Meeting notes – Tim J. Clark

Context:  Summary of the County’s Economic (Debt and Taxes) Situation June 4 DLZ Commissioner and Council Joint Meeting

“2 Minute Limit”  President of the council limited citizen input and questions to 2 minutes only.  It was an unnecessary limitation and a subtle abuse of power.  Lack of transparency, due diligence, and planning lead to questions and concerns. Effective leadership and planning builds trust and would help lead to action that results in everyone benefitting or at least, not being any worse off.

The solution?  Comprehensive planning to identify what citizens want and do not want in terms of economic and community development.  This leads to trust and a consensus regarding the change that is supported by the citizenry.

The status quo? A few people along with adhoc project teams, dominate decision-making in the county.   The desire to maintain power is among the reason for the historical and cultural resistance to any kind of strategic and comprehensive planning.  Some examples of consequences?

• Salt Creek Trail: Eminent domain issues and the decision to use highway bridges for a pedestrian trail.
• The government-owned Maple Leaf Music Venue and the Fast-Track Process.
• Commissioner using tax dollars to settle a dispute regarding the Van Buren Volunteer Fire Departments – no documented action was taken to prevent the need for this settlement.
• Proposed Justice Center – “Consider oConsider other ways for project to succeed

A way ahead?  Vote for positive change in 2018 and 2020.  I suggest a non-partisan platform and principles at Independent Voters of Brown County IN.  If you have suggestions for improvements to the platform, let me know.

 MEETING MINUTES

2 Million Dollar Increase in Debt.

Council approved borrowing 2 million vs 3 and opted for “paying it off” in 3 years vs. 2. This adds another $1.00 on a home valued at 100,000 vs $6.00. On a $300,000 home, the tax increase would be $3.58 vs $30.00.  The additional interest charge on a 3 years loan vs 2 is $34,000.

This decision “not” to borrow the extra 1 million was supported or recommended by the county’s financial advisors (Umbaugh and Associates) because there was no specific plan for how the money would be spent and when.  Previous speculation was that the 1 million would be related to the courthouse project.  There should be a “plan” for any money that is borrowed to include the identification of the need.

The initial reasoning for borrowing the extra 1 million was to take advantage of low-interest rates and avoid paying approximately 50K in fees for borrowing 1 million (if ever needed). The 50K seems excessive but it was confirmed that these fees were normal.

Also, if the intent of the council is to always “renew” a 2 million or more loan to fund projects, this should be identified in their financial strategy and plans.

Transfer of Funds to the Regional Sewer District (RSD) Board

The Council approved the transfer of funds of $270K to the RSD Board. Councilman Dave Critser identified how the money would be spent.

Curious — how much money has been spent over the past 16 plus years on this project?  How many plans have been developed?  What have been the barriers?  Why is this time different?  Why wouldn’t these questions be discussed prior to providing the $270K?

The President of the RSD stated that they signed an agreement with the Town regarding territories at their last meeting.  This statement was disputed.  The agreement was subject to a review by Barnes and Thornburg. Barnes and Thornburg reviewed the agreement (do not know when) and made minor changes.

It appears the council did not review the agreement prior to the approval by the RSD Board and Town.   The town manager – Scott Rudd was asked about their past policy of linking annexation to sewer service and both he and Commissioner Biddle stated that the rules governing annexations are stricter now than in the past and that the town has no interest in annexing unless it was requested by residents of the affected areas.

RSD Board Appointment

The council appoints 3 members to the sewer board and the commissioners appoint 2.

The council did appoint a new member to the RSD board – Clint Studebaker who is a retired environmental engineer with experience in wastewater treatment plants.  He may be a  good addition to the RSD Board.

I suggested that the council have the county attorneys review the statutes that govern the RSD board so that our elected representatives are aware of what the sewer boards (county, town, Helmsburg, Gnaw Bone) can and cannot do.  For instance, can these boards charge residents for services not provided to subsidize their budgets and spending?

