County Council - Regular Meeting

All right. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Can that camera see my bald spot? Just said that on YouTube. All right, quick moment of silence. That's the time we have.

All right, I will uh get the meeting going. Uh first thing on the agenda at 8:30 is the Hancock County Community Foundation grant. Uh is Gail Connley or Okay, thank you. I'm so glad I'm first. I have a court hearing. It's up two. Um, we have received a grant from the community foundation in the amount of $1,470 and it will be used to train one of our um drug um serious felony drug uh probation officers to go to all rise training. So, it'll offset that cost. And so, I'm here to see if you would approve that and then get that deposited.

It'll be it'll need to be appropriated. So, we'll have to advertise it. All right. So, it's say there's nothing in there. That's a thumbs up. Thumbs up, everybody. All right. We're good on that. Advertise. Do you need like the fun account that we'll be putting it in or do I just need to give that to you? Just give it to the auditor. I'll just do that. Easy. Thank you so much. Yeah. No need to come back next month.

All right. The next one on the agenda, 8:45 CF1 approvals. I don't Nicole, come on up. If you could, before you get going, could you I mean, cuz Clark's new, could you give a brief explanation of CF1s and and Republic? So CF1s are the yearly filing for all of the people that have filed for an abatement. So if they do not file a CF1, then that means they're non-compliant. And so then the abbement for that year, they would not get unless it could happen like we've had people turn it in months later and then it's up to council if they want to grant compliancy. All right. Thank you.

Yep. All right. So, in front of you, I've got five CF1s. Do you want me to go through each one of them or just pick out what? Um the only ones I think would be an issue to discuss at all would be one and two due to not meeting the uh uh SB one. Uh exactly surpassing both numbers and then number five. Okay. Kind of weird. Yeah. It's something we've not dealt with before.

Yeah. So number one. So the SB1. So the SB1 is the original paperwork that they turn in when they ask for an abatement. So, this said that they were going to have 30 employees with 3.5 million in salaries. This year, they're filing and saying they got 37 employees with two a little over 2 million um in salaries. Um now, I did know I've started to do this kind of comparing from year to year. So, last year they said they had 16 employees and a little over almost shy of 1.1 million in salaries. Um so and then there it's um year three of 10. Um we've been granting them compliancy year after year. And then um and then you said number two.

Mhm. Uh so yeah, they're SP1 states 30 employees with 3.5 million in salaries versus they're filing 32 employees with 2.3 million in salaries. Uh last year they actually had more more employees and a little bit higher in salaries. Uh they are year five and six of 10 years. You have a question, mayor? I I was I didn't want to interrupt. I'm sorry. I just thought we were going to talk about them individually. That's fine. Uh but um I guess my comment is that it that the um

Ambrose is not meeting their salary commitment that they made on their uh original SB1. So, uh, but yet they have a few more employees than they stated on their SP1. So, I would not be opposed to sending them a letter and asking them for, uh, some sort of explanation as to why the sal I mean, we base this on bringing good jobs and good salaries to the county and if they're not meeting what they sold us on the the SB1 is their original estimate of what they plan on employing and what they plan on paying them. So, if they're not paying them what the SB1 is saying, then I'd like to know why.

Yeah, I did the quick math. The SB1 would be $119,000 per employee, and what they submitted is only $55,000 per employee. Well, it it's evident though to these S these CF1s that the same number was used for everybody that applied for tax abatement. Three 3.5 million, 3.5 million, 3.5 million. So, I'm sure there wasn't any thought that went into how much it was per employee. It was just a um here's uh the HDC said here's the application. This is what everybody uses and that's what was passed. So, they probably didn't have any documentation for their when they applied for the tax abatement.

So, I do want to point out so all of these buildings are Ambrose buildings and this was one abatement that they said this was one abatement for four buildings. So the numbers that are coming from is they said that they were going to have 120 employees. So I just divided that by four buildings and that's how I got my number. So Oh, okay. That's how that's how you see those those numbers because it's all on one abatement.

For for me for me I I see an number one I see an improvement a tremendous improvement. So to me I'm kind of curious. Are they are they fully staffed now? Are they going to keep growing like they did in the last year? This is why sometimes I wish they would come in and say, "Hey, here's our issue. Here's what we're dealing with. I hope you'll let us continue the abatement." So, that's that's my thought on it.

Now, remind me, we have choices, right? You can deem someone non-compliant. You have to do so by a certain date. So, if we wanted to ask them to come speak on this, are you on a deadline? Uh, yeah. So, I am on a deadline. So when these CF1s are turned in, you have 45 days to present them in front of council and then council then can make a decision of what they would like to do. If there's no decision made, then it's automatically granted compliancy. So we have three options that are listed on the CF1. The first one, property owner is in substantial compliance. The second one in the property owner is not in substantial compliance. And then the third one says other. And then we would specify. And then we would tell them a time to come back and explain why. And you said it's the top three were all on one application and you divided, right?

That's correct. So it was the 3 million.58 time three was the salary number they proposed. So then where do we fall? I I I see now what you're Okay. Number three. Number three. It says they they don't have 30 employees and 3.5 million. They have 2,113 employees with 94 million. Correct. And that is maybe that one should have a a higher number like nine. Yeah. I don't think dividing them equally is probably the it was just one SB1 for four buildings. So that's why I did. That's how I got what I got. What is the fourth building? Do you do you know I know they haven't turned in CF1 for the fourth building, but is that one

I don't know the names of the buildings. So, it looks like if you add up all the millions they've got here, uh, they're paying 98 million and they have plenty of employees. So, I I I I get it now. I really appreciate the explanation here today. I don't I don't have an issue with it then. On the whole, they've definitely surpassed both. Right. All right. So, let's go to number five then where I don't think we've had this issue before because it deals with EDA.

