Board of Commissioners - Regular Meeting

went public. Not how many clones that I know those cars are die Sorry.

Call the Brown County Board of Commissioners meeting to order. The pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Any additions to the agenda changes? I don't have any. Oh, yes, you do. Well, we'll deal with in the claims claims. Okay. And then I have one um Kim you're from the Y asking for support or letter for support for the salt trail. Correct.

Okay. So, I'll I'll add that to the agenda. All right. Approval of minutes and claims. Um, I need to I'm would make a motion that we approve the minutes and claims with an addition. There was a claim that was submitted by Andy Alexander for a uh asking for processing for support for a veteran in the U in the community that needs some help. So that I'm uh motion is to approve the claims and minutes plus add this claim. I'll second. Okay. Roll call. Ron, yes. Tim, yes. Kevin, yes.

Don't lose this. I don't want to be with me. First item is appointment to Hamilton Fire District Board. Uh, Mr. Terry Whittis. Kim and I talked to Terry. He's a 30-year plus firefighter emergency services battalion chief in Bartholomew County. So, great find. Super volunteering to help out on the board. So we talked to both him and the board chair Tom Williams. So I take a nomination to for Terry. I make a motion that we nominate Terry Wis to the Hamlin Fire District Board. That's fine. Yes. A second. Okay. Roll Tim. Yes. Kevin. Yes. Ran.

Yes. All right. On the admin agreement for the music center. Kevin, I'd like to move that after the prosecutor's office. Give you a chance to brief that one.

Sure. Okay. So, the prosecutor's office, I know there's been mentioned brought up here. One of the final steps that we're going to take is going back to the council work session and explain the options that are being considered that we've had um a meeting already with the other parties that are involved, the sheriff, the prosecutor, the judge, and I think um some staff from the actual prosecutor's office on two proposals, three proposals that were made. Those same proposals are going to be presented to the to the council work council working session tomorrow between 9:00 and noon. And the conversation will be not only on what those proposals were, but they also um the resolution that we passed that authorizes the county to proceed forward with a new delivery method of build operate transfer. So that's kind of what's going on. I don't know when that actually fits in their agenda. I haven't seen it, but I was asked or I asked to get on their agenda for that topic. Thanks, Ken. All right. On the music center admin agreement, uh first reading of proposed resolution and amendment for the executive for the excess revenue distribution. Uh the resolution number is 2026-04-1-00001. Title resolution of the board of commissioners of the county of Brown, Indiana, approving a second amendment to administration agreement relating to the music venue and performing arts center project. Uh so I'll read that into the record as a first reading. Uh typically on any resolution, we require at least more than more than just the first reading. Additional meetings is needed. Um I've got a short statement, couple of minutes on on the topic. maybe head off some of the concerns or questions people may have. Um, the intent of the proposed resolution amendment is to offer citizens a voice on how they would like to see the excess revenue from the music center be distributed and by whom. The proposed resolution and amendment

identifies that 100% of the excess revenue from the music center be returned to the county that could help fund public safety and other infrastructure costs such as bridges and roads. The resolution directs the president of the board of commissioners to quote discuss and negotiate with the agreement parties to effectuate an agreement on the approval of the second amendment to the administrative agreement by the agreement pardons. In addition to the commissioners, these parties include the music center management board, the commission visitors commission, and the building board. Regarding county funding needs, for instance, the sheriff has identified a critical need to increase salaries and benefits to mitigate the turnover of staff who are leaving the county for more money. Additional compensation has been estimated to have a positive return on investment through savings on the cost of training a new deputy. Turnover has also results in less experienced personnel on the roads. Another example for needed funds is provided by the draft bridge report that we just received on the status of our 84 bridges which identifies the following. Replacement of eight eight bridges an estimated cost of 8,360,000. Rehabilitation of another 27 estimated cost is 9,670,000 and number of posted bridges with late that with weight limits that identified a degraded capability is is a total of 38. Overall on county finances trends over the last few years identifies that the county does spend less than we received in revenue and we continue to work to identify efficiencies and systems processes and internal controls to support offering citizens a voice on the distribution. There are four council seats and one commissioner seat on the 2026 ballot. This provides an opportunity to learn about the position of the candidates on the issues. Additional commissioner meetings can be provided can provide additional opportunities for community feedback. Two or three commissioners can approve the resolution but as mentioned final

approval requires a majority vote from the music center board, the convention visitors commission and the building court, eg the agreement parties. So in addition to input from citizens, there are additional checks and balances on changes. The commissioners previous proposed a 50/50 distribution which was not approved by the music center management board. The county received a 65,000 payment up from 55,000 in le of taxes along with 25% of the excess revenue. The property tax for property owned venue may be closer to 98,000. The community foundation does not support any changes to the agreement. Although they are not a signatory on the admin agreement, in October 2025, six of the seven county council members when pled supported the current agreement and one councilman, Scott Rudd, did not commit one way or the other. The commissioners can create a new agreement that would require renegotiation of all contracts. Council would need to approve any refinancing and funding changes. On the background, the music center's accounting asset revenue from the inkeepers tax was pledged as collateral for the $12.5 million loan. Taxpayers assume the associated risks as a result of the economic downturn due to CO. The federal taxpayers contributed 2.7 $2.7 million subsidy and county taxpayers another 239,000. The admin's agreement states that if permitted by law, the management group may contribute 75% of the excess revenue to the foundation with 25% of the county. The amend the amendment removes the legal ambiguity and distributes the funds to the county that can be used for public safety and infrastructure such as bridges and roads. In 2025, the state updated the statutes regarding contracts. Changes were made that required commissioners review and or approve all new contracts. The admin agreement is an existing contract, but if it was proposed today, it is unlikely that the ambiguity language would be

acceptable. In 2025, inkeepers tax was raised from 5 to 8% with the expectation that funds could be used for public safety and other related infrastructure costs. The legislature did not approve the use of the funds for public safety related expenditures. However, other counties have updated their incub statutes to allow use of funds to include categories such as quality of life that could include funding for public safety. The proposed resolution is a first reading and given the complexity of the issues, passionate perspectives from many sides, additional public meetings on the topic will be conducted. So discussion on the board.