The previous president of the RSD stated that the Board had the power to sign agreements and contracts without needing council or commissioner approval.  Since these people are appointed by the commissioners and council, then wouldn’t it be prudent prior to any appointments, for our elected representative to identify their requirements and expectations for their respective appointees?

You can delegate authority but not the responsibility. Along with the Commissioners and Council, all appointees to any Board or  Commission should have a basic awareness and understanding of the statutes that govern their actions.

Compelling need and plan?

Three members of the previous RSD Board resigned stating they had no support for identifying the need for sewers.  Article – Brown County Democrat – Majority of sewer board members resign, 5/17/2017. To quote:

•  “ President Evan Werling, Secretary Nina Leggett and Treasurer Terri Schultz all submitted their resignations after Werling gave a nearly hourlong talk on “what the truth is about what’s been going on.”  His presentation touched on a lack of documentation about the need for the sewer project, which has been in the works for more than 14 years; problems in the sewer project engineering report which a previous sewer board commissioned with county money; lack of health department cooperation in trying to obtain a “boots on the ground” survey of septic system failures in the Bean Blossom area to show sewer need; and name-calling which Leggett said she received at a health board meeting last fall.”

Why don’t “we” have a county-wide wastewater treatment plan?   Policy and actions taken in conjunction with the Bean Blossom project can have impacts on all county residents

The RSD Board will be presenting “their “Plan at their meeting on June 19. 2018 at 6:00 P.M. County Office Building.

And finally, the auditor discussed the Local Income Tax (LIT) Certified Shares – “Levy Freeze for 2018 and 2019.  I do not understand the issue.  “It appears” this can lead to an increase in income tax.   Plan on learning more.  The government seems to have their own language.

Maple Leaf Ground Breaking Celebration – July 10.  Hope the pictures turn out well.

My (Tim J. Clark) notes:  Redevelopment Commission (RDC) meeting. June 14, 2018.

I attended the RDC meeting last night that was also attended by the commissioners, members of the Regional Sewer District (RSD), employees of the health department and the Republican Party / Maple Leaf Building committee member Robyn Bowman.  Another 6 -8 members of the public also attended.

I do not recall f the meeting was taped. There was no written agenda and I do not recall that the minutes from the last meeting were approved.   The RDC has lacked the appointment of a Secretary (responsible for the minutes) and the newly appointed member who is to serve as the Secretary was not present at the meeting.

Debt and Taxes

Jim Kemp (President of the RDC) led off for about 15 minutes on his background, vision, and history with the RDC.  He reinforced the trends on debt and taxes and projected loss of population that I provided to the commissioners and council on June 4, 2018.  June 4 DLZ Commissioner and Council Joint Meeting

The county’s tax policy was discussed briefly.  The intent for relatively low property taxes was to allow people who inherited land to be able to keep it.  It was also mentioned that the high-income tax is a deterrent to attracting new residents.

Housing

Tourist homes were identified as a problem because they reduce available housing.  However, owners do pay at least twice the rate in property taxes that a permanent resident would pay.  The tourist rentals do allow people to afford a second home and the rents received pays the taxes. It was suggested that we may have even more tourist homes in the future given the expected upward trend in tourism.

On housing, Kemp identified that a realtor identified that the $90-110K price range is needed that would include 3 bedrooms, 2 baths, 1200 square feet. Commissioner Pittman reinforced the need for clusters of new homes such as  15 homes on 30 acres.  Audience members suggested apartments are an affordable option for people just starting out and/or do not want the expense associated with owning a home.

Infrastructure

A declining tax base set the context that reinforced the need to consider options for the county with the consensus being the need to attract more residents.  This led to a conversation on needed infrastructure including sewers and broadband.

Commissioner Diana Biddle also mentioned that they have submitted the application for the economic development strategic planning grant. I reinforced that the development of the plan requires public input to allow people the opportunity to identify what they want and do not want regarding economic development.