Yes. Yeah. So, um, they turned in their CF1. They have not pulled any permits. the uh parcel is not even in their name. Um they have uh an abatement. They have an EDA. And so I went through their paperwork and per the EDA, it says commence construction project no later than March of 2025 with completion 15 months after construction. Um so like I said, they've not they've not per pulled any permits. I I checked into that. I checked to see if there was any transfer into their name. Nothing's been transferred. And then I also looked at the SB1 because I've got to look at both the EDA and the SB1. And the SP1 stated pretty much the same information that they had to start construction by March of 2025 and completion by December 31st of 2026.

Did anyone call them and ask them if they had planned on I have not talked to anyone because I wanted to get guidance from the council.

I would think that would be the first thing to do is just give them a call. I can remember when I was upstairs, I would keep track of the abatements applications and if time passed and I had not gotten anything, I would usually at the time it was Skip, I would call Skip and he'd come over and we'd walk through all the ones that were outstanding and he either knew, nope, they're not building it, nope, they're not building it, or we would reach out and find out the status and update the file. So, I would think, you know, you can they'll work with Brandy on that or call them directly and just say what you got here and are you still going to build it? But with the EDA coming into play, I don't know that the commissioners are even going to go down that road anymore. Um, I know they're not going to continue

doing EDAs, but this one being in place when they originally filed, I don't know if that makes a difference to them or not, but that's up to them. It it sounds like that they're going to have to reapply for tax abatement if they ever build a building there because if they haven't started by now and it's a year later, they're not going to complete the building this year. They haven't even pulled a permit. So, we touch bases with them, but it sounds like probably that if they do start over a project sometime in the future, they'll probably have to come back and start all over. Yeah. So, that leads to my um question then. Um, do I just put um not in compliance on the CF1 that they submitted? Then I mean there's no building, but

I I would like for you to either reach out to Randy or to uh Ambrose directly and just get confirmation on their intent. And then if they still plan on building it, yes, they're non-compliant. Um, and we need to figure out if we want to have them come back in and work with them on the dates or maybe they're just not going to build it and then you won't have to fool with it anymore. Okay. But then we would have to I mean is the consensus that if they're just going to sit on this land indefinitely that we would revoke this abatement I would think that would be my opinion if they expire

if they said no we're starting in April and we're going to build the building it's going to be three or four months late from this thing here that might be something different but if they if they said no we haven't got any initial plans then why why would we just leave it open? Yeah. I think by law you you can't have an abatement on just land. No, I was just on improvements only. Um so are we voting today in compant? I need a motion for the first four um if if if we all agree, you know, uh for for it to be signed off that it's in compliance.

Okay. I'll make a motion to approve the abatement application or the abatement CF1's presented as being compliant for items one through four. Item five, we are asking for additional information on whether or not they are going to actually build the building or have they adjusted their timeline and if so, what is it? Second. All right. Any discussion? All those in favor of the motion say I. I. I. Any oppose? Same sign. Motion carries. Would you like to sign these now or do you want to come up and see me afterwards? Um, I have a meeting afterwards so I can sign afterwards. item afterwards. Yeah, it's fine. Okay. Thank you.

Real quick on number four, they're they've been paying their 5% abatement fee, I assume. Yeah. Everyone is current on their Everyone is current on all their EDA payments. Okay. Mailed out letters yesterday for all EDA payments and then um we've also submitted for approval for taxes. So then the tax bills will go out here soon. Thank you. Can I ask a question? Do you recall how much those EDA payments totaled? Uh, yes. Actually, I wrote that down. So, there are a total of four uh properties that we'll be paying into our EDA fund with a grand total amount of $58,39543.

That's for their first installment. Uh, so two of them will be first installment and then the other two will be their second installment. So the two existing ones are GDI and 70 connect 3 and then the new ones are Red Rock and VTRE. Any other questions? All right. Thanks. All right. We since 9 it's not 9:00 yet for the public hearing, we'll skip down to action items. First one on the agenda is budget meeting update. Key.

Yes. Last week we went over balances which all looked good. Um we touched on the next GEO bond where some of those exact uh expenditure numbers are still a little up in the air. Uh but I think we'll be circling back on that. And we did talk about a 2027 uh salary increase for employees and I believe we we do have that um some updates from Greg right on the next meeting agenda because we couldn't ascertain if the sustainability was reflecting the the drop for the 27th pay that happens this year. So stay tuned, right, on everything, but balances looked um very healthy. We did have um one outstanding uh item to address on jury pay and it was that on the next agenda also, correct?

It's on today's Oh, this one. Oh, that in an action item. Got it. That's all. Okay. I have the meeting minutes in front of me. Any changes needed? I move we approve minutes of February 11th, 2026. I'll second it. All right. I have a motion and a second. All those in favor say I. I. I. Any oppose? Same sign. Motion carries. I'll abstain for absence. Okay. I'm sorry. Uh number three, auditor business. I do not have any auditor business.

No auditor business. Check. All right. Solid waste management letter. So in your packet there is a solid waste letter uh to address to Deb KS for appropriating money. I I did have a question about that. So is that so is that suggesting it was money budgeted in 25 that did not get spent, right? Did we encumber it? Oh, it's just cash. Yeah, it was not appropriated. Okay.

So, we have to advertise to appropriate it, right? Yes. So, it's a thumbs up, correct? So, thumbs up everyone. Okay. It please advertise. Right, I'll take care of number four. Five. Ninear grant BHC appropriate 68. Can't vote. No, Kent. $6825.

That's just over my threshold. I know. I know, man. It's not I know it's not worth your time, but we have some time here. So, this is an appropriation as well. Yeah, we need a thumbs up. Thumbs up. All right, took 10 seconds. All right, number six, resolution to close dormant funds.

All right. What's the resolution number on this? Resolution number will be 2026-3-1.

