to search. It's not that I'm like ah county will just pay for it. Um I don't I am not in the business of trying to build a program and um

are the navigators do what we do to not sustain the navigators that are in the jail. I'm a little unclear. Did the jail have its own navigators? And then Hanok Health have navigators in the jail also. They do. Okay. [snorts] So Brad has three. Okay. They have three in the jail um that do various roles.

Yeah. what my the what the navigators in the team that I have that support justice do on the outside well I say outside but it's not we spend I have two of my three that are justice solely spend a majority of their time in the jail meeting with individuals talking about what their treatment needs are working on making sure they have all the things that they have when they get out and then we're working with them once they're out as well um and maintaining that service. It's not just a oh well here's the list of all the things you can do and then good luck when you get out. Um we in the last three weeks have had four individuals who were released from incarceration unexpectedly that didn't have a plan that hadn't been able to meet with either our navigators or the jail navigators were dropped off at our door. Um and we stop and we figure out what we can do. So, um, we work extremely closely together. I don't think we duplicate services in any way. Um, and it takes probably what we have and a whole lot more if we were to want to see literally everybody that's incarcerated. Um, I think we're only able to touch a fraction. And some of that's some other constraint. My team can't just walk up into a pod willing, you know, we have to [clears throat] be escorted. We meet with individuals in the room. We don't have free reign to the to the jail. So, we do what we

And is the mobile response team [clears throat] being called out uh by uh uniform uh whether it's sheriff or you know city police. Is that mainly what they're doing or what? Yes. Um I will say right now what we've seen probably the last six months more so since because we started working with kids this year um this school year

um we respond a lot to the schools um we respond a lot to SRO requests um and then out with law enforcement um a few DCS it's those are the majority of our calls for crisis it's either law enforcement school um or a DCS. Um we get some self-reerrals where they've either worked with us before or they've worked with the navigators, they've been in our space, so they have our card and they can call as well, but a majority of that's emergency responders within the that space. That's interesting, but not surprising that you're responding to a lot of youth, I think, because just emotionally and hormonally. And but um

is there is there a certain age range that you're honing in on? Are we talking everything from young elementary through high school or is it mostly high school? The last six months um we have responded to um one that just turned six um all the way through the high school. So it's a wide we see we see a lot of a lot of middle school intermediate school aged um I think this

well just Monday and Tuesday we had four school responses um one was an elementary one was a high school student that didn't make it to school yet so we responded at our home but we got the call from the school. Well, unfortunately, this is the nature of grants. They usually are. We have them and then they're gone. Yep. And I do want to say, Amanda, I have always appreciated your integrity and your honesty. You never have come in and tried to paint a picture that wasn't really there. And and we have that happen occasionally. People reassure us that, you know, this isn't the money isn't going to go away and then, you know, those of us have been here a long time, we know better than that. But I really appreciate [clears throat] that you you've never portrayed anything that wasn't true.

Yeah. No, absolutely. And I I you know, my hope when we did this um was that, you know, we would be able to find funding or we would be able to find our way into a space where it would be billable. Um or the hospital would say, you know what, it's all right. We got this. Um but Steve's also been very clear, just as you guys have from the beginning, that like, hey, we we can't take all of this on. Um, so we've been blessed that we've had a team that has stuck it out and done the work not knowing what to expect. Yes.

Is there is there a possibility because I I didn't even know that peer recovery if you were a certified um they whether they call it a peer support professional the $7 per 15 minutes. Is there any amount of this where yes, you would bill everyone who receives that service and the cost could be brought down. You know, if the alternative was to have to do away with something altogether, could the cost be brought down and be Medicaid billable? I mean, I think you can hire those peer support specialists for 20 bucks an hour. So, that leaves an $8 margin on overhead. I mean, I'm just thinking out loud, but are there options for if there's not enough money to do exactly what we're doing? It is potential. Yes. Okay. Um, like I said, we haven't we just haven't gone there. Um, we can't it goes back to we would have to bill everybody. We would um we can't just write off anyone that can't pay. Um, so it would there would be a lot of a lot more administrative overhead that would then

Yeah, there's other costs that go up of course. Yeah. But unless let's let's just more comments then um I want to move forward. We got still a lot of action items to do. It's going to take a while. So do you want to cover the Aspire part of Did you want to [snorts] cover the Aspire?