Economic Development – Tourism and Revitalization

Commissioner Dave Anderson stated how the government-owned Maple Leaf Music Venue and projected new hotels would have significant economic impacts on the county. I reinforced that the county is funded by income and property tax.  (Wages in the tourism-related industries are among the lowest of all industries in Indiana.) My article on the topic:  GUEST COLUMN: A study of tourism and economic sustainability

The RDC received support for their proposal that the Helmsburg – Bean Blossom corridor would be a  major focus for “revitalization” over the next 3 years.  It was reinforced how sewer service in Bean Blossom was critical for this development.

Fear of Change

Jim Kemp raised the issue on fear of change using a cowboys and Indians metaphor.  Those that were born here — the “Indians” feared the input from the “cowboys” – those who have moved here.  The impression is that people that have moved here are demanding change.   One of the audience members (not me) reinforced that just the opposite is the case. Those that have moved here love the natural beauty and rural lifestyle and do not want significant change – just incremental improvements that benefit all county citizens.

I identify examples of “incremental changes” at the following:  Incremental Improvement to the Status Quo?   What are the concerns??

Regarding the “Fear of Change”, the “real” fear may likely be the perceived loss of political power that allows a few people (along with adhoc project teams) to dominate decision-making in the county.  Ironically, when you give up power, you gain more which is also frightening for people.

The perceived loss of power may explain the historical and cultural resistance to any kind of strategic and comprehensive planning.  These plans require input from citizens to identify what they want and do not want in terms of economic and community development. These plans become “our” plans as opposed to “their” plans.

For example,  the “county” should have a county-wide wastewater treatment plan approved by the citizens and the Bean Blossom Sewer Plan would then be developed to align with the county plan.

The current approach for the ad-hoc projects often have effects  (unintended consequences) in other areas of the county that lead to a whack-a-mole approach to address issues that could have been prevented.

RSB – Sewer Project – KEY CONCERN – Unintended Consequences?

On the sewer project, the justification of need  “appears” to be that the county has adopted a policy that given the age of your home, they can conclude that your septic system has outlived its useful life.  Useful life can be estimated at 25 years.   “IF”  this is confirmed, this “policy” can have county-wide effects.  Can everyone else (6-7000 residences) who on paper, have an outdated system, be required to hook on to a system if they are near a sewer line?   What’s the plan for the next area for a new wastewater treatment plant? Is there one? If not, why not?   Have past community conversations identified that people do not want sewers?

My letter to the editor that raises the issues and reinforced the need for comprehensive planning.  ” Letter: Limit proposed septic ordinance’s scope”

Regarding the RSB request for the $270K to support “their” presentation of “their” sewer plan, concern was expressed about the reaction from “some members” of the public to the Sewer Plan at next weeks meetings.  Options discussed ranged from limiting any discussion to limiting input from just those who live in the area to be served. I think they settled on following the approach used for the discussion on the Septic Ordinance, e.g., a two minute limit to anyone that wanted to speak and accepting written questions.

I pointed out that the RSD process for developing this project contributes to the citizens concerns and questions.  The RSD is taking a similar approach that the commissions and council took on the proposed Justice Center project.

Letter: Consider other ways for projects to proceed

Regarding my emphasis on the word “their” – citizens would  “own” a county-wide wastewater treatment plan, e.g, it would be “our” plan.  Citizens in the affected area to be served by the Bean Blossom treatment plant may not have been individually contacted (involved or consulted) on the Bean Blossom plan. Not everyone is aware or can attend public meetings and citizens expect their elected and appointed officials to look out for their best interests.  Why not send out postcard notifications to prospective customers regarding plans and meetings? Or have you?