Um is there any way we can get the public first before on the board? I don't have a problem with that. Just bodies in the audience comments on comments. Yeah. state name.

Yeah. My name is Bruce G. I'm a member of the music center board. Uh first off, I'd like to request that you table this resolution till your next meeting. We were actually the commissioners refused to provide a copy of this resolution to the music center until this very meeting 10 minutes ago. We've had zero time to review it and consider it. We would probably like to discuss it with legal counsel ourselves and see what the implications are. But I think there's really no hurry on this and I think to table it, let us have a chance to discuss it ourselves and then proceed from there. We would certainly prefer to do that. There are a couple things that you read in your statement that were incorrect. one uh in the what you call in the resolution agreement parties. I'm assuming that would be and you listed the Maple Leaf Management Group, the Maple Leaf Building Corporation, Commissioners, County Council. It also includes the bank. The bank's on that list, too. So, uh are you in agreement that all those parties and are what you would call the agreement parties? Our our attorneys prepared the resolution in the amendment. The sign signature pages are on the amendment. So if you want to look at that exhibit A was the amendment.

I don't believe it includes the bank. It does not. Was the bank in the original signatur? Yes. Well, the bank was part of our operating agreement. So we can run that by check with our attorneys. So, so you're in agreement then that they would be part of the I'm in agreement that our attorneys will look at it. Yeah. I believe in our in our original operating agreement this this can only be changed if all of the parties agree and you said a majority of the parties. So I believe the the original agreement says that all of the parties have to agree not just majority. I

think he was speaking to the majority on the boards or the the actual agencies. May maybe that's some clarification. Okay.

Well, that needs some clarification, too. But see, already now we've got several things that need to be clarified. Like I said, I think it'd be wise at this point to just table this and let us take a look at it ourselves. We may want to have council look at it, too, before we proceed with anything, even a first reading. That's I I think that would be a wise thing to do, especially considering there is complete lack of transparency here and getting us a copy of this. I mean, we're the we're the party involved here and we were not allowed to even look at the document till now. So, we need some time to to review this. Thank you.

Yeah. To answer your thing on the table. On the first reading, we always table our first reading. So, that's been standard operating procedure for the past year on that. And so, we wouldn't take a vote. If we were to take a vote, it'd be at the second meeting on the 15th. But there's no li there's no mandate that we have to vote at second when we can have more meetings. Well, I guess my is you don't even need to have a first reading. Pardon me. You don't even need to have a first reading if you don't want to. And I'm asking you to not even have the first reading. The whole thing. Let us look at it. Yeah. I just did the first reading. That's what I thought. That's right. We haven't vote on yet and you want to correct passive. Correct. Which we did. All right. Anybody else?

John Elliot. I'm the board chair of the Brown County Community Foundation and I uh obviously did not have any prepared remarks. This was a bit of a surprise for us. Although this is the ninth time I've addressed the topic to the county office, so to some extent rehearsed. Um I want to clarify a couple of things. We have never attended a CBC or Maple Leaf Management Group meeting to ask for any resources. We don't take them for granted. We don't expect them and in practical terms just would apply just as would apply for the county. We don't know what excess revenues there will be which come after financial audits in the following year. So there's no way even if we wanted to count on a certain amount of money we can. We don't know what it will be could be zero. So we don't take it for granted. We don't expect it. And Frank, frankly, it's deeply appreciated. And as we see the impact of the MUN music center on this county, in this community, we're deeply appreciated. They've had incredible positive impact. They run ahead of business plan. They run ahead of financial measures. It is a well-run, highly effective organization. We also don't quite understand the sort of aggressive persistence to divert the funds. and it's not a problem-solving amount of funds measured against the county budget. So, I would correct you when you said the foundation doesn't agree to the split. We don't have we haven't voted and we haven't decided. We don't take it for granted. Whatever they choose to give is appreciated by us just as it would be from any other donor. So, we're not off. We know we're not a signatory party. We're not presuming a role that we don't have. We're simply appreciative recipients, but I would also say I feel

like we've been trustworthy and ethical and frankly highly effective temporary stewards of those funds. A portion goes into long-term endowment, but most of it goes to grants. And in fact, when you have your next meeting, we will be meeting as a grant committee deciding on distribution of those funds and others for the benefit of this community. If you took a dollar impact from what happens for the more than 100 nonprofits in this county that we try to support, I would challenge you to find a more effective stretching and use of those dollars. Nonprofits in this county do incredible work with little or no resources. And it's a rare county anywhere that has so many volunteers that are guiding and leading those nonprofits. So, a dollar given through a grant that temporarily passes through us and other nonprofits is incredibly effective. Something you should be proud of, not necessarily wanting to shrink or diminish in terms of impact. I've also offered several times post election and and since election to sit down with you, I know Alice has made the same offer and share with you more detail about the foundation, what we do, how we do it, and so on. So, I will repeat that offer. We'd be happy to sit down and share more information about our works. In terms of scale, I know I've shared this before, but we're here for repetition. About a million and a half to about 2 and a4 million a year is our typical distribution from funds, but the overwhelming majority of those are restricted. That gives disproportionate value to unrestricted dollars. the share that comes from the the Maple Leaf Management Group that goes to the arts, that's still a broad category and we can really make a disproportionate difference. The unrestricted share of those dollars for the agreement that that goes to other nonprofits.

We don't have those dollars as available as pass through funds or donor restricted funds. So disproportionate value, disproportionate impact. I just ask that you consider that. Yeah, John, my statement on the foundation was you you accept you support the current agreement. That's what I said. We appreciate the current agreement. Yes. Thank you.

