County Council - Regular Meeting

Good evening, everyone. I'd like to call this meeting of the Hancock County Board of Commissioners to order. Today is 6-30 of 26. This meeting is being recorded and streamed for public viewing. By participating, you acknowledge that your image, voice, and comments may be captured and made publicly available. This meeting has been properly noticed in accordance with Indiana Code 5-14-1.5. Let the record show the quorum of commissioners are present. The commissioners are open for business. We will now proceed with our agenda. At this time, I'd like to invite everybody to stand with us and repeat the pledge. Oh, hold on a second.

I have to call the council to order. Go ahead. Yeah.

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

There's only one person in the room that knows how to do it. I've knocked mine on the floor.

I'm afraid I'll step on it. What do you do with it?

Did I get a motion to approve minutes?

Motion to approve the minutes from 6-16-2026.

Second.

Motion and a second is on the floor to approve the minutes for 6-16-2026. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, same sign. Motion carries.

Make a motion to approve claims and payroll. Second.

Motion and second. It's on the floor to approve claims and payroll. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Motion carries.

So... The planning consultant?

Yep. Kayla?

So... So I was at a meeting a couple of months ago. Maybe a month ago at this point discussing this a little bit Planning department has been busy. We've got a lot of things going on Just to give you a little Taste I sent you an email a couple at the beginning of this month that kind of outlined what we're up to but it seemed like a good time to ask for on-call sir planning services and Can I read you an email that I sent out just so we're all on the same page?

Sure.

The Planning Department acts as a gatekeeper for, so far this year, year to date, approximately $100 million worth of permits, and that's the estimated added improvement to the county, that we have issued in the last six months. We keep track of if a permit application, however small or large, is complete, accurately filled out, if the use is allowed in the zoning district, if it has sign-offs from other departments, if it has worked with outside agencies like NDOT, Nine Star, ACWA, Indiana Department of Homeland Security, to get all of the related approvals if it needs subdivision plat approved or if it needs a visit to the BZA. We also review landscape and lighting plans as well as compliance with any architectural requirements. My department of four, two planners, an office manager, and a code compliance inspector handle this portion of our jobs pretty well because we have to, either due to state law permits, time limit requirements, or out of a desire to provide both good customer service and well-developed projects in the unincorporated county. However, as you know, there are only so many hours in a day, and ensuring thoughtful and timely review of these projects means that time is not also being given to other parts of the job that also demand attention. For example, our application forms and checklists all need updated, not to mention our website. Data centers have taken center stage. My department is coordinating meetings for a subcommittee as well as an ordinance update. We need to update BZA petition policies, which have become more complex over the past few years. More time needs to be dedicated to code compliance efforts. While we have a consultant working on ordinance updates, the UDO, reviewing and coordinating that work is still time consuming, as is checking the work of my department to ensure we are all giving correct information to the public. On top of that, we are one of the fastest growing counties in the state. We have a new interchange coming in 2031. We need to be focusing significant time carrying out our comprehensive plan and other sub area plans, as well as creating new plans that keep abreast of the growth we are experiencing. The ability to call on a senior level planning consultant when needed would be of immense help at certain times. So that's just a brief summary of why I'm making this ask. And I recognize that the county is not wanting to hire or create any new positions. So I guess I'm asking this request for an on-call planner out of respect for that policy, not as a workaround, for sure. I have a proposal, and also in that email I included a really, I think it was a cool spreadsheet, that summarized all of the work we are doing and where it is located. The $70 million worth of non-residential permits, the 34 swimming pools, which I say is a good sign if people are building swimming pools in this county, means people are wanting to spend time and invest in their homes, as well as the 55 new single-family homes spread across the county. So I'm happy to discuss that with you at any time. The proposal I've attached is for HWC engineers. They're also helping us with our UDO project. The planner that they have assigned to us is named Oksana Polhoy, if we choose to go with them. She is a senior level planner with eight years of experience working with municipalities. So she's not entry level. She knows what she's doing. I've done the math on their proposal, which is not to exceed over the course of the contract for $33,000, $32,900. And if we look at her per hour rate of $165 per hour times a max of 16 hours per week, including one day in the office, over the course of four weeks or a month, we get a total of $10,560 per month. That's not to exceed. on what this could cost. And that's my ask. So I'm gonna turn it over to you guys to ask me any questions you might have.

Sounds like the ask for a year could be up to 120 grand, which probably is more than if we just hired another employee, even with benefits.

So I think the goal here was to see if we really did potentially need a full-time employee, or the planning department did, and the way to test the waters was to see how much a part-time person would be used, full well knowing that the council had a kind of a guideline for this year of not hiring any new employee. We see the potential need. Again, you've stated things like we're the fastest or second fastest growing community in the state. The people here to the left of me, commissioners, or right of me, they've been on the planning board. They see how hard things go, things that are changing with House Enrolled Act 1001 that's going to change tomorrow, July 1, that there's a three-day notice, a seven-day notice for certain things to be done in the planning department that if they're not done right, There could be certain ramifications that could cost us in the county. You know, just simple things with plan review. There's also some year-end notice, I think, that was in the same bill that comes around that we have to provide statistics to the state, not just us, but every county, municipality about homes. So it's only getting busier. and uh with just two people really handling that i mean there's a there are other office staff but you've got a planning director and you've got a deputy director there's a need for somebody i just think it's we weren't sure if it was full time yet or not but this ought to give i think kayla the idea of she could come back and say hey we've seen so much activity here we need to consider a full-time person for next year.

Of course, being designated as a consultant as opposed to an employee, can a consultant be paid through funds of economic development that we have?

Only if, I mean, if you're talking about redevelopment, if you're talking about redevelopment, the redevelopment money could, but they would have to keep track of the projects that they're working on to make sure they qualify for that money. So it's not out of the realm of possibilities that could happen.

I was just thinking if we didn't pay a full-time person through general fund means, which would meet the criteria of what we've been trying to not hire, I think the consultant would be the way to go depending on where we can pay them from.

Kayla, do you have this in your 27 budget request?

I've included a line item for contractual services. I think it is not enough to cover this entire contract. I believe it's $10,000. I'd have to double check.

So that's a no, it's not in there?

Correct.

Okay. Kayla, is that a hard $10,000, like definitely every single month, no matter what?