All right. Is there any discussion about the uh the funds or the balances or will we be doing this a second time on some of those old EO bonds or is there I mean I know there's balances that's floating around with that there are two there's two on here. I didn't I missed them then. I'm sorry. Well, I think there's the at the 4603. Is that one of them? Oh yeah, I see it now. Yeah, I thought there were a few that we had small balances in. And this will just out of curiosity, close the fund and and eliminate it entirely or just net it to zero in case we have future incomes. I'm sorry.

Just out of curiosity, does it close the fund like the fund number goes away or it just puts them down to zero and they stay open in case something comes later? It puts them down and then we make it active and it'll always be continue to show up on reports stay there. There goes my nacho grain. We never get rid of anything in government. It's somewhere there. Okay. So, we need a motion to approve resolution. Yes.

Okay. I make a motion to approve resolution 2026-3-1 uh listing the accounts that have fund balances that we are going to um write off on I guess do they go to the general fund. Where does the money go? General fund. Fund. Yes. Okay. That's all transferred to general fund. Second. All right. I have a motion, a second to approve resolution number 2026-3-1. uh as presented uh in our packet. Any discussion? All those in favor say I. I. Any oppose? Same sign. Motion carries. Who was the second on that?

All right. Number seven, salary ordinance amendment for PT veteran service officer. Part time. What is the ordinance number for this? 2026-3A. I move we approve the uh salary ordinance um for 2026-3A for the veteran service officer.

I'll second. Okay. I have a motion to approve ordinance 20 number 2026-3A as presented. Any discussion? All those in favor say I. I. I. Any oppose? Same sign. Motion carries. All right. Next up, number eight, salary ordinance amendment for courthouse security officers. And I'm guessing this one is 2026-3B. Is that correct? Yes, correct. All right. Hog quick.

I do that update one. I just want to make sure that you know sometimes they do give something weird. You're like, "What?" I'm like, "I'm not going to ask. It's F. We We got a Frank." All right. Uh, any discussion or or I'll make a motion to approve ordinance number 2026-3B. I'll second. Okay. Hey, I have a motion and a second to approve ordinance number 2026-3B regarding the uh salary ordinance amendment for courthouse security officers. Any discussion? Not hearing any. All those in favor say I.

I. Any oppose? Same sign. Motion carries. All right. Number nine, final action item, jury pay fund. Well, we discussed that. Oh, we can't boo. This is Okay, he's booing it on. Boo me or the judge? Better boo me, right?

Um I don't know. I just feel like if we have the judges take care of it, it adds one more layer. If we watch it, the auditor watches it for us, then we just vote to advertise and then we do it the other way. Then the judge has got to come somebody from his office and talk to us and then so it adds one extra step and I don't know why we'd want to do that and it's always negative in the end and we want to make sure they hit the right date on that for the auditor because she can't be negative. Where does the money come from? Uh the money coming from the money's in the account right now. No it's negative almost 20. So where are we going to take the money from? We have to decide that general fund because this is a true expense to the account.

Yeah. See, we don't usually do it right now, but it's not usually this. I mean, it's a true expense this much. It's not a one this time of year. It's not paid. It's not a fee fund. So, it's not It is a fee fund. So, that's what I was asking. Sorry. But there's not enough fees. So, it'll bring in income. It'll bring in some income that will cover some of the ongoing expense in the courts. What you don't have handy, do you? Uh, how much income it brought in last year versus expense, do you? But not enough. put money in it every year. We always have. Yeah. So, is 50,000 50,000 would bring us about 30 out of the red? Um, is that

We reached out to the judges and they said that they're having one court is having two jury trials a month and the other one said four year a year and we are already this short. So, I'm not that's the information that they gave us. We tried to to get some information, but that's all we have. So, we're we're what is it? Negative 19,000. We were thinking if we could have an additional 50 to kind of get us through these next few months and see where we're at. That's basically historically what we've always done. Just kind of and we've used food and beverage before, but we can use something else.

I agree because this is an ongoing expense. It doesn't look like the fees are going to start covering the expense. So, I agree putting it in general makes the most sense. Taking the money out of general fund. Yeah. I'll go ahead and finish that with a motion to appropriate. Hold on. I don't know. The state board of council will let us general fund. That money is pretty specific on what it's used for. Oh, really? That's why we never use general fun. What do people do where they get items? Yeah. Um, and it can't always be coingled with other fun. Could we go ahead and have a motion if in fact state board of accounts allows that we can pay it out of general? If not, we can pay it out of

Yeah. I just for counties that do not have a food and beverage fund, where do they find the money? Yeah, I'm I think I'd just reach out to state board of counsel on that and have them give us an explanation. And my next question before we make a motion is assuming it is allowed in county general, do you already have an appro a line of appropriated funds to take that from? No, you'd have to appropriate the it well it would be a fund check, right? Yeah.

Okay. I'll make a motion to if possible um prioritize advertising and allocating 50,000 from the county general to cover the needs of jury fund and if uh that is not allowable to advertise uh for the 50,000 from food and beverage. Is that a fine motion? Do I have a second? I'll second it. All right. I have a motion, a second. Any discussion? Okay. All those in favor say I. I. Any oppose? Same sign. All right. Motion carries. Now you know why I boo it. Boo it.

Yeah. All right. We have five minutes. Wow. You guys got to put more put more stuff before the 9:00 hearing instead of you know I don't think the abatement application discussion we could start it but I don't think we can do it in 5 minutes. Oh no. Yeah. Well, I guess we could start it. Yeah.

