Hancock County Council Budget, Efficiency and Revenue Committee and Council - Regular Meeting

Oh, okay. Those are just considerations that I think that Yeah, you can't do that. Balances. Do we need it? Got them. That's not fun balances. Okay, we can forgive it. I did. I put I took it on privacy. Did you hit my should? Did you turn on the record? Am I recorded yet? No. Is it on? Yes, sir. Oh, get started now. We we we want to uh welcome uh Janine today to Thank you for coming, Janine.

Thank you, Janine. It's been a long time. Thank you for saving me a seat. How was your last time, Jim? So, let's go through the fund balances and as we go through, chime in, questions, comments, whatever. County general looks pretty good. Economic Development, the special purpose, that's the library,

community corrections, capital, bridge, down to the health, then the health first and let public safety and rainy day. All looks good. H2 down in the middle. Uh, statewide E911 is continuing to go down. Then we've got the three lits. Um, again with the lit PAP uh is um going down page three uh animal control violations. We had a we had a little income there. Then the allocation fund, the 4616, that's the main fund, the the main tiff. Then the geo bond uh proceeds the 2021 geo bond. And then the uh Mount Comfort West and the Hancock County TIFF number one, 22 geo bond for E911. And then the 22 geo bond for us have still a lot of balances shown in them, but I'm told they're spent. 23 bond. Then the Hancock County uh tiff number two. And then 4700 is the the new self insurance. That's the liability insurance line. And then 4908 is the EDA payments. Page four, U the two health claims funds 5901 5902.

And that would be the total amount available now, right? We're we're doing a total. So if you look at that, it's going to be looks like touch and go that we'll have enough to finish out. Then the last one, 7201's food and beverage. Page five are grants. Didn't see anything unusual there unless somebody does. And page six, same thing. Grants and we've got a a total ending balance of cash of 105 million bucks. Any comments or questions? If you're going to if you're going to say how much money we have at the total ending amount, you got to say how much money we've spent. Spent 214 million.

Okay. Good. Good. Yes. So, we spent twice as much what we have left already. I want to ask Janine something about the liability insurance. I know probably what the answer is, but um is that the kind of fund since it's different than some of our other funds maybe, is that the kind of fund that the money will roll over and we can add to it? Good. It's non-reverting. Okay. Yeah. And between the sheriff and I, we got a pretty good handle on watching our claims. And as you can see, we've only year to date since March 11th spent out of that line 11,000 and change. So, It was.

And then next year we'll have another fund in there, the senior services fund. I believe now we're taking that out of food and beverage, but it will have its own fund next year. Have Have we gotten in since the last uh month any input? Okay. I did check. They've not gotten their their funding. Pardon me. They've not gotten their federal funding. Yeah, I was talking to Miam and she said that they're saying that the the feds are slow um paying the state, but they are, but it will come according to

and if it doesn't, we'll have to have that conversation then. Yep. We briefly touched on that yesterday. Pardon me. We briefly touched on that yesterday. Oh, during pools. Oh, did you? Okay, good. Okay. Well, did he have any um uh forecast for what it's actually I mean, we're using 600,000. That was that was a number for a year ago. We never got an updated number for this.

Still about the same. We didn't we didn't particularly touch on that topic, but um my assumption is it's still right there and that depending on what the federal funding comes down to, I hope it's what they say it is. Okay. Was it 40 to 50%. We'll have to have conversations with the city of Greenfield too if that's the case. Yep. Will you be doing that? Will you be doing that? I'm sure that the commissioners will work with Gary to get all that, you know. Okay, great.

He does report that every commissioner meeting that whether it is here or not.

Okay, great. Uh second on the agenda is just uh to review the 2026 budget and uh Mary ran the the summary of numbers. It's in your package. didn't uh by email. You want to pull that out. And if you look at county general the um where we stand right now with the 26 budget uh is an increase of of 2,249, 140 bucks. So we're like 2.2 million. And if you recall, we were trying to to hold that to like 1.1 million. And I assume part of this is the 27 pay. Is it Mary?

There's 920,000 of the 27 pay. And then there was a an additional 900 for the bond, the 2025. Yeah. I I wasn't thinking about that being as part of the payments of deficit that we were trying to whittle on, but the uh bond payment is in that as well. The first bond payment. Well, I was told what what bond? The bond we're going to be closing on. I assume the 20. I thought he was looking at the overall budget. Oh, I'm looking at the overall budget. There's no bond in there. Okay, I'll back up. How much is the 27 p just round figure?

It was um 927 total and that's with FICA per uh everything combined. Okay. Is that not right? 920. No, 97,000. Okay. I'm looking at my So, Greg, you can feed that into your hopper. Do you have any comments on that on the 26th budget? No, not at this point in time. Uh oh. Changes.

Next on the agenda is uh Bernie. Bernie. [Applause] Well, good morning. I feel like I'm going to the lion's den right now. So, we're not that bad. We're the old tame. If you're asking for money, the answer is that's you're correct. You I'm in alliance then.

I I am asking for an additional person. Um with the there's a state regulation that we have to transmit all meetings in this room and uh the count the commissioners have asked me to provide a person to actually mediate the the u the meetings and uh to uh fix any problems that are going on in meetings. So we have meetings all times of the day, evenings, so forth and so on. So I need a person that I can be flexible to do that. And my guys are working during the day now and it's just kind of we don't have overtime. So we can't we can't schedule that in. So I need a it's called a media technology specialist. Someone that can handle um any type of media that we need to to work with. And u they're they're not cheap. Um, and then they range from like $34,000 up to $250,000 for a media specialist depending on what they're doing. Uh, we wouldn't need anything real fancy.

Um, I'll do it. I'm I know. I'm taking the job. Well, you talking about big corporations that they're they're hand different med. But, um, I need someone that we can actually do that if if I I know we or we're not supposed to be hiring new people. Um, but we're kind of in a situation that um, we need to do something. So, it's a full-time position that it would be a full-time position. I've heard the number 60,000 floated around. Is that close to what? That would be close to what we would want. Yeah. Yeah.

Uh, is it possible? I mean, have you u added up how many hours worth of meetings are in an average month? And would it be possible to look for a contractor to do that? I've got a calendar here and it's pretty scary. I know it's a lot of hours and um but it's less than 30 and I will say I've worked with Bernie for ever 30 plus years and he's always been very conservative financially. I used to get on him that he needed to ask for more money because he didn't really have enough money to function. So I can't imagine he'd ask that without

Well, I wouldn't only use him for that. I'd be using him for other things. I wouldn't just I mean because have duties if I've got the resources I'll use it. So it's not wouldn't just be members too. So when would you like to hire this person if you got them? Zoom like right yesterday. Well, I think uh and I think before we get involved in lawsuit because we don't do things right with our videoing that were requested to. It would probably be sooner than sooner than later. Don't you still have empty spots? I do. Okay. So, it's gonna be hard to fill a position anyways, I would guess. As a matter of fact, I had a guy was a start yesterday and didn't show up. So, Okay.

Okay. Yeah, that happens all the time. Oh. Um, well, you made your request. That's my my request as a media person. I'd like for us to have a discussion about it though to decide if we're going to u

move forward on this. uh as he said, this is uh a new thing that's come about. It's not something that has been in his um purview forever. And as um it's been said, there is legislation and laws put in place that we are now required to do this and we need to make sure that we are doing it properly and correctly. So I think it's probably something we should do. Well, one of the other things too is it really the role of the auditor's office to provide a person to do that for our meetings or is it really the role of uh the planning department to provide that person to do that? And what happens is you get with these folks, they're really good people. They're not properly trained. They turn things on when they shouldn't. They turn things off when they don't. the next thing you know, we've got stuff out on social media and like I said, it's just a matter of time before someone finally says, "Hey, I think we'll file a lawsuit."

I for me, for me, I mean, I don't know if we need a media specialist, but I do know the IT department needs more people. So, if he says this is someone that, you know, because I hear complaints from other departments, oh, I wish we had more IT people. Wish we had more IT people. So, if this is somebody can help in other areas and also help alleviate the other people up there, then somebody that we need. And an additional thing is while you're having your meetings here, they shouldn't say, "Councilman Woolbridge, will you come up and run social media or run the media platform for us?" None of us should be responsible for that. I think we really need to have somebody that's in these meetings full-time watching over us. So, if there's an IT issue that one of you or us have

or people using media because I'm not really a fan of other people coming in from out outside of our realm attaching their devices to ours for just security reasons to do that. And I can tell you I'm not as versed IT uh and it as most folks and I want to be able to point to somebody and say, "Hey, can you can you fix that and get on it?" Sure. Because it ain't going to be me. So, um, can we reduce spending someplace else to make room for it? You have a suggestion? No, I don't. Say we do.

2 million and we're going to just add another 100,000. Could we could we look between now and next meeting for someone to take it? Sure. I mean, I think that's going to be a lot cheaper than potential lawsuits. I mean, we got to pull that money from somewhere if we get sued multiple times. And we are self-insured, so there's that. Yeah. Oh, I don't I don't disagree on on anything.

Yeah. just mathematically could we find you know somewhere to cut something to absorb it because we are so far over where we said we were going to end up for next year. You you could make a motion today uh with the caveat that you know we will approve this position and uh where we will pay it from is forthcoming. This will give him the ability to start looking if we give him a sooner versus later. Right. Well, if this is the same as insurance is what they're saying, you got to have this because then why don't we take it out of the $500,000 self- insurance pay fund

that allowable. Can't you just got to look from the sheriff here? You can't do that. We could take it from food and beverage for a year, but maybe I don't. Yeah, we do that all the time. I don't know that we could take from that. Well, no. and and uh we could uh it's not sustainable. We could be real if we're going to do it. Let's figure out where we want to fund it from because if it's like most help our rates, wouldn't you think Brad help controls our rates? I mean, we're almost to the end of the year. We could fund it out in general. It can't hurt the rest of the year and then have a discussion between now and the end of the year as to where we want you through

another piece of risk elimination. It's not going to be cuz I want to start here 25. Yeah. As soon as he get to thumbs up it, we need a motion. We need a motion. Do you have to have a motion to I think that we could fund it through the general fund for the rest of this year because we're only talking a few months. By the time you get them hired, it'll maybe be until and then that gives us some time between now and the end of the year to decide where we want to plug it in permanently. They're not eligible for health insurance the first day they start either. I mean, it takes 30 days. Uh, gray takes a while. Yes. Any great ideas about where, but they're not they're not

outside of general you could justify meeting this legal need. I think what we need to do is take Janine's suggestion and approve. If the position's approved, then we need to review where we can pay for it from because I'm sorry, I I this is a surprise to me. Yeah, I wasn't prepared either. Yeah. And so we we need, you know, I'm sure it's on the agenda to 2028 when we introduce our new L. Ask a question. the okay

the we are going to swap some things around with the lit and then this position is that is that um is it actually um tech or is it it's tech or admin administrative too it's a combination it's not something that we could tuck into the because we're going to be doing some some moving around of of tax revenue Let me strategic is 911 and jail. So I don't believe this would fit into either unless Bernie is ready to certify that will. Okay.

Bernie, I got a question for you. You said you have an open full-time position now. I have two open positions. Two open positions now. So, in adding this full-time person that will have some work time in excess of being at the meetings, is it could they absorb some of what one of those two have previously done? And could one of those be a part-time, one of the open ones? Um, no. Not Not the ones I have open because I'm looking for more different skills. Different skills. Okay. The two positions that you said are open, have they been funded all year and just been sitting there? Yes. So, could we not? So, there should be a chunk of money. Well, we could take part of that. Yeah.