No, it is only as much as we would use.

It depends on what they do. You could spread it over out as long as you want it to be.

At least through the term of the contract, which I believe ends in August, but we could renew it at that point.

Okay. Thank you. Kayla, did you happen to mention, too, all the pre-filing meetings that we're doing, too? I don't know if you mentioned that in your email.

I didn't. We've actually started holding more pre-filing meetings with potential developers in the county, and we've been inviting Janine to attend those, as well as all of the, basically the tech department heads that would be involved in approving a project like that. And once again, it's just, it's an hour or two of staff time every single time we meet with somebody, and it's a lot of projects.

You have a lot of balls in the air.

The thing is, the penalties are, the way I understand it, they're going to be equal to all their fees they pay. That's correct. So, I mean, they'd be doing work for nothing at this point in time if they couldn't get it back in a certain amount of time.

So if we don't go down the employee avenue, then hiring this consultant, what's our choices on where to take the money from?

What is the percentage that's inside the TIF areas?

Of the work that's done? Yeah. Just in the permits we've done year to date, I can tell you $67 million worth of the non-residential permits were in Buck Creek Township. And I can probably give you a number of those permits. That was 20 permits.

And what percent is that? If that is eligible through redevelopment, that portion of it.

And you've got a line item for contractual.

Right. Another question, though, I mean, if there's no money for outside of that, can you... Can we start with that portion of it? I'm sure it's, what, 70% of your activity?

Within TIF districts? Yes, a fair amount.

Yeah, I mean, me personally, probably rather than trying to find some money outside of that, that's probably the place to start. And if it's 60%, 70% of a problem, that's a good way to start. The commissioners have to agree that, you know, we would, you know, end up moving the funds out of that.

I don't know about the other two commissioners, but I'm sure if you just asked, you know, Lisa Lee, she would also say you could use it, just make sure you're tracking it. Right. Maybe she'd give a way to track that.

Well, there's attorney fees and stuff like that that are being spent in that area that the rest of the county doesn't need to absorb, too. You know what I mean? So this would help. That's why I said there's...

Because well it definitely would offset whatever other means or pot you right find those funds in I Do agree with starting as a consultant though because that way we can gauge what we really need actual versus Big picture I agree I think it also allows that if we do see we don't need it.

It's easy to Terminate versus an employee usually once you hire someone it's kind of hard. Yep to scale that back So think about government size and scale.

This is a good way to test the waters without fully committing Yes, well and we need to the commissioners to be aggressive with their projects to cover all the expenses So we could take this up in the budget hearing then when we're

approving the budgets and Are you wanting a decision tonight for the consultant hiring is that the thing is she needs help now? It's not just a presentation. That's an ask yes, and ask well I'll make a motion that we approve the request of the planning director for thirty two thousand nine hundred dollar Maximum to hire a planning consultant to be paid through hopefully Redevelopment at a seventy percent that more or less is Percentage interest and then we will determine the balance will come from another location when we see What we need to do with that From the consultant line item All right, so I have a I have a motion.

I'll second it and I have a second any discussion All right all those in favor. Please say aye aye any opposed same sign motion carries 6-0 by the council I

Thank you. I'll run this through Scott Bankey, get his approval on all the paperwork. Okay. Thank you. I appreciate it.

He should be coming. Should be.

Should be.

All right. Is Alexis Souder here? Okay. If the commissioners are ready, I'd like to proceed with the Ambrose abatement request. Okay.

I've got just a one-pager for you guys, too, if you... I want something to look at while I'm talking.

This is Alexis Souder, S-O-W-D-E-R, is that correct?

Members of Commission and Council for allowing me some time on the agenda. Yes, for the record, Alexis Stauder. I'm a director with KSM Location Advisors. We're affiliated with the accounting firm Kat Seppern-Miller here in Indianapolis. And I am here on behalf of Ambrose Group this afternoon, who is the current landowner of the project and parcel that we're here in front of you this afternoon about. The address for the record is 3826 West 300 North. So this is the northeast quadrant of North 400 West and West 300 North. And so what I've got in front of you, just kind of want to talk through maybe the history of this site, the prior approvals that were on this site, kind of where we sit today, and then ultimately what we're asking for to be able to effectively move forward. This is a site that is not new to you all. This was a site that was previously owned by Exeter, and they had a real estate LLC that owned that. It would have definitely come before county council for approval just because there was an abatement in place on it. I'm not sure if that would have come before county commission or if that was just the RDC because you have an ERA, or sorry, an EDA that was affiliated with that project. But this goes back to kind of fall of 21, January of 22, when think about the declaratory confirmatory abatement process and then the EDA that would have been executed by the county RDC. THAT TIME, THERE WAS ONE BUILDING THAT WAS PROPOSED ON THIS SITE, WHICH WAS A LITTLE OVER HALF A MILLION SQUARE FEET. THE INVESTMENT, YOU CAN SEE THERE, WAS 27.8 MILLION. THE ESTIMATED START AND COMPLETION DATES THAT YOU WOULD HAVE SEEN ON THE SB1 AND ON THE APPLICATIONS, THAT WOULD HAVE RAN FROM SEPTEMBER 1 OF 22 TO DECEMBER YEAR END 2023. AND SO ULTIMATELY, THE PROJECT DIDN'T MOVE FORWARD. So shovel was never put in the ground, construction wasn't commenced, and subsequently Ambrose Property Group has since then acquired this parcel. I've mentioned that there was an economic development agreement that was associated with this abatement back in 21-22. But for those watching at home and listening in the audience, it was never formally terminated, right? But again, a shovel never put in the ground. And so we would maintain that the EDA is not needed or really kind of moot for a couple reasons. Again, the investment window on that SB1 were well outside of that, right? So if Ambrose would put a shovel in the ground, we're outside of that window. And those would not be qualified expenses as recognized by the county. Secondly, I think the purpose of the EDA and why you all did it as a county completely understand it and why it was done at the time. But there have been changes in the property tax landscape without getting into too many weeds there. And that tool really is just no longer needed in light of things like SEA 1. So that said, kind of bring us up to current date and Ambrose Property Group owning this parcel now. They're a developer that I think you all are very familiar with. They've got established roots here in the county. They've got a really, I mean, they've got a proven track record. I've kind of got a bullet point list in front of me. But there are, you know, kind of seven buildings and county, right, that Ambrose has touched in some way or another, whether they've developed it, whether they've purchased it. They've put occupiers in there. And I think it just matters. I wanted to be able to say that just because at the end of the day, they've consistently developed product here in the county. You've got credible end users. And at the end of the day, you've got real assessed value that's coming onto the tax rolls and not to mention employment. So the project that we've got an application in for and that is in front of you is consistent with what Exeter had planned back in 21, 22. Class A industrial warehouse distribution facility. It's the same 40-acre parcel that would have been discussed back in

I can't find it. This isn't legible. I can't tell which road number is what.