Um all right. Uh everybody should have a copy of the abatement application. I sent it out to you at one time. I don't know if you brought it with you. Uh Robin and I and Gary P have met and Bill now that he's available will be at our our next meeting. But Gary had given us uh just some uh basic opinions on just cleaning up the application and uh rewarding a few things that really didn't affect the application itself per se, but things that we did discuss and do was we removed a paragraph that talked about um the EDAs and um Bill concurred that uh he didn't see any reason to have discussion about the EDA on the application anymore. So, that's something that uh unless you guys have an opinion on, that's what we did. Um, Robin, do you want to jump in with anything? Um, one thing I do know, uh, abatement schedules, we actually printed on on the application that we will follow a 10-year real estate property, uh, abatement from or 10year at 10 increments down from 100 to 10 to zero and personal property of fiveyear abatements uh, 100 down to 20 and zero. That's what we put on the application. Do you think we need to or does anybody want to stick to that and that's our plan period or do we want to add a line that says other?

I I would have an other want something to state if they want to propose their application differently. Yeah. And I suggested maybe even I saw some of the other counties did put on there something about the five and the 10-year maximum. Yeah. Because you know if they see we just say five and 10 they could come and say hey your application says I can have 10. Well maybe not. So put something that says just I don't know um just maximum amount 10 years maximum amount five years. Okay that's least amount of words. Yeah.

Yeah. We don't have to break it down. We can just say for real estate max 10 year personal property max fivey year. Um, can I say something about the EDAs? Um, my opinion on the EDAS, of course, Clark wasn't here, but we had to do that because of the laws that were set at the time. Um, and the laws have changed. So, it I wasn't here for the EDA.

You weren't here for the EDA. Um, it's a it's a flawed system, but it was a flawed system before. That's why we had to make another flawed law. Um, and it does add an extra layer of confusion to the companies. We do have trouble collecting that money. We do have trouble convincing their attorneys about about signing those things and all of that. And um, and it doesn't it it also separates commissioners from the council on how the money is spent. So there is a lot of flaws in that EDA system and um now that the money can go where we need it to go that comes out of there. All the money there's no reason for us to throw this extra piece of junk law into the scenario. That's how I feel right now. So I mean I'm happy that we're not going to be chasing any more of that additional uh scenario. I I think there's a great possibility that what we were doing with ADAS was a catalyst for this state

Oh yeah, absolutely. Changing the law so that you don't have to take that extra step just to pay firemen or pay policemen. So yeah, it was um it it was a good idea at the time but unnecessary now. I agree. Another thing that um and it just came up today is we had four buildings on one application. Would it be to our benefit to ask them to fill out an individual application for each building? We can still say that's under the umbrella of $500, but they don't have to do five per building.

The only thing I question is I went through some of that material that Bill sent us. And I think that the law says they can do that, this state law. So I don't know if we can make it less just because the state says they can do it as as a county. I think that you could ask them if they would do it. I mean, I don't know. I would talk to Scott about that. I mean, you could request that they do one for each building. I would prefer to have one. I just don't want to. One building could be thriving and another one's not doing well, but uh an example today again was we don't know exactly which one's thriving and which one's not.

And they do have, you know, estimated start date, estimated completion date. we saw in the CF1s from earlier. You know, it would just be we would have clear documentation about the per building intent. So, the answer on that is yes. Let's try something different ones. Okay. Yeah. And that's fine if they don't have to pay the fee on everyone or if they do pay the fee. I don't really care. I'm not chasing the money. I'm chasing the information. Yeah.

Okay. Okay, I'm going to Yeah, we're going to take if that's a good stopping point for now, we'll suspend that discussion for a moment so we can do the 9:00 uh public hearing additional appropriations. All right. First up on the public hearing is fund county general in the amount of $511,7160. I will open up the uh public hearing at this time. Anybody want to say anything? Not hearing anything. I will close the public hearing and uh entertain a discussion from the council or a uh a motion.

I'll make a motion to approve the appropriation. County general $511,7160. I do have one quick question. Um, and I just need to clear this in my mind. We're doing these appropriations for the jail like $267,800 for matron at assistant cook so on. Is that not already in their budget? That's the new courthouse security that you guys agreed to. That's the line that'll be

So the uh Say that again. the new courthouse security guards that you guys have agreed to to let Brad hire for this year. Like five was I mean was that the number? Yeah, the total cost was 361, but I believe this is just the salaries, but the 361 Brad gave us was with all the you know 30% for benefits. Okay. Yeah. And I think the head went up I additional but I see that was my salt. We have a motion, right? Yes, you have a motion. I'll second it. All right. I have a motion and a second. So, is there any further discussion?

All right. All those in favor say I. I. Any oppose? Same sign. All right. Motion carries. I'm guessing the public doesn't have the breakdown like we have in front of us. That's you know, so we need to explore. Yeah, that's what we post. We post your packet on the website. Okay. So they should this is the new advertising. This is how we advertise on Gateway now. So we kind of liked it instead of our forms that we were doing. We're just giving you what we're advertising. So it's a public access. I know it was a little different last time. That's why Yeah, it is. Bring it up. All right.

Uh next up is the fund 1135 cumulative bridge of 1.5 million. Um on the page if you if you're on the website I guess you look and see that 1 million's for a bridge and culvert repair and half a million's for large co cover culverts. Uh I will open the public hearing for any discussion from the public. Any discussion from the council? Okay. Not hearing any. I will I close the public hearing and entertain a motion. Make a motion to approve the appropriations and cumulative bridge 1135. Second.

All right. I have a motion and a second to approve the 1135 cumulative bridge of 1.5 million. All those in favor say I. I. Any oppose? Same sign. Motion carries. All right. Next up, fund 1233, Lick Correctional Facility. This the amount of 5.5 million and this is the capital improvement to the county jail for 5.5 million. I will open up the public hearing for discussion from the public. And anything from the council on this one? No, I just think we ought to comment. This is for, if I'm correct, this is for the sheriff's building, correct? Is that correct?