My name is Sherry Mitchell. Um XF's revenues. So they figured that out for us, right? They still have the million dollar capital fund that would have to be full at all times before excess revenue. Is that correct? Well, that's still an agreement. Okay. So, they would still have to have that million dollars. Um I'm concerned about them not having money for whatever they need it for so that we're not writing them checks anymore. Um would they have access then to the money that's in the um would you call it community something or another? The other 3%

3% on the incub you call it they No, that's that's restricted by statute. I understand that. Um, but they would still have access to that 3%. Not the music. Are you talking about the the quality life committee that meets to figure out how to Yes. how to use that 3%. Yes. So, if they had to have it, they could go get it because it all goes into the CBC budget. Correct.

Let me clarify something here. The quality of life board is an advisory board. It has no authority over dictating where funds go. Those funds are all controlled by the CDC board and the county council. So any work that's being done by the quality of life was simply in an advisory position to help the CDC board as I mentioned in our last meeting to dictate and put things in place for here's how things can come about and happen. So I know the CBC is looking at and working with the quality of life board on is there a grant process that needs to be done because that's what's being considered if I'm not mistaken

but they could use that money to fund um CO again if it happened and the money was sitting in the CBC account instead of coming to us for a quarter of a million dollars to pay for rent under anou they could go and get that 3%. Is that correct? Can I let me help clarify what I think what Sherry is saying Kevin um president of the music center board president of the conventional visitors commission I think what sh I think what Sherry is asking is because the inkeepers tax backs the mortgage on the music center yes

if for some reason we have to the music center can't pay its mortgage does the whole 8% go to pay the music center's mortgage and that would be yes because It does doesn't specify a percentage of the ant keepers tax. It specifies inkeepers tax. Thank you, Kevin. So, and that's answer your question, Trey. Yes, it did.

All right, Pam. I quite frankly am very disappointed that this has come around again for what did you say John the ninth time. I would like to ask to make a request of the commissioners to come forward in a public way with how much money you have spent on legal expenses to keep trying to ding the music center of their original plan to bless our community. Remember, that's number one. Number two is you've got to think a little bit bigger picture here. The music center is profitable predominantly because it is run by hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of volunteer labor. I cannot imagine that there would be more than a handful of those volunteers that would enjoy being ultimately what could be referred to as unpaid county employees. No longer are they really volunteers. They're working for the county commissioners and the Brown County Council. Most of those volunteers have very altruistic gearing. I would imagine that most of them, if they understand the process at all, are very grateful that the majority of it goes to other volunteer organizations. So, just think about that. And to John's point, the amount of time and effort that you have spent on this topic is outrageous for the end result that you're looking for. It is minuscule compared to your budget problems.

And as when I was a parent, the worst thing I could do to teach financial management to my children is give them money when they had proven that they didn't know how to manage it. It's the last thing you want to do. You quite frankly have not shown yourselves to be fiscally responsible for a long time, at least as long in the 47 years that I've been here. And the worst way that you can handle what all of a sudden you have benefiting our community in so very many ways is to siphon it off and give it to a finan fiscally irresponsible organization. Get your act together and then maybe there'd be something to talk about. Jim Schles, several of of my points have already been taken. Number one, how much will this cost? How long are you guys willing to invest in this legally? Um, and then to Pam's point, I see three individuals up here suddenly trying to get this introduced as if it's going to happen soon, blah blah blah. But when this came about and and I know Tim, at least you were involved, there was public meeting after public meeting. There was a hundred plus people involved. I still have all the paperwork from all of the different groups that were deciding on this and that and this and that. And as that process move forward, public engagement came together at one point and that point was when the this particular facility benefited the citizens of Brown County and not the

government. It wasn't until and Tim you said to me when we left that meeting you said to me you said Jim that's your headline 7525 at that point and that's your recol recollection Jim not mine you said you couldn't trust the county officials to spend the money and for the current officials at the time I probably agree with you but the fix was not to not to circumvent the process the fix was to improve the process by electing more effective leaders that's I got lost in that. So

lost in that is you don't circumvent. If we got a problem with how you think the money is being spent by the county, you fix the county, you don't circumvent it with a 7525. Okay. But that's not what brought the public into the point where in the end we collectively all the different people and departments voted to allow that to happen and it came together on the 7525. I don't want to spend a lot of time up here. So, um, one other thing that it it actually made me giggle. You use the word refinance. Oh my god. You know, well, I I forget what our number is right now, but it's like 4.1 or 3.7.

Right at 4%.

Right at 4%. Okay. And they can only bump it twice in the 32year expectancy. And each time there's a limit to how much they can bump it and that limit is one point. Cheap money. Um the CO monies cheap shot. Everybody got CO monies. And and the fact that that BCMC was was was used for the health department that entire time, it it it held, you know, it became that spot that that could support the community. Um, and then on updating the inkeeper tax to to switch it. That's a possibility, but good luck with that because it's been tried multiple times and every single time they it was a waste of money. So, I think that's it. Unless any of you have a question for me, Jim, I'll push back on on the amount of money meetings. You had public meetings at the playhouse or meetings at the I think one of the apartment complexes. You may have had several throughout the throughout the community. There was only the only the only public meeting on the on the feasibility of this project and support for that project was at the council and commissioner meetings where they voted to approve. You recall the league wound voters attempted to have a you know a countywide meeting on this thing and it was canceled. uh it was cancelled.

Well, I I remember there was there was a hustle on certain people's part after uh the location changed and that's when the uh problem started not only you know uh within the community but in general. So I don't Julie win was organized actively winning voters as you know she's very credible having community. I I'm sorry I don't remember that. So yeah I remember quite well. I got I've got it documented. Meeting was going to be at the school and then and then uh and it was canceled at the last minute. Then it went through the commissioners for a vote and councils for the vote. They

So you're saying that somehow the the initial group uh somehow brought this in without any consideration to the vast majority of the people of Brown County. I don't think the vast majority of the county realized what was going on or had had a chance to input. And when you only have two one meeting from the commissioners and council to and the only meeting you had was a vote on it. Um that kind of tells you that but there was all the meetings out that were not counselor and commissioner meetings. The public sentiment was in place by that time. So you know elected officials are representing the votes Jim not not private entities.