Yeah, that's fair. It's a black and white copy.

Where is the building location that you're talking about?

Well, there's no building now. It's just land. So it's the northeast quadrant there. There's a square around it.

What was the building pad? So it's this square right here? It is that square right there, yes. I think the ponds were built or the drainage area. Yeah, there's a pond there and then the rest of it's, yeah. And then there's a pad built but then they never did anything past that.

Okay, I just needed to see where it was. Yeah, I apologize. I think it was in color on the PDF submission, but I printed it off, and apologies. So just kind of back to project scope and what Ambrose has got proposed. Again, very consistent with the 21-22 project. You know, Class A building. Right now, they're in some due diligence and lease negotiations, so... The way we've applied, it's approximately a 250,000 square foot facility expandable to that half million square foot that, again, consistent with the Exeter project. So at the end of the day, you guys have had so much incredible development out here. I think you understand the need for having a property tax abatement put in place to be able to take that product to market and effectively expand market it to end users. It really does become just a critical component of being able to be competitive in the market.

Can I ask a question? Has Ambrose done their due diligence on our area? Do they know we have empty buildings and already multiple buildings under tax abatement haven't been built yet?

I absolutely understand. I would say that the answer is yes. I think that if the developers don't develop these buildings to sit vacant, I think that based on the work that we do on their behalf and for other developers in this market too, I think we are probably on an upswing again of developers. There's been absorption.

It's kind of strange to me, someone that's been 20, twenty plus million dollars when there's no market we can't get Texas Roadhouse to come to Greenfield because we're not big enough and so and we have a market so I mean how in the world you can spend twenty twenty total twenty eight million dollars and and if there was a market that strong we wouldn't have all these empty buildings and all these already tax abated sites

is probably something to be said for the end user itself. This particular, I mean, this is a smaller, this is a smaller size. It's not a million square foot spec. I do, I understand what you're saying. A lot of times the end user, and we work with, we work with occupiers in this space too. You know, thinking about one right now who's looking for 500,000 square feet because of the space requirements. Say that again?

Isn't the loft building empty now?

I can't say that off the top of my head.

Alexis, I thought in reading this that you were not going to build a building until you had a customer for it.

They would like to put a shovel in the ground with an occupier in place. But if that doesn't come to fruition, they definitely would like to be able to build it, get things up and out of the ground so that speed becomes speed is currency and so to the extent that they can be then developing to be able to get an occupier and that's that is what they would like to do okay so i know we can't i i don't think the intent here this evening is to take any action i know i'm just for information only on the agenda um but ultimately the ask is to be able to With the EDA not needed anymore, with us being well outside the investment window of the abatement that was originally put in place, to almost kind of start with a clean slate, really bring this project to you with a new lens, not have an EDA as a component of it, request support in terms of a 10-year traditional schedule, not the beefed-up abatement schedule. That's the intent, and that's the asks. So again, I realize we might not be taking any action, but definitely appreciate the opportunity for the conversation.

Being on the HGDC that we've had a lot of people looking for smaller buildings than the ones that we have. Isn't that what you're looking at here is a smaller building?

Yes. I mean, I think they have got an end user that, I mean, they're still in diligence and negotiations. So with an end user, they, you know, they would build right now at that 250 or so having the ability to expand. But with that, if that, I mean, things happen and if that doesn't come to fruition.

Would you be building it for a specific customer?

They would at that 250. If that doesn't happen, then they would build the size that is closer to that 500,000 square feet.

You're not going to build it unless you have a customer.

Right, yeah, yeah. I mean, I thought, yeah, we applied with, you know, I mean, on the SB1, you know, zero jobs and zero dollars in wages just because there's not an end user that we can come to you today and say, yep, they've signed a lease and are ready to go.

Does any council members have questions or any commissioners have questions?

I think the only other question I have is just from your perspective other than a warehouse What would fit in the market and in that spot because from a farmer perspective it can't be farmed anymore? You know it's already been dug and there's a pond and it's basically a weed field. So it's almost a detriment to the surrounding farms. So I'm kind of in a hard spot of we can't really keep it agricultural, but I would maybe like to see something different or something. I just didn't know. I'm not a developer, so I don't know what are some other options.

Yeah, and I mean, right, and I'm not a broker either, but we do work in, I mean, we're corporate site selectors, right? And I would say that for this size product, I think it's, I think it's, you could speculate that you're going to get a more advanced industry in there that's a little more technical in nature where it's not just mass business. it's not a mass distribution product. Like, it's just based on the square footage alone. So, which, you know, in theory should yield maybe not as many jobs, but definitely higher paying jobs. I can't, I just... I can't guarantee that, right? So that's what we're looking at here.

Yeah, I just wanted to open that. For those that haven't been by the site or don't know, it probably can't be agricultural anymore. So we do have to find a fit for it or it's going to continue to be a burden on neighboring farms because of the weed seed that's spreading. So we've got to try to find a compromise here. Yep, yep.

Well, I think my biggest concern is the fact that we already have several spec buildings that are empty. Plus, you know, it just says here in their own words that despite being approved before, it's still undeveloped. And I'm just not so sure if you haven't been able to do it now, are you going to be able to do it soon? That's a big concern.

Well, I can't speak on behalf of Exeter. I don't know why it didn't get fully developed. I will say it would remain undeveloped because they're going to have a real hard time taking that to market without a real abatement in place.

I appreciate your honesty when you said that if the smaller one doesn't set or lease whatever it is you do, that you will make a bigger one like a big spec building that we already have several. So I appreciate that, but I don't think it's in your favor a whole lot.