Yeah. if we're making comments for the public. It is a new structure, a separate structure that I believe will both preserve our equipment and such longer, but is also intended to offer some new uh inmate opportunities in the future related to programs and uh maybe like learning vehicle maintenance trades and things. So, uh and paying paying for it with cash instead of borrowing on taxpayers. Uh I would note that as well. Yeah. It's also for evidence, I think, to be stored like a big vehicle or something. Yeah.

Yeah. And Brad explained to me one day, too, like they had a car that was in an accident and, you know, so and they had no place to put it but outside and so it was all rusted by the time the courts uh situation was over and so they had to replace that car. I think I got that right. Okay. I'm sure I'm sure it is. I mean, you know, we can't take something for evidence and then destroyed. All right. Anything else? I'd now close the public hearing and entertain a motion. Make a motion to approve the appropriation fund 1233 L Correctional Facility 5.5 million. I'll second it. I have a motion, a second. All those in favor say I.

I. Any oppose? Same sign. Our motion carries. All right. Fund 1234 lit correctional facility sub fund $160,000. This has a jail navigator for $80,000, overtime of 10 grand, FICA 8,000, group insurance of 50,000, and per 12,000. I open the public hearing for any discussion from the public. Anything from the council? All right, I'll close the public hearing and entertain a motion. I move we approve fund 1234 for 160,000. I'll second it. All right. I have a motion and a second on the table. All those in favor say I. I.

Any oppose? Same sign. Motion carries. All right. Fund 1237 opioid restricted in the amount of 835,297.91.

165. We um I left one off the agenda. Oh boy. That's a typo. It was advertised. It just isn't on. Okay. Well, I'll go back to it after this one. Restricted. I'll open the public hearing. Anybody want to discuss the public? What is miscellane? Oh, I'm not public yet. All right. Council, any discussion? I'm sorry. Uh miscellaneous expense for 835,000. That is the restricted opioid funds. That's paying all. That's all of them. So we can and this is so we can pay for uh Aspire uh the church church of God and uh to the

restricted and unrestricted. So right to appropriate it so it could be spent. I move okay I close the public hearing. I'll take a motion. I move we approve the opioid restricted to fund those programs fund 1237.

I'll second it. I have a motion, a second to approve fund 1237 in the amount of $835,297.91. All those in favor say I. I. Any oppose? Same sign. Motion carries. All right. There is one item left off of this agenda document, but it was uh published uh for the public. Uh it's the lit PAP in the amount and it's fund uh $1235 and it's in the amount of $16,549.77 for the 911 equipment maintenance and repair expense which they came to last was it last month and presented to us. Uh I open it to public hearing. All right. Anything discussion with the council on that one? All right, I'll close the public hearing and entertain a motion for uh fund 1235.

Make a motion to approve uh the appropriation for PAP 123516,549.77. I'll second. All right, have a motion, a second. All those in favor say I. I. Any oppose? Same sign. All right. Motion carries. All right. Fund 1238, opioid unrestricted. This is $254,557.94 and I open it to public hearing for anybody from the public to discuss. Well, at least it's not hailing, but I hear heavy rain. So, do I have anything from the council to discuss on opioid unrestricted?

All right, I will close the public hearing and entertain a motion. I move we appropriate uh the opiate unrestricted fund 1238 the amount presented of $254,557.94. I'll second that. All right. I have a motion and a second. All those in favor say I. I. I. Any oppose? Same sign.

Motion carries. All right. Fund 8892 title 4E foster care in the amount of $6,500. This is for juvenile popper expense. I open the public hearing for any discussion. Anything from the council. I close the public hearing and entertain a motion. I'll make a motion to approve the appropriation of fund 8892 for $6,500. Second. All right. I have a motion and a second. All those in favor say I. I. Any oppose? Same sign. Motion carries.

All right. fund 9110 Ninstar Community Trust Grant in the amount of $486.86 which is to be used for the clothing in the public defender office. I open it for public hearing. Anybody from the public want to say anything?

Anybody from the council want to say anything? All right. I close the public hearing and entertain a motion. I'll make a motion for Ninstar Community Trust Grant uh 911 uh $486.86 and it's for the public defender. And I'd like to make a comment. When it says clothing, it's not really for them. It's clothing. Sometimes when people come to court, they don't have clothing that's appropriate for court. So, and Ninstar donates for that. I'd have a motion. A second. I have a second. Okay. All those in favor say I. I. Any oppose? Same sign. All right. Motion carries.

Okay. Public hearing for reduction appropriation. Kent Fisk's in my favorite. Right. This is on the other paper. Uh it's fund 1112 lit economic development. Uh it's for the Steinmeer Road. $2 million. Open a public hearing. Any discussion from the public? I mean, from the council. Did Gary Gary, did you get some grant money or what? What? We did. Yes. We weren't sure if we were going to get the grant or not. We did.

Well, thank you for that. It's always nice to find out you got a grant to cover $2 million that you thought you had to spend. All right. I will close the public hearing and entertain a motion. I'll make a motion uh to approve the reduction appropriation fund 1112 economic development for $2 million. Second. I have a motion, a second. All those in favor say I. I. Any opposed? Same sign. Motion carries. All right. That will close conclude our public hearing items and we will return back to the discussion on the abatement application. Mary.

Okay. I'm just going to read through some of the uh on the application. Uh they're pretty quick and then if someone feels that we need to discuss it further, we can. Um the applicant further agrees to the imposition of a fee equal to the large lesser of 5% of the reduction in property taxes for each year generated by the property tax phase in or 100,000 which is the monies that goes to HDC. So that's you know I think we've actually passed a resolution on that. So that is just tying that back into that. Um the next one is applicant further agrees to the economic development agreement which we can take that one out. Applicant further agrees that if the proposed development changes by 25% or more, the applicant will refile this application with updated new information and supply a new declaratory resolution to be considered. No filing fee required. I don't know who tracks that though. if they if they uh decide they're going to if they file their application and we approve the abatement and then they decide they're going to extend the size of the building by more than 25% just because they've decided to after the application. Right now it states that they have to come back and at least explain that to us and we can stamp off on it. I don't know really who's where the um

we would certainly review that based off of the assessed value that's rolled to us, but that's after the fact. That's after the fact. So, I'm not I'm assuming they have to get a permit for that. The per Yeah, the permit would say what the changes would be. Something's got to trigger that to make its way back to us. Well, it be in the planning department, right?

