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

TV. You You can't You can't leave, Janine. It's just a budget meeting. I know. It's just a budget meeting. I mean, is there something that she really wants to be here for? Okay, let's review the fund balances first, please. Has everybody got them? My packet. Okay, look at them. Page one, county general. Looks good. Economic development. Let special purpose down about 2/3. There's the health fund looks good. Health First Indiana. Then lit public safety looks good. Rainy day. chime in if you got a question.

Hang on a second. Yeah. Can Key hear you. Okay. I didn't know if you she turned it on yet. Did you turn everything on? Okay. Super. All right. Key, we can't hear you. It's okay. No, you legally be able to hear her. We hear you. You're right. Sing us a Disney song there. Disney song. I don't think she's in that part of Florida. Oh, my guess is Florida. Let it go. You can't hear. Can you try it again, Key? No.

Are you muted on your We see you. Can you hear us? Are you muted on your Okay. Okay. We Sorry, we just can't hear you. And I don't read lips. Sorry. I do pretty much. I think I don't know. Sign lang. I think she just told us off. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Good thing she didn't have sound, huh?

So, page two, uh halfway down there's statewide E911. Then the three uh lits, correctional, the two correctional facility lits, PAP. They all look good. drug court. Looks good. Page three. Halfway down we've got the big alloc tiff area and the geo bonds and then the other tiff areas and finally down there 4700 is self insurance. All looks okay. Page four, jury pay fund is just barely above water, but above water. All right. Then the two health claims funds are okay. Right at the bottom, food and beverage. Then page five and six are the grants. So that food and beverage is before the reimbursement, right?

Yes. Yeah. That bond has not been um sold. Yes. Any comments or okay, looks okay. Second on the agenda is the car uh sheriff's car financing and uh the um suggestion of the auditor is that we wait until next Wednesday in the council meeting when we uh have it on the agenda to um uh pass to pay the entire bill and we can do it they can do it immediately. rather than paying part of it uh with a vote today and then having to go through two steps.

So, is that okay with everyone? If the auditor says that's the best way to do it, then I believe her. Yeah. Okay. The sheriff Well, you know, my my opinion is we owe it. We need to try to pay the whole thing, right? As long as they don't have to wait another 30 days after the Right. Yeah. Well, they said uh when we pass it next Wednesday, they can pay it immediately. Okay. Do the special claims. Okay. Okay. Y uh the levy appeal. Greg, do you want

Yes, sir. You should have in your packet u the five reasons that we have put together. Keep in mind this is a growth quotient. It is my understanding that the auditor's office released our AV. We are again up around 5% I think 4 point something. Um so that's higher than the state average. And so I have come up with these five. I'm looking for any more you want to add. You know we had paragraph after paragraph after paragraph last time. Um, you know, at this point in time, at best it's a 50/50 chance and because, you know, the directive from the state has been, you know, uh, they're going to look for reasons not to give these out and we have a rather strong cash balance, but that will obviously take some hits as we go forward. So, any questions or any additions? We will be filing this later this uh well, it's not octo October yet. It's tomorrow, but we'll be filing it in October. So,

today is October. Today's October 1st. We wouldn't be here if it wasn't October. Uh thank you. Forgot it's payday, too. So, would that be for the 26 budget? Um

yes, sir. Okay. This would be an First of all, remember in the 26 budget, we've got our our our money that we left on the table from our last appeal. So, that will help some and that was put into the sustainability. And then this would be on top of that. And ultimately with the 5% growth quotient in the GO bond, we should still have a slight um 5% growth quotient in the AV. We should still have a uh stable tax rate, maybe a little bit increasing if we got the maximum levy, full maximum levy. So we would want to review that when we get the 1782 which will be sometime in probably turkey day or uh later.

What what was the growth quotion last year when we applied 4.3 or 4.7? Oh so it's higher. Yeah. So what would be the amount? Uh the amount that's been calculated I believe was around 1 million3. So that'll be in the application. Yeah. Any comments or questions? You know, I don't know if this would help at all, Greg, but you know, I mean, our buildings are aging, too.

We can put that they consider that one-time capital. So they don't consider it necessarily something that would be considered in a maximum levy appeal that will go on into perpetuity. We'll we'll put it Jenny. I'll add it as number six. If you think it'll help if not just it was just people are seems like our building maintenance goes on. Well, it certainly does and it's very expensive. So, and Jim, by the way, on number five here, where I put Rising Juvenile Care,

uh you did task me with asking Shelby County and I met with their uh county council and they they believe they are having a rising need in juvenile, but um and they said yes, they'd entertain any type of joint relationship that believe you were asking me about doing it with Johnson County and they said absolutely they talk and everything they just don't didn't have a handle on it when I talked to them the very next day and I was just with them yesterday

and so you know it it you asked me to do that I did and they gave a positive response form well it's just true Johnson County actually has a facility, right? I I understood that. Yeah. Shelby does not, right? They're like us.

Shelby does not and it'd be one where maybe going to Johnson if they expand is what I thought you were saying was maybe we would go in on it. Typican New County did uh postpone again for about the third time building a new juvenile uh facility because of Senate Bill One. And so I was in actively working with them. I also told them that if they change, there may be other counties that would be interested in renting beds if they did it. But at this point in time, SB1 uh is to put them on hold pretty much.

So maybe the commissioners would consider thinking about that. Maybe a joint effort. Yeah. Kind of a regional joint effort. Yeah. Does that work, Brad? I know that there was discussion about regional jails at one time. Would regional juvenile detention work? We kind of do that now. I mean, if we can find bed space wherever they're at. That's just the problem is finding a location throughout the state that will actually give you bed space. So, and then whether we would want to sign up for the year for Abed or kind of like what we do with u the uh Telicia Kums. Yeah.

And things like that. That's the concept I believe. Yeah. Pay for so many which we did for years with Delaware County, right? Until they decide not to do it that But maybe again that's something we look at as we're going forward with the farm property and the courts and criminal justice system and I know that can't be with the adult population but that might be something that's workable into the plan. Yeah. And that's what Jim had asked me to kind of think about or ask about. So how many beds would you recommend sheriff to build? You know, if we were going to build something,

if we're going to build them, it's going to be a regional facility. I don't know. I think we'd have to do a little bit of a study to see. I I don't have an idea right now. I don't want to speak out number out there. That's Yeah, Typic was talking about 12 or 24. And at 24, I don't believe it was 24 and 42, but it was 20 million to build and three and a half to operate. per year. So that's what put it on hold. Yeah. 24 beds. Three and a half million to operate.

Yep. And that was there were three final independent studies to kind of come up with the 3 to 3 12 million of cost. So it wasn't necessarily pie in the sky numbers. And that was there was alternatives of them sharing it with their pre their existing facility. So, are you guys able to hear me? Yep.

Oh, I was just going to add on that that I've done some really rough math to try to figure out where the break even is on youth detention and I could not find it. I mean, it's you it it's it was too much, you know, 24 hours a day and dealing with juveniles and the extras. It it is definitely, I think, a perpetual financial operating loss unless the state wants to subsidize it, even if even if other counties pay hundred something dollars a day. Yeah. And I'm hearing the cost is now 350 to 500.

Yeah. Well, well, the subject came up when Janine and I were meeting with the judges. They're the ones that brought it up and uh they just said that they're having difficulty placing juveniles any place. And if it's in the middle of the night, that requires, you know, I'm I'm guessing a deputy to transport or a jail officer. Oh, absolutely. That we take out a service for that. I'm guessing if you can find a place to take if you can find a place to take him. So, sounds like a challenge for 2026. Okay. Thanks for checking on that. I was going to say, yeah, um

there'll be a challenge after I'm gone. under old business. Um was going to ask about the um Scott, can you give us an update on where we stand on the change? Yeah, I uh I had reached out to, you know, DLGF because we obviously they need to review. They said it would likely be the maximum amount of time period for them to get their review done. And I still haven't heard from them. Um because I thought it's past the maximum time, right?