Elected officials were involved in all the rest of the the meetings also. See, and the other issue is when it came to the council, I remember this day, uh, Chryser couldn't wait to vote fast enough on this thing. And he said, "Hey, I just want to know who's for and who's against." And you got 30 seconds. Of course, they allowed a little more than 30 seconds. He didn't like that. 30 seconds. And so when I asked, I told him, I said, "I wasn't for against it. I was kind of ambivalent. I wanted to see a little more due diligence when and a little more public meetings on that on that on that proposal. is the largest investment we have in the county and it deserved more public meetings and it turned out to be a success in spite of

had more public meetings by the commissioner council than just one argu I asked too on the feasibility study and it's probably in the minutes I asked too if there's a if they could take the time to do a feasibility study the feasibility study would identify that these kind of venues aren't profitable unless you have public support to see you

hey Jim My name is Jimmy Tolson. I own a hotel in town. So I I do contribute to the inkeepers tax. Um questions. Um you have the Brown County Maple Leaf Building Corporation listed. It is that a nonfor-profit corporation believe. Yes. Okay. And so that is the corporate is that the corporation that owns the the asset the the building. Correct.

Okay. So a nonfor-profit corporation owns the asset. Um so what you're asking is for a nonforprofit to give give you all the money. Um what's what's to stop you from doing a similar resolution for a different non forprofit? And if they're agreeing to it, then you get the money, too. Um, uh, it's just a little interesting that we're asking a nonforprofit corporation to give you all their money. I Jim, I suggest you get a copy of the resolution in the minute.

Uh, well, I just I just got this as I walked in the door, so none of us have had time to really read this. Well, and that's why we that's why we gen that's why we table the first reading. Um, and my question is, have you had any discussion with with the Brown County Equality Building Corporation or the CBC um or any of the other any of the other agreement parties in in regards to this draft or this is your your version that you want to pursue? You read the resolution um that starts the discussion. Okay. But to start the discussion leads to support from the commissioners if there are we need two out of three votes to move this forward.

Sure. And the same thing could apply if the if if one of the other parties wants to present their own draft agreement. It' be the same process, right? All parties have to agree to it. So it doesn't matter. I guess it doesn't matter where it starts, right? It could start with you or start with one of the other parties, but ultimately you all have to agree, right? I think every yes according to the agreement all the parties have majorities on this all my questions. Thanks. One more.

Um I don't remember if I have any build paperwork on the building corporation but I do remember how it was formed. Um do they have bylaws? Do you even know who those three people are anymore? Who are they? Sure. It's on independent voters. I think I've got the list. Robin Gman's the president of that building. I think Mike Laros is the other. And Kevin, you know who's the third person. Okay. And are you guys are they appointing themselves? It's perpetual. Yes. Yeah. So, they're appointing themselves. So, you no longer have even a say in that. Correct.

That is such a horrend. Um, and I don't know if they ever had bylaws. I don't remember if I have them or not, but you might look at you might look and see if you have those. Just a thought. Hi, Dina Patrick. Um, I was a member of the original Maple Leap Management Group board and I am a volunteer there. And there was just a couple things I wanted to bring up. Uh, one of the things is Jimmy Tilton brought up the building corporation being a nonprofit asset and owning the asset. Is this working? Oh, yeah.

And um, one of the things that came up at a county council meeting several months ago, which you talked about in your statement, Tim, was um how the council felt about this. And I remember Jim Kimp saying something about he did not feel that this is a county asset. I don't know his exact words because I wasn't prepared to speak today. I wasn't prepared for this. But I do remember him talking about this was not a county asset. And I remember him talking about this was such a drop a small drop of in a in a bucket of water that it wasn't worth worrying about at the time. Um, I also want to talk about a little bit, you bring up multiple times the $2.7 million that we got from the federal government, which was part of the shuttered venue grants. There were $15 billion overall for the United States. And there were other people in Brown County that got that money. Overall, museums were the number one person that got that money here in our state. And it feels like you're trying to convince people that we stole federal tax dollars and we didn't. We applied, we qualified and we got that money. And so it's like if that money shouldn't have come to us, then why are we getting okra monies and OR monies and Indiana energy savings monies? So it's like there's other federal monies we're getting. It's not just for the shuttered venue grant. And I'm a little concerned that election cycles change, officers change. We know there's an election coming up. So you might feel right now this is the best option. But every single time an election comes up and there's new members on the commissioners or the county council, are we going to go through these legal changes time and

time again? Um, it feels like that is possible and it feels like we're throwing away money that maybe we should not be throwing away. Um, so I guess that's what I have to say about that. I am concerned that you bring up that 2.7 million on a regular basis, but we're getting other federal grants and I don't know, it just feels like this was thrown at us. I know you've been working on it, but it feels like this was thrown at us at the last minute and none of us had time to absorb this. Dean, the point on the 2.7 million. Yes, sir.

It's the uh the taxpayers are at risk if the venue uh is not successful. So, I think Dave Chrysler when they approve that, he goes, "Well, you know, if this thing doesn't fail, we have an economic downturn. We're never going to use tax money. We'll just turn it back to the bank and the bank can pay um property tax." That's what he said. I I don't think I'll ever forget that.

And my my thing is is this. We're not going to do that. If there was this we have an economic downturn within the next year, two years, which some economists kind of predict tax rate. We're not going to turn that venue back over the bank. We're going to find a way of financing. Okay? Are we not? I mean, I would be surprised if there wasn't an outcry to say, "Hey, that's a county asset. We got to do something to to fund that thing." And so, it's on the taxpayers. Taxpayers need to have a say. I I'll get back to the intent. The intent of the pros resolution and amendment is to offer citizens a voice on how they'd like to see the excess revenue for the music center be distributed by whom? So if they want to if the community consensus and the feedback on the elections or we like just the way it is, that's fine. You give people a voice, let them weigh in and and call it done. And I think this will end in that particular discussion.