Yes. I remember when we put this in play because we were worried people were coming to say I have a 300,000 square foot building and then just because they had enough room they would go build the million right and we wouldn't know till it was up and running and so and I don't even know 25% is the right number we had some pretty um pro development contributions in that discussion it could be less you know it could be it It could say if you're going to change it by 15%. So, I'm open to suggestions, but I I do like even if it's not uh being tracked minute by minute, telling someone if you change these plans, you have to come back here before you go build that. I do like doing that. However, it's the best way.

We can just restate it at the application when they're in front of us to make sure they get it that they have to come back. But, do we want something to put it in check? I would leave it in writing somewhere that if you change your building plans after your abatement's approved that you need to come back here first. But it might be something that we could check with the planning department to to have them flag anything. Yeah. You know, flag it so that they could let us know. Yeah. But the problem with I don't know if pling's on top of knowing which ones we granted a bait. I mean do they right? But I it I don't think you can address that issue in the application. No, I'm I'm addressing it to the group here as to how or if we want to

we start with planning, put something in place that requires them to come back and they know it. Uh I don't know that. And Scott, you would maybe planning doesn't know which buildings we've abaded per se when they're building to know to tell them to come back. I doubt it. I've never asked.

Yeah, I wouldn't think they would. I think at the time it would definitely be extra work on someone and we could set something up where you know Nicole emails whoever's designated in planning and said you know for note when these permits come in if there's you know if if they don't align with this please notify um but and we don't have a lot of them right we're not abating buildings we haven't been so it's not like they're it'd be a daily chore

I agree I think it if Nicole knows that we've granted an abatement, which she would, that she would just have a person in planning that she's already spoke to about this, and say, "I'm going to shoot you an email whenever an abatement has been granted on this building. So, if you receive any additional permitting on that, let me know."

I guess I'd be curious how worried we are. I think I, you know, heard if you plan or submit for 300,000 square feet and you build a million, that's probably going to be a big issue. If we are worried about it, I would propose we put a monetary fine towards it cuz that will get their attention. They will flag it. If I think we still go down our route, but in my experience, my agency, we have several things that our licenses are supposed to notify us. The ones that they get fined for, they do a really good job. The ones that they don't, we really have to do our outreach to stay on top of it. So, when does the fine kick in? After the fact, though, or

it's after the fact. I I mean for for me I I thought for me I thought similar but different. I thought hey if if you uh if you change the plans like I mean 300,000 to a million you may lose your abatement. Yeah. I think you should just put in there you may lose your abatement if you do not without notify. I would say that would be incentive enough. Yeah. More than a fine. I think that would take care of it. I can get behind that cuz I mean that's just like a fine that your fine is your abatement. So that I think will get their attention. Board that to me again real quick. Scott, well yeah failure failure. I don't care who it's just something I can write down that everybody has the same concern.

Before we do that real quick, I mean is 25% too liberal? Do we want to tell people modification that's even less failure failure to uh failure to get council approval for a modification could result? Yeah. Loss of your of the And we could be we could just leave it at that with no percentages. You're going to change this at all. Right. I like that. I mean, although reduction although reduction, I don't think the public or us would get too upset about a reduction. I think that's why we put the 25% if it's just a little bump out on the end or something that they decided to put a little utility closet of some kind or something. I don't know that we want to waste their time or hours.

Do we put it at 5%? That way that gives them a buffer. So, if you're building a 100,000 uh square foot building, if it increased by more than 5%, then is that enough to make them come back? Yeah, I like that. 5%. Okay. I Well, Nicole just let me know that she does check that, but it is after the fact, but she hasn't had anyone increase their square footage, just so you know. It's not a common practice. Not an issue. It's not a big issue, but it could be. So, yeah. And when I was upstairs, it did happen a few times. And I don't know that they were abatements per se tied to them. But I remember buildings not being built to the size that the permit said. And that's why it's important that the assessor always goes out on those buildings because yes,

the permit could change and we wouldn't know it. So any change or modification to building will require documentation to council. Is that what you wanted to say? Documentation the right word, Scott? A prior prior approval or council approval for for payment to be active. I guess I'd lean towards approval because if we just do notification, that still means they could build double the building as long as they told us.

And modification, I'm not sure if I even care about the modification because it could be an internal of the building. They've decided that they're not going to put a mezzanine in or they've decided they are going to put a mezzanine in. So, are we going to make them come back? They didn't really change the footprint of the building at all. No, we don't want that. It just be size modific size increase modification. Yeah, but I think we want to know if it's going to go from really small to large. We need to definitely know that. Okay. I've just put any changes in size to the building, will require additional approval by council. We'll require maybe you to appear and and get approval from the Okay.

So, they'd actually have to come in to be there. Do we want to use that 5% any any uh size change in excess of 5% proposed? Oh, you got that turn into a messy one. For spec buildings, the developer will agree that an annual update is required directly with the county. This will include an update as soon as the building is leased. After one year from date of completion, if the building is not sold or leased, the annual update will include the reason the building has not been sold or leased. I don't think they do that a lot of times.