I think so. At this point, um I we got ours in I think it was August 19th is what I recall. So it's well over 30 days. Um it wouldn't surprise me if they were delayed on all of them, not just our request. It's I don't think it's singular to us. And I I what I'm going to do is reach out to them again, the two people that Greg was kind enough to provide me um to these on and I'll see what they say. It should have been done already, but state. So that's where we are.

I don't You haven't heard anything, have you, Greg? I haven't heard from any other counties. I haven't been pressing them because I thought you were. I mean any other counties that you Oh yeah, every Sure. We're doing it in several other But have they got back any of those? There's been a couple they nitpicked and they threw back in Martin County. The county attorney did it all on his own and they threw it back at him and denied it. And so uh you know so it's been uh taking more than the normal time.

Okay. So there's only been a few that you even know of where they've responded. Okay. That's my job. Okay. Uh Sarah, adopt the resolution for magistrate. You guys already signed. Okay. What do we need to pass something or what's the or just sign it?

This is what you need to sign that we talked about with the judges. It's already signed. Just need to pass the ordinance. Um, resolution 2025-10-1. Resolution of need to appoint a juvenile court magistrate judge for Hancock County. Motion according to what Miss Gray said. Second. All right. It's been moved and seconded that we uh whatever that number is adopt the resolution in favor say I. 25. All those opposed. It passed. There you go.

Any other old business anybody wants to bring up? I've just got a little bit of business. I spoke with Corey Taylor this morning and you know with the loss of of Rick and the mowing, of course, a lot of that had to go over to contract to keep the mowing up. He thinks he'll get through the mowing season fine, but don't be surprised if he has to uh come in for additional monies for snow removal. Not for sure, but that's a possibility depending on how much snow we get, right? Mhm. And I told him, you know, Jim Shelby can come over here and shovel sometimes. He does everything else he can. I'll bring my

Just so you're aware. Okay. Okay. Anything else? Scott, you got anything? Uh, old business. There was anything else. Or Greg, you got old. Okay. Um, is Brent here? He'll probably be here closer to 9:30. Yeah. Okay. Uh Jeremy, nope. Greg, how about we go over the 2025 revised geo bond ordinance?

Yes, you have in front of you uh 2025-10A, I believe, is the correct number on it. And um Lisa Lee had indicated that she was approached by someone and she moved the interest rate down that in the bond ordinance that you approved she moved it down to the hypothetical interest rate of 4.5%. that is going to cause us a little bit of concern in competitively bidding this bond issue. As you know, we send it out to Greenfield Bank. We send it out to underwriters. We send it out to to almost 75 different entities to bid on these bonds and this is competitive. And there's nothing that sells better than Hancock County. Um, pancakes may sell better, but Hancock County bonds sell really, really good and get a lot of competitive uh, interest in it. Keep in mind, we're still in the premium bond, and we discussed this during the amplified. So, if we cap it at 4.5, that means that someone can't bid a five coupon and then pay you more. And I've gone through this a couple times. So, by having the 4.5, it probably will drop out some of our biders. So, we're asking that that be put to 6%. We had originally 7% in the draft ordinance. Um, that's too high. Things are looking pretty positive and the market for tax exempt bonds is very, very competitive. And so we're expecting it could be down in the three and a half. But again, they want the ability to put a coupon on there because they might be using Robin's grandchildren to

peg that when that maturity comes due and want that 5% until her grandchild goes to uh college. That's the reason for those type of competitive or those coupon rates. So, did Lisa put the 4.5% in there just to kind of protect us from what could be a higher rate? Is that was that the thought process or

I I don't know what the thought process of whoever said put the 4.5 and Lisa really didn't have anybody that she knew she it just got changed. And so the answer is it's not a protection. That may actually cost you more because again if someone bids five, they have to pay you more than 6.5 million for it. So are we basically doing this on the advice of our attorney? No, she didn't advise it. First of all, she who put the Okay, I'm a little confused. Who put the 4.5% in? We don't know. I I think remember the last time I argued about that the rate was too high

and then and then he comes back says, "Well, Mr. Woodidge was right. He knew the rate was too high and we should have done a lower amount." And so I think this time they probably over and said, "Oh, well, Scott knows what he's talking about. Four and a half% might be better." We signed off on you were saying 4.75. I was saying uh I think it was around five and and this time I'd be fine with five. I'd be fine with five. He keeps mentioning five, but I mean what's the Fed funds rate at now, Kent? with the uh Yeah, but the the bid when we when we bid the bonds for the for the thing was what? 3.25 or 3 for amplified. Yeah. No, I think it was a little higher than that. I don't know that one off. It's still way down below.

3.25 25 would be two. But you know, so and remember, no matter what the coupon is, if you buy a $5,000 bond, you got to bring it back to the market rate of 3.5. And you may pay more than $5,000, $5,100 to make that equate to get a four 5% interest coupon on your bond. So overall, the county wants to achieve the most bids it can get because that will get you the most competitive rate. And you're comfortable with 6%. Right. Absolutely. Your recommendation is six. So that's what I'm

or the not to exceed and if it went from three the the market rate of three and a half to six, they would pay you almost 7 million. Okay. So yeah, it's it's all That interest cost taking into account their fee, the interest rate and the discount is all is the best bid in this case. Net interest cost taking into account all of those things. Question, when will this go to bid? Uh we have a ratings call set up now and I think it is going to be um November 1st of November.

Okay. So there's still possibly another rate cut prior to that. October. Do they have one in October? Yeah. But I understand I understand. But but that for the overall market for competition that means something. Sure it does. I believe they do have another one. We have a calendar in our office that has every Fed meeting on it. You know, the interest rates they talk about, okay, yeah, they're going to cut another quarter percent, but that doesn't mean they're going to cut mortgage rates. Well, mortgage rates have fell almost a point since they've started their cutting things. So, yes, it does. Same way with this. It affects it. It It affects it. It doesn't affect one to one ratio. It's not a 1 to1 ratio, but it affects the market as a whole big time. So that's why I was trying to get is there another

you like to say there's not a direct correlation but there is there is a huge correlation there's an impact. Yeah. And sometimes the mortgage rates go up when I haven't seen that. I'm too young apparently. So we would Yes. today. Okay. So we need to pass it today to if that is possible. But do we have the appropriate paperwork? Yep. It's right here. Well, I I'll move we approve ordinance amendment um number 2025-10A. I second it. It's been moved and seconded. All in favor say I.

I. All opposed. I I rather have five person. I know. I know. One, two, three, four. Here's a shock. You don't always get what you want. I know. But I tried to convince Kent because I think he knows I think he knows the Federal Reserve and how it works a little bit better than most people. So, but it doesn't mean anything cuz the it's going to come in below four. Oh, I know. I'm right again. Whether you put five or six, it's still going to come in below. I'm right again. We Okay, if you want to vote no, that's your prerogative. Like me to go to the next one. Sure.