Kemp also made a  statement regarding the “contempt” that “some” community members have towards the government.  No names – just vague and unsubstantiated allegations. This was curious.  An experienced leader would have a frame of reference that would welcome and embrace all points of view to ensure the best solutions for the county.   The “contempt” appears to be exhibited by elected and appointed officials towards the citizens they are serving.

Brown County Matters received some mention. This included unsubstantiated allegations of misinformation and the fact that it is now a “closed” group.  Fact is that I am not aware of anyone that has requested to join who has been denied.

And of course, the Brown County “N” word was used — N standing for those dreaded “naysayers” – anyone that identifies a concern, question or offers another perspective on the issue.   Really? Aren’t we better than this?

Letter to the Editor – Brown County Democrat – Publication date June 13,  2018 under the title: Letter: Consider other ways for projects to proceed

The public presentation by DLZ on June 4, 2018 attended by the Commissioners and members of the County Council identified DLZ’s final recommendations for a new Justice Center. This Justice Center consists of a new courthouse and offices. DLZ also identified ideas and costs for re-purposing the old courthouse.

The solutions were presented without our elected representatives first communicating a compelling need that justifies why a new justice center is the best and only option for the county.   Before the DLZ presentation, H.J. Umbaugh and Associates presented the financing options for this project. DLZ identified a final step for the commissioners and council to “Generate Awareness and Build a Consensus – Public Outreach.”

In building a consensus, a needed step is to share the analysis that led to the recommendation that a new justice center is the best and only option for the county. This can be documented in a report and presentation that identifies the compelling need. In addition to needs, supporting detail should also include providing context to include identifying the history and results of past efforts, relevant facts, assumptions, and constraints. The presentation should also include identifying at least three possible options to include identifying the respective advantages and disadvantages of each option. An analysis of alternatives would provide some assurance to taxpayers that the commissioner and council performed their due diligence.

An article in the Brown County Democrat published Nov 17, 2017, ”Another annex? New study being done on courthouse future? “ provides an excellent history on this project.  Options identified in this article also included making “renovations to the current courthouse that would allow court to continue functioning on the second floor for the foreseeable future.”  The desire to remove the prosecutor’s office and the Deer Run park office is new.  Park office employees would move across the street to the lower level of the Veterans Hall that currently houses Community Corrections.

Unlike the government-owned Maple Leaf music venue where a remonstrance against the 12.5 million loan was not possible because the taxpayers were not directly obligated, it was stated that taxpayers do have the right to remonstrate for a bond exceeding $5 million. This project is estimated at over 10 million.  Note that the past proposal in 2012 for an annex to the courthouse led to a successful remonstrance.

The comments and questions provided by audience members included concerns about affordability, debt levels, maintenance and budgeting shortfalls, projections on a declining and aging population that can reduce the tax base, upward trends on income and property taxes and the impact of even more new debt on the 53.1% of the population that is in the low to moderate income level.

Brown County is identified as having the 3^rd highest debt level per capita in Indiana and the fifth highest income tax rate. Since 2012, the property tax rate has increased 33% and the total tax levy increased by 44%.  Other counties in Indiana are managing to live within their means. Why can’t we?

The new debt from this project is another line item to be added to existing tax bills.  Further, the property tax system can result in annual adjustments in assessed value that can lead to higher property taxes. Higher property taxes are needed to support the higher spending that is approved by the county council and endorsed by the commissioners.

The history of community reaction to major projects was also discussed.  If you were to design a process on what “not to do” regarding introducing a significant project proposal, Brown County’s approach might be considered among the examples. Albeit entertaining, acceptable and useful to some, others view the ad-hoc approach as chaotic, costly, time-consuming and divisive.  Planning for new projects within the context of a county strategy and comprehensive plan is considered an effective practice. I reinforced the importance of comprehensive planning in a November 21, 2017 guest column in the Brown County Democrat titled “Success is a choice.”