I don't think they ever do it. No. Says the county will continue to review the project subject to the abatement as long as an additional information is provided. The owner will still be required to file a standard CF1. And that's Yeah. But I don't know that we're even enforcing that paragraph right now. Wow. Can I Can I ask

a question? This may not be, but what Okay. So, if you if you say someone has a million square foot and now they're going to make it 2 million. Okay. Is there anywhere in the paperwork that says that that the extra million square foot has to be in the same use as the million square foot? Like, okay, so now you got a million square foot and you're going to put a 2 million square foot and you're going to put a data center in the in the other million. Well, uh there are some you can't abate just any kind of building, right? It's industrial. That's outside my

saying they could just put something in the other one that we don't agree with. Um that would cause a bunch more problems. Well, then you wouldn't give an abatement if you don't agree with it. Well, yeah, but the permitting will show under say not only size, it would have to say use. But if it falls within the guidelines of the planning department zoning requirements, we don't get involved with that.

Yes. So the only way it would matter is on nebatement. If you want, if you're like, "Okay, this is going to have lowpaying jobs, not going to help the public, going to destroy the environment, you're or not have any jobs at all." You're like, "Okay, we're not giving you guys an abatement for this." Versus something that's coming in with paying six figures to employees, going to hire just Hancock County residents, really going to help our people. People get excited about it, lots of jobs. I mean, that's something you're going to give an abatement for, more likely. Well, they've already got the abatement

on the I'm wondering though if if we could if they change the use of the facility to something different that's still underneath their zoning capabilities. Okay. Test animals. What if they what if in their zoning it's already in the zoning that they could do test animals and there's not they don't have to apply for a new zoning and they build a million square foot onto their building for a test animal facility. So then in your application, you may want to have something use and they have to give you all the items of use they could possibly use, right? Because they have to come with and tell us what the building is to start with. Well, they they're going to tell you part of the application's always been how many jobs are you bringing? How much are you paying these people? Because that's always been a massive concern when

I've been here 5 years and something near 100% has been this is speculative. We have no idea what's going to happen here, you know. So I have don't have experience with we're going to do this specific thing and then making sure that's what they do because it's always up in the air after they build a building and we give the abatement to it and then they search for a tenant. I don't know that we we have any control we get involved at all. But if you have but if you have a use and they say we and they give you a list of 10 uses but this isn't that this is a spec building. I was just asking the question. So there Yeah. And it's a good question because I've said no to a couple things. I mean, I've said no to somebody brought a test animal facility by my desk. I said no.

Yeah. I mean, you could add a line for, you know, in nonspeculative abatements if if proposed. Uh, well, this is just this specifically spec. Yeah. Yeah. Then I don't think we can do anything there. We could I think you'd still they give you like a general answer to a use like they would give you like manufacturing distribution. I mean that's what I would do if I was their attorney. I would say I give a general thing. I and I would say excluding data centers or excluding test things that bother Kent, you know. You know, I mean does it bother anybody else? I don't know.

Yeah, it does. It does. It does. It bothers the public. Typical spec buildings down there usually are a big shell building with big overhead doors and then it just sits there and they wait for a tenant to take the whole building or they'll start subdividing it down into smaller pieces for different tenants. Occasionally there'll be one that'll be built that looks like an office, you know, lots of glass front and all that. um and they're searching for the same kind of tenant, but I don't think we ever get that information. Okay. I mean, I was just asking the question cuz I could see a thing where someone could say, "Okay, now we need half your electrical capacity for the rest of the county,

right? Oh, we need all your water." Yeah, I like we need all your water about that. The key then would be to not approve speculative abatements and then you don't have to worry about that. remember that's what I ran on. So, yeah. Well, there we go. So, it says for spec buildings, the developer will agree that an annual update is required directly with the county. Do we are we still going to do that? This will include the update an update as soon as the building is leased. So, it's telling them that they want or we want notification of who your tenant is as soon as you lease it.

I think the problem with that too is right. Okay. So zoning allows it. They come give us the update that they've leased their building. Is there even grounds to call somebody non-compliant on a granted abatement if they're doing the salaries? If they have the number of employees just because we don't like who they ended up leasing to. I don't know that we have any. We'll never know that. We'll never know. If it's a tenant, our application is just for the building. That tenant may have a 100 employees or they may have five.

Yeah. And we'll never know because the and I remember making calls on some of these um and they the owner of the building will say I don't ask for that from the tenants. So they don't have it to pass on. Plus they look at it as confidential information and they want you to call the tenant directly. And so it's like and I was doing all that in the assessor's office because we we at the time are taxing personal property. So, I want to make sure that the tenants would pop in down there and we would know because we wouldn't know that they've leased the building. So, we would do a follow-up on any spec buildings upstairs. But down here, I don't know. You You know, here's a thought. You know, I I hope nobody brings a application for a spec uh warehouse, but let's say they did, right? instead of trying to define it in here, could we have a standard document that Scott um has on hand that that we have people commit to that says that if we do approve a speculative abatement, it is not to include it is not to be assumed to include these types of uses. and we could delineate whatever we think are bothersome things that could slide through

or they would have to come back to us if it was you know because they're telling us to start with it's going to be distribution or something or manufacturing one of the two not in a spec but cuz they're looking for 10 on a spec building I think they should go through that next layer. Yeah. to say I do that we're we're initially saying is this and if it changes from that we'll come back because yeah, we don't want them coming in with something.

I'm I'm also probably one of the only ones that's going to propose we have something in there if if the owner of the building or leasing of the building is from a foreign country because we have a foreign country owning one of our buildings now and I'm not happy with it and I have voted for that. Can we ask that? Yeah, absolutely. We can you can ask. I mean, well, but somebody might, you know, if you if you wouldn't take it be Yeah, they'll they might But that doesn't mean I have to vote for them. No, but then I We have a Chinese building in our in our thing that I wouldn't vote for now.