Oh yeah. I just wanted to let you guys know that we are in process currently of working on formalizing partnerships and talking through what could um agreements formal agreements look like to um help maximize both our organization's efficiency. We have great teams. They need staff. We have built trusted relationships in the community and and we I think at this point we really need to try to find ways to work together more. Um and it will help us financially um both of us in in many ways. So we are in process of doing that. We continue to work on getting them integrated. Um they're building up. They we I was able to um I leased my old space that I still had under lease. So, we're subleting to Aspire. So, they were able to get into um a location, physical location here in Greenfield as soon as we got into our new location. So, I think that was um mutually beneficial for both of us as well. But, we will continue to work um with them on on different ways to to make it work for

Well, you had [clears throat] said they have a mobile response team. So they have mobile crisis team um as well. Uh as a CMHC they're required to respond to the crisis continuum. Um so a they answer 988 calls as well as then their own hotline. Um there are many times where [snorts] if they get a call um because their main house is up in Noblesville uh they'll they can call our mobile response team as well. Um and we respond locally. They have a 23 um hour uh crisis stabilization unit. So we utilize that a lot to be able to take individuals who have that urgent need that aren't hospitalization that we don't really need to ID, but they're going to if we don't respond

[clears throat] um im immediate detention and and force hospitalization, we're able to get them up to to the relation. Do they do they technically have responsibility for this county? They do. Yes. [clears throat] as our CHC. So why wouldn't their mobile response team be covering our county then? They do. Okay. They do and they will.

We have stepped in and supported them in that because so when you as a mobile crisis team as a CHC you're required to respond um 45 miles or 90 minute drive. So they could be in Cookamo responding and we have law enforcement that needs help right now. So we've partnered trying to partner in to help support and expand um expand their their reach. And um [clears throat] I think that's where that's where we're working on that formalization.

They don't have enough staff to cover their territory. Well, they are fully they're staffed, but again, unless you I mean, you never know what might come in. We I know

if you if you're in Cooko and you get a call in Shelbyville because you know their range is so broad, even if they had three staff, they may not still may not cover it. We could have 20 staff and there might be a moment, right, when something really bad happens because we don't have enough people to be there. Um, so I think they're doing they do a great job. Um, and they're they're very supportive. They've been working with us on um, you know, we see about 150 people a month in our counseling office that we can't get in for treatment. So, we've been able to get people virtually to their Noblesville location while they're building up here. Um, [clears throat] but I think there's opportunity to to support both spaces for that crisis piece or both organizations. So, thank you for your time.

Thank you. We're having an open house um February 5th. Is in there. Um but if you'd like to come by anytime, you have questions, please give us a call. Thanks, Amanda. [clears throat] All right. Action item number two. Uh is there any discussion about changes needed for the minutes for December 10, 2025? Yes, I did have one thing.

Okay. when I got it. Okay. In the section on board appointments, being as the nominations [clears throat] were in violation of code, I would like to make a motion to have the minutes reflect that Shelby [clears throat] Fisk and Butram objected to taking that vote. Is that fine with legal counsel? That's what occurred. Okay. I just want to make sure can be added. Yeah. So that's my motion. Second.

All right. We have a motion and a second on the table. All those in favor say I. I. Any opposed? Obstain. And do we have abstensions? All right. Clark. Thanks. So that passes 60 with one abstension. All right. [gasps and sighs] Auditor business. There's a page of five items in our packet that auditor needs to discuss. Okay. So, if you if are you okay if I go ahead and call the sheriff up because we've got the commissary report and then I think he had something else that he needed to talk during the auditor business that is that is fine. Come on up, sheriff, real quick. Yeah, it's Oh, and but since he needed to talk about something else anyway,

the uh the the commissary reports at the very back I think of our packet. Mhm. Do you need a separate motion to approve the minutes? I mean, my motion said amend, but Oh, no. Not that approves. It was a conclusive of approving. Approve with amendments. Amendments. [cough] Approved with the changes. Changes. Yeah. Um, you can take my copy. Don't ask me any questions about it. morning or afternoon or whatever it is now. It's still morning.

It's still morning. Um and so I came through to you in December with a commissary report from October. Um so this is now the um period from October to December 31st report. Um I just want to bring it to you. We don't really have to go into great detail if you don't want unless you have questions. Um, I just need to get it entered into the minutes that I was here um to present it to present it. All right. Let it reflect in the minutes that the sheriff's commissary report has been presented to the council. Any other discussion on it? Okay. Sheriff, do you have an item you wanted uh that was uh that we were supposed to discuss that we talked about last meeting?

Yeah, last well and Jim mentioned it earlier. We talked about the bond. U I come in last Wednesday and we talked about the cars and and the cost associated to that and going into 2026 bond. Um the only thing I needed to know just for my purposes is uh thumbs up or motion or whatever so I can go ahead and get the orders going and get that process going if it's everything's cool with it. It's I just need to order them so you know they're here within next six months or whatever it takes to get them. You had asked for a resolution reimbursement for that. Yeah.

And I do I did finish that. So that'll be ready for you. I just dictated it. So it's done um at your next meeting. Just so you know in conjunction [clears throat] with the ask. This is just getting the process started. We do a thumbs up. Yeah. I just need to tell the car company that, hey, we [cough and clears throat] can get the orders going and get them made. Yeah. And then, right, six months later, whenever I get them by June, right? Well, and the resolution said we were going to first expend it where was it economic development? [clears throat] I think it was uh the general fund. Okay. The general fund.