Okay. So, we u Mr. David Gray is here and Ashton Dennett is here and we've been putting together um a great work group working group and we've come to what we believe is a joint solution and they can they'll be able to speak directly to it if you have any questions. Robin was in at one of our meetings and heard this. Mary null and Tammy were on a team's meeting where we talked about this and you have a letter in front of you. Okay, in in your packet. And so this is uh labeled future income tax legislation. We recommend the library request new legislation to begin in 2028 which would allow an increase in the library special uh purpose rate up to 0.25 25 and would be distributed based upon population. The population is new and the 0.25 is new. Now what's going on? If you go to the next paragraph, the libraries are certified to receive the following from the local income tax in 2025. If you look at the the line labeled old cadget, that is what is selfdestructing coming 2028. So Hancock County Public Library would lose 1.9 million. Vernon Township would lose 173,000. Therefore, they would only be left with the two specialurpose operating and specialurpose debt. that according to my understanding in working with both of the entities that um that would be uh quite significant as you can see to

their overall budget funding. Uh we looked at several things with Ron Rhonda had a suggestion that we keep the special purpose at 0.15 work within the current framework of the 0.05 05 to distri be distributed and then find another way to address the debt and the capital and we thought as a group that that would be I I mean the debt and capital probably would end up going on the tax roles so that wouldn't really work. So we all as a group decided that this would be the best avenue to try at this point. Okay. Now, if you look at the estimated county income and you look at the rate needed to recover the 2025 distribution, you see it's 0.25 21. You might say why 0.25? We believe that the 0.25 would be set at the maximum. We would have an annual review of it by the county council like we do now. Okay? And you would govern the rate. And we are also suggesting that um there be a minimum fund balance of 2 million and that that is going to be added here um added as we go forward. What we're asking for from the county as a whole number one is for support u on this future income tax resolution. Both of the libraries are going to do a resolution requesting that the county council support this effort and um I believe that resolution is well on its way and quite frankly I did help draft it and so

um on behalf of Hancock County Public Library itself. So the if you look at the bottom section there the estimated sharing doing it on population is currently how the state is trying to take SB1 they're trying to do everything based upon population not levy because levy in the future if the growth quotient goes to zero it will not grow or change anymore. So uh you know and I've told you that 0% growth quotient in property tax levy is coming. So um the theory is as the population would grow there would be a distribution change and that seems to be very very relevant. Okay. So, where we're going next, libraries are may have or will be considering adopting this resolution, sending it to the county council, and then we'd want the county council, Scott, probably you to draft a resolution if you approve it, uh, for this to take place. You know, it is my understanding there was one whole group saying SB1 won't be changed next year. Actually, I believe there's current that SB2 is coming to a theater near us very very soon. U Representative Thompson has said no, there's changes that need to be made and we're going to try and make them next year. So, we want to get in front of this as fast as we can is assuming you would agree with it and because we may get a no the first round, we may have to

go back a couple rounds. So, questions. Yeah. Question I have would be if you uh go to a um population distribution, how do you count population every year? You wouldn't you'd use in my view you would use the certified that's what the state always uses what the certified or the census but that would be updated census every 10 years though. Yeah. Not every year. Right. So you can't

guess what that's where SB2 needs to correct SB1 [Laughter] other places. Okay, I got a question. So why is the old cadget leaving? Was the legislature passed to reduce taxes? Is that why the legis all current income taxes unless they're special section six is going away. All income taxes are going away

to get you to reauthorize remember a new 1.2 as far as the county is concerned. So all those your seedit's going away, your gadgets going away, your public safety is going away, all those are going away effective 2028 today. Okay. And so with those going away, then it was the the the state's um opinion then that the counties would then have to raise their taxes to compensate for that. That was the idea, right? They would raise their own income tax.

They would raise their own. It wasn't it wasn't that they were taking away the taxes thinking they were going to stay away. They're ra taking away those taxes in order to force the counties to raise their taxes. Right. Well, you use force. They were enabling you to raise the money back by instituting your own tax rate. Well, there's a difference between business.

What I was thinking of the bigger picture, if they would reduce taxes in the states, we're going to reduce taxes and everything like that. Then everybody's thinking those taxes are going to be reduced. But then in truth that's not true. They're reducing their taxes state, but then that means we have to increase ours. So there is no reduction in state taxes. Yeah. To to make sure we they're reducing property taxes and giving you the re ability to charge more local income tax, right? Giving cities and towns the right. That's the big key. They're shifting it from property to income.

And matter of fact, I have an analysis on Hancock County and Hendricks County where what you will see is actually it may be not as bad as you think if income grows. Property taxes will go down. There may be actually a fairly good break even, especially in Hancock County. the way I've we've preliminarily calculated it looks pretty it doesn't look as bad as you think. So, and I'm gonna have that for the next budget committee meeting.

This kind of feels like the when they did the caps, you know, they lowered it and then but we h if we want to function, we had to raise taxes. You know, my my my overall opinion was one, two, three made a great headline in this Indianapolis Star. It did not have calculations behind it. I do believe there are some calculations behind Senate Bill One, which gave me a little bit more, Robin, a little bit more hope that we'll get there. And again, the it's because the cities and towns for 10 years have said, "Why don't you give us the right to have our own income tax?" And they gave them that right. But counties have to watch out that if SB2 comes, you currently have the right to go up to 1.2. The 1.2 2 also for a city is is allowed, but most cities are saying the 1.2 doesn't work. We need it to be 1.5. If they give that right, they may look for someone to take it out of and I don't want it to come out of the county share. So, the Association of Counties and the Association of County Commissioners really need to guard because if they raise one and cut yours, you I gave you the break even in your sustainability analysis, you know, you're you're relatively close to the 1.2. And so what you're saying is if the property taxes come down and we raise the income taxes, then it it might it might come close to to offsetting itself.

Yes, sir. Because I if if you have positive growth in adjusted gross income, if you and your employees make a little more Kent each and every year and if it would track at about 3 to 4%, we believe there is some overall bill, you know, with a relatively modest house and modest income, you will be break even. Now the problem is you know uh property taxes are deduction on your federal and and all of those things. So everybody's tax situation could be different based upon their tax situation. But but yep and I'll have that for you like I said in November but stay tuned for SB2.

So back to this. So, this is a way that, you know, we've been funding our libraries, our two libraries with um income taxes. This is a way that we're thinking we could continue. And I know Tammy, this is round two for you. I believe you did give us a a indication. Uh you thought this, and I don't want to put words in your mouth, but maybe you should say

I I actually think this is the best way to go. um listening on the call the other day and hearing Ashton talk, David talk, they've put a lot of time and effort into this and this seems like the best plan to benefit the most involved and that's what we want to do and the fact that they're working together on it, I think this is the direction we probably need to head and support them. And I've got one other question on the on the population distribution. Is that from a state standpoint or is that from a county standpoint? Is there a certain amount of dollars that come into the county and then from a population standpoint it gets divvied up? So if if Vernon Township grows higher faster than the other parts of the county, then they get more of the share.

Right. So, Kent, um, the SB1 was totally about getting income taxes, disconnect it from property taxes.

To do that, they made the main driver population as we create different buckets for income taxes. Okay? Like the 0.05 to and for EMS and fire. the EMS and fire is based upon population and square miles of the district or the territory. And so they're trying to make a the state specifically in SB1 is trying to make a disconnect from property taxes and that's the way they're doing either mileage or population.

So what what's their plan then to do the uh numbers? You got to come up with numbers then. Do they have a plan? Yeah, I don't think think there's been an official authoritary source on what the population would be if it would not change every 10 years or if LSA would put out population estimates and it would be used from that. Okay. I have not heard that at this point. So, if they can't do it, they'd probably go back to the old way, wouldn't they? Well, there's all kinds of possibilities, Jim. I mean, you got to be able to Yeah. account for it.

Yeah. I think I I think uh Indiana University and and LSA could come up with or and I'm here with Purdue's help. I didn't mean to make you glitch there. Um but people go out and take a survey every all over the

survey sets. Ke do you have anything you want to chime in here? Uh, I actually participated on the teams we did to go in depth over the the library stuff and um, it seemed like everyone was very agreeable. The county isn't out anything. So, it was really about making sure they were all going to have what they need and we're all in agreement as far as I was concerned and they definitely have that. Okay. So is this is this raising the the income tax on the population?