Yeah. One other point I would like to make is um Mr. Sanders, you are a member of the Maple Leaf Management Board. Yes. But you barely attend. Yes. I am there more often than you are. Um I am there more often than you are. And I wish that you would come to more meetings because as a representative of the county commissioners, it feels important that you should be there. Okay. And I respect you because one of the things you did here a few months back was when Barry Herring was here and was talking about this issue. You sat right here in a public meeting and you admitted when you were running for commissioner, right? You used the wrong numbers to me. I can respect that.

What number? The numbers on uh property tax and how much the venue could be sold for and things like that. Correct. without whether they were wrong numbers or not is debatable. Okay. What numbers are you talking about? I I don't know. You said you had used incorrect numbers and had probably got yourself uh so you would not get elected. Let me I'm not worried about getting elected one way or another. Okay. the where I used probably incorrect numbers were

is I was going at thinking $12.5 million is what we invested in it. Okay. And I had come to learn afterwards that I was using like 10% to 20% on a commercial real estate deal. If you was to sell it, you should be able to make at least 10 if not 20%. Okay? that this what we've created here is different. I get that. It's it's a different deal. But still yet, you know, you want to talk numbers, we could talk a long time. But at 5% profit on a deal, here's a number that's going to stagger you a little bit. The year that they only disperse 80,000 at five times. Okay.

Okay. Was that $400,000 that the venue may only be worth $400,000? That's where I said it's never been tested on the market. Okay. It would have took two commissioners, four county council members to put that forward. And there's there's a lot to be debated here. I I get what you're saying. I get what you're saying. But as far as that, I was judging that on a commercial deal. Technically, I don't think it falls under that because it was, you know, to create income in the county for the businesses and, you know, things like that. It's complicated. I get that. The $12.5 million uh deal is complicated. Okay. Thank you for clarifying that. I appreciate

I don't know if I clarified it for you or not. Well, I sort of did, but um I would appreciate if you start coming to more meetings if you could, please. Yeah, I have been received very well and when I get my turn to speak, I will address that the best I can. Okay. Thank you so much. You're welcome.

Harrenburg County Council and also on the Maple Leaf Management Group of the Music Center. Mr. President from the county council.

Um about the 2.7 I know that keeps coming up. You know, that's a that's a a cost to the taxpayers. As as was pointed out, that was a group. It was a a sum of money that the federal government had laid out for shuttered venues. We were one of them. We didn't fail. We were shut down by the worldwide policy of shutting things down because of CO. That's why the shuttered uh venues grant was available. uh we applied for it because that money was there. There were two rounds that we applied for. The first round we applied for but we felt was a reasonable amount to apply for. We got every bit of that through the grant process. Then they came back to us and said we have more money. We did not distribute all of this money. So is the money going back? No. This money is going to be distributed. If you don't apply for it, it's going somewhere else. So, it would have been irresponsible for us to not apply for a second round of money when that money is going to it's going to go to the Kennedy Center in DC if we didn't apply for it. Then the Kennedy Center got 100 million more than $100 million. Um if if we did not apply for the second round, it wasn't going to come to us and we were going to miss out. So that that's why it's not something we went and said, "Hey, federal government, give us money." They came to us and said, "This money is available for shuttered venues like yours. Apply for it." Again, after we got approved for the first round, first round, they came back to us and said, "There's more money. It has to be spent. If you don't apply for it, it's going somewhere else." So, my point is risk. It's risk. If we have an economic downturn within the next year or two, um, where's that money going to come from? Okay, that's

it's a self-sustaining venue at this point at this point. But we don't have an economic downturn from the start self-sustaining venue except for when shut down. So you got 2.7 million pandmic that shut everything down. It shut the It shut Brown County down. Brown County government got federal money. Aaron, the point everybody got federal money that was shut down. We had an economic Brown County government also. Would you agree we had an economic downturn? We had a result of a pandmic that shut the world down for the first time ever. Economic downturn unnecessarily. And that's a risk to the taxpayers. It happens again. It turns out it was not necessarily shut the world down.

Well, it happens again. I don't want to assume we're going to have another 2 or 3 million available that we can get from the government. I don't. So risk is it's on to the taxpayers. Then what's the plan from the county to plan for that? Do we need to plan for that kind of risk? That's the point. All the buckets all the secondary buckets of the music center to cover to cover those kind of expenses are full and accounted for.

Okay, that's all. Okay, close off the public comments, bring it back up to the order again, guys. The point is it starts the discussion on and and providing citizens with a little voice on how they want want that to be distributed. comments.

Um, I'll probably come back in and out and comment. I just I have a question. Um, not putting you on the spot. You don't have to give me the answer right now. But the money we receive from uh in L of property taxes and excess revenue from the music center that goes into the general, correct? Is there any reason why we can't use that money for public safety uh grant money for bridges and stuff like that? Do you know? Don't believe so.

Okay. So, so we do have money coming in before that. We just we feel that there's probably going to be a lot more we're going to need for the bridges and stuff. That was the one question I wanted to um ask first. Like I said, I I will come back in a couple times before this is all done. I want to hear what you you two have to say. So the challenge that I communicate is that we are always faced with revenues and I understand your frustration Pam with regards to government and it being inefficient and there being all kinds of opportunities. So, but we always operate to do the best that we can. So, I am of my opinion right now that the board of commissioners here with a few exceptions is trying to do much better job. There's things that have come forth in this year than last that have not been present as far as reviews. So, I'll take it on myself to speak for myself. I won't speak for the entire board on most of them, but I mean I do a great deal of effort in trying to make sure that every penny is accounted for that I see. So is it always wisely spent? No. Because I know the reality of it is that there's no perfect solution. There's only compromise. And unfortunately the compromise is not necessarily always an ideal that has to reach some with this. My comment would be is I'm hesitant to go forward with taking any action other than having more discussions on it at this point cuz again they're valid points that are made from the audience members and there are questions that I have myself because one of the things I am concerned about in this particular county is funds for infrastructure