Yeah. There should be a chunk of money sitting there that finish this year with it and then again we can figure out for 26 a permanent path for it. Well, if I may is the lack of filling the position the people or the sound people. salaries I think the salaries is is good what we have so we don't have to increase to get okay so that's good news just the availability of this right so how about a motion to to fill the position and we will uh find out where to uh finance it later

I'll second oh I didn't make the motion you're making the motion were you not done you make the motion. He doesn't want to make the motion. Oh, okay. Um Okay. I'll make a motion that we fulfill this position. As of today, he can start on that and um that in 2026, we will decide where we're going to permanently place this position. What fund? Second at work. All in favor say I. I. All oppose. Thank you. We're going to uh look at that position around 60,000 a year. It changes. It changes, but it's around 60,000. Okay.

Oh, yeah. Thanks for clarifying that. Yeah. Yeah. The uh shortfalls we know about. Uh Greg, you want to address them? The jail lit and the E911 lit we know are coming up uh So, so you take one and pass it around. Okay. And there'll be a second one then on the PAP. If you take one and pass that around, I'm good.

Okay. So, I'll focus on the first one which is the jail lit. The way I understand it at this point in time, we are uh having three basis points go to jail lit and two basis points going to PAP. So I'm going to start on the one that says jail lit. Hopefully there's enough to go around. Yes. Okay. One's jail, one's pres. So at the top is the debt service fund.

Okay. At the right below that is the operations fund. I want you to focus in on the operations fund and focus in on 2026. If you notice the revenue in that fund is going from 1.5 to 2.6. The reason is that's the three basis points.

We've put the three basis points in operations. Okay? And if you if we did not do if we didn't do that, then obviously the 427 at the recommended budget of 2758 or the requested budget of 2758, we'd be a million dollars behind. And that's what we saw in the preliminary numbers. Okay. And so keep in mind there is some available in the debt fund, but also keep in mind and uh for the commissioners, we were going to have a meeting on this Friday about the maintenance garage, but it's my understanding the numbers aren't available. So, we're going to suggest that be pushed back till next week so that we get the numbers and we're able to see how it fits into this schematic design here. But what we've done is say in the debt service area that that we would try and pay cash for the maintenance building and not incur any uh additional debt. Okay. But not knowing the number, I don't know if that's going to work or not. I also told you that if that doesn't work, then we would try to do a 5-year bond anticipation note or something like that. So, we've got the whole increase going down here into the operations. But before putting in that added lit uh the uh 2027 number was going negative, right?

Absolutely. Okay. So, cuz keep in mind we don't have a lot. Yeah. As you can see, there's not a lot of balance. Okay. So, to back up a little bit, let's say we didn't um increase the um lit for jail. Could we shift some of the debt part down to operations? Is that an option? Well, again, Jim, we're trying to fund the maintenance building. Okay. Out of the debt fund. Okay. So, we're using it there. Yes. Okay. Okay. And again, I don't know that number quite yet.

I've got a budgetary number and I think it's going to work, but you know. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Okay. So that and and the details are behind it on what you have approved. So on the PAP this second document then but back on the jail again. Okay. So you're saying that if we

do the uh three basis point uh increase the the jail lit operations will be okay going forward and we'll have money in the debt side for the u for other uh buildings out there. That's kind of the bottom line. It it'll be okay as long as in 27 we don't exponentially increase the.7. Sure. Yes. And then we'll make it to 28. Yeah. Okay. All right. Okay. Okay. But it is it there isn't three basis points coming off of debt service.

No, no, no, no. We're not removing anything from It's coming off the library special service. Well, it's not really li. It's called special services in the in the lit pie, but which funds the library, but it's called special services. That's where it three and two be. So, it would come from somewhere. It wouldn't just be net additional three bits.

Now, wait a minute. M maybe I don't understand what was just set. So, this is the cor correctional facility lit. Okay, that was um so we have part of it going to debt service or the capital and we have part of it going to the operations. We are it is my understanding adding three basis points to the jail lit coming from the special purpose lit. Oh, gotcha. It's coming from special purposes that's going to be reduced. It's not just additional Not an additional no.

Okay, that's all I want to make sure show. Are you asking me to raise taxes is what I'm asking no? He's kind of jumping on the same page here saying this is a way not to raise taxes but take care of the jail. Okay. And it really remember my recommendation is from now on you're going to have to look at it annually anyways. Okay. So we may, you know, if something occurs, we may change it next year, but and then after that, the law will will require you unless SB2 changes it. Uh SB1 kind of requires you to look at it every year.

So So what you're saying is all of it's going to go into operations, not it's going to go into jail lit, but the operation is going to get the three base points, and the debt service is not going to get any of it. That is what I'm recommending 8:30 today. Okay. Subject two, you know, the the certain things that are coming on the maintenance facility and things like that. Sure. Yeah. So, I got it qualified. Thanks for being so confident. You're welcome.

Okay. But but the basis for what you're uh recommending here in both cases is that we go ahead with the five basis points reduction in the uh uh special fund for the library and we split it between uh the jaillet and the pacelet. Correct. And we should say libraries. Now we are subject to there we are also a little bit subject to I don't know I know um Hancock County Public Library is not going for excess levy appeal. I don't know if the other library is going for an excess levy appeal right there.

Okay. Are you doing an excess levy appeal? How much? Okay. So that's in material as far as the whole I'm going to grab water. as far as the whole percentage. So you should be fine. No problem. Okay. So the PAP is where the problem is. Okay. Now any other questions on J? No.

Okay. So then on PAP um this is where we put the other two basis points. So that's why the revenue increased from 1555 to 2359. and and that's it's a 50% increase in the funding. Okay, so you know the two basis points because we're at four basis points right now. So, at this point in time with the rec uh requested budget of 1833 and you can check that, check me on that, Mary, but I believe that's correct number. And since we've been helping you put the entire budget together, um then this should be okay at this point in time. At the end of 26, we're coming to a 1.122. Now if John John mentioned some additional appropriations that he was coming in January obviously I don't know about those and I have not taken those into account you know but uh so this is again where we would you know if we increase it a little bit in 27 the budget then we will make it to 28 which the ball game changes Just out of curiosity, the minimum fund balance at 10% is that just your recommendation or is that like a state recommendation?

That that's the minimum fund balance. You know, our recommendation's always been 20 to 25%. To match your peer group in your S&P ratings. So, what's who where's 10% come from or that's where we're going to be? That's what we're saying. You would not want to go below that. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So that is our opinion of where you wouldn't want to go below because surprises happen. Yeah. As we heard moments ago

on the S&P ratings, they check all the funds. uh they'll check what's called liquidity funds key and that is u the liquidity funds is whatever the analyst wants to call liquidity funds on the day they do it. Okay.

And whatever we suggest is liquidity but this is an operations fund so it is one they would look at. So now the the original uh we're sliding kind of into the next um unit here. Uh the uh original uh request I thought that we were making for the split up of that five basis points was uh two basis points for uh the PAP and three for our lit economic development. But you're saying we ought to than putting that in economic development. We need to put it in jail.

That is correct. Because when we put the proposed budget or requested budget in, we became negative and we were going to make that up with the debt service fund. But it makes so much sense that if we can not incur a bond issue for the maintenance facility and cash flow that you know then we're saving obviously the taxpayer uh cost and you know making it most efficient. Okay. Yeah.

Okay. Let's put it this way. made a lot of sense to me and our our my group. I know. Yeah. So, that takes me a while to catch up with you. Well, that's why we're we're talking about it and now it has a purpose and it'll save us money from things we've already started. Exactly. And before was going economic development. It it um we didn't have an endgame yet.

Yeah. Now, we we have, you know, I've got to get with Gary at some point in time from the commissioner standpoint because the MVH fund and that looks like it's being hit really really hard. And so there's going to be some I I' have some concerns initially on that. We may, you know, if if he ends up spending his far his entire appropriation in 25, we may have to short up in in the future if no more additional revenue come in comes in. Tom and I know that uh John Joe Candace is um is um uh making his case and uh he doesn't need to come up because I know the case. He started out with four basis points and now down to 2.5. So if we give him two, he's going to say that he needs a little bit more. But there is one person that he probably in the future is going to ask for and that he's counting in on that. But maybe it makes sense when that comes about that that that expense would go to the RDC. So, and

and again, I I can't probably say it enough. If we're do switching these revenues and trying to make things work annually, reviewing it is is something we got got to keep in mind. The the jail operations, does it account for the 27th pay falling off in

You know what? I don't know what you mean. What I what I mean is and the reason I was getting so in the weeds on the 27th pay is that that number should fall back out of the budget in 27 by the nature of not having a whole another pay period paid. And so I was just curious I mean that would give some buffer if this is compounded with the 27th pay number in mind going forward. Yeah. I'm going to say first of all the payroll is not that much in there in his

in in the jail operational it you know 1 million 010 so it might be slightly higher on page 143 than it should be. The key is you know we've got over 500,000 utilities in there. service agreements, you know, and things like group insurance and things like that. So, the majority of that, so it might be 50,000, Keely, but it's okay. Yeah. I didn't know how much that was payroll. Yeah.

Well, the whole time I've been here, John has been warning us that this would happen with E911. So, I knew that day was coming. The jail operations was new, new information. But did that come about because it was always coming about or uh is it because of some changes?

Again, when when we ran the requested budget of 2.7 million that it was over the 1.5 that was coming in on an annual basis back on page 141 and it became Mr. Obvious because those numbers were all negative. So what I think we started shifting um uh some of the expenses uh to into it that's my question was kind of like where did we go so far it was the insurance and moving all that into the fund

making it if you remember it it several years ago it wasn't paying any utilities and you know we have a separate meeting meter and everything so it was like pay for the utilities out of there and and Again, keep in mind what I said is we're on our flight path to 2028. Whatever you install in lit may have to be reinstalled, you know, in the future. So, it it's going to get difficult.

Yes. And so the assumption here is that the uh request for the uh change in lit goes through and Scott's not here today and I know he was late in getting that uh request into the DLGF. Do you know where that stands? No sir, I do not. How late? Pardon me. How late? I I don't know. I don't know. That could be a major problem. I I don't know that I don't know

what it was. You had said I think or somebody had said from the start that it had to be in by like July the 30th and well they were targeting to get in by August 1st and it didn't get in. Yeah. Um, you know, we're doing this in a lot of places. They have been taking their 30 days and sometimes even 45 days uh at the DLG have to review changes like this.

And so the answer is and and they're very very detailed. If you have a if you have a word that's misplaced, they'll throw it back at you and you have to start again. So So that is the concern. So the um request to move those basis points is still sitting with the DLG DLGF waiting on approval. Is that what you're saying? Basically, Mary, I believe so. I I guess I would ask that we need to check with Scott. I we we haven't been double double following it over him. He has been having the contact directly. So yeah,

but that initial request was just to say we intend to do this and then there's a separate due date for actually submitting how many basis points and where they're going and all that. Again, you got to get it done by a certain date and you back up from there. But if the DLGF takes, you know, 90 days, you're going to be too late. Or if it gets thrown back at us and we can't get it turned around, you know, there there issues, but at this point in time, we'll keep working or

So your assumption is that um it's still timely as far as you know. That is our understanding at this point in time. Yeah. Yeah, but we don't really know because Scott's not here. Yeah. Yeah. So, we need to make sure maybe he comes to our next meeting with a hard conversation about where it is and where council meeting. Yeah. You got your council meeting coming, right? So, that would be the most timely. Yeah. Um, do you want to call him or I'll call him and say go ahead. Yeah.

Okay. Because if it if if we got the shaft this year, then what happens? I mean, you can't just move money into these funds, right? We can't just move money into jail operations. We would just have to move it. I guess my easiest answer would be, you know, I used to watch Star Trek a lot. Scotty, we uh we we have a problem or Houston, we have a problem or a challenge. We're going to have to You're going to get beamed up. Yeah, that's more than it. That's That's the easy solution. Scotty, beam me up. All right. No, we won't worry about that till that. Yeah.

Okay. So, while you're up there, the proposed max uh levy appeal.