We don't have a resolution yet. So, yeah. So the re the thumbs up or your motion would be based on where we would pay that from. Yeah. Until we get the 2026 bond and right now that I mean right now that's not my concern at the moment. I don't think it's anybody's concern at the moment. I don't think it's just whether or not can I order them. Yeah. And then we determine on how that that the only the only problem is I think last time we said that we can't give appro approval suggest approval to approve the purchase until we have the reimbursement resolution. Is that okay? Yeah. Okay.

I don't Yes. But I don't think that prevents you from starting that process [clears throat] that this would be just maybe informal. It's my intention to vote yes for you to be able maybe a thumbs up would be more like if everybody thinks that they might do it those that are those that are in favor of it give a thumbs up if they're trust us. I Oh, I do. I mean I do I just I don't want to call Kelly and say I need 15 cars and something change. I just I just want that's why I think you're good they get new cars wouldn't cover it. That's not going to take It's not going to take care of [laughter] that. He's just trying to prevent what happened last year.

Yeah. Yeah. We asked had to leave the cars on the lot cuz we didn't have the money to Yeah. hadn't appropriated. [cough] So, we don't want [clears throat] to do that again. That's [snorts] I mean, of course, last year, I mean, we went ahead and said, "Yeah, we can do it." And then it just got down to the end where that didn't get worked out yet. And so, have the commissioners um publicly promised that they will include that expenditure in the next GEO bond? I don't know that that's been publicly stated because that's another issue is

we say go ahead and start the order and then they come back and say we need all that geo bond for other purposes and now you just ate 900,000 out of the general fund. Is that a position we're willing to be in the next I feel like there's been discussion but I don't know that they publicly said yes to it. I'm on I mean I'm on the agenda for the 20th. I can ask them. Yeah, [clears throat] I would just say as long as it's a I can wait another 30 days if need be. I don't know. Um, he did have it sitting there. The worst case scenario is you go ahead and say yes, you can go ahead and order those on, you know, but worst case scenario, right? I don't want to be in a worst case scenario. The auditor may have to pay. It's it's [laughter] on our We all know I have no It's on our paperwork we receive. You can appropriate money, but you don't have to spend it, right?

I will ask the commissioners on the 20th. They have permission to move forward. Yeah. There you go. Yeah. Because Okay. So our next meeting is three weeks from today. If the commissioners say yes, we will put that in the geo bond. Scott brings the resolution or puts it before us before the first Wednesday of February, then we can vote on it in that meeting. The budget meeting. Yes. Now, the best way do we need to approp we need to advertise to appropriate any money out of general fund? Is that where we're going to pay it from? What we're going to general fund? Yeah, I would do go ahead and do an advertise because even I was say we can do that now and if it doesn't we don't have to appropriate. You don't have to that that I would get go.

All right. Thumbs up the advertisement. Yeah. Just understand I don't need money for I understand. We understand but we're going to advertise and we'll appropriate it then it'll be there. And can the auditor make a good copious um note so that in the budget meeting you don't want us to what we did? Yes. [laughter] We will spell this out. You don't want us the amount though and then three months later come back. No, no, no. I won't let you forget. I mean, I just break the money next month. Brad, will you get that exact amount? I know you said it was 833,000. So maybe Yeah. Whatever I put in that proposal, which I could send again if you don't have it. Scott total [cough] amount in that document that I supplied last.

Okay. thumbs up to appropriate the amount that he's proposed and then I will to make sure that commissioners are good but putting it into bond. We're gonna do all of them. I'll come back and say there's still a scent back there. Yeah. Thank the Thank you. any anything on else on auditor business. Yes. Yes. So, um end of the year you guys signed the resolution to allow us to move money around to pay the bills that need to be paid. I just wanted to I've got a list in here for you um of the things that we did do that normally would have required your approval in advance if we didn't have that resolution. Yes.

Um so you can take a look at that. I do want to point out number three. It seems like we're consistent consistently low thank um our perf. So that's just something to pay attention to. [clears throat] Um, and then also you're probably going to be getting some questions from um there or money asked from the courts uh for jury pay. It sounds like they've got a lot of trials going on. So, just be aware of that. What's new? Um, with a six percentage, why is it short? Where how does that come up that way? Because that's one of the places that council tends to cut. First

we budget it. They kind of like oh we didn't do this. Yeah. Or or is it that we approve additional expenditure without considering additional to PEF? I don't we remember cutting. No, we usually calculate it. We usually do. It's been Yeah, it's been shorted almost every year that I've been here. They they normally do. They always have because they have other places that they can appropriate that to but but you have to then it'll get cut and then it'll get additionally appropriated later in the year. We'll try to do that right this year for next year.