So that was Key's question. And so at at 21 right on this page, technically income taxes are coming from a very big pot and funding those first two lines. Okay. So the answer is effectively I would say no. be but you know the 15 fixed portion will go up okay and will be reviewed every year but keep in mind they're currently now getting it from two income taxes they're not only getting it from the point the special purpose but they're also getting it from catching so it's a little comp you're com your question is complex

okay how If I simplify it, but I think it's break even. If you live in this county, you make $100,000 a year, is your income tax going up? It Well, from just this, no. From what you might do in the future, the future that's different. Yeah. Yes. Right.

Yeah. That was also my concern was to ensure we weren't effectively raising taxes. And we're, you know, I guess it's better said we're we're putting in writing a cap that if you used all of it could be, but that's not what we're doing. It's just putting a cap in place. And every year we get to authorize how much we are going to take and distribute for that cause. And each year we do not have to make that an amount that equates to an increase which keep in mind that is even mandated under SB1 annual review of all lit rates that starts not 2028.

Oh it doesn't start for a while coming to a theater. You'll be here for one year. Then Scott, you will have to do that like given the timeline we're experiencing right now, you'll be doing that in probably January, February of 27. Okay. So, in in a year or so, it's coming fast. So, this is the increase of the cap, but not the increase of the tax. We don't have to increase it that we don't have to charge more of that. It's just it gives the ability to increase it to that if when catch it drops off or am I not understanding if this is a 21% increase in the tax we're not going to exercise that. Is that what you're saying?

Well, it's not okay. 21 is what we need overall right now. We're getting 0.15 right now from the special purpose, right? We're getting 0.5 right now or more from Kadget. Okay. Okay. Kadgets being torpedoed. So now we're asking for a replacement but through the dedicated special purpose. Let me ask

and we have asked that the 21 be the max rate be 0.25 25 to give the flexibility that if someone wanted to issue a new debt. Okay, they could come to the county council, get approval, and there would be room within the max versus the actual. Plus, what happens if we, you know, if services need to be funded, you know, if we want to give a little salary increases, we got to have a little breathing room. Does that make sense?

Okay. So, I I have a question. It's starting, this would be pertain to SB1 2028. is that I thought, maybe I'm wrong, but I thought after hearing everybody speak about over the past 6 months that libraries were capped at. 2% um 2028 that that that was their provision in the county um taxes. No, I believe it was 0.05 to be allocated to all libraries to replace their property tax replacement. But remember, Scott, we're the only county in the state of Indiana that has the 0.15. So, we're totally different than everybody else.

Greg, is the base for the uh for the two income taxes today that are used the same? The it's adjusted gross income of the county. Yes. Same base being used.

Yes. And that is where in answering Kent, we're we're looking at in a very progressive county like you with good growth that the adjusted o gross income should grow at four or 5%. The pennies from heaven will probably be eliminated because it'll be more real time. That's what I kept telling you. Remember that. And so, uh, that should continue to grow at four or 5%. property taxes are supposed to go down by 5 to 6% per year and that's already scheduled out over the next five years and is fixed in the legislature and I I don't think that's changing at all. And so that's where the net effect.

I don't understand how they're going to do this in real time. They're going to call you up and say, "What are you making, Rob?" Well, they're going to be disappointed. We're going to have to go. and they'll call your husband. We're going to shake people down. We're going to start with us. Well, if we're at a the base is the same uh and uh we're at a 0.15 today u if we're talking about a a point uh 25, we're going to be raising taxes. That's a raising tax.

Well, because that's apples and apples. The difference between 0.21 to 0.25 in my opinion would be but you're setting the max at 0.25 not the actual at 0.25. Okay. You would be setting the again assuming we're now into 20 mid 27.

We're going to sit down and say what are they currently getting from income taxes. update this and then that rate would be set at that point and that would technically then be a break even rate jump and so if if that is 21 or if that is.19 because the base went up then technically I disagree it would not be an increase now and Greg go ahead

isn't it and isn't it so that since you're reviewing doing all income taxes each year that let's say in a given year we said oh the library needs.23 two, three, you can offset those two basis points with income tax that's not special purpose. If you wanted to decrease to offset so that the library gets more income tax in the coming year, but you offset it from your other income tax revenues, that's going to be some a decision made every year. Correct.

It's going to be a decision made every year. Hypothetically, in your hypothetical, the way I'm understanding it is you would go to your own the county's rate and say we want to supplement it like that. And then in that case, Keely, you may or may not be able to do that. I don't know. But you will review each rate every year.

And if you ever wanted to to apply the full 0.25 25 max the special purpose. You could ensure you weren't raising taxes by not charging the full boat elsewhere in income tax revenues, right? Sure. Sure. You could do an offset. That's Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. That's just all I mean it's it's complicated. I

that's unrealistic. We just passed a budget that was 1.3 underwater um plus the 27th pay. So 2.3 underwater. So we would never steal from the other income tax to um to supplement the library when we're well our balances to to you know what I'm saying?

Yeah, I know what you're saying, but you're isolating it to the 1.2 your tax rate. There's also the 0.4 for fire. There's also the, you know, point there's other other income taxes that you will be supreme commander over. And so in in Keely's hypothetical, that may or may not be the case. It may be possible. It depends on where we go. Now, one more thing.

Go ahead. One more thing that hasn't come up today, but that was a concern for me was, you know, we've been talking about moving some of the income tax uh to cover 911, what will eventually be a deficit. And I was assured that none of this conversation impacts what we've discussed there on moving those moving some of that income tax allocation to 911

to this point. Keely, but again, 911 is going away in 2028. So, we you know that that was again all in taxes unless it was a special purpose about 17 of them in the in the state of Indiana are going away. You mentioned fire that that we'll have a tax rate for fire, but we don't have any responsibilities for fire. Well, they want us to have well yet. But remember, yet they'll be losing income taxes,

okay?

From their own township budgets and things like that because they get some of that cadet. So that's where it's going to come back to a theater near you, Jim. You are going to have to re look at replacing that tax with an income tax. Okay. I went, you know, Rhonda and I gave you round one or two on on SB1, and I keep saying, don't worry about SB1 anymore. Worry about SB2. and that theater is coming near you next first first 6 months of 2026. You may say, well, you told us and I will say SB1 now wait for SB2 the sequel and there may be a three and a four.

So, Greg, what what do we is there anything we need to not today. We want to get if if the boards unanimously approve these request, you know, these resolutions and send them to you, that would then create an action item whether you agree or disagree. So, thank you Tammy for bringing it back. Okay. Just kind of want to close that circle. Yeah. But again, there's going to be a lot of money lost and we're going to have services cut if there's not a replacement. They were lying to the public.

I mean 1.9 million for

like the state has has has made it uh um so that a lot of uh financial consultants are going to do well. Actually, Holdman uh is on record as saying the financial advisor scared everybody and rep Senator Holdman and the answer is we made everybody aware and the answer is you know you will find this out in the the the rating agency said we'll take this uh rating as a update which is good that's all we want them to do and assuming Bernie We'll have Bernie on there for his fiveminute cameo. uh and hopefully you have not been attacked and so we we will go through with the geo bond on a pretty fast manner and that's what we're hoping because they just put out a huge docu documents and I think we sent the documents to you G um about the impacts of SB1 coming and so you know the rating agency's on it and we've got to keep Hancock County's rating the best we can and where it is because we've got an absolutely great rating on it is very important for us in the future. Okay, stay tuned.

Great. Do you have anything else? Do we really want to ask that enough? Don't you? My brain won't take anymore. Sometimes it's best to sit there. Yes, it is. Let it settle in. Brent, would you like to come up and present your proposal?

Key, I didn't mean to cut. Did you have something else you wanted to add before we go on? No, not at all. Okay. Okay. I didn't want to forget about you, Brand.