Yeah, I mean, I think if the sentiment is we're not awarding abatement, if we're not approving abatements for spec in the county, then I think we just probably need to know that honestly as a community because that changes things from a market competitiveness standpoint.

I would say for me, I mean, I ran on no more tax payments for speculative warehouses four years ago. I can tell you, we still have six empty buildings. I think once those six empty buildings are gone, then it becomes more interesting to start talking about spec buildings again. Until then, I don't see us approving it. For me, I don't understand why you don't just come forward and say, okay, we have our tenant, now we want our abatement, and this tenant will come if we do the abatement. Why can you educate us on why you bring it now versus later when you have somebody ready to go?

Yeah, just from being in a position of representing companies, it just presents an element of risk. It creates an issue of timing. And if you've got to incorporate an incentives approval process that may or may not go in favor of an end user occupier, there are plenty of other sites, even in central Indiana, that have got abatements in place that they'll go there before they would go some, you know, they would go somewhere else where you've got, I mean, and that risk concern.

Is there any more questions? I hear any more since it's information only. I thank you for your time, Alexis. Thank you very much.

I appreciate it.

All right. The next item on our agenda is not till 6 p.m. So I'll turn it back over to you.

Okay.

Auditor business Is that I would make a motion that we sign off on the covered bridge certification, which is Annual by I see code 8-14-1-10 second there's a motion a second to sign off on the covered bridge certification All those in favor say aye motion carries aye Anything else? Okay. Travel request.

We have a travel request from Tim Rutherford at NASA. He is going to CADCA mid-year travel conference, travel July 11th through the 17th. The alcohol policy conference travel dates September 28th through October 2nd. And nationally emerging drug trends travel November 10th through the 14th. All conference and travel costs are covered by the grant. There will be no cost charged to the county for any of these conferences. The only cost to the county is Tim's normal salary.

Second. We have a motion and a second on the approval of Tim Rutherford. doing his training, doing his travel request. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Motion carries.

We have another travel request for our Human Resources Director to attend the National ADA Training Conference in July. I believe that is in Phoenix, Arizona. And the amount not to exceed, 800 for airfare, Uber, Lyft, or taxi, 140, lodging, 1,040, meals, 260, and conference fees are 900. Second.

We have a motion and a second on the floor to approve Andrea McLaughlin. You've been human resources to travel to attend national ad a training conference all those in favor say aye aye motion carries You all see

Are we just affirming?

Yeah, you're just ratifying it. Okay.

Okay.

Make a motion to, for the record, that we are canceling the cancellation for Paylocity.

And I've already signed it.

So we're canceling the cancellation or we're ratifying the cancellation? Is that what we're going to do? We're ratifying the cancellation, yes. No. Second.

We're ratifying the cancellation is what we're doing.

Exactly.

Okay, motion is second on the floor to ratify the cancellation for pay loss. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Motion carries.

No. No, I cannot. We have Garmong invoice, motion to pay out of fund 1233, and that's for the sheriff's supplemental building, I believe.

1233.

For the sheriff's project in Garmong, we've made all those motions to Garmong, so we just... Okay.

I make a motion that we pay our invoices on the sheriff's building out of fund 1233 directly to Garmon.

Second.

The motion is second to authorize the payment of Garmon invoices. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Motion carries. And the weed department, he has made a request to have his truck Stenciled labeled that way people know that he is with the county and I just need a motion to do that As long as it looks like every other yeah, yeah, so I'll get with the sheriff and see if we can get it all taken care of Okay, I make a motion that we approve the weed department identified identification of truck decal as long as it matches the other county Vehicles second have a motion a second to authorize the weed department in an identification of truck decal to match all other Vehicles all those in favor say aye We'll move to council action items first on ours is etiquette courthouse windows invoice I

Is it your packet for $4,000 anything from the auditor? Oh

Yeah, right now it's $4,000.

It says the total fee is $22,000, I think.

No, this is just for project administration, which is $21,500. Okay. Okay.

When we close on that bond, we may receive a few other bills. Yeah. To know where we want that paid for.

What's the timeline on the bond closing and payout?

The way I understand it, it should be August or October. It's in the final stages.

In fall, sometime in the fall.

Yeah, right. But it's like $1.6 million total, so we'll be able to just do little things until then, right?

Yeah, I mean, right now, all they're doing right now, I met with them here a while back, and I gave everybody a timeline the last time we were together. They probably won't start construction until spring.

Oh, okay. All right. Well, I move we pay it out of food and beverage and be reimbursed when the time comes.

I'll second it.

All right, I have a motion and a second to pay the $4,000 out of food and beverage. Any discussion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed, same sign. Motion carries 6-0. All right, next up. Resolution. Accept $75,000 in funds from Nine Star. I believe this is also in your packet. It requires our signature. We'll need a resolution number on this.

2026-6-3.

2026-6-3.

Three.

Three, got it. It's the declaration of official intent to accept 75,000 new funds from nine started to be posited in the Hancock County General Fund and ultimately in a special sewer fund.

I move.

Isn't it going in general in the meantime?

We accept resolution 2026-6-3.

Second. All right, I have a motion and a second to accept resolution 2026-6-3 as presented. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed, same sign. Motion carries 6-0.

First is Shelby, second is Smith. Mr. President, just a quick thought on that. Just to confirm, I know the Hancock County Sewer and Water District met, wasn't it last week? Yep. And Mr. Strahl, who's the attorney for that entity, said that they were going to do a resolution from that standpoint, but it should be deposited with the Sewer and Water District. I don't know, so I don't know what that discussion was.

They said it would be set up by the RDC. It'd be the same type of setup.

I just want to make sure it didn't conflict with what I had drafted here and that everybody had.

We're going to wait on that particular resolution until we're a little bit further along.

Okay.

I had said it to him too, so all right.

We're all good? All right. Thank you. Action item number three, salary ordinance behavioral health. Once again, this is in the packet, and we'll have an ordinance number on this.

Okay, that is going to be 2026-6H.

I'm sorry, 6-8? H. H. Sorry, H. All right. Any discussion on this ordinance?

We've already approved it, haven't we?

I move we approve the ordinance 2026-6H to amend the salary ordinance for the behavior.

I'll second it.