Well, I just it's just something that that happens and we've been fortunate that we've had the money to reappropriate it so we're all good. Um so we've got that list for you. Um we do we need do we need motions or anything on that list? No, this is just because I I don't want you guys to do that resolution allow us to make those those expenditures and not see we're not abusing it or anything like that. Just kind of an FYI, but we do need to go ahead and have the um we've got the um salary ordinance amendment that we need to do for it that we discussed. So moved. Um what's the what's the ordinance number? 1 A 26-1A A. Okay, I'll second Kent's motion.

All right, we have a motion on the table and a second to approve the county council ordinance number 2026-1A salary ordinance. Any discussion? All those in favor say I. I. Any oppose? Same sign. Motion carries.

Go [clears throat] get and I'll take I'll get it when I could talk to Scott. I think this is the last thing and you can tell me if I've got something else, but I've got um we've got a situation and we can't go into a lot of specifics because of statute guarding it, but it has to do with um there's a local hotel that hasn't paid their inkeepers tax since September. Um they have gone through the channels that they can go through. The treasure [clears throat] had asked that I I do have a letter I can share with all of you that if you want to take one and pass it down, but basically her ask, she couldn't be here due to an appointment. Her ask is that you're okay if Scott goes ahead and drafts a letter to the inkeeper in question. And I've got a sealed envelope with that information for Scott.

I've done those before. So usually pretty effective. Yeah, I think once Scott sends the letter, people pay kind of thing. So, yes, I think and I don't know, Key, you might be able to weigh in because you said you heard something. I the first I heard of it was last night at a tourism meeting that there is a hotel that is very behind and that it hap it did happen a few years ago with a different hotel. Yes. And that Scott Binky addressed it and with his letter they did pay I believe. Um, so it's the same situation, different hotel. Exactly. There [clears throat] you go. So, we would just need it. She would just as a courtesy ask you if you're okay with her utilizing Scott services for that and him moving forward. As long as he's Yeah. his name spelled correctly. Who Who's Binkley?

That's [laughter] my name. You're a whole different person. You're a whole different person. I I I received that. [laughter] I'm going to say that just just what we call him around the annex. [laughter] Yeah, that must be see that every now and then. I'm like, well, how could that be after all these years? I don't know. Oh, well. All right. So, if you're okay with that, then that's I think does that end my that resolution of reimbursement? Oh, no. Okay. Resolution of reimbursement. [clears throat and cough] Resolution of reimbursement. I think it's got it own. That's the next one. I think it's got its own category. So, unless there's a motion needed for him to do that, then I'll move forward.

Maybe just reflect it in the minutes. Reflect in the minutes. Number four, food and beverage reimbursement resolution, which is the next document in your package. [clears throat] Is this 1B? Uh, this will be 1-1. It's a resolution. Oh, 1-1. Got you. So it would be 2026-15. Does Scott made money? I [snorts] move we um approve resolution 2026-1- um which reimbures the food and beverage uh with the future [clears throat] bond that we're going to have uh for the egg association. Second.

All right. All right. I have a a motion, a second on the table to approve the resolution number 2026-1-1, the declaration of official intent to reimburse Hancock County for contribution to Hancock County 4 Association. Any discussion? All those in favor say I. I. I. Any opposed? Same sign. Motion carries. Did Did we need to advertise that amount or I don't think did we advertise that already or does that need You don't have to advertise food and beverage. Yeah, we have to Oh, you mean to get enough in it to get you added that to the budget, but we haven't rolled yet. So, I'm going to need to double Wait a minute.

Is that for the 4? Yes, that's the 500,000 for I believe that should be a,750,000. Well, but there were two tanches. There were two discussed last Yeah. Yeah. The other is is the next deal the next unit. Yes. Right. But the 500 the 500,000 is for right now. They've got to have the money because they've already that that's the end of the last project for the balance. Yeah. Yeah. That was this is wrapping up what we started in the beginning. Absolutely. Jim's talking about is what we were talking about in the next B. We'll do another one.

Yes. But what I didn't know was I thought we had waited to advertise the appropriation of these funds until after we voted on this reimbursement resolution. So we need a thumbs up to advertise these now. Okay. Be safe than sorry. All right. Let's adver thumbs up to advertise. Yeah. I think we were going to add that to the food and beverage. Is that what Just like we just said with the cars, we waited until we [cough and clears throat] had this. Okay. Yeah. [snorts] All right. Action item number five, HDC 5% fee discussion continued.