Thank you. Um, I'm here because I'd like pursue funds for an efficiency consultant for the prosecutor's office to figure out how we can maximize efficiency with our operations and also generally with operations that we attack are attached to in the justice system. And that's my request. essentially be somebody to look at case loads by attorney, uh number of criminal referrals, filings, time between referral and filing, time from arrest to disposition. Hopefully, we could break that down even by, you know, by by courtroom or even by case. Uh if you know how we operate with um any problem solving courts, number of trials and hearings, offices, policies and procedures, the purpose would be to figure out how to maximize efficiency so we spend our money and time wisely. So, it's essentially looking at if you're doing a good job or not.

Well, I suppose that's one criteria you could use, council.

I mean, I you you could be really efficient but be doing a bad job with the work product, right? I mean, and there's always going to be a little bit of a thing, you know, is if you have one case, you probably try that case in a tremendous fashion and do a great job in disposition on one case, but it wouldn't be very efficient. The like side is is you could dismiss 500 cases tomorrow. Suddenly, we're very efficient, but we've not done a good job of serving our victims, right? So, there's always a little bit of balancing test. Um, you know, but but with, you know, SP1, as you all were just talking about and a lot of other things, I really don't think it's ever been more important than now to make sure that we're being efficient with our operations and with our funds and and with the allocation of our personnel. Um, as the community begins to grow, I know internally I'm aware of, you know, a little bit of the number of housing starts, etc. around the community. that gives me great concern to make sure that we maximize our efficiency moving forward. Um, you know, the thing with public safety is is if you figure out that you're really short, by the time you figure it out, it's too late and then you're really up a creek. And I'd really like to avoid that and make sure we maximize efficiency. That's what I'm see. So, um, you're proposing that, uh, we do what? I'm proposing we allocate up some money so that we can try to find a expert in this area to have them do

the study that I've talked about. In your opinion, would if we do this, would it um necessarily uh include more than just the prosecutor's office?

I think it would. I mean, because we are connected to so many things. We're connected to probation. We're connected to the courts. We're connected to law enforcement. I mean, all of your I don't know, one one of the things I like to tell people is that everything in the justice system flows through the prosecutor's office. So, if you really want a good idea as to what's happening in your justice system, the best place to start with that is going to be the prosecutor's office because everything goes through us. And so, it would necessarily have, you know, interactions and some looks at the things to which we are connected, the attorneys, the courts, law enforcement, etc. Have there been other counties that have done a survey like this

in the state of Indiana? I'm not sure. I didn't take a survey of the prosecutor in Indiana before I started to look, but I'm aware that those I'm aware that those services exist nationally and it's something that's happened in a lot of states and a lot of people found value from it in both large and small jurisdictions. Um, you know, I periodically I I go to, you know, national conferences for prosecutors and this was something that kind of came to my attention in that forum. I thought it was something that seemed very intriguing. I looked into it a little bit more to kind of figure out what does it entail? How long does it take? What's the work product they produce for you for that, you know, for for their money? How long is it and what's the process? What do they look at? Right. And it was very intriguing to me. I mean, and so it's something I did not see here, but I'm aware that it happens I think in I've seen it in maybe 35 to 40 other states in the around the country. And so it's not uncommon.

I I think I'd be more curious in seeing what's an output from someone that has had it done. Well, what what the output would be is they'd go and they'd kind of summarize the information and and then generally what they're going to do is is they're going to prepare a report like any consultant would, right? And then they're going to have something where they're going to say, "Okay, here's what we see. Here's where there's efficiencies. Here's where there's inefficiencies." You're going to summarize facts after you summarize facts. And you're going to summarize based upon best practices you've seen around the country essentially, you know, what's efficient, what's effective, and what's not, areas for improvement. And one one of our take on that.

One of the things this committee does is look at uh efficiencies and for years we've talked about the justice system and you know not being able to get metrics and you know u you know how efficient are we and how do we line up with the way other people uh run their uh justice system. So I mean it's so decentralized it's really hard to find out. But I think this would be a good start to answer your question directly. Jannine, I think it'd be if I had to guess, you know, you never know what you actually get talking to people, but I would guess in the neighborhood of 50ish if I had to guess

to go through told me the other day from the introduction of this and can't put my fingers on it, but I couldn't recall if you had put a estimate in there. I don't remember either, but I know that that's approximately the ballpark of it. That's what the deliverable is to answer your question. I mean, and you know, and you get those recommendations and then see those things and you're going to you are going to have no matter how good you are, you're going to find ways to improve. You then try to improve. You just I I'm personally I mean in our office is very concerned as we look at the great the rate of growth, right? The county is growing rapidly. We're going to be at 100,000 people here before too long. A and frankly, the systems and the operations and the way that we did things when I began as prosecutor in, you know, 2000 early 2000s when our county had 50,000 people will not hold up under the stress that occurs when you've got 100,000 people. And so I think this could be very valuable. And again, Jim, it not only would it be looking at us, but it would necessarily look at those other places in the system with whom we interact. Um, has anyone defined in writing the scope of work? Because it seems to me like, you know, for us to move forward with funding it, you know, I'm agreeable to allocating funds for it, but before we pick a number out of the air, it almost seems like we should get at least two, if not three or more um, responses for whoever does this across the country, all replying to the same written scope of work. So we can determine the value of it.

Yeah. So maybe what we would do if we want to move forward, we would maybe make a recommendation to the commissioners that they go out and um uh solicit actually put out like an RFP or something. Yeah. So, one one point of concern for me. Um, so you pay for someone to come in and tell us that by states averages or national averages, it's Brent's told us 10 times, we have a third of the amount of people we need and we need 10 more prosecutors and we need 10 more this and 10 more that.

And so, we're going to have that in writing now. And then next budget cycle, he's going to come in and say, "I need six more employees." remember that. Remember last year, I need six more employees and he's going to convince Robin and the and the salary to say yes. And then when we come down to the the budget, we don't have the money. So, you're basically paying for justification for something that we don't have the money for in the next budget cycle. I I don't think that's what he's saying. I think it's you're looking it's not about reducing. It's I think it's about his inefficiencies. He's not It's not about saying it's about him justifying that he needs more people.

That That's the whole thing. And then he's going to have a a paper chase and something we spent $50,000 on to do, but then that doesn't mean the money's there for that. He's going to say then people are going to die. I read that in the paper one time that somebody's going to die because we don't have enough prosecutors. It's equally possible and say, "Boy, Brent, you're really an inefficient O over there. You need to get to it." And they could do that, too. Yeah, he's not doing his job.

I I'm just telling you what what the outcome is is just as likely, probably more likely that's the outcome than then we've got too many people and we need to get rid of some and we can do this and do that. So, it's it's all about then putting us bringing the newspaper in and saying you don't have enough people here so people are going to suffer because of it. Cuz I've already seen it. I've already seen it. You could put in the RFP that you're looking at the processes. You can word the RFP. So, you're looking at I'm just telling you what could happen

about the efficiency of the system, not so much the numbers. Well, there there's risk. How do you find out if you're both sides? I mean, it's equally possible. Okay. Well, I don't know what we're going to get. I don't know what they're going to say. There's no way for me to know that in advance. It's it's certainly possible that they could come and they could say, you know, I mean, there's a need for more resources for for things to work the way they need to for this. But it is equally possible. I don't think it will happen. I mean, I feel pretty firmly of that. But there's risk here, too, where they could look at it and examine and say, "Boy, Brent, you you need to to manage this better or this process needs to be improved, and there's things you need to do differently." And so, you know, it's not predetermined what the outcome is. You don't know until you have the study. No, but in your opinion, we've always been understaffed.

Well, yeah.