All right, I have a motion and a second to approve the ordinance number 2026-6H. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed, same sign. Motion carries 6-0.

Oh, it's on here. It says it's adopted June 30th, so it takes effect.

June 21st. Okay. I love that.

Oh, there we go. Section 2. Yep. Gotcha. All right. It is now 542. If it's good with the commissioners, we can move to, since Marcia Moore is here, we can move to her sworn statement and ordinance. All right. Marcia? Marcia?

Thank you. Good evening. This is the first time I've had to approach both of you at the same time. In any event, Typical in every year, I come before the County Council to let them know and provide my sworn statement of what amount of general fund activity can be used out of the Recorder's Perpetuation Fund. As you are all aware, Recorder's Perpetuation Fund is a non-appropriated fund that is used for the purposes of the recording fees keeping the documents for our deeds, mortgages, and so forth. However, Indiana code does allow providing the recorder provides a sworn statement to the council to let them know that some money can be used for general fund purposes, which is what this sworn statement states today. I am thankful that the commissioners are here because my sworn statement again will be $300,000. That is the maximum I'm able to use for general fund purposes and still be able to perpetuate my file and record keeping. Excuse me. The problem with this is going to be the insurance for employees. Currently everything comes out of the Recorder's budget as far as all the benefits for the employees. That is not sustainable for our fund. Greg Geritas did a presentation not too long ago to the Recorder's Association and he did our county specifically as an example and the Recorder's Perpetuation Fund cannot sustain and be able to do our job and do benefits. The biggest benefit that we're having an issue with is the insurance. So when I present my budget next week to council, it will have the maximum, and I apologize I forgot to grab that amount, but it'll be the same amount of money that I had this year for insurance is going to have that same. The budget literally looks about the same other than salaries. So with that, the state law then requires that the county council adopt an ordinance. Normally I have never prepared a separate ordinance, but State Board of Accounts had suggested this year at Recorder's Conference that we go ahead and draft an ordinance, which I did. I believe it was included in your packets that you received and the original Mr. Waldridge has. It is basically stating that I have presented you the money that I can use, the $300,000, and that you guys are accepting that that's what I'm going to be able to spend.

Money is set aside then to run the office that's outside the perpetuation. outside the, what do you call this?

The $300,000? $300,000. That $300,000 basically includes everything. It already has like my salaries built in, it has PERF built in, it has office supplies built in.

But is there a separate

There is a separate fund, $200,000, that is in reserve in case the economy tanks and we don't continue to grow like we are. And you can't pay the insurance out of the... No, because I have to swear that my... With this sworn statement, Indiana law says that I have to swear that my... records are completely without any kind of need. And I can't testify to that above that 300,000 because, for example, we still have original books that even though they've been digitized as far as what we have out in the cloud, they've never been what's my word, sorry, they haven't been redone, like as far as the deacified and things like that. Not to mention, we also have to testify that all of our equipment software is up to date. Well, the company that we currently have with our company is CSI, and if for some reason that company who's owned by an individual If he was to go out of business, then we would have to maybe shift and you'd have that cost of moving your document warehousing to like another company, which is why we keep that $200,000 separate is just in case we have some kind of an emergency that we're not prepared for.

How much money are you talking about needing to augment the $300,000 to pay for these benefits that you're not?

I think the amount last year was about $12,000. I don't know the final amount for this year of what that insurance was because I just listed it as the same as last year. But I would say it went up like another 10%, didn't it? 9%. So it's still going to be short. But in all reality, employees... are the employees of the commissioners and in a sense in most counties in most worlds the commissioners would have those benefits and so forth kind of out of the general fund budget and by the fact that the recorder's office is even able to give Some counties just can't do that. So it's really a blessing that we do have and have had a good amount of growth in our county as far as having that money, being able to pay for our employees and so forth.

So Marcia, have you reflected that in your 27 budget?

I have. Next week when I come to council, it will indicate that.

And, of course, you get paid out of general fund, correct?

I am the only one that gets paid out of general fund. Sorry about that.

I didn't have my numbers with me. I've not dealt with your office and seen the nuts and bolts of where your budgets pay for or don't pay for. So I was just curious.

Yeah. Like I said, I know when the former recorder... I'm going to have to say this nicely. When the former recorder, she wasn't able to sign the sworn statement because she wasn't able to say that her records were completely up to date and perfected because of the fact they were not yet digitized. We at least were able, by your blessing, we've all been able to digitize those. You guys helped me do that a couple years ago with that huge project. But even with that, The reason we keep that money in reserve is just to prevent a catastrophe, or if the county were to stop growing, then we would still have employees and benefits and so forth that we don't necessarily want to have to lay off, because three employees is kind of a pretty minimum.

That hurt your feelings, wasn't it, yeah?

Well, we kind of get rainy day funds on top of rainy day funds, too, so...

We have a rainy day fund in case trick-or-licking the sky falls.

Oh, well, that's in a sense, I guess, what you could consider that $200,000. But it is like if equipment fails, if I have to change software companies, that kind of thing. So that's what I'm asking is for the council to pass this ordinance to accept my sworn. You're basically accepting my sworn statement at this point, which is what the ordinance does.

Ordinance number? It's ordinance number 2026-6I. If you're ready and have no other further discussion, I'll accept the motion. I move we accept it.

Second.

All right, I have a motion and a second to accept the ordinance number 2026-6i as presented by Ms. Moore. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed, same sign. Motion carries. Thank you all.

Something to sign. Thanks, Marcia. And yeah, you've got this signature for me.

Yep. All right. We have about nine minutes until the public hearing. Go for it.

I think we're done.

I know, you guys are done. Do you guys want to do the Loth property? Chop, chop. Okay, so just to let the public know, the public hearing may be delayed a little bit, which is acceptable as it has to be after 6 p.m. We will go ahead of the agenda and go to the Loth property group for 70 Connect 3 CF1 noncompliance in a discussion by us. For those on the council, the CEO of Loth Property Group had called me and contacted me, and they needed it done before August because of what they're going to discuss today, which is a potential sale of the building. All right, you can go ahead.