Uh I can I will uh the uh final uh 2026 budget uh will be passed uh this next uh Wednesday morning. So I will bring that budget to the uh February budget meeting [laughter] passed by the fine

and it and it I can tell you it does include uh two uh the request of uh Kent and Keley at uh a meeting with the um executive committee uh for the HDC in 2026 to uh contribute 250,000 and to the um whatever we call it amplify. Well, I think we had determined to what? Yeah, it was just for the council discussion. Can we put this on the agenda then with a time slot so we know we have ample time to discuss I'm assuming we're also going to discuss what our future thoughts are on dispersement

after you get the after you get the the minutes or is that what you're saying? Yeah. after and then we can actually have a time slot that we can allocate to that discussion instead of it just being in the action items. Well, it's just been carried over so we didn't have anybody that we didn't even know if you Okay. So, if everybody if everybody's good about that, we can we can put it on the uh agenda for Yeah, because I think that the the question is okay. Yeah, we did this temporarily because they have excess funds now, but what about 2026 going to 2027? What about 2027 going into 2028? Um, we need some kind of policy.

We need we they have agreed to work with us on on on any of those excess funds. Um, and they, you know, and so I think we need to pursue that relationship with them and um, uh, and get something more solidified so when those funds come available, you know, both parties, everybody knows what's going on.

Everybody knows what's going on. Um and um and that that was our understanding in in the in the meetings to this point. Yeah. from here on out. um they had some great ideas for incubator spaces and stuff like that for smaller companies that we've been turning down in the county and I think RDC and them can partner in the future on some of that stuff because there is need for smaller spaces other than big huge warehouses and u

and I think it would be a good idea to have um [clears throat] continue on with with a couple coming to uh the executive uh committee meetings to discuss. So, some of those things they're too early to discuss in a public meeting, but they can be openly discussed [snorts] uh with them at the executive committee meetings. So, I would recommend the same to maybe um uh be that liaison maybe with them or two people in in the future. RDC, our redevelopment commission, and our TIFF districts are going to need good projects [cough] that everybody can benefit from just as the amplified school that it's the the funding for that and stuff is is going to come to an end. Okay. So, there is uh but but the world goes on. So, in the next two or three years, we're going to have to come up with good projects and along with funding our safety and security stuff, but I'm talking about good projects that think outside of the box that can [clears throat] help everybody. Um, additional park ground and security of aquifers, uh, in incubator spaces for smaller companies to be able to come into the community, things like that. So, um,

little bit of a vision. Yes. All right, let's let's uh set this let's put this on the agenda for about 30 minutes for uh next February for the regular county council meeting to further discuss. All right. Uh number six, animal control interlocal agreement which is in your packet.

Yeah, my comment on that is the copy I got did not include what we ask uh the commissioners to uh put in. So, I'm going to vote against it because of that. And the the the phrase that was supposed to go in there had to do with uh them recognizing that we are basing our contribution on the percent of their uh expenses that go to the unincorporated areas.

But I still think that needs to be in there. There was a there was also a request for another provision in there that dealt with um whether when they go into these various communities they have permission. I don't know what paragraph it was but I did talk to Greg Morlock about both of those. And so the the first one which dealt with permission he assured me that they had written permission. And so that obvious concern about that one. But the second one he said wasn't really doable. So I don't know what's not doable. The second request

which is [clears throat] Jim just articulated that um that what you said about we only pay on what we

the comment was it was a phrase to be added uh this uh contracts [snorts] us to end 2027 to pay them a certain amount. I just wanted to make it noted that that o that that amount is okay as long as it is commensurate with the county uh being responsible for only the uninorporated areas just so we start to set the mindset that we are good inated areas only. We've been saying all five years that I've been here, next year we're not paying for the cities and towns. And so we're five years into [laughter] next year, we're not paying for the cities and towns.

And you know, I I agree with Jim's assessment of it. I mean, I do too. And that's 2027. So that I mean what it basically means is that we're only wanting to pay for an agreed upon percentage of what we think the unincorporated areas that we get that we get our income from is using instead of paying it for everybody else. When Greg just talked was blew in the face about how very soon they're cutting our rate to give more to the cities and towns. So we can't absorb they get [clears throat] their own tax rate and we cannot absorb all of the cities and towns animal and that interlocal agreement doesn't reflect that.

That's correct. So c can changes be made with they can but you know then we're going to have to go back and do it again. I mean, I'm going to have to revisit with them and I don't, you know, I didn't get that's going to have to have a motion in a second from us, though, right? What's that? To to pass that interlocal agreement. Yeah. Yeah. You guys, because it's interlocal, the council has to sign it along with the commissioners.

So, you if you don't want to sign it, you don't have to. Um, it's just, you know, whether you I think we're down to that provision. So if you if it gets held up then I would revisit it with him [clears throat] to see if I can you know convince him to to add it that way. Want me to do that? I will. I'm not going to make the motion. Well on the president's [laughter]

uh I don't need Do we make a specific motion or do we just request the county attorney negotiate existing concerns before we vote? And then a motion would be to table this till a future meeting. Is that the best way? Yeah. I mean, you would not you wouldn't even need a motion to do that. You just wouldn't sign it and you would direct me to revisit that particular provision that Jim has and the the verbiage should be inclusive of stating after a certain point.