An exception to the project norm is the government-owned Maple Leaf music venue where the project was not subject to a remonstrance and was fast-tracked. Commissioners and council refused to conduct an independent feasibility study. They also refused to hold public meetings to obtain citizen input on the desirability of this project and to consider additional investment options that may have resulted in a higher benefit for all county citizens. They also refused to review the complete business plan before approving the project. Corruption is defined as to when a person’s conscience no longer registers right and wrong.  The process used to fast-track Maple Leaf was corrupt.  If the proposed courthouse project is fast-tracked, it will most likely lead to a successful remonstrance, delay needed improvements, and further erode people’s trust in local government and its elected representatives.

A way ahead?  It would be time and money well-spent to contract for development of an updated comprehensive report and presentation that integrates all the information that has been obtained in identifying the best options for the county. This report should provide the information that citizens can consider in making an informed decision. Further, select a consultant from a company that could not bid on design and construction related work.  And lastly, specify that the report should also include a recommendation regarding better practices for identifying, developing, managing, and gaining consensus for new projects.

Tim Clark
Brown County

Additional Information:

• Example: County Decision Making “Process” 

• Courthouse Project – June 5, 2018 Commissioner’s Meeting, posted June 6, 2018 

• Proposed New Courthouse and Government Offices. June 3, 2018 . Update from the June 4, 2018 Presentation by DLZ  – Part 2 of the Proposed new Justice Center

At today’s commissioner’s meeting, one of the agenda items was on the “next step” regarding the DLZ Justice Center Feasibility Study that was presented on June 4.

The “perception” I had from Commissioners Biddle and Anderson was that nothing more was needed.  Jerry Pittman reinforced that they do need to hold a public meeting and try to get as many people to attend as possible in order to build consensus for the project. Beth Mulry – County Auditor made an excellent suggestion that meetings need to be conducted throughout the county in order to explain the need and gain support for this project.

I pointed out that the June 4 presentation did NOT identify a compelling need for this project.  I also stated that if they approved this project based on the presentation, I would sign the remonstrance petition and collect as many more signatures as I could.

Jerry asked good questions and I provided him information on a suggested county decision-making framework that does provide an outline that supports a decision.  Jerry and I will be meeting to review the process as it applies to the Justice Center project.

Note that DLZ did identified “next steps” for the project on page 46 of their presentation that includes: “Determine Financial Options – How to Fund” and “Generate an Awareness and Build a Consensus – Public Outreach.”

 Determine Financial Options – How to Fund

Umbaugh and Associates were contracted to identify funding options. Their report “DOES NOT” provide a context that identifies the total financial impacts on citizens.  They identify that the debt could range from 10-12 cents  per hundred dollars of assessed value.  Fact is that this is another line item added to property tax bills. For instance, from 2012 to 2017:

• County Property Tax rates increased by 33%.
• County Total Tax Levy increased by 40.4%.

On funding, I provided a hand-out at the June 4 meeting that provided key points on Brown County taxes economics.  The SPIN that the debt will only cost 10 – 12 cents per hundred dollars of assessed value is misleading.

My handout (included enclosures) provided at the June 4 Meeting: June 4 DLZ Commissioner and Council Joint Meeting

Again, this debt will be another line item added to our tax bills that continue to increase. It will also move us up to number 2  for having the highest debt per capita in the state.  And we currently have the 5th highest income tax rate in the state.

Further, the property tax system can result in annual adjustments in assessed value that can lead to higher property taxes. Higher taxes are needed to support higher spending that is approved by the county council and endorsed by the commissioners.  Other counties in Indiana are managing to live within their means without excessive borrowing and increasing taxes. Why can’t we?

Generate an Awareness and Build a Consensus – Public Outreach

To prevent a successful remonstrance, Commissioners and Council have to make a credible case that would address at least two major issues:

• Given our economic situation, tax levels and trends, debt, and  projections for a declining an aging population, that this project is “affordable” without an undue financial burden on the taxpayers and,
• There is a compelling need that a new Justice Center is critical and is the best and most practical option.