Okay. So, how can we be more or how can we be more efficient if we've staffed we're we're already um you know we're already at the point where efficiency is is at its maximum if we're operating at an understaffed level or explain to me how that's not happening. I I'm understaffed in my business and I'm operating at a maximum uh already. So the only way you would be you could you could benefit from efficiency is if you could if you were overstaffed and you could make existing people more efficient. So I I don't I don't understand what's what the benefit's going to be if we're already understaffed.

Can I add something there? you you

I think it's I think it's really important that this not be just about the prosecutor's office, even if that costs more money. I think it needs to be a full look at uh the courts and the public defenders office because kind of on your point Ken maybe Brent's doing all he can with what he has people would make it faster but if part of improved efficiency means different processes or timelines or expectations between these intertwined groups We won't know that if all we do is look at the prosecutor's office. And one thing I realized, you know, back when we added nine police officers, we said, "Oh, look, we're doing something great. You know, we're getting our our police officers up." But then Brent came and said, "Well, now I have more cases to prosecute." And then the PD came and said, "Well, now I have more people to defend." And then the courts came and said, "Well, now I have more now I have more court to schedule." Right? So everything we do for anyone in that system has a trickle down effect on everyone else. And I think if we're going to evaluate uh future needs and efficiencies, we have to look at the whole system.

That might be better.

Well, I I agree with you. I mean, and and I guess what I would would say is that two parts. If you want to look at the whole system, the best place starts in prosecutor's office because everything flows through there. Everything that the the most substantial place where you can acquire data to answer the questions that you want answered is in our office. And you know, from pretty much day one, more than well, transparency is very important to me. I've been very aggressive in trying to be transparent and trying to acquire and amalgamate data so we can truly see what it is we're doing and not rely upon, you know, hints or intuition. we can look at the actual numbers to know and then we can look at, you know, what those numbers tell us about a variety of things. Um, some of that data was in the annual report that I produced back at the first part of the year. Um, it's something that is a priority for us. That's if you have it with our office, it will necessarily open the doors for you to see what's happening elsewhere. And I know I'm always, you know, going to be as committed to transparency as I can. I think it's an important thing. I think people deserve to know, you know, what what it is that the prosecutor's office and the justice system is producing, but I do not know and I don't know that I have any ability to influence the degree of that transparency that comes to all the other people in the way that, you know, I'm describing. I can't control it, but I can control what I can do now. And I know that there are people out there now that would do what we want. And I think that would give us a lot of insight into all of those other things relatively quickly. I appreciate the dialogue. I mean, I'm one vote out of seven, so it's it everybody has to make up their own their own mind and and um I just 90% of of what I do comes from past experience and so I try not to make the same mistakes twice. So that's that's my dialogue.

Well, we went through this not this specific thing about oh 15 years ago and and we found out that there were a lot of inefficiencies in the system for example the judges when they made a uh decision it took like two or three days before that decision got to the jail. So the person that was affected, even though like in the court they might have been exonerated, they still sat in jail for three days. It's stuff like that that you can find out. And the only way to find out is to have somebody look through the system.

Well, then you're dirt up. You're Tequille's point. Then we need a scope of work because if it if it doesn't if it doesn't include the judges because he didn't come in here telling us about judges inefficiencies. He came in here telling us about prosecutor inefficiencies. I I don't think he's going to I don't think I'm going to say that either. I'm telling you then then every office

what I can do though is have the ability to say other elected officials or judicial officers are going to do X Y or Z. I don't have that. Now what I do have though is I have the treasure trove of the data from the system which shows case open, closed, filed, all those other things. And so from that you'll figure it out. But I'm not going to attempt to speak for the judiciary. That's not my

and in private industry. I mean, companies have have departments that are continually looking at better ways to do things, which okay, it might affect the uh headcount, but maybe it didn't. How do you find out if you don't dig in? So

if the commissioners um want to solicit uh again someone needs to define the scope of work and we need to get apples to apples offerings compared but assuming prices are reasonable uh I can be agreeable to funding a selected um provider of this service. It's a contract and it would have to come from a recommendation from the commissioners first. Can you come up with a suggested RFP for the commissioners to look at?

Sure. I mean, that's put in right. Okay, that's something that maybe Scott would Well, you wouldn't have to do the I think what what would help is we'd do the RFQ, what we'd call, but you could give us the description of the services that you would like to have reviewed, services you'd like to have done. So, you can have a review for your office and then we'd incorporate that in it. You wouldn't have to draft it. I can do that. You know what I mean?

Well, I don't fall forward. Well, you understand what I mean? I just want you would just need to provide, okay, you want this survey done. What's the scope of it and we'll incorporate in what is we're looking for? We're looking. Yeah, exactly. Hey, Brent. Yes. Maybe um are you on agenda for the commissioners at all coming up anytime soon?

Not that I'm aware of. If we were to to do that, get you on the agenda, could you just touch base with the judges, touch base with the sheriff, and let them kind of know your thoughts about how to what you're looking to do with this uh company that you that we choose and uh make sure that they have buy in too and they want to be because I'm sure that if they're going to look at everything uh that you touch as a prosecutor, they're probably going going to want to touch their stuff too and just want to make sure they have body.

Okay. I mean, I don't have a problem talking to anybody about anything. Now, what I'll tell you, though, is is that there would be, as I looked at it and my very loose awareness of this possibility is that all right, everything they're going to need exists within 233 East Main. They don't need to go and look at, you know, anything that these other folks have because everything flows through our office. Now, periodically, I mean, they might It's conceivable to me, I mean, that they would say, "Hey, sheriff, how's it working with with inmates for juditional hearings and how's that working?" Because that's something that affects all of us very directly. And I could see that being something they would do, right? I could see somebody, you know, if if there's somebody that had been in the prosecutor business before and understands what's happening, going to different courts to have kind of a look see as what's happening in this court to have some ideas to nuts and bolts of what's happening. But I mean, that's open courtrooms are publicly things you go into. And so I don't know that there would necessarily be a a request for them to like do it or anything that they would be expected really to do, right? I mean, and I guess my concern always is is that all right sometimes, well, I would be a little bit concerned. I don't want to frankly give veto power to somebody else when I'm going to be the one who's going to be under the microscope the most. Thanks for the clarification.

All right. Yeah, I I agree with Brent on that. I mean, if the county says, "Yeah, let's invest in evaluating our system uh in case there's any inefficiencies." You know, I that's that's on we're doing that on behalf of taxpayers and it I don't see it as really like Brent said, something that uh people should be able to veto evaluating our system. I didn't say anything about veto. I just was uh didn't have a full understanding of how they would have to work through that system. Oh yeah. Yeah.

But I imagine the people whoever we get would want to talk to those people and those people could choose to talk to them or not. I mean but certain publicly available information, you know, courts and transportation stuff. I think it'd be pretty easy to figure out. I don't think it'd be particularly contentious. But I mean, as far as as far as data, no. I mean everything that is a proposed case goes to our office right everything that is a filed case then is generated from those everything that is an order that comes from the court that will close a case one way or the other comes through our office and so if you want to see those things that's where it's at could you mute yourself you're giving a lot of feedback

I think it's the phones up there oh the phones close to the mics Maybe mine's not okay. That used to be the problem when that did that. So better. Thank you. Okay. So Janine, is that okay if they generate a RFP for commissioners? I don't think we should really make a decision until we've seen what we are contracting for. Right. Right. And that will come commissioners first and then to the council, right? Yes. I think the commissioners need to mull it over, too. Yeah. So, we'll we can address this maybe at the

whom do you want me to give what by when? Pardon me. Whom do you want me to give what by what time? By what date? Work with Scott. I just Yeah. First, I think you might want to get on the commission other two commissioners, right? Okay. I'd defer to you, but would they want they may want to hear what Brett Absolutely. They would. The RFQ the RFQ is very it's not it's not going to be a long Okay. get on the agenda and get what thing to whom by what date

when you get on the agenda. Yeah. Let's assume that the comm say go ahead. Okay. Then if if you want to have ready at that meeting, you know your scope what you're looking then that would expedite or I can email you. Yeah, that's fine. Okay. I put the commissioners on there, too. And commissioners, before the meeting, you can, you know, they'll know what you're coming for.