Well, I would say [snorts] the county share is calculated by a formula like he stated. So it would be I think you said 2027 right? So I would say uh in 2027 the percentage that county will pay has to be uh based on only the unincorporated area what I understood basically but that's really for 27 so yes yeah know we're already committed for 26 26 I can do that

so here's Sir, here's what we'll do is I'll ask is there a motion to approve as written the amended interlocal agreement? No. Well, I'm not hearing a motion. Therefore, then we will proceed with negotiations through our attorney uh with Greenfield to get the uh what has been discussed added. Thank you. All right. Next up, board appointments. Uh, if everybody get the sheet out, I I think we'll just go down the list. You're in the gold. I'm in the gold, right? All right. Um, I reached out to Bob Heidi, who is currently our appointee for the ABC and he said he would do it another year.

Yeah, I I talked to him, too. So, uh, do I have a motion to approve Bob Hyde for the Alcohol Beverage Commission for another year? Second. Um, do we need to close nominations or do we just No, these are appointments. Okay. Points. All right. All right, we have a motion and a second to approve Bob High Day for uh the Alcohol and Beverage Commission. All in favor say I. I. Any oppose? Same sign. Motion carries. Uh next, the area planning commission uh county council appointment is Scott Waldridge for one year. You willing to do it another year? Yeah, I'm fine. I'll nominate Scott Woolridge for our appointee to the planning commission.

Second. All right. I have a motion, a second to appoint Scott Wridge to continue as the area planning commission. And all those in favor say I. I. I. Any oppose? Same sign. Motion. So, so on the end date then it should end it 2026 now. Yeah, it should be 2026. Yep. Because we don't have a meeting till the couple more weeks. Fourth week. All right. Uh the community correction advisory board. This was Tammy Sedan. So, I'm going have to have a new person appointed for the county council uh for one-year term if it's going to be one of us. Is there anyone interested in nominating somebody? [laughter] Anybody want just jump on it? Yeah. So, anybody?

The the default is the new gentleman in the room. [laughter] Well, when's their meet when's their meetings? They don't meet very often. I don't know. How often do they meet? I don't know. Robin. [laughter] No. Well, here's here's the thing. I've done a lot of things in the county, [snorts] but this part of it, I'm not real familiar with all of that. So, I'd rather not. Oh, I think it'll be quarterly. I have other things I want to participate in. Let me put it that way.

I can't commit at this time because I don't know anything about their schedule and I'm not going to sign up for something I can't. I had said last year I had interest and Tammy was nominated to do it. So, someone else can do it now. [laughter] That sounds like a little revenge. I I think they I think they meet in the beginning of the year a couple times. Brad could correct me if I'm wrong. I recommend we skip that one and go on. All right, we can skip that for now. Um, econom. Does it have to be somebody that's sitting on the council? I don't. That was my thoughts, too. I don't know. Most of these appointments do not have to be a council person. No, you don't have to.

So, there would be some commissioners have an appointment here. Oh, how about uh um Lynn? [snorts] Um, is it majors? No. [laughter] Yeah, they've got they've got Gary McDaniel's on there. Yeah, Gary's on there. So, Scott, can you confirm between now and the next meeting if we can appoint a non-counsel member and for that particular board position? It's community corrections, right? She's already on there. It it is. Is it community? Oh, it's community corrections. And then maybe people can think of between now and then people they know who might have interests who aren't here.

All right. The Economic Development Commission McCordsville is a three-year term. We currently have Chris Kraton uh on that. I'll renominate whoever that is. I'll second it. [laughter] Okay. I have a motion and a second to reappoint Chris Kraton on the Economic Development Commission. All those in favor say I. I. I. Any oppose? Same sign. Clarity. McCordsville. McCordsville. McCordsville. Yes. All right. Right now, the economic development commission for Hancock County, HEDC. Our current appointment is Mary. No, for one-year term, which would end in 2026. I'm fine staying unless somebody else wants

There's a miss. It says HDC in there. Hand county. Just it's just Han. Yeah, it's Well, there's there is a Hedc board and there's a commission [snorts] board that this is the work, right? This is the commission. This is this is an HD. This is an HD. It is not. All right. For [snorts] economic development commission commission if our Hancock County, we have Mary. No. Any motion for Mary? Motion to nominate mayor. I'm nominated. All right. I have a motion and a second through Shelby. All those in favor say I. I.

Any oppose? Same sign. Motion carries. Uh economic development commission for New Palestine. I went down to their meeting and they've also submitted a letter. They do want to keep Katherine Courts. Uh it's a one-year term. So moved. Second. I have a motion and a second to keep her on for [clears throat] EDC for New Palestine Katherine Courts. Uh to end in January 1, 2027. All those in favor say I. I. I. Any opposed? Same sign. Motion carries. All right. Now, the Economic Development Commission, Hancock County, we have our two appointments are Jim Shelby and Robin Louderder. It's a one-year term. with Robin's uh approval. I guess I would like to nominate Clark Smith. Yes. Is that okay?