Sure. So, we put that resolution to we put together a draft resolution. We're not attorneys. We don't act and we don't try and act as attorneys, but I did watch a law uh a law course um on TV once. And so, uh we put this together. We would recommend you obviously have your attorney look at it, but this is u the three-year growth factor just like the library said they qualify. So, you qualify for one. As you know, we also qualified last year and we qualified the year before. We got turned down the first year. We got okayed the second year. And here is what I understand to be the final uh possibility of this because it is my understanding SB1 tor has torpedoed this and it will not be available in the future.

Right.

Okay. So, uh last chance. So, we need this resolution to begin the process. It's a three-year growth factor and then we would like to know from council how you would like to explain it. Um, I think the whole thing would be, you know, I think it's going to be critical that we're trying to keep up with salaries and, you know, all and technology salaries and that kind of thing. And you know, there's a 5050 chance probably if we get it, you know, because they're going to take a very very uh detailed look at it. They're going to look at your cash balances. They're going to look at everything. And so, you know, you know,

we need to try, right? That's what I'm saying. And then, you know, it would add po uh to the tax rate possibly. We don't know because NAT assessed valuation unless you've got it as of 8:30 this morning. Didn't Yeah, we don't know what that's going to be. Um, you know, we do have a strong growth in our income taxes. The latest information was 11.7% increase. And so, you know, we could also then if we got this, we could also not take it all,

you know, and so we can do that. But, you know, it and it's the last chance and you know, so if you don't take it all, you said they squashed it. If you don't take it all, does that leave it leave the excess for the following year or you're just done? I I'm going to say maybe maybe not. That's jury still out. Why would we not take it all? Um if you didn't like the tax rate impact, okay, once we got the 1782 and got final net AV, we're hoping for a really strong net AV.

And so, you know, if we get that, Mary, you know how that works. Tax, if AV goes up, tax rate goes down. And so, you know, that's I anticipate our AV going up. I'd be shocked if it Yeah, I've heard some strong numbers. Now, remember that in the future the residential is going down 6 to 8% each year. So, so I think we ought to go ahead and pass this res resolution. If Scott doesn't like it, he can rewrite it and we'll pass it again. Okay, that's fine. Your justification does not need to be in this document. Correct. No, ma'am. It will be in the detailed filing cuz there's a detailed filing that goes along with this.

Well, before we vote on this, I'm on the fence on it because we just did it last year. And I know if I say no and against it, I'm pretty sure DGF's going to look very down on that and say, "Yeah, we shouldn't do it." So, I think for me, I'd like to have more discussion. It doesn't have to be today. It could be privately. I don't care. Um because I just I don't I mean I think the taxpayer is getting tired of being taxed to death and that's the problem with you keep doing these things. Well, let me let me point out one thing. That's that's my concern is the what the public's saying about

I don't know at what percentage of folks are at their uh tax caps countywide. But one thing worth considering is if people are at their caps, you know, we can appeal or not appeal. They're probably going to hit their caps amongst all the taxing units are are cut of what they're going to be taxed anyway. Is this am I my explain? Keep going. Keep going. You're doing good. I don't think it increases

what they're going to be taxed regardless how much we get versus the city versus this versus that. In some cases, the residents won't pay more. We will just be allocated a higher percentage of what they're paid. Now, that won't apply to people, you know, people who aren't at their tax caps, right? Like myself and many most people,

they could potentially increase the taxes likely would uh but still within the 1% cap. So, and the only other uh thing I feel good about is like Greg said, just because you go for it, if they do approve it and we go, "Oh, holy cow, that's going to raise our tax rate from 27 cents to 32 cents. That's more than I thought. We don't have to proceed with taking it. We've just been given the permission. So, like last year, what we did was I think we we got it, but then at the end, I know that Shelby voted that we keep the same rate. Yes. We left some on the table. We didn't take it all. We use some Yeah. And we're phasing it in. In essence,

you made the motion. Yeah. And we we sat here and we we um increase our expenses pretty easily. And when you increase your expenses, you got to pay for it. Yeah. Well, the the the issue is we're growing 16 18%. And and we proved that in the the paperwork you passed out a few months ago. Period. We're growing faster than anybody period.

And we're getting what 4% we're now of our growth back. And there's no way to increase people. Everybody wants another person. Bernie wants another person, you know, sheriff for everybody wants more people, but there's no if there's not enough money to to follow the growth, the growth will outrun us, which it's outrun us already.

And so with and we we're not guaranteed to get this. We've only got it once in that I know of in the in the past future anyway. Last year, we didn't we've applied for it before, but never got it. And um uh it's the only thing that one of the things that saved us in this budget process was some of the excess money. I don't see an issue with applying for it and then depending on how the uh all plays out and say we do get it and we see where the rate is going to jump, we have the ability to back it off. So applying for it, I don't think it's a big deal. It's just at later date we'll decide what we want to do. Yeah. So yeah,

we didn't increase

and and you are you you are growing so fast and it's you know the expenses always lag a little bit and matching up the revenue with the growth the growth in revenue with the growth in expenses is about this is about the only way you can do it because remember I told you you got your 4% growth quotient remember what I keep saying in the future and you started going down the path, the goal is to get everybody to a $3 tax rate and have no more circuit breaker. And we said in three to five years, you're probably going to get there. Remember the combined rate of everybody. Okay? So, that'll lock you out and and lock you out of anything else on property taxes. Then your only spot will be lit. What is very interesting, last week I had my staff and we're about ready to send it out to you that right now we have in a in a home with a reasonable income. We have about 5050 split between income and property. So it's being allocated what I think is very fair. Okay. When we go to income, it's going to go back on the uh residential backs, at least property taxes, commercial pays a lot. Okay. And so I I think that cost of services has been missed. My opinion, it's been missed in SB1. It's not even been considered. And the cost of community services going forward in Hancock County should have an emphasis on getting taxes from commercial,

not just residential. Okay? And once we get to $3, there won't be a choice. It will have to go to LIIT. So keep in mind, you got to really think about this plan over the next three to five years, not just today. Okay? Because that's the important part. Oh, sorry. Go ahead, Ron.

Well, I just wanted to ask a quick question. I know for these um excess levies, the DLGF, they have a formula that they use. Is there anywhere in that formula that they take into consideration that we got one last year? I mean, will that be detrimental to us? Robin, you're you're back to that we're now to the subjectivity. You know what you know, it's like when you go to the IURC and you you know, you you get they'll they'll build their case in their order. What they use will be what they choose to use. Okay. So, the answer is Robin, I don't there's no magic. I guess it wasn't fair asking you what the DJF was going to do.

Correct. because first of all I didn't serve on there and second of all everybody's changed.

Uh my other question is you said that they take lots of things into consideration such as cash balances. Um does that merit at all doing another supplement to the sheriff's pension on getting some of that balance sheet into an unfunded liability? No, I don't think at this point in time because the general fund is taking so much of a hit that the 2 million, you know, will will eat into your pennies from heaven. It'll take all your pennies from heaven. It'll once your in interest income goes down. You will, you know, the writing is on the wall.

27th pay did that for us. Okay. Even if it was had the money to do it rainy day. Your rainy day is an outline. It's it's Oh, I know. I know. I'm just um sometimes it looks like we have a lot of cash, but again, there's all these un, you know, there's all these commitments to be funded. But do they take all that into consideration or they just go, "Oh, there's a lot of cash here." Or do they look at how much that cash is already committed to? Again, they'll look at what they choose to look at.

Greg, will they take into consideration that we are the fastest growing county and that we will need additional? Absolutely. Structure and public safety, the whole nine yards. Yeah. Absolutely. That's why you could have a resolution number Resolution number would be 2025-9-1. I'm going to make a motion to uh approve resolution number 2025-9-1, a resolution to um appeal for an increase in our maximum levy based on the information provided by FSG.

Second. Been moved and seconded that we approve resolution 25 2025-9-1. All in favor say I. I. Opposed. Motion carries. Make sure you list that Bernie needs an IT guy because state law required. Oh, I heard that loud and clear. Specialty technology. I I apologize. Was that an unanimous vote? Yes. Thank you. All right, Greg, will you be um asking for uh a kind of get together with a group to put that document together like you did last year?

Yeah, I think you know maybe a team's meeting or something like that that we can all get on and just write it. You know, you approached it the last time through public safety departments. Do you see us not maybe doing that again being the same as before or should we find a new I think the answer is we've got a long list. Okay. I don't think we need to add. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. I put down the five-year capital plan. Um,

if you look in your emails, I send each of you a copy of the tenative commissioner's five-year capital plan, and it it addresses uh some issues that we've talked about in some of these off-site meetings with county farm property, uh the criminal justice campus, where uh we should start to plan uh for a campus near where the new sheriff's building is for courts, judges, and the prosecutor. Uh, I forgot to add in there an expansion potentially the 911 center because they're getting tapped out, but I I wouldn't move it out to that property. It's probably something that would be considered on their property. Um, an expansion of the annex just because, as Kent said, we're growing and there's nothing we can do to stop it. We're not growing government. We need more people to provide the services and whether we like it or not, these people are coming to our community. We can't turn them away, but we need some additional space. I've also listed the sale of the memorial building. So, don't be fooled by that. We can't really sell it. We can sell it back to Greenfield Banking Company, but if there's some way to make any additional monies off that for the county to uh put towards setting offsetting some of the capital cost, we'll look into that. And then just the continuation of the remodel with the prosecutor's office, the community corrections, and the courthouse. And lastly, uh, teaming up with Ninstar to do some water and wastewater infrastructure north on State Road 9 from 400 North to 900 North. Um, in that will be a timeline attached to that. That timeline is really flexible and I Greg mentioned SEA1. So, we don't really know what we can or can't do. We just have to follow what SEA1 can or can't do to us. But it's a pretty ambitious plan to to maybe get these structures uh sent out to a uh to uh for design and and um and planning

and then have it built by 2031. But that's that's kind of where we had to go. And Bill, I think the the last email I saw was the suggestion about us going for a grant. if you recall that email and that was a I was totally you know that's a total good ideal and I think that would work it if you remember it's a direct grant from the federal government you know that will take a lot of horsepower if you know what I mean and I don't mean the one that's in your in your car in your in your sheriff or uh

they were small we we learned that they were small grants but they were from Congressman Shreve's office not to exceed $2 million a piece and 15 projects per his district, but it could add $2 million of value engineering to a wastewater water study, right? Uh that needs to be done.

And then remember, we were always suggesting going forward that we would match that up with an SRF maybe and you know, maybe even okra or something would come about. too. We've got lots of plans of attack. That one was again a very good one if we could get that. And I think we we have to basically look under every rock we can to make it happen.

So, in this plan, and I'll send a copy of it to you, I think we've got some funding strategies, general obligation bonds, which we use. Uh we could sell some assets potentially, uh partnership and grants. Again, we just talked about that staggered bond issuances. Um, county economic development revenues, whether that's property tax or income tax, not sure how that would work, and then tiff and RDC revenues if they apply. So that to me the real the real key is we'll have a more developed uh detailed timeline implementation to get some of those studies started. But it's going to be watching SEA1 and how that impacts our county as to how we go with this project. But that's there is a copy of it. You have it. So hold on to that as our our guiding lamp. What the commissioners gearing up to do capital wise.

Great. That's uh an email. It is. Okay, great. And ju just so everybody uh kind of knows the you mentioned the uh uh sewer uh project uh going north on nine uh that is in a tiff area and and I think isn't this true uh bill that the uh long-term plan for that would be to uh collect in that tiff monies that could then be used for like the Charlottesville area. Yes. So that we don't have to come up with uh money to do that. It can be generated that

generate more money for further growth of Yep. clean clean water and sanitary sewer in other parts of the county that need it. Good idea. We know what part right.

Sheriff, you want to talk about your vehicles? Good morning. Morning. You probably should have a copy in your packet of an invoice. Um

back in March of the council meeting, um I mentioned then that uh cars, our new police cars would be coming in in September. they have arrived. So, they are here. Um, and there is a bill invoiced for them for the $792,900. Um, so I know that there was some thought I think of this be paid out of a bond that was not fully I assume completed yet to be done. Uh, so I just don't know where where I stand and what we need to do about paying this invoice. When is it due?