Options could include the following:

1. Status quo — make need repairs and renovations to the existing facilities.
2. Make needed repairs and renovations now to the existing courthouse and budget for ongoing maintenance.   If the prosecutor’s office needs to be replaced, then increase the size and re-build at the current location.
3. A new Justice Center.
4. Review the feasibility of buying and renovating the Peaceful Valley Hotel.
5. Lease space in the Professional Building.
6. Other …?

Update from the June 4, 2018 Presentation by DLZ  – Part 2 of the Proposed new Justice Center

The scope of the presentation was on Plan A – a New Justice Center.  Questions were raised about the needs as well as the other options (Plan, B, C, D) that were considered.  Other options would include making needed renovations to the existing courthouse and repairing or replacing the prosecutor’s office.

Commissioners and Council stated that there would be further community meetings in order to develop a consensus that a new Justice Center is the best option for the county.

Debt that exceeds 5 million is subject to a remonstrance.  This option was not possible with the Maple Leaf project because the collateral was the innkeeper’s tax and not general funds.

About the Project

County Commissioners and Council are supporting a current proposal to build a new courthouse that will include additional government offices. The project is being marketed as a Justice Center. The old courthouse will also be re-purposed to include additional county offices as well to include new individual offices for our “part-time” commissioners.  Financial estimates and current budget practices identify that these projects will result in more debt and higher taxes.

The growth in local government spending, debt and increase in the number of government employees is in conflict with the projection from the State that we are losing population and the population we retain will be older.

Commissioners were clear on their intent for the project. They selected a firm (DLZ) with a history of designing new courthouses. They also hired a financial consultant – Umbaugh and Associates to identify financing options.  Commissioner Biddle reinforced Umbaugh’s opinion that the  “ideal time” to bid out a project would be at the end of 2018, get a bond and start construction in 2019.”

The joint meeting of the Commissioners and Council will be on June 4 at 5:00. Topics will include projected costs and financing options of new infrastructure projects. DLZ will present at 6:00. This will include their recommendation on the Justice Center and renovation costs of the old courthouse.

The previous attempt by the Commissioners and Council to borrow up to 8.25 million for a 17,400-square-foot addition to the old courthouse was defeated by taxpayers through a remonstrance.

UPDATE/CORRECTION:  A  remonstrance “IS” an option for taxpayers on this project because the loan will exceed $5 million.

The first presentation by DLZ on May 2 identified the “solution” —  a new “Justice Center”  which included a new courthouse and government office space.  DLZ did not provide details on the problem.  Details would include a thorough analysis of alternatives, workload counts, and trends, and economic projections to assess the affordability of this project on county taxpayers.

On finances, a critical consideration is the need (if available) to review the county’s capital improvement plan and budget.  This should include all infrastructure related needs and gaps.

The “ASSUMPTION” by the commissioners and council is that the costs associated with the additional debt will not have a significant impact on taxpayers.  Further, the upkeep and maintenance costs of the new projects have not been identified.  There are also overzealous assumptions regarding economic development.

The 2017 income survey identified that 53.1% of residents fall in the low to moderate income level.  As mentioned previously, Brown County is expected to lose population and the population we retain will be older which leads to decreases in the tax base.   This results in fewer people paying more in taxes and operating costs.  Consequently, any new debt and maintenance costs will result in higher taxes on the remaining population.

Finance Facts:

• Brown County has the third highest debt per capita in the state
• We have the 5th highest income tax rate.
• From 2012 to 2017:
  • County Property Tax rates increased by 33%.
  • County Total Tax Levy increased by 40.4%.
  • Certified net assessment (from which property tax is derived), increased cumulatively by 5.5% which is below the inflation rate.  This contributes to the need to raise income and property taxes.