Sure. Absolutely. Okay. I would second that nomination. All right. So, I have a motion and a second for Clark Smith. Is there a motion? Second for Jim Shelby for the other spot. So moved. A second. All right. I have a motion and a second for Jim Shelby. Do I need to can I vote both of these together? Otter, I'm good with that. Okay. All those in favor for economic development council Hancock County having Jim Shelby and and Clark Smith all say I I. Any opposed? Same sign. [clears throat and cough]

Motion carries for the one-year terminating 2026. All right. 911 Emergency Operations Center Management Board, Hancock County. Once again, Tammy Setter is the one nominated for county council one-year term, which this would end in December 31st, 2026. And Key, haven't you been on that? I've already done that prior to Tammy and [laughter] yeah, I would not be interested. You you most Did you say yes? But you're I did it. Most of the meetings were cancelled, but we get all those law enforcement people together. Can we nominate? So, is that a yes or no? No. I would not be able to. He's already on it. [laughter] Can I nominate someone else? He's an automatic. Are we allowed to nominate a non-coun? I think it has to be a council member.

Yeah, I think it does, too. might be. But I think you could get away with tableabling it till the next meeting. And I seriously doubt they'll have a meeting without you. [laughter] All [clears throat] right. Well, I think the president should be that such an important thing. I think [snorts] the president of the council should be I I would do the community I would do the community corrections before I do this one. Community corrections would make more sense for me if my legal background. [laughter] The 911 is mostly hearing what John Joanis wants money for before [laughter] it comes here. Robin's free now. Robin just got taken off of a thing. Robin's free [laughter] now. Yeah. Oh my gosh. Okay, fine. I'll do that one.

Let me just leave it. I nominate Robin Louderder for We [clears throat] have a We have a motion, a nomination. We have a second. Second. All right, Mary seconds. This is for the 911. This is for the 911 Emergency Operations Center Management Board, Hancock County Council. Uh, designate would be Robin Lauder. All those in favor for one year. All those in favor say I. I. I. Any oppose? Same sign. Okay. I was waiting for Robin to She [laughter] carries. You're outnumbered to say the least. The Property Tax Assessment Board of Appeal Appeals. Where are our nomination is? And this can't be one of us. Ken Rogers, right? He does an excellent job if he's still interested, but I haven't heard that. Yeah, I worked with him a little bit and he's wonderful.

So moved. Yeah. So, we'll just let him unless they come back say otherwise. Somebody else. I have a motion, a second to keep him on uh Ken Rogers to the property tax assessment boards of appeals. All those in favor say I. I. I. All those opposed, same sign. It's a one-year term ending December 31st, 2026. Redevelopment commission, RDC, Hancock County. We have the president uh county council member Kent Fisk on it and we have Robin Lauder on it. I'll nominate both of them. Second. I'll Thank you, Jim. All right. Motion by Jim. Second by Clark for Robin Lauder and Kent Fist to stay on. All those in favor say I. I.

Any oppose? Same sign. And that's a one-year term ending December 31st, 2026 for the RDC. Thank you. Uh next, Employee Benefits Panel. Uh the council member on that is Scott Wooldrich for one-year term. Nominate Scott for another year. Yes. Robin second. Second. Okay, we got a motion, a second. All those in favor say I. I. I. Any oppose? Same sign. Motion carries. The one thing I didn't see on here and maybe it's because their terms of multiple years and none of them were up this year, but the libraries uh appointments to a different library board.

They're not up. They're not up. Uh theirs is up next year, I think, for I'm not sure, but you guys Well, that I I'm Where is that? Solid waste. [clears throat] No, we don't have the Okay, I'll get that. We can kill that ARP steering committee. Yeah, that's over. That's dead. Yeah, take it all. Is it solid waste one year or two appointment? That's a one-year appointment. We don't have solid waste on here. It's by virtue of the your positions, I Oh, you guys are I was thinking council. Sorry. I was going to say, are we talking about solid waste still?

Yeah. Yeah. The ad hoc committee for the um uh county farm, Tammy was on there and I'd like to add Clark Smith to that one. [cough and clears throat] Is that a motion? Sure. Or do you need it? Second. Okay, there you go. Keer, I would just pick one. All right, we have a motion, a second on the ad hoc committee of the county farm to remove Tammy Sedrin and to replace it with Clark Smith. All those in favor say I. I. I. And Clark, those meetings follow the first council meeting of the month. All right. All those opposed say no. I mean I. Okay. [laughter] Um,

a lot of these are task force type things, not necessarily boards. That's why you [cough] [clears throat] expiration dates. She on anything else? No, I'm on the insurance liability. Oh, what about solid waste president? Yeah, solid waste is on not on air. It isn't on here. I don't know. And we have and we and that and that appointment ended cuz I was I was the person. It was I don't really want to do that, but if you feel like you've got too much on your plate, I could take that back. We could ask the new guy to do it, too. It might be a good uh introduction. What do you have down there?