Brent, it'll be the 21st. They'll put you on the agenda. October 21st. 7th is already full for next. I apologize. That's fine. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Brent. Jeremy. Yes, sir. Good morning. Good morning. I'm here to ask for money. Thank you for having me. You came to cut your budget, right?

I cut my budget ready for you. Um here to ask for additional appropriation of $120,000 for attorney services. Um which should and actually will have to get us through the rest of the year. We are out of money again for our attorney. That's what I came to ask for. Um by way of explanation some of what where our money's gone so far this year. We've had a significant uptick in the chin cases that start um just by example in 2022 there were 86

uh Chin's juvenile termination u cases that were filed 2023 there were 72. Last year there were 162. This year so far we've had 19 by way of comparison to what we'd spent last year before all those last year appointment third quarter we spent $104,000. Did you say those are juvenile? These are Chin's cases and JTJ cases. These are not filed by the prosecutor. These all go through DCS. Are are you typically representing one side or both sides going to independent attorneys? Every parent gets a public defender generally and where the I know but I was asking if your office is doing at least one of the parents

if we can. Yeah. Okay. Depends on which court we are in. Um I know because you can't represent both parents. So then that's why we have to have outside counsel because then you have a lot of times you have a mom and you may have three or four or five dads for all these kids. So you have six attorneys on a case.

Um that's not the average. I mean there's but you could have easily have two or three if not more attorneys on anyone. um through the third quarter last year, we spent $104,000 on these cases. Um through the quarter, so far this year, we've spent just under $190,000. Had a significant and that's I think a trickle down from DCS filing more cases last year. And this looks the trend is going to continue right now. That's where a big chunk of our what we anticipated would have gone to our regular criminal attorneys is getting sucked into juvenile chins and termination cases. So just for the public's purposes, those are child in need of service cases.

So you basically think this will get you through to the end of the year. Where do we get this from? Yes. Then if we spend another 50 to 100,000 on a purpose we have received for our office that wouldn't save us money here almost 104 in April 117

are the attorneys I know in the past uh the attorneys that were doing outside would just bill at the end when they're done with the Chin case. Are they now doing it monthly? Is that true? That's why we've gotten some of what the expenses early on in this office. We talked about that whole legacy cases and stuff and a lot of that was chins. We still have some of those because they can take two, three, four years to resolve, but we have gotten a point where our attorneys are billing more frequently. So, we're kind of keeping a track of that so we're not getting huge bills at the end of these cases. Um and are they mainly local attorneys that you use?

The chins vast majority of them are local that um special qualifications are the curious too. Are these cases all Hancock County people or Yes, they have to be that has to be. Now, I think there might be an occasion where a dad could be out of a parent may live out in the county, but the children and everything are out here. Uh, so yes, but yes, they're they're Hancock County cases. It's not venued out here type stuff. No,

we get those in juvenile cases sometimes like a juvenile may commit and that has nothing to do with these JC or JT, but the cases where the child's parents left. a crime of an Elcar, it's going to get that's more rare. Very rare.

And am I reading your numbers right that um uh we budgeted uh in your budget 160,000 for this line item and so far we have we've uh made additional appropriations of 198,000. That's correct, sir. Okay. So the total for anticipated for the whole year for this line item will be be about 500,000 bucks and close to it. Close to Yes, sir. I'm just adding up your column over there.

I'll trust your math more than I would. But yeah, that's give or take. It's close. But as you know before we not asking for in our budget we don't ask for a little been like that but kind of once we've had those reimbursements so we can at least let you know that we are bringing money back in but it's still final work here for for these cases for for for the trial cases

I mean for those this is for overall I mean these just they're what I was going to say a minute ago and just speaks to that is it's you know it's $110 an hour. So we've also had a 10% increase that started this year. It used to be the attorneys got paid $100 an hour. now. Okay. The cost up there has been a 10% increase just on those on that line which isn't super significant but Jeremy across across all these outside attorney fees regardless of case type can you remind us was it 40% 50% reimbursement on qualified expenses which chins uh the JT and JC cases are reimburseable it's 40%. 40.

So if somebody spends $1,000, pays we pay them a,000 that we get 400 back.

And uh for 26, your line item is again 160,000. So nope, it's 100. Nope. Unless you approved it. We came in at that last meeting when you were asking and asking people about their budget. M came in and asked and offered to lower that was approved. I don't know if I see any approval if you didn't do that fine. We'll spend 160 and more. Um but we're trying to do so hard to get your budget. So do you have any idea what it will be in 26? You can

overall close to where we've been past between four and $500,000 for attorney services. Let me just So we're we're under budgeted then. I'm sorry. We're under budgeted then for 26 probably. Oh yes. Yeah. Study would help. But I don't believe you were at the meeting when we discussed this somewhat earlier this year, Mr. Kelby. Um make him more efficient.

Talking about the reimbursement. I think Mr. Some of us brought it up at a meeting earlier in the year about um I mean recognizing that we are getting that reimbursement coming budgeting a lower amount for that light item, but then knowing that money's I know I know it's the county money. I know it goes into the general fund knowing that's coming back into the county every year. Um I mean there's not much I can do about it.

Okay. I I'm I I mean I you you have to come in and ask for money. It's the way we've set this up. Um we don't have a choice. Um I I I ponder what we would do if we didn't have food and beverage because we'd have to cut other services. But um so if you have another fund that um is sitting there with additional funds that could uh could fund this, you're the budget guru, let us know. But uh other than that, we've we're our hands are tied, right? Oh,

I guess my I would say that myself that we ought to uh handle this in the council meeting probably that myself, but I I don't care. I don't know why he would need to come back though, unless he thought that him come back again. But I mean, I don't mind waiting. I don't I don't mean I don't mind waiting for the to make a motion at the uh at the council meeting if that's what everybody wants to I don't see I I'm just trapped in my own mind. I don't see another way out of it at this point

unless there's inefficiencies that we can find out among their department. Not just their department outside attorneys cost $50,000 to figure out what his inefficiencies are. Yeah, the inefficiencies of the outside attorneys might be the bigger add that to the 120 that we just need to move juveniles out of the county. We've got juveniles in this county and they have to be dealt with too. So that's a whole other I know that's spending money on that and that's there either

the library is going to get a tax increase so we could take it from the library. Do we want to put that in? I don't know. You're You're the You run the budget, man. You tell me what Tell us what you want us to do. Oh, we have a quorum if you wanted to vote today. If you don't push it off to We have 120 in food and beverage allocated. Oh, we do. That'll be the first question.

That's a good question, Scott. I appreciate food and beverage. We have just enough more than that. We have to just wait to see what they This is for the rest of the year also. Yeah. I mean because we can't even if you needed to come back, we can't come back and b pay anything out before December. So I mean this is our last ask, right? Whatever your wish is,

I I would pay I would start working this into county general. I think for the first few years, we said, well, some of this is legacy, it'll even out, etc. Uh we were trying to keep the county general balance, you know, in line. But if this is, you know, if if the data shows this is perpetual and ongoing, it seems to me we should just start paying for it out of general and and and get the more appropriate number next year in the general budget. I I agree because we are going to continue to do this every year. I never honestly

we didn't want to give Jeremy a big number if that if it wasn't going to be needed in perpetuity while things evened out for a couple years. But I mean, what are we in are we in year four now? I think the first day was January 2nd of 2022. So we've this is our fourth fourth year. Yeah. Yeah. I I can be agreeable to whatever, but but um it logically it makes sense to me that we pay it from general and start paying it from general, but I can be agreeable to other funds if that's what people want to do. How about we do a thumbs up for county general

for what? Thumbs up for county general. County general to advertise. I agree. It's not a one time. Doesn't seem like it's a one-time thing. Okay. Well, and I I don't think we should take all the money out of food and beverage for next week's meeting anyway.