References:

• Taxes and Spending on an Upward Trend
• 2017 Local Taxes and Finances
• May 16, 2017. IU/SPEA Capstone Project: Report: Local taxes, job options need further scrutiny, By Sara Clifford, /Brown County Democrat
• Framework for identifying the problem, assessing options and making a decision

Courthouse Project

May 2, 2018.  Consultant Presentation:  New Courthouse and Government Offices  – AKA  – Brown County 2018 05-02 DLZ Justice Center Feasibility Study

• Note that DLZ can bid on any projects that are generated from the study.

Brown County Democrat

• May 15, 2018.   Agency recommendation after study: Build new justice center
  • An agency hired to examine the future of the historic courthouse in Brown County has offered two suggestions to the Brown County Commissioners and Brown County Council.
  • Those are to move court offices to a new building that would be built next to the Brown County Law Enforcement Center and move some county employees into the current courthouse after it is renovated.
• Jan 23, 2018.The people’s court: Courthouse project needs public input, firm says
  • The agency hired to study the future of Brown County court operations wants to make two things clear:
    • No. 1: The people need to drive this project, and; No. 2: Whatever it ends up being, it needs to be something taxpayers can afford.
    • “I can’t stress this enough: The solution at the end of the day can’t be that we’re going to build this huge facility that’s going to meet the community’s needs for 50-plus years, but we can’t afford it,” said DLZ principal architect Eric Ratts
• Jan 6, 2018.  Courthouse feasibility study kickoff meeting date set . A group will meet to discuss the next steps in what to do about the historic Brown County Courthouse next week.
• Oct 17, 2017. Another annex? New study being done on courthouse future. For the fourth time in eight years, a study is being done on making changes to the historic Brown County Courthouse. This time, the study also will look at building a new, separate county annex building somewhere in downtown Nashville.
  • Biddle said that Umbaugh, the county’s financial consultant, said the “ideal time” to bid out a project would be at the end of 2018, get a bond and start construction in 2019.
  • The Brown County Commissioners and Brown County Council went ahead with plans to borrow up to $8.25 million to build a 17,400-square-foot addition. But taxpayers soundly defeated that proposal with a remonstrance, and citizen committees began studying other options.

Indiana Public Media: wfiu, npr, WTIU

• May 17, 2018. Consultant Calls For Justice Center In Brown County
• May 3, 2017.  Report: Brown Co. Courthouse Needs More Parking, Public Meeting Space
  • Biddle says the DLZ assessment cost just under $20,000. She says Brown County will develop plans following the final assessment’s release.

County Website – General Information – Including previous Courthouse Studies and Proposals:

Covers: Taxes (property, levies), Budget and Expenditures, Employment

• Trends 2012-2017 Brown County Local Tax and Finance Dashboard
• 2017 Brown County Local Tax and Finance Dashboard.  Shows percent of increases from 2012-2017.
  • County Property Tax rates increased by 33%.
  • County Total Tax Levy increased by 40.4%.
  • Certified net assessment (from which property tax is derived), increased by 5.5% which is below the inflation rate.  This contributes to the need to raise income and property taxes.

Source: Indiana Gateway – Local Tax + Finance Dashboard You can also generate reports by Township and the Schools.

• Personal INCOME Tax Rate as of Jan 1, 2018. Brown County is 5th highest in the state.  Indiana Income Tax Rates by County as of Jan 1 2018.
• Brown County has the 18th highest median property tax. Zillow (as of May 25, 2018) identifies the median home price in Indiana at $131,100 and the median price in Brown County at $170,700.
• Brown County Townships are among the lowest in property tax rates in the State.  Property Tax Rates by County – (Select  “All”)

See also:

• County Debt Levels –  Brown County has the third highest debt per capita in the State.
• Citizen’s Guide to Property Tax
  • Graphic – Assessment to Tax Billing: Start to Finish
  • Graphic: Assessment to Budget Process
  • Annual Adjustments & Cyclical Reassessment
• IU/SPEA – Economic Analysis  andCounty Decision Support Model