I got one more. the uh uh budget revenue and uh efficiency committee uh is on the chair forever and I want a co-chair. Oh yeah, it's not on. Um Miss Butram, Mrs. Butram. So is that co-chair? Okay. So is that a mo Let's have a motion for coach to have co-chair. Make a motion to appoint Keley as well no just have a co-chair so I can do two. Make a motion to have a co-chair of the budget committee. Second. I have a motion, a second to have a co-chair for the budget committee. All those in favor say I. I. Any oppose say sign. Motion carries. Now, we're going to have nominations for the the budget committee. Co-chairs, two people.

I'll nominate Jim as the chairman for 2026 for the budget committee. One of the co-chairs. Do I have a second? I have a motion, a second for one co-chair. Do I have another motion? Motion to appoint Keley Betrum as co-chair for second. Second. All right. I have a motion and Kent with the second on Keely. All right. All right. Not hearing anybody else. I will say all those in favor for Jim Shelby and Keely But being the co-chairs of the budget committee say I. I. I. All those opposed, same sign. And that's for one year. If if Robin's willing to do the solid waste, I'll spare Clark. I'll nominate Robin to do solid waste. [clears throat] [laughter] I will second that. Wait, can I do that? You're welcome. [laughter]

All right. All those in favor for Robin Lauder taking the solid waste back over from Scott. [laughter] Please say I. Any opposed? Okay. Motion carries. Well, I do think it's important and it is from auditor because the auditor has to go to those meetings. So basically I've been on there for 14 15 years basically. Well, no I have to minus one year when Scott took it. When you say my life has meaning, is that what you're saying? That was Yeah, the chapter one wasn't on here. I missed that one too. I think it's very And the solid waste is I think that's always on there. It's always on there, too. So, okay. Is there anything else that we missed? Yes. As speaking of solid waste, um we need you. There's the budget is here. Number nine.

Yes. So, we still have eight and nine. So, eight circuit court budget transfer of $1,300. Move we do it. I'll second it. I have a motion and a second. Are we Scott? Are we off the boards?

Yes. Okay. Should we mention some of the committees that we have like he did the farm and we also have the RDC vision committee and um see what else. The RDC vision committee I was chair of but we never met because that group that was selected to be on that uh is a lot harder to wrangle. They're not already here. uh and it was discussed and we just decided not to move forward with it this past year because of getting everybody in one location. Yeah. Well, I'd like to call for the question on the floor and then I think we could deal with that later.

Um Okay. So, I have a motion, a second for the circuit court budget transfer 1300. All those in favor say I. I. Any oppose? Same sign. Motion carries. There's one more item and then I'll come back to what uh to Rob to Robin. Motion for funding of solid waste 2026 budget of $145,919. So moved. [laughter] Okay. So I have a motion and a second by by Shelby and Louderder. Yeah. Just all all those in favor say I. I. Any oppose? Same sign. Motion carries. All right, Robin. The floor is yours.

Well, I I think we can keep the committee alive. We're just going to have to meet this year. Yeah. And but we've had we don't have a unlike the the the farm out there have a specific goal in mind with the justice center. We didn't have a specific immediate goal in mind. But now that we we're going to be working on 2027's budget and beyond then yeah we can meet and um and talk about um what the future's going to be. We'll work on that a little. Yeah. Um there is one thing left. the co we have to recognize the commissary report. We already did came up and did that. Bring up to the go ahead. It ought to at least be mentioned as a safety meeting

which deals with a lot of the uh liability insurance and you do have a representative on that task force. [snorts] So I you've already signed this. This has to go around. Don't leave yet till you sign this. Yeah, I'm leaving on a signature page. Okay. Well, Deb, just what I was getting to though on that is and I'm willing to stay on it is um just that we have a representative from the council that goes to the safety meeting because once again with the auditor and everything, I've done that for many, many years. So, I'm willing to go ahead and do it. We are you already on it? She's already on it. I don't know why it's not on this list, but we'll make sure we include it. Yeah.

Well, I just thought it at least be recognized that we [clears throat] do have a representative. Okay, Robin shows up every meeting. Clark, don't worry. This just broke the record for longest county meeting. I was going to tell him this was a short one. I'm going to, you know, that might we're going to we're going to probably start cutting that agenda down then. We are not going to allow be done. My goal is to be done by 11:30 each time, not go past it. That's long. That's long, too. But by I said by, no later. I made a motion to adjurnn. I Okay, we have a second to adjurnn. So second. Okay. Motion, a second to journal. All in favor say I.