Um we would if we were going to take this out in food and beverage because we only got 130,000 appropriated. I think we ought to wait till the last vote next meets meeting to know if there's any other emergencies prior. Well, and a lot of times at like in October, our last meeting, we kind of uh decide what we think we're going to need in food and beverage to get us through the rest of the year. This is always a good idea. So, at the end of the year, we're not having to do something at the last minute. Okay, we just did a thumbs up. So, thumbs up. There you go. My edification. I'm still four years in figuring out how this is. I appre Thank you first. Thank you. I appreciate it. No. Yeah.

What does that potentially make money available? I know has to be then advertised and voted on. November. If it's if if it's general fund, it's November. If it's uh if it's food and beverage, we do it next week. And when does it become available? I just want to know. So, we'll vote on it uh next Wednesday. Correct. It comes out of fabric. I know it's a bill. Thank you for your time. Thanks. Sorry. It's 10 days. I was Won't it be the first week of November? Pardon me. Won't it be the first week of November? Cuz it's 10 days. Then the public hearing will be maybe

first week of November. I don't think we can do it before the first meeting in November. November. Okay. Because it's got to like she said, it's got to be 10 days after Okay. uh the meeting and we don't have 10 days between now that Yeah. True. Okay. Okay. Um any other old business that anybody wants to bring up? Keely, I didn't mean to leave you out on some of the other discussions. Did you have anything? Anybody? Oh, you know me. I've been chiming in when I had something to say. I do have one thing I want to bring up and it's not old business. It's old but new.

Um, so we went to the Lucas device event last Friday where the fire departments, volunteer departments were all given their devices talked about trainings being set up and so forth. Yesterday I heard from the guys at Sugar Creek the Lucas device they got after 22 minutes of using it saved a life that they were getting ready to tell the wife and uh the machine

worked. The guys couldn't do do it for 22 minutes and they saved a life yesterday with the Lucas device. That's great. and they wanted to thank us and the commissioners as well. Well, and at that meeting they did bring up and I think a lot of people miss this that that Lucas device not only saves people's lives but afterwards they have a lot better outcomes sometimes by using those because it's more efficient and how Yeah. And they they don't lack oxygen and blood as much as when you're doing it by hand. They're ve very appreciative of of the time and effort that went into getting them for the fire departments and I think they save lives and do great things.

Good. Um move to approve the minutes of September 3, 2025. I'll second it. All in favor? Opposed? Carries.

Yes. I just for the record I just added number seven to the levy appeal based upon the chin cases and the 318,000 of additional appropriations we've had to do this year. So, so you know it's in there auditor business. Auditor business. Um Bernie, if you'll recall, uh we approved Bernie Harris's hiring of a uh like a media person. Yeah.

And we said that we would defer uh how we were going to pay for that. Uh, I did check with Bernie and he said he probably at best could hire this person by November, maybe December. So, we may need to come up with some money currently for that person. That person is not in I don't believe the 26 budget. So, after I think I don't think we can get it in now. So, we'll have to add that person after uh January 1st. And I he did say that he had positions open that he could start payment,

right? He's got the money from the initial for 2025. He's got the money. Okay. I think he's as about 2026. Okay. That's okay. Uh the commissioners started a five-year capital plan. There was no meat on the bones. So, I just kind of wondered if that's coming along. Janine, I think Bill's still Thank you. Thank you. Um, the only other thing on here is Green Township Lit Public Safety Application says revisit. Um, go ahead, T.

I was curious when I saw this on here and I've looked through. I didn't know what we were re revisiting. Well, my recollection is that we had a request from them for about $10,000 worth of equipment and we did that from I think food and beverage. I think we did. So,

but I think there actually were two requests from them and so this is the second request for about $10,000. They're requesting it from lit public safety and I guess my answer to that is we don't have any money and that we want to share from but do we want to look at it from some other source? Have they been paid their $10,000 for their new hoses?

They have. Okay. There's 915 $500 in miscellaneous highlighted, but I think this is the same thing. It's not. It is different, but it's dated from June. I think the total is about the same, but it's two my understanding it's two different things. Well, the the is it the reason that they submitted this um from the lit public safety fund because there is no other mechanism to submit it from food and beverage other than if they request it they have to request it this way.

Well, I mean they can just come in and ask for it, you know. Well, it's it's a law that they can do it by July 1st. did. I think that's why they did that formally. And it doesn't matter to me where we pay it out of if we agree to pay it. You know what I'm saying? Not a Well, I think that's the question. Do we do we want to pay it? Well, I'm confused. We already did. What is What is it? Cuz I'm looking at the application. Did that one. Are you sure? Keely has got the floor. Keely, go ahead.

Can you hear me? Yeah. I'm looking at the application. It was for $10,118 for with a uh with a justification narrative. And you're saying we paid that, right? So, what what else are we talking about paying? Okay, here it is. So, um they had two requests. One was for $10,000 for leak leaky water apparatus and the second was a lit public safety request in the amount of $10,118 for new fire hoses for the fire trucks and the trash pump. We just missed the fact that there were two requests instead of one since they were so close in price.

That's right, Key. This is a new request that we have not It's new considered. We already did did the $10,000 for the leaky water leaky whatever. Oh,

so the question is, do we want to help them with another approximately $10,000 is what it is and we have in the past u given a lot of uh attention to the uh three volunteer fire departments because they're a little limited but I I guess I'm I would go ahead and do this, but they really need to go out and get more levy because if you look at their uh tax rate, you look at Green Township for example and uh Blue River Jackson and I think Fountain Town are all about the same. They've got a rate of about 6 cents a 100. Greenfield we pay about 42 cents a 100. So all of the the nonvolunteer uh fire departments you're paying above 40 cents maybe even well I think Vernon is now 52 cents and you've got the volunteers that like 6 cents. Well, you know, maybe they ought to be at 10 cents.

Now, is that changing with SB1? Is that going to change with SP1? How what's that? Is SP1 going to change how that you you were talking about earlier about the firefighters and how the tax would come into play with income tax for them? Sure. So, this would be more of an income tax thing in the future. Okay. So, we we did turn them down last year for a new piece of equipment. Umensive. Yeah. Yeah. It was it was a fire engine or fire truck or something. It was Oh, yeah. We've done that. We We did turn them down in that. And and I you know, so I I um

I for me personally, it's it's fine for us to update their equipment, keep their equipment updated, the small amounts that they're they're asking for. Um, we're going to go into another agreement with Buck Creek here and in the next year or two it that's probably going to be in the millions. And so um uh so this is a a nominal if if this is what we end up helping them every year once or twice things like this then right now I think this is the scenario that's best. Where's the money come from? Are you saying we ought to pay it out of the RDC? No, we can't pay this out of the RDC. That's the problem. That's why we had to turn them down with bigger request.

You mentioned Buck Creek, but we we will be paying stuff out of Buck Creek. Uh out of the RDC for Buck Creek. Yeah, we can do that. Um so my recommend or my motion is to pay this out of food and beverage u the $10,118 for the Green Township Fire Department. I'll second that. Been moved and seconded that we pay this from food and beverage. All those in favor say I. I. I. All carried. Uh, we did the minutes. Um, anything else? Last comments. I move wejourn. Keley.

I'm good. I second K's adjournment. Well, journed. All right.