Well, they got them on their lot now. So, they would like to probably get paid as soon as we can do it. So, taking that out of the bond, weren't we? Yeah. Out of the bond. So, may have to float a loan. Do we have a closing? Got some money, Janine. Huh? You got some money? I was thinking about using your money. Hey, Greg, can we chime you in on this? So, $800,000 invoices here. cars that are supposed to be paid out of the next go bond. Can the invoice be paid? Um we I don't know that we did any resolutions to front that money elsewhere. Is that

Well, so um I believe the commissioners I believe Lisa Lee had you do a reimbursement resolution for the go bond. So subject to that, do you know D? Well, I know that she had him do a resolution or a reimbursement, but was was it specifics or does it matter? I don't think it matters because we were, you know, possibly fronting money on the fair grounds, too. Yes. So, as long as And I think you did because of that. I've seen it. I've seen it. Yeah, I've seen it. Okay. Yeah.

Then that if that's been passed then that means we can print it and we will get reimbured. Okay. Can we just do that from general fund balance and Yes. Okay. We did that with the Lucas devices did we not? Yes. Yeah. And you know so if you want to do that at your council meeting then we can double check that the reimbursement. Did I hear that it had to be done today? It doesn't have to be done today, but they would like it as soon as obviously possible because they have them all sitting on their lot and so you meet next. Yeah. Well, we have to do we have to advertise for the additional

That's kind of why I was trying to get this going because we got a 30-day additional wait period. So, yeah, we can go ahead and advertise for the hearing and then we can advertise. I'm general. you know, if you're doing professional services, that's one thing, but this is a hard asset. So, you have to have your reimbursement resolution put. And I thought the last time she stood here that I asked a question and she said it was broader than fairgrounds. Yeah, we don't do it just for a reimbursement. So, if you can just ascertain that, that's all.

We'll double check, but I'm I know that we did it. I just I my question was I just didn't know it had to be specific. Yeah. On what we were reimbursing. So thank you. So what I'm hearing is we're still out 30 days. We have to advertise with advertising and improvement. So I I knew this was going to happen. So that's why So if you if you advertise now by our next meeting, are we able to vote on it for to take effect at whatever date the window? How many days does it have to be advertised? 10 days. It's a public prehearing. Yes. Oh, you can't have the public hearing until after the 10 days. You advertised the public hearing. Yeah.

Oh, right. Right. Right. Yeah. You're the first week of October then. Yeah. Yep. This is what I tried to avoid back in March. I ain't call apparently. Not approved. Uh, is there is there $800,000 appropriated somewhere other than general? I mean, I wouldn't think so, but Oh, I thought that's it's already came early. They'll have to No, no, they didn't come early. They were told they were going to be here in September. I have the minutes for the March meeting. Well, the invoice is dated August. What about rainy day?

Just check. Yeah. Is that appropriated? Yes. Oh, well, not that much. 500,000. 500. 500,000 is uh not enough in rainy days. We have 500,000. 500,000. You still have to appropriate. What is there? Is there miscellaneous appropriated in county general? No. So 500's it. There probably is some in economic development though. I'm sure those cars can't be commissioned either for probably what another 30 60 days once you get them. And

no, I mean, we have the process of having to outfit them and all that. Um, you know, I I mean, the conversation I have not specifically had a conversation with them. All this goes through Fred. Um, but I told him I was coming here today and there could be a potential wait time, at least 30 days, but I don't know how happy they were about that. So, And Fred's handling that on your behalf? Yes, Sheriff. I mean, we we as long as we get cars, we could use the 500 from Rainy Day, get $500,000 worth of cars, take possession of those, and then the remainder based on

next month the additional appropriation. So, we give a limited notice to proceed. in essence thing is is that obviously the vendor wants their money. Well, you got 20. You got 15 cars sitting on your lot. Probably won't paid, but would that work? What Greg just proposed with you, uh, $500,000 worth of cars now and the others when I will have conversations with them if that's a possibility. Maybe I mean, we have another meeting next week. So, I mean, could Yeah. And I can have some conversation between now and next week. Um, you know, if we have to advertise something to just go ahead and do that, you know, I think advertise it regardless. I mean, we do have the new law that came into effect. If it's more,

how much is are the card? 700 something,000 92. Yeah, you can pay for half of it up front because it's a capital expense and it's more than 250,000. So, we could I mean, we could do something like that if Well, there's nothing to pay up front. We have them. Well, we could go ahead. It's not like we're Okay. It's not like we in July, we could have paid that up front because they were being built. Now, they're here. Gotcha. Gotcha. Gotcha. Would we have access for a temporary basis? No, we don't have a miscellaneous 91,000 in economic development.

But isn't it right e even if um uh this money was sitting in the bond fund once the bill comes in, it's 30 days before we ever pay something like that, isn't it? Yeah. You don't have to have an additional appropriation because we appropriate all the bond funds at the time of issuance or during the process. So, so it can be paid out immediately without any correct. But obviously we have Well, I know. Yeah. And a reimbursement resolution would be written to suggest that you can reimburse any fund, right? It wouldn't have been so specific to say county general. Okay.

But we can do a thumbs up today to advertise for the full amount. And in the meantime, we do have available $500,000 if you talk to your vendor and they're willing to release a certain number of cars for that 500,000 and then after the uh public hearing, we can release the rest of it. Yeah. And I may they may be I mean there again, they may release all of them and let me have them, you know, so we can get started on them. Um I just know I have the invoice and so that the 500 I know I can work with that, see what they got to say. We have it advertised and see what we go from there. So, I'll I'll do I'll s I'll do some talking. You have to wait. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. All right. Appreciate it. Thanks. Yep.

Any old business? I don't have old business, but I had something I wanted to talk about real quick. Cool.

Um Scott and I met yesterday with uh Kayla in planning and Rhonda Cook as their uh legal attorney. And what we were trying to discuss was how they can start recovering some of the monies that they are paying out for um attorney fees. They are paying we just appropriated $62,000 mid-season because they've ran out. uh after and Scott can jump in if he um what we found out is an example was they had uh spent the monies in planning to pay for the uh surge development possibilities down there and um within their agreement with them they were going to be given back $16,000 but when the $16,000 came it went into the general fund

so it created them a shortage so that was one of the things we talked about and then the other was identifying these areas that are in eras and tiff districts and monies that are paid out for attorney fees could be paid by the RDC as opposed the county funds. So those were the kind of things that we were discussing. Uh Scott, do you want to add anything to that?

Okay. So, um they're going to do um we asked Kayla to do a a spreadsheet identifying where monies have gone that could have been coming back to reimburse them for some of their expenses and we can get a plan in place that maybe that money can be directed to them back or however the council decides they want to handle it. But that was a discussion from yesterday. Um, Deb and Mary, would so if if checks are coming in to through agreements to cover costs associated with planning legal fees, would we have to create a whole new fund if we were really trying to keep track of that separately or would that be more of like a running spreadsheet like you do with ARPA? or

right now they they pay everything out of a of a line within their budget legal fees and without looking at each individual invoice I don't think we could tell what they were for without okay so it would just be keeping a spreadsheet of what's coming back or we could I mean we could pull the invoices from AP for that particular law firm and but I mean We could we could do that. They could track their their expenses and we could um reconcile it against the invoices paid to that law firm. We kind of pushed it back on Kayla somewhat to start a tracking mechanism and then we can determine how to take those receipts and get them back reimbursement.

Now, in general, Kayla shouldn't be the one receiving checks, right? It would be the treasurer and then the treasurer would just need to make sure she's aware or they Yeah, a lot of departments receive money but then they come and bring it to us and then we quietest it in with the treasurer so that Oh, it does. Okay. First the auditor and then the treasur. Okay. That was just something that was going.

Yeah. Good. Um, next on the agenda is uh the county farm visioning committee update or passing out a beat here and Janine chime in. We've been meeting uh kind of regularly uh after the uh count or the budget meeting and um we uh took the um the bullets from uh well we took the information from the visioning uh session that we had and we lined up the uh bullet points in a line of uh priority. that you all talked about. And uh so these are the bullets that we that you came up with. We just collated it into um u visual form. Uh, by the way, the committee is Janine Gray, uh, uh, Keley, uh, Scott, Tammy, Brad Burkhart has, uh, met with us and we've had Rick Roberts, uh, come in and help us. And um number one on that list is uh as you see move all are part of the county functions to the farm on the north side es especially the justice components and the highway garage that was part of what was was said. So that that's what we've been working with. Uh we have been um looking at how to implement uh the the number one uh item although we've been talking about the

other items also particularly the uh gun range that it would be nice we think to move that to the north side get it out of the south side. Um we we have come to the point where um we think that uh to implement uh the uh number one item uh that we need to come up with a um general plan a master plan for the uh farm. We did meet with uh all four judges, prosecutor, public uh uh defender um and they all uh indicated that um I guess bottom line they were ready to move now from where they are. So that kind of uh gave us the impetus to proceed forward with the proposal to come up with a master plan for the farm

south. Um and uh we did ask that Rick Roberts come up with a uh his idea for an RFP or a a plan of action that would go to the commissioners. um Eastern and they would obviously be the contracting people to hire someone to uh do the master plan because we don't we don't believe the the committee is capable of doing that. Can I ask what it says build a mental health facility exactly what are you talking about there? Pardon me. Where it says building a mental health facility what exactly are you talking about there?

That was just a bullet point. Um no definition to it. Yeah, right.

First and yeah, first and foremost, um I think our our um biggest concern is uh the justice system, meaning the courts, as Jim mentioned, probation or uh prosecutor's office and the public defender's office. And then perhaps um we also have the opportunity for uh community corrections kind of to keep that all out there on the criminal side right now. Just leaving civil down here and of course all of our offices that the general community uses auditor and then as Bill had mentioned in the five-year plan perhaps building onto this building to accommodate for all the growth we have in the county and expansion there. Uh mental health for me would probably be down more towards the bottom, but it is just all ideas in no particular order except for number one. And um you know in the shooting range that's been on ongoing discussion since we actually started. So, and therefore, you know, it's um how much the sheriff can take on uh prior because he's, you know, going to be leaving us soon as as sheriff and how much he can take on and is willing to take on prior to his term being up. So, that's question that we need to ask. Um, and I think something that can run concurrently to all of that. If you're talking about the wastewater north on nine and you're talking about then working in in the future some schedule going east, especially if you move the gun range from the south side. The south side is where the new if there's if you're going to solve the problem in in uh Charlottesville, then the treatment

plant, if you're going to think about that, has to be on the south side. And so you just kind of put all those things together, but they're probably going to run concurrently. You're you're not going to build the prosecutor facility and then go after that because the grants that are going to come available for the water is going to, you know, uh run concurrently with some of these other things. But that's probably the only real answer right now to the wastewater problem east of Greenfield is a some type of a treatment facility on the south side. Um and then running it that way. But u if you move the gun range, it's a perfect time to do all that because you could you can build a facility there. You could even build park facilities near it. It doesn't have to be it's not the we have one already. Greenfield has a treatment facility 100 feet from a park. So

that's um

from sitting on the committee just I think it's already been said but for clarity you know the committee is not saying all of these things definitely need to happen right these are just things that came up from the get-go when everyone was involved in the visioning. you know, I've done some things to explore, like for example, mental health facilities. Uh, you know, that came up as as a need and a a gap in services. Um, but I can't really see myself supporting the county actually building mental health facilities. Maybe it's more like uh you know if the right thing came along uh we'll lease you 10 acres for a dollar kind of thing and someone else private industry or someone else could take something like that on is the way uh I see it. I'm gonna have a meeting coming up with Gary P um because I wanted to touch base on uh the budgeting that's happened on the RDC side for parks and then uh after I meet with him I'm going to reach out to to Miriam and and find out more about where the parks stand and what they're looking to do. Uh but but we all agreed that moving the judicial system is a massive effort, an expensive effort and it does fall on us financially and is at the top of the list when you talk about doing something with the county farm

and and the the proposal is going to be is to uh hire a professional to uh come up with a master plan and we would all have inputs into that as as you do it. Not only for the I mean the real focus will be I think the justice system but we want to take into account everything that that has been proposed

and on the shooting range. You know we tked the sheriff like he needed one more thing to do. We thought maybe we we expedite getting that shooting range across the road and then you just have the whole southside for water treatment parks, commercial development, whatever, and all of our uh government stuff on the other side of the road. And he did a lot he put in a lot of effort into providing us kind of some ideas about um I don't know if it had cost, but but moving the shooting range will be a massive undertaking of its own. like what's already been developed out there might not seem like a lot, but starting over on the other side of the road. Even if we were to stick just outdoor, which wouldn't be the intention. I mean, even that would be a major undertaking.