and I know that the challenge that we're facing in the county and serving in the superintendent job with a few hours a day or week trying to understand where it is. There is legitimate concerns about bridges in this county. How we get there, I don't know. Discussions. I'm going to also go back before the council with and put a plan together and and work with whomever our new superintendent is is to defining here's what we've got to spend over the next three years at at least a start. And the same is true with regard to the buildings that we have around here. Most of what we've been doing at this point has been firefighting. And I will tell you as a commissioner on this board, I spend all my time firefighting. And when you spend all your time firefighting, it's hard to put a strategic plan together. So the other comment that I will make as far as with the council in itself, I believe that we can work with the council to work towards solutions to get these things fixed. I've seen that happening. So you don't see the operation day in and day out behind closed doors as far as not in a negative sense but the sense of it's not always generally open to the public to say meetings with the council, meetings with commissioners, meeting with the sheriff's department and again Brad made the other issue with regards to what are my numbers in there. And I think the other thing that's going to be mentioned in this meeting here is um we've got a shocker with regards to public safety that supports saying we've got a first meeting that we just had with the IU ambulance contract and it's not favorable at this point. So challenge is set aside. I lean towards giving this time rather than rushing forward and making any decision at this point. The scope of the resolution is is to have discussions is have more public meetings and more discussions. That's it. That's the vote. We want to have more public meetings on this particular

issue to give the voters or the citizens an opportunity to comment in addition to having the discussion with the different parties of that. That's it. It's talking more meetings. That's the scope of the resolution. That's where I say one comment. Uh I think that Mr. Clark. Okay. Pardon me. You have anything to add? No.

Well, let me go back to the the board. Uh the few meetings that I have attended, I was very wellreceived. Uh very polite. Uh actually started negotiating with them. There was some issues that we thought was going to be more money. and they needed the money to start the wetland project. It's the way it is, you know. And then the 200,000 got reduced to 175 175,000 and made a motion to raise it back to 200. Um it was told they'd entertain a motion that um 1875 and that motion passed. Okay. They're actually wanting to work. I've been told by one of the board members, they understand that they probably need to do something. And they they did do something. Of course, we'd like to have all the money. I mean, government, whether it's county or or federal, seems to spend more money than they got. But anyway, um I'm not really in favor of using a sledgehammer on this. Do do I believe that through legal and years and courts and everything that we could come out on top? Probably. But do we really want to go that route? I would rather try and do a little more diplomatical uh solution and work with the board. um you know the money that they give us if you look at it if we could get it to where it averages you know 100,000 plus a year to us um you know 10 years that's a million dollars 20 it's 2 million you

get there and another thing that I kind of had is once it's paid for once the bank gets paid does that not revert to the county or does it stay in the hands of the uh Maple Leaf Management as far is the three member board. It's Is it not kind of like the jail? Yes, it is. Okay. Once that is paid for, will it not revert to the county and then the county own it? Yes. Okay.

So, there's there's some finesse to doing that. All right. And Kevin Barry, Mr. Schultz left. Uh Darren is is you know educating me on some of this. When we got to the point when the negotiation part okay when I first went up there I heard 400,000. So we went up there with intent that I was going to get for the county, not me. I was going to get for the county 200,000 plus 55,000 and move a property tax. That's quarter of a million dollars. Well, we walked away at the end with a tick over a 100,000. That got a little dicey on the math. Okay. The 50% of 1875, but when we renegotiated that at the hexter 125, I believe brought in a tick under $4,000. And I've heard someone say that's drops in the bucket for the county. It it is, but the fact that they're willing to work and the fact that they're amending that probably need to do something. Yeah, we got issues with public safety. We got issues with bridges. We got issues with roads. Um, you know, it's it's it's almost a golden goose, you know. I don't I don't want to kill the golden goose, you know, but I think we could take that money through legal action. But how many years and how many hundreds of thousands of dollars would both sides have to spend fighting it? I think we'd be better off to do a little more diplomatic move with it. Well, I guess Ron, my my response is what we're asking is really we're starting the negotiations that you just referred to discussions and negotiations. That's what this process does. Uh it goes on record. Uh typically on these resolutions as you know we table it on the first meeting then we

open it up for future meetings. Okay. Um and a vote on the 15th where you're going to vote the only vote is to start the discussions and negotiations and allow more public input and that that could be included in every meeting. I don't know how the election goes or people even care but at least it gives an opportunity for people that may not have had input or may not know what's going on with all this an opportunity to say something to voice their opinion. Well Mr. Clark, would you entertain a motion? Kevin, any Okay, sure. I enterainain. Uh, well, you've entertained it. I'll make a motion to table it. And I'd be real reluctant if come the 15th, we have all the answers we need. I'll second that motion.

Okay, roll call. Kevin, yes. Ron, yes. Tim, yes. Can I ask a question to Mr. Alton in the uh audience, please. Sure. When's the next board meeting? Do what? When is the next Brown County music? We meet on the fourth Tuesday of every month. So, April something. So, that would be after the next commissioner meeting. It's usually like 20 something. Yeah, we meet on the 28th this month at 2:30 and it'll be at the Seasons Lodge in the open. Okay. Well, I'll come up first so y'all can beat on me a little bit.

You know that's not true. No, I know it's not. Like I said, you guys have been very respected. Uh, you know, like when I first come in, I asked for 100%. I asked for it. Okay. And then I got to know you, got educated a little bit better on it. I've had a few more years up here. U So, and you guys are standup citizens. you know, you represent good people in the county, so we'll see if we can't come to some kind of agreement. Does that work for you all? Sounds good. I'm not saying no.