Thank you. I'm Adam Browder from Loth. As the president said, we have an interested party for this sale. We received the CF1 notice and going through that process, we need to have this discussion before the buyer would be willing to close on the property. So we asked to be here tonight. So thank you for the opportunity to discuss. As you all know, we developed the property and finished in late 2022. We have been trying. Ad nauseum to lease the building for the prior our past three years here. We've had somewhere upwards of 35 proposals sent out Most recently we had the building under contract to Amazon for almost four months they passed about three weeks ago on the purchase of the building and A new buyer has stepped in and offered to purchase the building from us and do so in very short order, which is why I made the phone call to President Wooldridge and why we're here today to discuss the noncompliance. But our issue has been leasing, simply put. Happy to answer any questions.

What can you tell us about the new buyer? Are they going to bring...

It's a very well capitalized group out of Atlanta. They have a couple users already interested that they are talking to to lease the building. I will tell you, I heard your earlier discussion, the industrial market and activity in the market has picked up significantly. I think you will probably find over the next three to five months that many of the buildings you referenced as empty will have leases signed. There's pending leases for multiple of those buildings, we've been told. Unfortunately for us our equity partner is Ready to be done with the investment, and so we had to find someone to purchase the building Which we've done and they will look to the lease it in very short order I Correct you don't have any outstanding obligations to the county I Don't believe so Scott

Mr. Binky, we do have economic development payments tied to this abatement, but that's the only obligation. There's also the loan agreement that was tied to the RDC forgivable loan portion, and so we will be reaching out to you to ask for that loan portion to be terminated, since it has been paid in full through property taxes and economic development payments, along with an estoppel certificate like we did earlier this year. So I'll

I was getting because I know we talked and that was on my radar. So you're gonna do that. What's your closing day?

Late July I Want to just point out for the council members and my job background before this Billings with abatements in my office and abatements can be pulled and reinstated the non-compliancy is corrected. So it could be you're in year six and it's been determined to be non-compliant and so the abatement is removed for that year. Then the next year things change and the compliancy is taken care of. The abatement would kick in again for the duration of the time. You would lose that one year for that non-compliant. You, whoever, would lose that one year because of the non-compliancy but it doesn't stop the abatement from continuing again if it's found to be compliant at that particular date. And I just wonder if I didn't know that going forward on this and any.

It sounds, I understand. It sounds like the issue here, though, is the abatement continuing probably hinges, the sale hinges on the abatement continuing. That's correct. And that's why I brought it forward.

Abatement statutes also have a consideration for factors beyond the control of the property owner. And so here we would say that the market, you know, is dictating the terms on what tenants want. And it's not something that we can control. As Adam mentioned, they've had 35 proposals. And so they're actively trying to lease the facility, but it's the market that's.

I think my point was that going forward with this new tenant, will they be able to sustain the obligations that were presented in the original CF-1 and SB-1 Complete the rest of the abatement or is that not going to be something that they're going to feel obligated to do?

Which is going to bring it back to the council again next year now the buyers well aware of the obligations They've been presented with all the documents to be clear the buyer is an investor not a user But they have users that they are tied to that they are looking to lease the building to And continue with the abatement Yes, it's to remain competitive in the marketplace it's fortunately important.

I think it's a positive step forward for that structure right now for us. So I would make a motion that we deem the compliance.

Second, if we need to do that. I thought we did that.

No, this is one that was deemed non-compliant at last meeting. Okay. And I had to speed it up because of the situation. The rest of them are going to be done in a minute. You have the paperwork with you today.

We'll have to come back and sign it another day. You do? Okay.

All right. I have a motion and a second that the CF1 is compliant. Okay. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All those opposed, same sign. Aye.

No.

Okay. Motion carries 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 to 1. Thank you. Thank you so much. Thanks for coming in.

You know, my concern on that was I was in real estate at one time, so was Deb, and we both know up until the very last minute when the papers are signed, any deal can fall through until they do that.

I saw on the paper...

I just want to make sure that the buyer knows they still have obligations to that schedule.

Well, the abatement runs with the building, correct?

Yes, but the abatement runs with the CF1 and the SB1, too. They can be noncompliant like these guys. We can't trust anything.

Does the commissioners have anything to say we have two minutes I got it You know Do you want us to adjourn Because we're done yeah, we said we have what we have left is the public hearing and the public comment I

Okay.

The public hearing has got to start at 6 o'clock. We could adjourn our meeting and you guys could carry on with your council meeting. Go ahead. I know that hurts your feelings, Ken.

Motion to adjourn the commissioner's meeting.

I'm getting kind of hungry myself. We have a motion and a second on the floor for adjournment. All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Have a great Fourth of July, everyone.

You don't have to leave.

You know, the public might want to have a comment for you guys.

By July 1.

Did you? My clock says two seconds.

I was wondering if you did.

Did you guys call for a recess?

No, we got one minute. You did respond to it. Please respond to it. Let her know.

She just sent out an email yesterday. So, I...

All right, I have six o'clock on the clock on the clock behind on the wall I'm now going to start the public hearing for the firming resolution for scales for success

I open the public hearing. Anyone can come forward to discuss whether it be against it, for it, neither, both. Anything to do with this?

Thank you. State your name. My name is Paul Overhauser. I come before you as just a citizen and concerned taxpayer of Hancock County. I reviewed the request by Scales of Success. They sound, and I also attended last month's council hearing when they were discussed. It sounds like a very desirable business. I would be delighted to see them come to Hancock County and start business. That being said, I oppose the tax abatement request because it would cause the county to incur a very significant loss, which by my calculation would be about $560,000 over the course of the next 10 years if the full 10-year abatement is granted. In looking at the application that they submitted, they confirmed that they would not be bringing any incentives to the county. uh... if you look at the amount of the abatement it's not stated in the application that we can sort of estimate what it might turn out to be based on current values and current tax rates They say that the cost of the improvements they propose would be $5.2 million. It would be in Buck Creek Township, which presently has a tax rate of 2.0114%, which means that in the first year, their estimated tax, just on the improvement, not on the underlying ground, would be $104,592. Over the course of 10 years, if the abatement is put in place, the abatement would increase by 10% per year and the cumulative total of the abatements would amount to $575,000 and change. So that's a rather significant amount of money that the county would not receive if the abatement is put in place. Now, if we contrast that to what benefits this company might bring to the county, they report in their application that they anticipate hiring five new employees who would be paid a rate of $26 an hour, and they estimate that 30% of their employees would reside in Hancock County. From that, we can deduce that there would be about one and a half employees that would actually be paying income taxes. And if you do the math, that means they would receive set earnings of those two, or the one and a half employees would get earnings of about $81,000 per year. Hancock County's income tax rate is 1.94%. So Hancock County would receive their share of local income tax of about $14,000 per year. As a taxpayer, I don't think it makes any sense at all for Hancock County to grant a tax abatement for $575,000 if the tit-for-tat is going to be receiving income taxes of about $1,476 annually. It just doesn't make sense. This company also reports that it is in the mail processing and servicing business. I think that is a service activity. I'm not quite sure of that, but it doesn't sound like they are a business that would be charging their customers sales tax. So there would not be any sales tax revenue coming to the county as a result. So this would be a very significant money loss for the company to grant them an abatement, notwithstanding the fact that I think they would be an outstanding business and I'd be delighted to see them. But for those reasons, I would oppose granting them a tax abatement. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else? Is the public hearing still open? Please move forward. Leah. I might want to move the microphone down and state your name.