Well, I kind of like the indoor. Yeah, I think that's a great idea. Like you said, if we can do it. Yeah. Yeah. And you know, historically, the sheriff has um let qualified, you know, law enforcement groups utilize that shooting range. And so eventually the time might come if we were going to build something where we have to have a discussion about maybe assessing some kind of fee to the users to help we've already had that discussion costs. Yeah. Okay.

Good plan. Right. Um, next thing is a EDA discussion and um, I put that on there because we were talking about what were the um, parameters of the EDA. So, in your packet, you got a copy of the um resolution that Oh my god. implemented the um my reading glass are enough EDA fund

and you can read through uh what basically we were supposed to spend the money on and the last item is so it can be spent on anything. Who's taking responsibility for this small? Wow. I can read it. Is that Nicole? Not me. Nicole, we need about an 11 font, please. I'm good. Nicole has stepped up to the plate and owned the problem. Right. Good job.

Good job, dear Scott. I can read. I did want to hear council's thoughts because I meant to go back and actually check tapes and haven't done that. We were talking, were we not? When we did the very first EDA, didn't we say that we were going to use it to pay three sheriff's deputies as the first order of business when it actually came through years down the road? Does anyone else remember that? You remember that, Sheriff? I I remember it being on the president of the mayor mayor board. I can remember that. Okay. Yeah. I didn't. Yeah.

When we came up with the EDA idea, Sheriff, do you recall that our we said our first order of business would be to cover three sheriff's deputies because we added nine at that time and we knew that it would take a long time for the money to come. Is that how you recall? Yeah, I remember that being kind of that way. And that's why I was hesitant with Sugar Creek Fire Department, not just on their request, but to do it from EDAs, just because I want to since we haven't done anything with EDAs yet, I want to make sure we start off on the right foot and do what we said we I know we left it broad in the verbiage. But does anyone have opposition to making that a first or a business with ED? The three that are being funded are at RDC right now, right? Correct.

Is that all we're funding at RDC is three? There's actually four. Four. Okay. It's not there's three it's already hired, one that's not been hired yet. So, but yeah, four already see some of the biggest problems that we've incurred with all that growth out there is the sheriff's department being, you know, for Brad to be able to keep up and Buck Creek Township Fire Department. Those are the two big Yeah. things that were incredibly hard hit. And the RDC at the time, we really weren't giving Buck Creek anything to speak of. So, the RDC did their three-year agreement, which probably only got left, year and a half. A year left, Mickey. Year left. Year left.

Yeah. And so, I do think that is relative because the Buck Creek Fire Department was a big discussion piece after those three officers that we cost of. Um, Kent is the at the time that we did this, the RDC also could not pay officers, right? Well, so the money money is funible meaning the to me the

if if you take this money and you pay for something that RC is paying for now then you need to have an idea the money that you're not going to be spending the RDC money for where you're going to put it. So are you going to are you going to move it into Buck Creek's scenario or what you know what I'm saying? Well, you have it perpetually in your long-term projections to continue paying those four officers. Is that in your five plus year sustainability? I'm sure it is. There is no there is no deadline to it right now. And then after the three-year agreement with Buck Creek, what's the placeholder in that line item?

We don't have a um we don't have an an agreement past that. Okay. And do we have handy when the EDA payments like what they'll be? Do you have handy what the EDA payments will be? It says at the bottom. If you read the fine print in the fine print, I'm pretty sure you can. Nobody can read. Okay. It looks like though it's going to be 2027 before there's enough generated to pay for the officers because it's 1.6 million.

I'm assuming it can't be that many years away from talking about more officers again, right? Well, we're going to be really, really up on something next year if the state legislature says you're going to have to take care of fire and EMS through the county. So then what do you do? Got an issue with supporting police and we've got a issue supporting fire and EMS just around the corner. Has are you talking about township dissolution or

I'm just talking about township in general. I mean, I think the talk legislatively is to have something go to where townships um would go over to the control of the county local government. In what way, shape, or form? I don't know yet, but I think that's I don't know if that's what you're hearing too, Greg, from Representative Thompson, but

I'm I'm hearing that the writings on the wall were going to fire districts and you know, the model has been kind of coming about in Allen County. They have about five of them. There's one territory. We work with the territory they may convert, but um that's and Remember, we do have a lit in SB1 for fire. Doesn't say EMS yet. Um, and it's 040 basis points. And so, but yeah, I I you know, and obviously there's townships here, but I'm I'm hearing that, you know, that's the way they're eventually not going to have townships. Greg, are you talking about a district for a county? That

was the that was the first option. And you know, I suggest that that it districts should be formed by quadrants too in some counties rather than a district in a whole in the whole county. Quadrants will make more sense. So this is not doing away with township government but kind of the old they've been trying to get rid of township government. The ultimate goal is to minimize anything shepherd report. Yeah. Minimize township government period. That's Daniel's idea. Yeah. Yeah. I read the shepherd report.

Have we received payment from these two EDAs that are active right now? Uh we've not received those monies yet. 166,000's in there right now. I70 we haven't receive not received payment from I7 got sent a letter to them and we've sent a letter but we haven't heard anything but GDI has paid theirs. GDI did pay and they did pay based on the declaratory resolution versus the EDA amount. That's what it says in the fine print. So, yeah. Well, so sounds good. Hence the small print.

Well, Deborah Deborah, the EDA uh forecast here is the way I read it is is not keeping up with the actual monies coming in. So, is that due to some arguments with the company? I mean, we've got $169,000 and in 24 this says it should have been $386,000. So,

you're correct. Um I70 has not made their ADA payment. They haven't paid it. And then we still have another payment from GDI later coming in because it's twice a year they pay. GDI's paid the the spring. They'll be paying the the fall, but um I70 hasn't paid spring yet. And then they would still be Yeah, the fall from them as well. So, are we able to if they don't pay remove their abatement? Yep, that's the question that we've been asking at this point in time. Um

they also appealed I70 even put an appeal in, but they've since removed it. But um that's a question that we have for you as council. I don't think I don't think we can. Can we go ahead and remove the abatement? I don't think we could remove the abatement only because the abatement is filed on a state prescribed form that the council signs. EDA is an internal form. So I don't know how much teeth that would have over the jurisdiction of the application and approval of to me they're not holding up to the whole agreement. I think they're a big agreement to me. So, as as a legal argument, I think there's I think there's a legal argument. I think Mary's correct in that because it's in the text.

It's totally got to do with the state form and so forth. That is an internal thing and I don't think we can pull their abatement. I think you could count that. Isn't it under your jurisdiction as to whether or not you choose to to give them the abatement? Therefore, you can revoke that. You can just not approve this. I see one. It looks like it's in the abatement cause. Yeah. Yeah. It was in the the number of employees and number of salaries and all the things the abatement application and final application I would like direction from our legal to know whether or not they abatement take it off if they don't pay their EDA payments we can wait and see what happens so there's difficulties

if they meet all their statement of benefit requirements and the EDA is not part of that statement I don't know how we could pull the abatement if they are meeting their commit commitments through the uh before you before you say more let's just have legal take care I think you have the right legal I tell so my question about the the money so um

I think with the EDA money with with the questions about it and uh we do have uh after uh what you were talking about Keely uh we were able to uh uh use uh tiff money for operations. So that's why we've got the um sheriff's deputies in there now. And that that's a good thing, I think. Yes. So it frees up the EDA money for whatever we want, but it's questionable how much money there is. So with all that going to and the EDA part of it just kind of we better put it in the back burner. And

well, and another thing is it's not a long sustainable source, right? I mean, you can see here by 2039 it's, you know, it's retreated all the way back down to a million that year and then it looks like maybe there's no more after that. And I don't see any reason right now why there would be any more after that because now you can pay personnel out of TIFF. So, we're going to have this like 15-year period where it ramps up and comes back down and disappears. And so we also want to be careful about planning to do anything perpetually with that. Well, okay. Two two things real simply though.

The EDA is is a is a tool that can be used both by the council and by the commissioners. Right. Please don't think about setting that on the back burner. I mean, we're not asking if it this is for Sugar Creek. It's not for a an operational expense for a capital expense. And potentially if what Greg says comes true and we become a district and the county takes over, we're going to be paying for capital items.

Well, when we made this though, Bill, the whole point was is that we weren't going to pay for any capital with this because you could pay with for capital out of the tip and pay to operate. So the whole point of this to begin with and all the attorney fees we paid to make it happen was to cover operational costs.

So, okay. So, let me ask Greg two questions real quick. Yes, sir. Easiest question first. If if the company pays us $100 in taxes, okay, after all the abatements and the EDA agreements, and let's say the EDA agreement is 20% of that, does the company pay us $80 for taxes and then the EDA $20 or does the company pay $100 in taxes and then an additional $20 for the EDA? That's I'm going to say in the hypothetical the first. Okay. So, it's not it's not an additional burden

to the company. Okay. We're just splitting up what it what it is. Splitting up there. Okay. So, then my second question and Kent is what everybody's asking. Why do we why would we go forward with any new EDAs if the money is going into the pot anyway? Why do we need why do we need to complicate ourselves with restrictions on part of that money in the future? This she just said it's going to die. It's there. But but from the future, from here on out, why would we why would we require any EDAs in any of the abatements? I thought the EDAs were outside. We haven't been doing any more EDA. I think the EDA is in the application process. And it netted out the same as a standard.

It's right there. they weren't paying any more any less than they would have with the standard 10ear. So if you're wanting me to answer that, I would say one thing. Okay, you're right. It it we we won't have it most likely going forward. But I will also say be careful. We don't know what's coming next year. Okay? And maybe we do want an EDA for the unknown. So, I'm going to we're going to set it back in our toolbox and let it sit there, but I wouldn't abolish it, right? Because, you know, I might have liked to had one on some other projects that might have come here.

Okay. You know, so you never know. So, what you're saying is then we need to when we do decide on tax abatements, we need to decide if an EDA is proper, appropriate or not at that time. But we could all we could say majority of the time we could say no, we we don't need an EDA for this for this specific one. We it's in the application right now. So, we're going to have to do something to it to make it um

well, we discussed at another meeting uh updating this application form, which um we never really went further with discussion on what we wanted to change. We just said we probably need to update it. But but can't the EDA be uh different from uh this resolution? I mean an EDA uh can't it be hey the company wants to pay something else? You know it's just an agreement between the commissioners and the company or between us and the company. It doesn't have to be a changing of the uh abatement. It could even be a donation, an annual donation directly to the fire department.

Correct. And that can all be covered in a developer agreement to an economic development. So not remember the but let's say we read the shoes that just means that I just was reading the applicant further agrees to the economic development agreement that's in the application

and the provisions of the agreement. So, I could read that to say that there was no negotiation with the commissioners or with us to establish an EDA. So, that paragraph just really doesn't um mean anything. But if if there is an EDA in discussion, then that paragraph does mean something. So, it's just a matter of whether or not that particular company has engaged with the commissioners or us to generate an EDA based on whatever the need was for us. I would say there would have to be something new come about in the next couple years because from what we know today there's no benefit for us.