Well, and we get in the weeds on the legal verbiage because, you know, is it where the business is doiciled? Is it the residency of the Well, yeah. I mean you could have members some of the principles might be formed. Well the sh the shareholders. Yeah. Well and the one talking about it China that wasn't the owner when they did it Smithville. Yeah. Smithville was out of Georgia. Can you then I guess that's a nobody comes and asks who has that situation but that person sells right an already abated building. There's really no is there any legal way to say you might lose your abatement if you sell to a foreign no holder. Yeah.

And you know the the federal government uh under terrorism act you know they may try to amend that and to add some kind of provision to keep to foreclose that and it would obviously trickle down to local but that's going to get challenged constitutionally. Wasn't the state Indiana looking at or did they pass something about foreign ownership? Yeah, Representative Commons had a bill this year that went a little bit further than a bill previous. So, I don't know all the specifics. I don't want to talk out of my lane one at a time,

but there there has been several bills the last few years around foreign controlled ownership just in the a world. Smithfield and Senta are some of the big ones. I don't know about other industries, but they're the general assembly is looking at it and addressing it, right? They haven't like I kit and I just talked about is that we can maybe pose that question when they're actually in front of us, but we don't have it in writing, but we can ask questions and that may help decide on your vote or not. Yeah. But that just needs to be a a question that somebody remembers to ask. Okay. Okay, be careful.

Okay. The applicant further agrees to not file an appeal for the duration of the abatement unless the assessed value increases by 5%. The 5% rule will not apply to increase due to new construction with the issuance of a permit. Uh the reason for 5% is the burden. Uh if they appeal their taxes and the increase is less than 5% then uh the burden is on the taxpayer to explain why they think it's too high. If the burden is over or the increase is over 5% then the burden is on the assessor to explain why they raised it. So that's the reason for that paragraph. That's right.

Uh next question. Then it starts getting into um just incentives. Uh are they going to ask for any additional incentives? Yes or no? And if so, what they may be? That would be like if they're wanting uh road work or ditch work or any of that kind of stuff. uh name, title, address, telephone number, and email address of the company representing of the company representative who may be contacted concerning the application. So, those are the things we're asking for. Is there any additional What is it?

It says name, title, address, telephone number, and email. So, it's just your basic contact information right there.

Uh location of the property. They have to state the parcel number and the street address. Um, is they state whether or not the application is for an existing building that they're adding on to or new construction of a addition? It asks if the project is an addition to the existing building, is the current structure receiving abatement? Just basic questions. uh they have to check a box down here as to whether or not it's warehouse slashdistribution information technology speculative research and development manufacturing or other those are the types of things that the abatements are allowed for that you like you can't abate retail it it they don't qualify

can I ask a question here on this up above it it talks about the aerial map and can we put in there that we want a legible some of these people they send us a map and it's black. You can't even see what it is. I'll put that just stick that word in there. A legible aerial map. I mean, I can look it up, but that shouldn't be my responsibility. They should submit a map that you can figure out where it's at. I know it's a little thing, but it can be important.

These will be for owner occupied buildings, but it says if the building uh is listed as manufacturing, what will they be producing? If it's a speculative building, can you identify the potential tenant? Most of the time is no building on

what comes later. Uh I think Gary asked to add this one in that he wanted to say uh what is the estimated FFN installation date? So that's basically date and asked for the anticipated date of construction to start uh the complete and estimated value of the improvement. And I want to stress on this one because I had I went back and forth with somebody about that question. The reason we want estimated value, not estimated assessed value, is there is no one out there that is qualified to estimate the assessed value unless they work in that field. Estimated value is what they're going to pull the permit for. And in new construction of of large industrial type buildings, the cost approach is usually the approach that's used to value it. So, if we know they're putting $40 million into that building, they put it on their permit, then the assessed value should realistically come in close to that assessed uh uh permit value because that's the most uh reasonable way to u assess it. you can't assess it by comparables because there's usually not enough sales in the area to compare that building to and um the cost approach is the best. So that's why I want it to say uh estimated cost not estimated assessment.

That's fine because it's been changed and I had to change it back and that's the reasoning behind it. I think when you get to the end I mean I don't know if you have this but um if something changes in the document at any time like contact information or anything I think we need to know. I think they need to provide that to us. If anything you've submitted ever changes, we need to know. I'll put if changes

and then we just have a full page that is for owner occupied buildings only. And it's a breakdown of their their uh skilled jobs, their hourly rates, the number of people that will be in that position. Do you provide benefits, health insurance, dental, life insurance, those kind of things? It's just check check the box kind of stuff. And then uh there's a signature page and that's it. Sounds like a good tweak.

Start. We're meeting today after this meeting. And if we can maybe get finished up here in the next meeting or so, maybe I can have this the final draft and hand it out. It'll be one more time looked and then we can adopt it. That sounds fine. Um, I want to ask Scott a question. Can we ask this question or it says, "I hereby affirm under the penalties for perjury that the above and foregoing representations are true." Is that okay to have that in there? Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah. That's why it's in capitals. Yeah. Use it liberally. I just wanted to be sure. Times two on that one. Yeah. All right.

Anything else on on the baitment? Okay. Um I I've added this onto the thing. This only applies to the second uh this doesn't apply to the budget meeting. We're not going to have public comments during that. But we're going to I've added a public comment if they have to schedule the auditor in advance. That's just so the public knows. Auditor, anybody schedule it? Okay. I like that you changed that, Scott, because the commissioners have a statement on theirs about everybody does and we did not. So, yeah. And I just I just want it where the auditor can know in advance so then she can help plan it cuz I like I said I don't want the means going past 11:30. Although today's 9th

Well, I will I will say I may have gotten a call that I did not relate to Mary. So I didn't know if um they had comments they wanted to make because she had added that as I was taking a call. So I don't know if they wanted to make comments today or not. No. Okay. Okay. All right. I move we adjourn. All righty. You have a second to adjourn. I'll second. All those in favor say I. I. I. All right. We'rejourned. Clark those bills passed.