I told you I'm going to bring my soapbox. Hi, I'm Leah Letterman, and I know that I'm always up here fussing about things, so I wanted to be sure to come up and express my gratitude and excitement about the Scales Project. I've been nodding along with every point made here in discussion while they've been presenting. I appreciate your diligence weighing all of this, and I don't know enough to know that all abatements are bad. And Mr. Overhauser, I'm sorry if I'm disagreeing with you, but I don't speak for Hunter's Chase, but I've seen what things have been developed around there and proposed around there. I frankly think that this is a great outcome for them. And I want to say, you know, hopefully welcome to Buck Creek and Hancock County. So if there's me in favor of something, but regarding... Sorry, guys, I don't mean to be this way.

We knew we'd get you eventually. We knew we'd get you eventually.

There's more than you know. I guess I should speak up in support more. I'm sorry. But here we go. Regarding Ambrose's informational talk, frankly, I have trust issues. I've seen developers, even on the agenda today, that have not kept to their commitments that they made to the county. They're being given second and third chances. In my opinion, Louth just walked out with not even a slap on their hand.

Leah, I'm going to stop you right here. All right. We're only on Scales of Success. We'll have a little bit of a moment for the public comment later. Oh. So I just want to do Scales of Success.

Oh, I'm so sorry. That's all right. Forgive me. I didn't catch that part.

And it sounds like you're in support of it. Okay, okay, okay.

Well, I'm like, I got more to say to you guys. They left.

It doesn't matter.

They winked at each other on the way out.

Yeah, yeah, I know. Anybody else? Okay, no problem. Anybody else on the scales for success abatement request? And yes, you can come forward, Councillor, Mr. House.

I will be brief.

Well, first of all, I want to express my thanks to the council in making the scheduling work on this project. As I have said in our prior presentation, this was an issue where the cart got before the horse. uh... the purchase of the real estate was closed completely and i in fact represented the seller and i thought wow what a clean deal we don't have a hundred and eighty days due diligence period or anything like that and later on i found out why because unfortunately ms scales had been advised well you can see the tax abatement later not generally the way it works but the tax abatement is critically important to the success of this project and i do want to thank ms letterman I believe that many of my projects refreshing to see someone who has an open mind. This is a good project. 30% occupancy by persons who live in the county is not bad. And in fact, we tried to be very conservative in our presentation. We believe that more persons may take up residence in Hancock County or be hired from Hancock County because one of the facilities that will be consolidated into this site is located on the west side of Indianapolis. Some people may not want to make that trip. As to sales tax, A point raised by Mr., is it Oberhauser, I believe? Yeah, it is. There isn't any sales tax on the services, but a big component of their business and growing is printing and products that are mailed. Sales tax is imposed on those products.

Now, I didn't run the numbers on this.

I've been through this many times. And when I say I didn't run the numbers, that doesn't mean I'm not paying attention to the ball here. But what it does mean is this. Currently, you have land that is assessed at an agricultural assessment rate.

No, they're assessed right now as usable undeveloped. I looked it up. It's being assessed as usable undeveloped right now.

Okay.

It's not ag, which is a higher rate. It's a little higher. It's $60,000 an acre as opposed to... What, $2,000 an acre or something for ag?

But in any event, one thing that's very obvious to me in looking at tax abatements is that because of the structure of tax in Indiana, 1%, 2%, 3%, even with the abatement, the burn-off over years 1 through 10, and frankly about year 3 is when it really kicks in, you are capturing much greater tax revenue then you would capture, even under an assessment that recognizes less than an agricultural value for the property. As I've said many times in these meetings, we all want to promote residencies and developments to a reasonable degree in terms of homes and so on, but that development puts a great burden on other services within the county, schools, roads, first responders, et cetera. Here we have a very clean business Most of their paper product and so on is recycled. It's not heavy traffic. It's not going to require significant infrastructure improvements. Utilities are already there. I'm firmly convinced that this is a project that really speaks for itself. It's a positive to the county. But the abatement is really necessary for a small business, comparatively so, to strap on a multi-million dollar investment in construction. I have looked at their benefits. They're good. They have an incredible bonus program for their employees that's across the board. And speaking with Ms. Scales significantly from time to time, there's a real ethic and ethos or whatever you want to call it. Everybody cares about their business if they own one, but some people care a lot more than others. Ms. Scales clearly falls into the latter category.

I appreciate this type of project. It shows that... We are trying to work with the smaller businesses that were not just out there looking for big fish that typically come with a lot more strings that may or may not come to fruition. I do want to ask the application that I have is from the not most current application and on this application it shows that you're asking for personal and real.

We are not making a personal.

So it's just real.

After the first meeting we concluded that was DOA. So it's a fairly real property abatement.

Other than that there's nothing else that would have changed from the previous abatement application.

We had a correction provided by Ms. Lauder on the parcel number. It's a little confusing up there because the larger tract was split three ways. We don't even have a street address yet.

Yeah, we're still doing a public hearing.

I'm just making my pitch.

I understand. You may be overrunning the...

It's like when the judge clicks his pen.

In any event, I don't have anything further to offer in support of the application. As I said, it speaks for itself. It's an owner-occupied business. I respect building or anything like that. If you have any questions for Ms. Scales.