I mean I think you probably Greg's right. You hold on to the EDA can be a general thing. Once you negotiate with a company for something then you create an incentive agreement or developer agreement if you want to call it that. Correct. Say okay you're going to give me this. Yeah.

For this. And remember what I said the last meeting, we'd like to get a resolution out of the council that say when there is a read a a economic development agreement that we also have a amount of money that is on the line for professional or staff of the county. I don't know if you were here, Bill, but we had suggested that to the county council that if they came up with a resolution that we could have recovery of that if they walk and we incur $50,000 worth of legal and financial work trying to get them here. So, you know, we wanted to look at having that installed, talking with Randy and saying, you know, there's got to be something. Does everybody remember me mentioning that last time?

Right. We're going to have some skin in the game no matter what, but that doesn't mean we have to be all in on every project and then every project that doesn't come, we lose all, you know, all Exactly. And we're done with I want to make sure Bill knows. I don't know if you were here or not. The Sugar Creek Fire Department when they asked for the 150,000 and I believe it came recommended by you. The consensus here was we intend to help you with this amount of money, but if we pay it from the EDA fund, we want to do a reimbursement resolution to to put that back because at least from the RDC

uh because, you know, we we haven't done anything with EDA money yet and we said it was going to be to operate emergency services and so to come right out of the gate and say, "Okay, there's There's 160 there. We're going to give 150 for capital to the township. That's not where the EDA is for. It just felt like starting off to me on the wrong foot for what we said we were going to do. But we all told Chief Klene that we are agreeable to paying it no matter how it gets paid.

And I understand that. I've created something where you've had to open up a discussion with another entity that probably shouldn't have that. And I probably should have said, hey, is there a way we can give food and beverage would be the, you know, the all monies instead of Well, I'm glad you brought it up EDA. If that if that eases the pain, I I understand where the council's coming from when they say not only when they say, "Hey, this was just supposed to be used for operational expense, but it's opening up another we have to determine if we are going to do it that way. What's the process? How many times a year? what you know how do you make your ask how are they asking going to be p you know more systematic if you're going to do

well we have an ask a situation where they ask for lit public safety monies I buy one of every year to have I think with Sugar Creek I think was just to pay down debt on their apparatus but isn't that related to the RDC probably. So, shouldn't that be coming from the RDC? But if the RDC doesn't have money now, we could Yeah, it's a it's a matter of We're saying we could loan it from We have to ask the RDC and he's sitting right here. The money was there, but it's a matter of patience. Patience. It's not this year or next year.

It's just a matter of patience. But the RDC like this year were extremely tight for next year. It depends if we get that grant or not. If we don't, then there's not a lot of extra cash. But if they we do, then we get covered. That to me is short term because it we're talking, you know, 24 months of 12 to 24 months of of a pinch point with the RDC. But the a small request like 150,000 is is no big deal if we uh if we just wait a little bit. So going forward, we can reimburse it even later on 27 budget or something. You know what I mean? From the RDC. From the RDC.

Sure. That's not Was the resolution when we voted on on being able to reimburse the EDA fund if it was paid from there? Where did that make it? Scott's not here. I think he was supposed to draft the verbiage, was he not? Scott was supposed to be providing something we could Yeah. vote on so that when we paid it because you can't pay it and then do a reimbursement resolution. You have to vote that you're going to reimburse yourself then pay it. And Scott's not here. So, I don't know where that specific request stands. That's why we think that maybe this discussion should be tabled until we have our legal counsel. Okay. Right. But personally, we ought to be more worried about people not paying into it.

Absolutely. Because if we're going to eventually move police officers into that fund or anything like that, if we're not getting half our money and I would say that's a good thought, then we a big problem hold off on making that the you know another um flow of money because

it sounds like it's may not be until legal gets a hold of it. It may not be as secure as the other. That's another reason not to make it bigger. I would go so far as to suggest that we revisit we plan on not spending and revisit EDA money in general in like six months or something and say okay are the pay we will have had you know make sure that the people did these guys ever pay did the other people keep paying and really you know we were talking earlier with Greg about having minimum balances I mean this first year you know if we're going to get into three years from now spending $3 million a year. It wouldn't hurt to have 300 in there, you know, as that cushion. So, I don't I don't know if we're ready to make commitments with EDA money myself, but I'm open to everybody's thoughts.

Bill, can you can you look into your legal counsel and find out how we can force people to pay into it? I'll ask your legal counsel as well. Yeah. Yeah. Exactly. money all moot. Anyway, I think it's the big L word and that's litigation. Um, I don't see any other I don't see any other way around it. I think some of these we're going to be forced to go into it. So, it that may

Yeah, we need to secure the fund first. And being as the the TIFF has plenty of cash again in a couple of years for capital requests, I mean, this debt could technically wait to be paid down, I'm certain. But we did agree to help fund it, and I'm okay with that. But are are we going to not lock ourselves in? But is our first priority still to pay for operational costs with EDA money, or is that just not the consistenc? The resolution says it can pay capital or operating. Well, I know we left it we left it intentionally broad. Yeah. Yeah. I am definitely not in favor of us pulling the funding for the officers out of RDC.

No. No. At this point until we figure out what this is going to happen. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And uh there's nothing to keep us from uh using the EDA money for mental health or anything else. Can be used for anything. fix something better. A sewer. A sewer. Yes. Something actually that Okay. So, I will add uh that to our meeting for next week and I will ask Scott I'll call him and ask him to be prepared to talk about it. Yeah. Because I know Sugar Creek's expecting the 150. We said we were going to send the 150, but there was supposed to be some verbiage we were going to vote on to do that. Yeah. But he's not. But we don't have it. So

would you be okay if I made sure that we have some type of reimbursement resolution by the council meeting? Right. Right. That on the agenda maybe. Yes. You can vote on that in the expenditure the same meeting. Correct. And this is discussing the reimbursement of the Yeah. If we if we're gonna put Sugar Creeks 150 out of there, we're going to put it back later from a more appropriate fund source and re-evaluate. Make sure I call in to Yeah. be ready from the RDC. From from the RDC that a resolution for reimbursement of EDA from the RDC. Yes. Gotcha.

Okay. Okay. Uh next on the agenda is sugar foods. uh the incentives group and just so we know this is for information only. No voting on this. Can we have a minute to set up um their their slideshow? We'll take a break. And can we take a few minutes? Thank you. Hey, another reason why we need it because it could come set up the slideshow instead of Thank you. our technologies aren't matching. So Mary's going to use her computer to help them out. pushing that. What's that? Oh, boy. The exact Well, you know me. I can't help myself.

Man, you know, I just realized how many of these time, if you didn't notice, I'm not for the EDA. There's a lot of not going for other bunch of Well, other areas do something different. I was told I wanted to get these counties. Yeah, we we had to do it and the legislature changed. I'm planning on it. I was going to say don't be um I have another meeting I have to go to so I won't be able to stay

get up and leave. So I I am going to be there if I can stay here. Correct. I'll be at the library. It's in great when I say here I mean Greenfield cuz I was driving to Greenfield. Okay. Okay. Great. Thank you. Thank you.

Fine. Yeah. time. Yeah. And that equipment though is not like the other equipment. That equipment last, you know, you like this is cooking equipment stuff. But I'm just, you know, and too many years down the road. Yeah. I know. I understand. I just feel like we don't want to get too far. We don't want to look at it too far down the road because it it won't matter. But I think I do think it's a it's one of the better things that's come about and it's in can be put in I would email those to you. But I heard that they had opportunity.

It's unmuted. Yeah. All right. Oh, no. I didn't know they were. Okay. You introducing this. Okay.

All right, guys. Um, I am here to introduce Sugar Foods. This is a company that's looking to uh take a some space in a previously occupied building in the Mount Comfort area. They are looking to bring just over a 100 jobs with an average wage that exceeds the current Hancock County average wage limit. And so I am going to leave it there and let them tell their story. What was occupying it before? It's in my notes, but my head building. No, she said it was occupied. It was occupied.

What? Uh 3PL. Um I It's in my notes. Give me one moment and I'll let you know. But I'll let them go ahead and I'll let you know at the end. Good morning. Welcome. Been there very long. Uh

first, I wanted to thank you all for having us here today and allowing us the opportunity to introduce ourselves, uh talk a little bit more about the proposed project, and hopefully uh get to know us a little bit better and have the opportunity to uh to partner with you in the county. So, uh first just introduce ourselves. I'm Sarah Rible, executive vice president of risk and administration at Sugar Foods. I've been with the company for 13 years, so have a lot of history. Hi, nice to meet you all. Mike Harrison, chief operating officer at Sugar Foods. Been with the

Morning. I'm Larry Kramer, site selection advisor to the company.

Nice to meet you all. So uh Sugar Foods has been in business since 1948. Uh we started out as a bulk sugar company, hence the name Sugar Foods, but over our 77 years have evolved into a major uh food manufacturing uh player within the industry. Um, today we sell our products in all types of food establishments, anything from retail stores to uh restaurants, fine dining restaurants, uh, quicks serve restaurants, convenience, and so on. Um, and so it's really been said that every approx in approximately every two, sorry, excuse me, approximately 2,000 times a second somebody consumes something that we make in one of our facilities. Um, so if and our strategy is really simple. It's our mission statement. The customer is king. And for us, the customer is our internal employees, the team, the trade that we serve, our consumers, and the communities that we operate in. If you haven't uh if you're not familiar with the name of the company, Sugar Foods, you might recognize some of the products that we ultimately produce. Uh, the Fresh Gourmet brand is a brand that you'll you see frequently in grocery stores. Um, where you find your produce, you'll find various salad toppings. I see a smile. So, looks looks like someone's familiar.

I use all of those. You use all of them. Wonderful. Wonderful. Um, but we also sell the same types of products into food service. So when you go to a restaurant, you may be consuming one of our products uh there. Um through chain restaurants like you see when you're driving through the community, we really uh provide various types of toppings and beverage enhancers for anything that you can think of on any uh on pizzas, soups, salads, beverages, and the like. Is this location going to be specific to just one product or are you going to do several? We'll do a host. We'll do a host of products. Yeah. So,

be manufacturing those products or more legit manufacturing actual. Yeah. So, actually a nice segue to talk about project.

Um, so we're our proposed project is at 2709 Northwest uh street and it's in an existing building as Erica mentioned in the Mount Comfort Logistics Park. Uh the building today is about 700,000 plus square feet. We'd be looking to take over about 431,000 square feet of that. Our proposed project includes both manufacturing as well as distribution. On day one, uh which would be September, ideally September 2026, we'd be looking to produce uh crispy onions. So today we're producing crispy onions in our Mexico facility. We'd be looking to bring that to the United States as our business has grown and we need the capacity to support that business as we go forward. So for those of you done a green bean casserole around Thanksgiving time, you probably purchased one of our crispy onions. That's the product we'll be looking to make on day one in this facility from a manufacturing standpoint. Our distribution side as well. So we find our as Sarah's mentioning our strategy. Our strategy is pretty straightforward. We like to distribute and manufacture in the same location because that allows us to be closest to our customers to serve them the best way and support a mission state where customers came. So in addition to manufacturing crispy onions on day one, we'll also be doing distribution of products that are made in our other facilities in the United States and we'll aggregate them here and then ship them out to our customers. The plan we have for this site is much more than day one. So on day one, to answer your question, Mary, it will just be that crispy onions that you see in the bottom righthand corner. But our plan over the next three to five years is to invest significantly in this facility. Package croutons, fruits and nuts in both retail food service as well as portion packs which are sold in our QSR restaurants. In addition, we'd be looking to bring some kettle cooking products. So if you think like chocolate syrups, caramel syrups, uh peppermint syrups,

we have a little outlet store there that we can go. I'm ready. I'll be there about half a tasting room. Yeah. instead of wine tasting. Instead of wine, you know, you can tell it's getting close to you come up with a R&D session and try it out. We like samples.