All right. Next. Hey, John, I have to I have to talk to you on on account of the number of times I've seen you present on this on this issue. I don't I don't count as many as you do, but anyway. Well, I don't mean just commissioners. Oh, okay. Council two. Ah, I got it because I know it wasn't that many on the commissioners over the past year. Maybe two or three if that two. So, anyway. All right. Next. Talk about it. I can pull those. Yeah, me too. So, next item. Kim, you want to talk about the soft trail later? Well, let's have some happy news. Happy good happy.

I'm just here to ask for our support for um Huh. What are we doing, Sandy? To get access right away for INDOT so that we get a justification letter so we can move forward with this project and secure the Salt Creek Trail and get it done. It's been 35 years. Well, not really, but it feels like it. Well, I'm going to be in walkers next time we get it connected. Well, came for the update. The last the last meeting I went to or the current statuses is we funded the engineering study um and Dr. run along 46, correct? Uh to use the rideway. So there's no

adverse land acquisitions, blah blah blah. It's just the rightway that INDOT may have. Right. We have a justification letter. Yeah. And then the uh path across the creek was going to be adjacent to the current bridge, which they thought, you know, would not be a problem uh with permitting unlike if you had a bridge and another part on the trail. Uh that would create a whole mess of bureaucracy and additional cost. So, um, but ideas for that is use the INDOT rightway to go from the music center area to the Red from the Y trail head, the Music Center parking lot down Maple Leaf on 46. Okay. And so then the funds, guys, on the county, there's no county money coming into this. It's it's going to be

we have some funds to pay for the engineering and the pass through at the foundation. Yeah. And then and then any money we're going to need to finish up the once it's approved by INDOT then the money then the process starts to acquire the funds to finish. Right. Right. Correct. Okay. So I guess my question to you guys is is I can do a letter on behalf of the president and the board of commissioners or we can have a letter that all three of us signed. So this is so three questions. Okay. Three questions. Yeah. Yeah. Please, please will you repeat the route because I heard you believe along You heard the trail head at the Y. So, we want to make a sidewalk. Okay. Right.

Along the green the grass behind the nursing home and the Maple Leaf the Museum parking lot. Run out to Maple Leaf Boulevard. Which side of the road? We don't know yet. Sidewalk. So, it's not as wide as the trail. Off to 46. They will cross over the wise IU Health property along the highway. Okay. And then we'll go over the bridge. It's in the We'll build a new bridge in the footprint of the current bridge. It won't cause any flooding either way. And then enter the um right there at Park View and their Park View.

Okay. The the other question I have is the and again I haven't kept up with this particular group. Is it's a monthly meeting now. Is that right? Kim or as needed? As needed ad hoc typically. Is it scheduled as needed as well or is there a target date? As needed. Can you just because I've had a I had a citizen that were that is the property owner at the jamboree there ask about want you know being able to we had conversations with him he's been to the meeting property owners along the way we have had everyone at a at a meeting all property owners yeah okay great and that's how we came to the term that we cannot go across the farmland

and I guess I'm in line I haven't had two questions so I know that there are funds that are available that were passed from remainders than what was with salt break trail. That intent is to basically try and move forward with right engineer. We have to get the engineering studies and that's how that is being funded. Do you know off the top of your head what the dollar something is on that like 85,000 left maybe? Yeah, just under 100. We've already spent some. So, okay. Right about is that about Sandy? Sandy knows.

And she and I are she and I are the we sign off on those invoices. Okay. And then I guess the last thing for the letter is it's a letter of support to allow you to go forward with INDOT and seek their funding activities. No, no, no. It's to to get the justify justification that it can be done there. Correct. That we could access the limited way. Oh. Along the highway step one of 50. Yeah. So we could be back for more letters of because we are so limited to what the access is. Correct. Okay. Thank you. Mhm. And I've got a boil plate for a letter. I just need to know I can sign it or we can all three of us can sign it. So, however you want it to be phrased then your call.

Yes, sir. Does that cost you anything wrong? Yeah. Well, you know that but you you already said that it was uh in public right away. It's got nothing to do with no M in the domain or anything. Right. Correct. Correct. Okay. And something else I've noticed is now I get the safety issue. Okay. I get that. Mhm. But there's already people using access on the road to do it. Oh yeah. I pass a guy at 5:30 every morning solit safety vest in my car and toss it to him because I can't see him. Yeah, I know. I've seen him out there walking and bicycling. Yeah. Walking on foot. Yeah, it's it's being used. The safety is probably a good ideal.

Oh, yeah. Of course. I heard a number threw out there one time at $4 million. Where's where would the $4 million be coming from if that grant? Yes. At no cost to the county. Cenor. Okay. I I think I'm fine. By speaking a foreign language. Does that count? How many? No. It shouldn't cost anything to the county. That's we we don't want it to, right? The maintenance will be on the park on parks and wreck. That's fine. Okay. That will cost the county, but it's not the initial bill. Do you have a draft? I've got a boiler plate.

Yeah, I gave a boiler plate. Okay. I just need a tailor. All three of us want to sign in or just let Is this something you need right now? Um, you know, first of the week, the latest submitting the letter. We're turning letter April the 6th. So, yes. Okay. All right. I don't have a proceeding forward with asking INDOT to grant us access to the rightway. That's all I believe that's being asked for. Correct. So, I'll make a motion that we move forward with generating a letter of support to request access to that right away. That That's fine. I just would like to read the agreement. I'll send it to you.

Sure. Yeah. Okay. Um, and my motion is a contingent upon review with a target of it being done before the 6th. We appreciate that. Thank you guys. Thanks. Thank you. Need a vote. Oh, a second. All in favor say I. I. All oppos. Three yeses there, Stacy. Okay. Uh, legal review. We got the partial transfer. That's what I was getting to. Legal review. Sandy, is that you?

No, it's just basically an update. The transfer has happened. The town council signed off on the deed that we prepared for them. It has been officially transferred and from my understanding, Mark Shields has already made arrangements to have the electricity reinstalled on that parcel so it can go back to operation at the Salt Creek Trail. When that is being done, I do not know, but I do know that it has been done. And thank you, Sandy, for your help. Thanks Kevin for running that down. U reports uh committ let's look at the budget. Eric, you wanted to comment on the IT services contract.