Coming back.

Yes, thank you.

All right, anybody else in the audience that has anything to say, come on forward, please. And please limit the comments to Scales' success.

Thanks. Julie Sedam, Hancock County, Buck Creek Township. I'm just opposed to abatements in general. I understand and I appreciate Scales for Success and what they're going to be doing. I just think that this is not the time to be granting abatements when we are so, we're struggling so much already. And especially when I also can't help but say it's hard for me to understand as a person who, if I was behind on something or if I didn't make my obligation, every single month I would be required to step up and explain. In my past occupation, for example, I couldn't get a project by without coming in and justifying and explaining and getting approval for being behind. on anything. And when I look at our struggles with staffing, how can we follow up and keep up with CF1 promises and make sure that we call these people to the table to say, this is what you promised, this is where you are, how are you going to make amends or get it right? And if we can't do that for something that's four years old, why would we want to continue to grant more? I know, I'm just talking in general. Like in general, if we had another one just a little while ago, and I know my comment is just based on the fact that if it takes us so many years just to follow up on a CF1, why would we want to grant more unless we can make sure that we have the manpower to follow up and make sure people stay in compliance? And if they don't stay in compliance, do we have some type of a structure in place that will say, fine, then post a bond and we take a little bit of it? So we get our money, that's all. Thank you for listening.

Okay, no problem. Thank you.

Anyone else on the public hearing? All right, I will close the public hearing and then open discussion for the council members.

I asked my question in the public part, which I wanted to verify on the personal property, and you've already answered that. So I'm good, I think, with questions.

My only comment is that, you know, the premise that we would lose all this money, that would only be if they would go ahead and build here without an abatement. And like you said, a small business can't hardly do it without abatement. So I don't think there is really a financial loss here.

There because I don't think they would build here and they said no and that's why I voted no first times I thought maybe in this and I know because I've been in the attorneys shoes I've done what he does is doing and So I was more like okay if I can do get away with three years or five years So for me I would that was my preference all along was a shorter amount of time And that's just because I know how the process is done Do ever we need oh yes, we need a resolution number 2026-6-4.

I move we accept resolution number 2026-6-4. Okay.

I have a motion and a second to approve the resolution confirming resolution number 2021-97, determine that the qualifications for an economic revitalization area have been met, resolution number 2026-6-4. That's what it says.

I think Ryan had it.

We're on there, but that's not correct. The 2026-64 is the correct one.

I submitted a revised confirming resolution of Ms. Byerly this afternoon, so... Mary brought it to my attention, we have the wrong number at the top as well.

All right, I will now delete... I will now delete the first line, resolution confirming resolution 2021, okay.

The parcel number is incorrect. The parcel number is correct on the updated confirming resolution. Because the one I have ends in 06 and it should be 006. And you've got that, okay.

Did you read the parcel number?

The parcel number I have is 30-05-14-700-026.000-06.

It should be 006, yeah.

Okay, do we have a version that we'll be signing that has... Could I have the version? Could I have the version we're going to sign?

Mary's got it. Brian, Mary's got it.

All right, now I will read the parcel number. It is 30-05-14-700-026.000-006.

They should always have 18 numbers.

All right. All right. I have a motion by Mr. Shelby, a second by Mr. Fisk for the resolution confirming resolution number 2026-6-4, determining that the qualifications for an economic realization area have been met. Any discussion by the council? All right. All those in favor, please state aye. Aye. Any opposed, same sign. Motion carries.

Good luck.

Thank you very much. All right, let me sign this real quick. We are now going to have the public comment open. After all form of business is concluded, which has happened, is there anyone that wants to make a public comment about anything for the council or if there's any commissioners? The commissioner's gone.

The commissioner's left.

Leah, did you want to say something? No, come on forward.

It's time for dinner.

Let me get this thing started to start signing while she's...

I was talking about Ambrose, talking about the slaps on the hand when it's not even a slap on the hand when they don't meet their CF1s or their commitments. So I have trust issues and I've been just sitting here listening to your discussions over the last few years and that's what I'm basing this on. I've heard you express concern about schools, school buses, general traffic, the increase of emergency calls in the area. Buck Creek was just granted an MOU, but another warehouse, plus Amazon, plus Amplify Hancock, which I love, plus other potential looming projects we don't know anything about. All of these things add to potential issues in that area. And then even if this building that Ambrose has is finally leased, built first, does there need to be more over there? Even they don't know what to expect. It's spec. So we'd be left holding another draw for wild card. And then when the developer doesn't deliver, I see the county get nervous about lawsuits and nervous to do anything. I've seen it again and again. If this does go through, I just hope that there is some close oversight about the type and size of building they construct. They said they could do the small one. They said they could do the big one. I just hope that it's clear what they're doing and the county is aware of what's happening over there. And I hope that there is a strict oversight of their commitment to the SB1s and filing of CF1s. Thank you for your time.

Oh, no problem. Thanks. Anyone else have public comment? I just want to urge all council, commission, everybody in the public, tomorrow there's a big, I think it's tomorrow, it's a big meeting for the Citizens Data Center Committee.

We have a couple of really good speakers coming. Dr. Gallardo from Purdue, I heard him last week. And then I can think of the gentleman's name from Baker Tilly. So we'll have some discussion in the beginning, then a couple of good speakers. So either attend or it'll be online as well.

I listened to the one that you're talking about last week, and it was very informative. When is it?

Tomorrow night, 5.30 to 7.30.

Yeah, it's here, and it's available on YouTube if you can't make it, just like this is. Because I know there's some major data center projects in the works, which will come probably before that committee first, possibly, before it ever comes to council or commissioners.

It's meeting number three, so if you... You want to watch the first two?

Yeah, and then our budget meeting is July.

We don't have a budget meeting next month.

No, we have a meeting July 8th for the budget all day. By the way, it's 8 a.m. It is 8 a.m. It's 8 a.m., Clark. I know you've not done that before. We move it to 8.

I'll be here at 4.30 if you want me to. I always send it to him in red on the agenda. We've all messed up.

What day is it?

Wednesday, July 8th.

I move we adjourn.

Next Monday. We have a motion to adjourn and a second. All those in favor say aye. Aye.