Okay, make that. Um, so we'd be looking to package and produce other items we currently have in our portfolio that Sarah just showed you. So on day one, it's one fry line. You know, five years from now, we envision this to be our showcase facility for the company. um and where we're manufacturing a lot more products there and packaging a lot more products than we're just doing today. So we have a pretty big strategy for our proposed project um that we think could be game changer for for our companies from before. So very excited about the opportunity that we have distribution uh going from year one to year five as you mentioned. How many vehicles do you see going through? Sure. In a day.

So so in a day we're estimating at at our peak about 50 trucks a day on the inbound and outbound side. So both for production standpoint as well as a distribution employees I I didn't 105 employees you'll have an average cars also plus we'll have that that'll be over two shifts the the 105 employees will be over two shifts two to three shifts okay depending upon how well we're running it's not all at once a question that goes along with that in your literature there it says distribute other products nationwide will you distribute things from there nationwide will that so that will add some trucks on the that That's a net number.

So, so our distribution there will will service as we think about where our customer footprint is. So, we undertook a network study about a year ago to see where should our next US facility be. Um, and we looked at a lot of different areas which we narrowed down to the Midwest based upon our customer geography and where we're at. So, so this facility would service if you think about the Midwest, upper Midwest, Northeast, Mid-Atlantic kind of areas of the country as as we go about that. Are you going to um buy new equipment to put in that facility? not bring it from another source.

Purchasing anything we put in that facility will most likely be purchased new equipment. On day one, the Fry line is a brand new line uh that we're working with our existing vendors on. Uh so it's about $35 million capital investment on day one uh into that facility of all brand new equipment. And then any subsequent equipment we had over the years would be brand new equipment as well. On a personal property assessment, uh used equipment can be listed, but it will uh be given a depreciated dollar amount. So, I was trying to drive at what what's new or what's used. So, it's all going to be here. All would be brand new equipment. Yeah, we're looking for brand new equipment. Um, if you notice the location of this facility, I don't think there's any residential anywhere near it.

I haven't looked at an area on it yet because it's south of three four south of 300 North on 400 West. Um, I I have to ask this question. And it's a it it shouldn't it's it's a stupid question, but I have to ask cuz I've been burnt once. Is anybody any owner of the company is anybody on the board or is is is there any ownership or or anything that's ever been done with the CCP with the Chinese uh No. No. Okay.

Not we have the largest pork producer in the in the United States owned by the the Chinese government now. And we have a facility that I tax I voted yes on tax abatement for about a mile from there um that is now uh controlled by the Chinese government. So I want to make sure we don't have any foreign I I am excited about the idea of bringing the food from Mexico back into the United States. I'm not I'm not great about putting stuff on top my salads that weren't made in the United States. So yes, but uh so there's no connection to any other foreign country. No. Okay. Super. So you're not relocating a US location to this location. It's brand new.

Brand new facility. And uh you're you do have other US facilities like this. We have we currently have three other four of the facilities in the US of which three are production, one is just distribution. And how long have you been in roughly those facilities? Sarah, I'm going to turn to you.

So we're about almost 30 years in in Georgia. uh Mexico since ' 07. Um and Brockton has been close to 30 years in that in that site. Also, we we have a long history of expanding once we settle in a in a community. We don't move around a lot. We we really stay where we are. Um and we settle in, we become part of the community, and we typically expand uh both in in number of employees and in So you anticipate Oh, sorry. I was going to say that's just always a constituent concern is are they going to get an incentive and leave when that's gone and just go get new incentives elsewhere.

That's not our our our track record shows on our our plan is not our plan one day is to take over all 17,000 700,000 feet of the facility. That's our that's our instate goal to be able to own to fully operate that whole facility. done that in Georgia and California and as Sarah mentioned Brockton

we were um we were told uh that there's possibly an incentive to the fire department that you guys are discussing and so are you negotiating that incentive with just the fire department or has the commissioners been notified as to any incentive that they might be offering and if it will be in writing uh for me it's going to have to be in writing before I can vote on the abatement next week. So if they can finalize anything with that would matter. Right. So we're not voting on the abatement next week. We'll be introducing

I I think the the process is we would not today but do a declarative and then they go to the commissioners after and then they come back to us for a final. Yeah. I just want to make sure um that we have all of this on paper before we do a final vote on the abatement that we're sure everybody's on the same page. We we have not had discussions with the the fire department yet. Have not we have not but we know there's going to be an impact particularly on the for the requests we have for tax abatement. So we're we're going to address that in one minute Mary if that's okay. We just have sure

two slides away and I think I get kind of jumpy so sorry.

So uh just some examples of the type of community partnership as we talked a little bit about we don't move around. We look to make a home. We look to become part of the community in which we are operating. Um and those types of community activities and support can vary based on the local needs. Um there's a a wide variety that we have uh engaged in over time uh stemming from uh beginning with supporting orphanages, making sure that there's uh holiday gifts around Christmas time for the children, um 5K races to raise money for charity, regular donations to food banks or supporting with uh with a physical presence when there's a need. Um, we're very open to partnering in a way that's meaningful and valuable to the community. Um, and that helps us get to know uh the community and the community get to know us. So, we'd be very open to hearing where where we could support and be of help to the to the local community.

Then the partnership and support we're looking for is is on the slides. I won't go through it, but we do we are uh proposing a donation to the fire department. Each year we have a tax abatement to to make sure that uh we have good partners in the local community. So as Sarah said, we want to make sure we're doing things that are relevant to the community. Each community is unique and different. Um we want to make sure we're being good stewards to the community in that regard. So it is something that's top of mind for us. Sounds like you you expect most of your employees to live in the county, too. I see you Yes. put a number on that.

Yeah. So, so we we you know, we we know for other facilities, you know, drive radius that's that you're going to get for for manufacturing distribution jobs. Um, and one of the things that we looked at in Hancock County was the population and uh and that's really why we're proposing this project within Hancock County.

And our just to mention, our request is for the standard uh tax abatement on personal property. It's the equipment, the production equipment and and uh warehouse equipment that's really driving the jobs here. It's it's the it's not the building that drives jobs. It's the production that does. So, this will be very helpful to the project to have uh assistance through a tax abatement. And again, just the standard tax abatement with a payment going each year to the uh to the fire department. Uh your application said you offer um basically a full package of uh benefits. Do you know offhand your retirement program? I assume is a 401k. Does the company match?

We do. We have a four a 4% match across uh all of our facilities. Dollar fordoll match on 4% 4% match. Well, these days that's it used to be standard and now it's generous. So I think that says something about the way you treat your employees. Absolutely.

Any other questions? Um, yeah. I was curious about uh the five-year abatement of uh I mean my first question on is would 50% each year be a consideration? The other thing that I think about is would a three-year abatement be okay or is that a no-go for the business? So since this is not on a building, it's on the production equipment. The standard abatement is very helpful to the project because the equipment will depreciate really quick, right?

So it it starts off with a a good amount that's very helpful and it's upfront when they can help. It helps offset the large investment the $35 million they're making in at the site. So, we we'd really appreciate your consideration of the five-year um we would be happy to discuss something um fiveyear standard. Be happy to discuss something else if that's the what kind of uh terms that have you to with the owner of the building as far as just leasing the building itself. I don't need the

Yeah, it be a lease of the building that has not been uh signed yet. you won't address it. the long-term part 20 plus year lease. Oh, your initial lease, you're looking that long. And and to let all of you guys know, um because this would be a special exception in the area, uh they have to go before the BCA and so there's cost there. But we, you know, we had talked to how the planning department all the cost. Yeah. I'm just letting you know that they got to go before the BCA and get approval because a food production is not allowable. It's a special exception in that area. Good. Yeah. There you go.

Thanks for the same. There's Smithfield down there somewhere. That should slow it down a little bit. Any other questions? We really appreciate you coming in. Yeah, thanks for allowing us to ask questions. Yep. And the last thing, oh, Erica, the previous Draco, the third party. Very cool. Erica, is this the warehouse that's right up on 70 right there? 27. Yes. Yeah. Um, so if you think there's the 3P or the um they just built a new one almost at the intersection, but it's the one that's south of it.

They've got the cold storage. Right. Yeah. But it wasn't food production. No, it was just distribution warehousing. Federal redistribution company that's no longer in there. Okay. I'm surprised. Last thing on the zone that they have to get a special exception. I'm really surprised. The last thing on the agenda was I just put in there as as a reminder uh to me and for us that we need to be planning that was right here

uh what we're going to uh continue uh in the mental health initiative that we started with ARP money because the ARP money runs out at the end of uh 26 and you know people are involved. People uh work and we need to uh look at you know evaluate um what we're doing and uh decide what we're going to do going forward um if for nothing else the people that are working there. So we'll be

brag can you confirm so what's been funded either by the health department or ARPA related to mental health and the jail we've got um the contract with uh the community what do they call it correctional uh I forget that company's Matthew Matthew that's so Matthew is a grant through the ISA sheriff association but we don't pay for him oh he is he is grant covered but that's probably renewable each here. Yes. Sheriff and then ARPA andor the health department is covering what? Three navigators.

So we have two two navigators in ARPA and then currently the third navigator is coming out of the health department which was found out next year will not. So right three. So we're covered through 26 on all three and then all three are not covered for the following year. Correct. Are there other costs we're not thinking of that have been ARPA subsidized that we need to be looking for a home for? Shouldn't be that should be those three that we got as far as I remember. Mhm. And roughly after benefits 100k a year salary plus insurance plus benefits per person.

Per person. Yeah, that'd be that'd be pretty close. Well, and the plan would be to in subsequent meetings to uh bring the people before us to review the program and give us the results like uh the sheriff and his program and um Amanda uh from the um um hospital so that we can know what has gone on and what is going on. And I just like to bring up this sore stuff. Don't you just like to perpetuate that, you know? They want you to be in a bad mood when you leave.

Yeah. You just They just want to keep the the the cloud overhead of us, right? No. Yeah. Not Not with Brad stuff. I mean, I'm talking about the other stuff. I mean, really, the hospital has taken on a lot. You know, we used a lot of ARPA money to seed fund things at the hospital that they said they would sustain beyond the ARPA period. So, I really think to only be talking about 300,000 is actually good for how much investment was. I mean, obviously they they've worked with us quite a bit with the Justice Navigation team. I mean, you know, so I mean that that collaboration cooperation between us, I mean, it's been valuable. So, I mean, I'll give you that much. Yeah.

Oh, did that documentary come out that they made? Yeah. Uh, yeah, we have the document. Which one? Oh, the hospital one. I was there one day. when that guy graduated MRT that I went to school with and they were filming a documentary that I wanted to see when it was done. Yes, we have that. We that is done. Oh, you send me a link or whatever. Um, yeah. Actually, we're trying to work out I'm going to actually try to do maybe a public showing. Okay. For it and so I'm excited to see that. Yeah. But at any rate, we'll be bringing people in and over the next few months and so we don't come to, you know, December of uh 26 and say, "Oh crap, you know, 26 is a long way." Okay. Thank Okay. Um,

right. I had spoke with Greg and uh he offered and was going to give us just a uh little bit of information on where personal property abatements and personal property as a whole stands today after SB1. So, we know this year and we know next year it's probably going to change. Well, they changed they changed the code somewhere else on on personal property, right? Yeah. Correct. Yeah. So, I'm going to attempt to do this. There are about five pages. Don't shuffle. Okay, keep them in order. So, take one. It's like a teacher. Don't shuffle your papers. Very boxy. You know who you're dealing with here. So, great.