Yeah. Um, I'm going to be presenting over the next couple of weeks to both you guys and the council uh a variance in our annual budget uh that I wanted to take the opportunity to explain what what's going on with that because it is a significant variance. When you look at it in the overall scope of our county budget, it is a fairly minor line item, but within that line item, we're seeing such a jump in our annual cost. I think it's worth having a brief discussion in this forum so that you as the stewards of the money and the taxpayers can understand a little bit about what's going on here. Uh this is a licensing deal with a company uh that had been called VMware that manages virtual server environments. We use it pretty extensively here as do a lot of organizations of about our size. It allows you to have server resources far and above what you can typically cram into uh a small server room. Uh VMware has been a very popular product in the industry for many years. Um you know many people do their entire career only working in VMware environments. They were acquired by Broadcom uh back in 2023 and Broadcom has made sweeping changes to their pricing model uh which is having a significant impact uh to organizations like like us. Uh to put this into perspective, uh our annual spend for this is going to increase by 241%. We are going to go from paying in the neighborhood of $5,000 to paying just shy of $18,000 without warning.

Uh again, you put it in the scope of the context of our county budget, it's a small thing, but a 241% variance is worth taking a look at. In practical terms, this means that the county is facing a substantial and in my professional opinion, disproportionate cost increase for the same core server infrastructure that that we've been running for years. This is not something where our price is increasing because our needs are increasing. This this price increase is being driven 100% by a vendor that has bought a product and and they want to maximize their their profits for um to make that situation even more egregious. Okay. When I came in here uh I started this role in August. In September, I knew that we were going to have an issue with this this year. I I had read the reports of the big companies uh pushing back on the price increases that Broadcom had sent down the line. I contacted uh our sales rep to get a quote back in September and he said that Broadcom would not authorize him to provide us pricing. And that continued on until January 20th. They would not get us pricing for what our annual renewal was going to be until after the first of the year. To make that point even more egregious, we got our our contract with them will run will need to be renewed midappril. Uh about 15 days after we finally got the price of what our renewal was, we got the first cease and desist letter from the attorneys saying if we do not pay this increased amount, we are going

to have further legal engagement with them. 15 days from getting the price to get the NAS insurance. So again, I don't want to take a lot of time on that, but I think it's important that that we all know what's going on, where this increase is being driven by. Uh, and you know, I'll take any questions that you might have. You explained pretty well. Sounds like they got you in the back room working you over. Well, collectively all of us really u and this is something you guys can do tomorrow in the work session with county council because you need that money now, don't you?

Yeah. Okay. I don't know. So exploring again. So perfect example contract. So what are they proposing for the renewal? They haven't in that proposal. I haven't seen it just yet.

Okay. Yeah, I can afford you the proposal. It's it's $17,000 and change where we had been paying uh five 5,000 and change. It's essentially the same services. They've been restructured around they do have a minimum spend that's based on the amount of core server CPUs that you're using. And so is it your opinion right now and you and I talked about this and the question I think need the audience needs to hear is at this point there's not an alternative that can be quickly implemented if we go down the path of wanting to disengage from VMware. Sure. Uh so the thing about that is the entire industry is being impacted by this. you know, uh, large companies, AT&T, it it's estimated that their increase for their virtualization with Broadcom is going to increase by over a,000% for AT&T. So, that kind of change in the industry is having the net effect of other competitors coming to market and whatnot.

Okay. uh if we decide to move away from VMware, we need at least 6 months lead time because that is going to be about a 6 to 8month pro project where we basically have to recreate uh a mirrored virtual environment in whatever competing product we go to. But I'm definitely of the opinion now that we have to find a competing product and move to it. Uh it is not worth spending the premium price for the to keep the VMware product. We just we're too our needs are simple enough there. There already are a couple alternatives we could move to but again it would take 6 to 8 months and so in the virtualization of this meaning it's resources and there's ways of done that. So it is not even practical for us to go down a solution of actually going back and buying our actual physical hardwares in order to accomplish what we're doing today with this application. Correct. E even with this price increase that if we went out and decided to get all virtual all physical hardware to to recreate our v virtual environment.

I mean casually I would estimate that being over $100,000. Okay.

Kevin, I think you mentioned about the ambulance contract. We're looking at that one. That was kind of a surprise. Um, we underutilize our two ambulances and they're not making the they're not break even on the profit. So, one of the options that we keep the two ambulance solutions that we have today, it's up to $290,000 increase. And so, the usage of the ambulance is going down. So, we we asked for more information uh more data on on the runs that they have uh periods of time and and they promised to give us a a chart on that. Then, we're looking at the other options. You can go less ambulances, an ambulance and a half. I mean, there's options, but I think people pretty much expect a two ambulance service. And so, we'll go through the options and we'll discuss it when we get more data from from IU and we'll discuss it at a public meeting like we always do. So, stay tuned. Um, highway department on the superintendent status, uh, we tend to make a decision at their April 15th meeting. Um, that's that. And then the draft on the bridge inventory rating inspection report. We expect to have that vote on that or approve that by April 15th as well. And I mentioned the uh the impact the estimated cost on the different bridges that we have on that one. So that's all I got ongoing business kind of listed. Um legal anything um Stephanie.

No. Okay. I'll entertain a motion. I'll make a motion to adjourn. You have one final thing, Jimmy. I think you what we have. I think you skipped legal services. The 2026 legal services 25k, correct? So that is an estimate. So Teresa is going to pull another number together. That is an estimate at this time. Okay. And it has to do with the various personnel issues that we're having. All right. Actually, we did skip if anybody had anything else they wanted to say and admit they did. Anybody else? Going once, twice. Make a motion to adjurnn.

Second. Okay. Me being adjourned. up it.