And then you could you've got plenty of room to make your own note if you want on each of these pages, but I'll explain each page as we go. We're trying to figure out a title for it. And quite frankly, with Monday being uh Labor Day and and Mary and I talking on Thursday, I said, I'll I'll try this. And by the way, when we get SB2, we'll put SB1 over here and we'll put SB2 over here. So in in talking with the utility/personal property group at DLGF, they are working hard on two personal property tax filing form 103s. Okay? Because you're going to have to have two separate ones more than likely. And let me explain. So for the very first page, this is we've used million-doll personal property value. That's what they're going to put on their return. They on the very first page, if you want to label this number one, this is date put into service. It's new one 1125. So after 11 125. So we would be talking about the the person that was Sugar Foods just moments ago. They're in an allocation area. Yes. What does that mean? That and the allocation area, by the way, was created before 1124. Okay, that means they will have a depreciation floor of 30%. So that 30% applies. Okay, easy peasy. Now go to the next page. Label that

number two. You have personal property value of 1 million. You put it into service last year 11 or before 1124. You're not in an allocation area. You will have the 30% floor. Okay? So, the good thing is right there, regardless of whether you're in the TIFF or not in the TIFF, if you compare page one and two, you've got the 30% floor. Okay. Number three, if you want to label that number three, the next one, you have a million, you put it into service in 125. So, sugar foods, you're in an allocation area. Yes, you the allocation area is new now you will get a 50% you will go down this is assuming pool two 5% is the bottom floor on pool two so it would be valued at 50,000 the depreciation floor okay so that means as you structure new tiffs you must take it into account if

you were dependent on tiff. What I think was kind of interesting is the state legislature did not make a differential between whether you use the personal property for tiff or not to pay debt. Okay? because we're not capturing personal property in any of our Hancock County TIFFs to the best of my knowledge. Right, Deborah? To the best of my knowledge.

So that's so you know kind of like it was kind of like why why didn't you make the distinction about being paid towards debt which by the way those are far and few between because everybody knows personal property was going away. Number four, if you label that four, the business personal property is 1 million. You have it put into service like Sugar Foods coming up. It doesn't matter if you're in an allocation area, doesn't matter. And it will go to $50,000. So each of those, it doesn't really matter on three and four. They're both going to go to 50. So that's when Mary and I chitchated on Thursday that the last thing I would probably really do is go beyond five years. The cut off for abatement should be an absolute 5 years now. And remember, people have asked for more than that. And so, you know, there's been 10-year requests and things like that. And now the question is, is as you asked, three years more appropriate or I'm sorry, Scott, you did. And so, uh, that's we we're will come up because they'll get there. Pool uh, pool two is three to five years. They'll get to the 5% pretty quick,

right? But since Sugar Foods is in an existing building, then they're the 300,000 is the floor. Well, again, we're talking personal property, not so it's really when they put the personal property into when they put it. Okay. Yeah. Don't don't

it doesn't matter when the allocation area was made. It only matters when the business personal property is going in. Well, no. That's that's what I was trying to show you. If the allocation area is made, if if we have sugar foods come in and we create a new allocation area, then that was number um basically number uh three,

right? Because they're in an allocation area, they're putting it in, they will still get the floor. So the answer is the state said do don't depend on that personal property for your tiff right that's what they're saying but they're in a preexisting allocation area my believe would be right because they're in Buck Creek right now yes and so they you know they will have the 30% floor because it's already existing yes and they're putting it in new they're putting it so it's number one Right.

Jog my memory on how long it takes take abatements out of it. How long does it take to depreciate to the floor on the type of equipment we're usually talking there's there's four segments. Is that right? Four segments on a personal property form. And depending on what like IT equipment is going to depreciate out really fast, right? So they're probably in pool one and then which is three year

and then you get down to things in manufacturing which you hope that equipment lasts for decades. They'll be in pool four and their depreciation schedule to be different than what they are in pool one. So where which pool they put this in is always something the assessor needs to pay attention to because you don't want them to depreciate manufacturing equipment out in pool one and uh you know it's going to last longer than that, right? So that's

because on Scott's point, you know, I ideologically I don't even really believe in p business personal property tax like having to pay money every year to have equipment you've already been taxed on. Like I I don't like it. But we do know we have uh taxing units dependent on it. And so it is what it is. When it comes to abatements, you know, I had said previously I was willing to do a three-year abatement on Walmart because to me the math made sense. You know, yes, it's a small discount, but they're still paying the lion share. I haven't seen the math on sugar foods, and it's such a smaller number. I guess I could go prorate that Walmart math down to 25 million and come up with it probably. But what's the difference between the three and five year with the 30% floor on a $25 million ask? How much?

Yeah, I I I don't know that pool they put in. But you just we have you run that. You just made the argument for the company, not for the county. Because in truth, it is a burden on my company and that company to pay tax every year on something that you've already paid tax on. Well, I know the point I'm making. That's just how I feel about I mean, if I was the business owner to pay tax every year on equipment, that's what I said. Yeah. the fiveyear is really and if you go on your last page

but go on to the last page and Kent so so you know I'm talking to CPAs right now and and a lot of them that do personal property tax returns this is the one that's the going to be the kicker on AV and in the sustainability we show how much personal property there is but exempt starting In 2027, you get up to 2 million exempt and you don't even file. Right now, it's 80. So, I would beg to offer Kent, you're probably under that. Maybe not,

but you know, without disclosing confidential information on your own. Well, no, my my trucks aren't considered personal property. Yeah. Yeah. So personal property you are purely below you may not be below the 80 which is current and and in effect for the next two years being 25 and 26 but you will be under the 2 million and we made note that on utilities that you not note there only for property in said county if you you get if you're located in five counties you can get five times 2 million

or 10 million. And that was always a big problem with assessing because of how they would report and some would report located. They're located in multiple counties and this is our total. Bingo. We'd have to break it down and figure out what distributes to it's called a consolidated return on personal property. 103 is going to be for what's pardon me. what the two 103s are going to be for. Well, probably one will be if you're in a tiff. If you're not in a tiff,

then if you, you know, it may start breaking down, you may have to have a form 103 by county. If you want to take advantage of the 2 million as opposed to a consolidated return, right? Because yes, you and I are used to consolidated returns. So, oh, so, so basically DLGF said, uh, yeah, we're working on these forms, but we're probably three or four months out. So, the $2 million, it's a nightmare that they will start with in 27. Is that their gross value at the time of purchase? $2 million. How does what is the $2 million plus subject to the form? I'm going to say yes.

Okay. It is the gross value that you start with. like we heard from count, you know, he he he will not file personal property tax returns. His business will not do that in the future. And since that goes through the assessor's office, is it still considered self assessment? And if they want to just say, "Hey, we're under 2 million. We're not filing." Remember, it is self assessment. Self assessment. So, you just open the multiple cans of worms that are coming to a theater near you. There is There is some auditing done by the assessor, but it's more comparing last year's filing to this year. And if they see a big change, what happened?

They told their SB1 that the cost of the manufacturing equipment will be 25 million and that the assessed value will be 10 million. So is it you're in year one when your equipment gets I mean maybe that's an indication of how they plan to pull it. Maybe that's an indication of how much they get they get depreciation in year one. It drops to 40 the first year. Is that right? And then it goes back up to 60.

I think it's 4256 and then goes from there. But you did they did slip it in that it will depreciate fairly quickly. So Mary, I'm thinking it's going to be other than they did put on it. It will be the the one to three. I think the other one will be pool two. Okay. I think when and and so that is where you know the abatement form could also use some improvement. Please indicate what you know the break down your expected value of your property by pool. You know, these guys actually did on the SB1. It breaks down 11 million manufacturing processing, 3.1 manufacturing packaging, 1 million raw material handling equipment, 500. So it they actually did break down. I assume those are classifications on the pools.

I did read that because I looked at it, keley, but I don't think that's an I don't think you can absolutely make that conclusion. you just we need you to ask.

I have a question that probably Mary can answer or you can Greg. Um I was a little concerned about how not criticizing but how the depreciation is done because basically they fill out a form and they turn it into the assessor but nobody ever goes out and checks to see if what what keeps them accountable for the information that they're turning into us. They're supposed to provide an equipment list with their first filing. So you see what's generating that number in that pool. And then the next year's filing, if you see they had a million dollars on line one of pool one and the next year they have 500,000 in line two because it goes down for one year of that same uh reporting that was in line one the year before. What happened to the other 500,000? So that's the kind of things that assessors when we're auditing personal property filings, that's what we're looking for is change. Something jumped,

but we're not seeing like they paid x number of dollars for a particular Well, shall we have Greg run the numbers for sugar uh foods at uh threeyear and fiveyear? Well, I'd like to number one, if you want to do that, that's fine. We can do that. Not a problem. We do need to ask them to put it in the pools. Give us a estimate. Be real. Yeah, numbers. You're right.

Yeah. And in DLGF did say they are putting in uh computers to kind of review and audit some of the because they're self assessed, but we brought up one or two issues they said they didn't really take into account and they may take that into account as they're reviewing a couple more I uh a couple more personal property returns, especially on utilities, too. And so if you're under the IURC and you're a utility like AES, you do not get the 2 million.

So if you're regulated by the IURC, so the good news is if we got, you know, something of a heavy electric user, um, you know, and they were non ninstar, there would not be a reduction there. So that was that's another interesting point. So keep these because uh you know they they are just they are just trying to figure out how to implement this. I'll say good luck to the assessor. If you if you're saying that to do the calculation Jim asked for you would need to know the pools.

I think one of two things has to happen. Either you have to either our HDC friends need to get that to you in time to get it here before next Wednesday or you could just show us a best case and worst case. Oh, I'm sorry. Are you considering that next Wednesday? Well, the I guess we'll be voting on a declaratory next week. Possibly. If you could just show a best and worst case get a hold of is up. Let's ask

the different pools. Uh according to DLGF uh pool one is federal tax life of 1 to four years. Pool two is 5 to 8, three 9 to 12, 4 and longer life expect their equipment put in the appropriate pool. Well, yeah, if you could just give us an estimate. It'll be between It'll be pardon one and pardon two, more than likely. Yeah. Make sure that Greg what Greg's saying he wants to have. Okay. Okay. That's it. Thank you.

Okay, there you go, Mary. At this point, again, subject to SB2. That was helpful. Very helpful for me. Thank you. Okay, we are adjourned and not yet. I got one request. One request. We got to vote on the minutes. I move we approve minutes for August 6. Who second it? Everybody. Second it. We all voted yes. Okay. And then now we have auditor business

and under auditor business she we have a resolution we need to deal with. uh Judge Davis uh in his application to the state uh has been contacting and getting on the case of me, Bill, and other Scott Bank uh that we need the council needs to get this resolution done because he needs our support that we approved it and all that. And we have a resolution before me uh for us to sign uh what's the resolution for? It's a resolution to appoint a juvenile court magistrate judge for Hancock County. Do we have a copy of this? Have anything on it? That's the one we did about We've already approved it. We've already approved it. We just need to You need to sign the resign. Sign the res. That's all. It's just a signature you're wanting. Yeah. Okay. Done. Yeah.

Okay. If you're going to sign that, can I ask for this request? So, for the opioid dispersement monies, the grant that we're going through right now, the commissioners made a recommendation that they approved a company called Neighborhood Development Associates to assist with the application. in the um oh the uh grant writing grant writing to that that process and an amount not to exceed $10,000 to come out of opioid unrestricted. Would you grant that for the commissioners the approval to I move we approve use unrestricted money 10,000.

I'll make a motion um to authorize the commissioners to expend up to $10,000 in professional services from unrestricted opioid funds. Second. All in favor? I I Thank you. Okay. Okay. Auditor business. Yes. All I need is K to sign this before you go. Every You just forgot to sign it. Oh, the township and the township. The township CIPs. Oh, crap. I thought I didn't know that was my business. I thought it was on your business. It's on their business. Yeah, it's your business. Just acknowledging it to acknowledge that you've seen it and reviewed it so that we can put that in the minutes.

So, we've received Green Township and Vernon Township only. All right. Put that in the minutes. We received it. Acknowledge it. Seen it. Got it. We're ajourned. We're already done that third time. We're But can I can I throw something else out?