This post at Brown County Matters

Agenda Commissioner Meeting Dec 27, 2023

Audio of the meeting – Outline https://independentvotersofbrowncountyin.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/audio-commissioner-meeting-dec-27-2023.mp3

• • 3:36 – 35:30.  Courthouse – Change Order of $24, 575.
  • 36:00 – 56:11 – Gnaw Bone Sewer – Management, cost increases, option
  •  56:20 -1:12 – Proposed Property Purchase
  • 1:12 – 1:26 Music Center – Profit Distribution
  • 1:26 – 1:34 – Cottonwood Rd – Follow-Up

NOTES

Gnaw Bone Regional Sewer District. Board members are retiring and there have been no volunteers to fill the positions. Customers are paying around $65 a month which will likely be increasing. (Helmsburg customers are paying $92.50 a month.). An increase would require a rate study. There are maintenance issues that may require around 500K to address. More importantly, there are management issues – IDEM oversees RSDs. The Gnaw Bone RSD has asked for support from Brown County RSD (BCRSD) who can take over the district with IDEMs approval. This would give the BCRSD actual “paying customers” and the opportunity to demonstrate their capability to provide outstanding customer service.

Options of selling and having an outside group manage the RSD were also mentioned.  In addition to maintenance, additional capacity may be needed to support future customers.

A “contractor” to the BCRSD – Kevin Allen from BLN, was asked to provide an update on the status and the options to the commissioners. The VP of the “Brown County” RSD – Clint Studabaker was in attendance and was silent during the discussions. This was curious in that Studabaker led the development of a “County-wide” wastewater strategic plan at a cost of over $100K. Note also that IDEM approved the Gnaw Bone RSDs request for board members to be elected by customers as opposed to commissioners and council. So why isn’t Studebaker/BCRSD taking the management lead on behalf of the county?

The overall discussion reminded me of an Abbott and Costello comedy routine – “Who is on first?”

Land Acquisition. Commissioner Pittman and Wolpert proposed buying a $300,000 property near the county building to build a new prosecutor’s office. Another option is to build it at the location of the existing prosecutor’s office – an option proposed by Commissioner Sanders.  The existing buildings at both locations will have to be removed. Commissioner  Sanders also identified another possible option of a building acquisition. Stay tuned.  For some reason, the local GoP is hot for the acquisition.

Rent to Own?  No discussion on the source of the funding for a county that reportedly is operating at a deficit and drawing down reserves.  Discussions for funding the new building have included borrowing the money or having a company build it and lease it back to us where we would own it at the end of the lease.

Music Center – Profits. Commissioner Sanders made a motion that 100% of the excess profits from the Music Center be returned to the county. His motion was NOT supported by Commissioner Pittman or Wolpert.  Wolpert equated the idea as “looting them.”

Councilman Kemp pointed out that tourism generates additional expenses on the county that we are not reimbursed for and that a separate fund can be established to cover these expenses with the profits from the Music Center.  One of the justifications for funneling the money to the Foundation was to prevent the county from frivolous spending.

The Community Foundation believes they are “entitled” to receiving the funds. Their webpage identifies that they did donate “some” money but does not specify the amount. However, federal taxpayers contributed $2.7 million in grants and county taxpayers another $239K. The foundation has NEVER had any risk nor have their board members explained to county citizens why we should be subsidizing their organization.

The current admin agreement identifies that 70%of any exec profits (“if legal”) are to go to the Community Foundation and 25% to the county. This admin agreement was developed by the Music Center (Maple Leaf) management group and NOT approved via a vote at a commissioner or council meeting. The management group consists of 5 self-appointed and non-elected officials (Barry Herring, Kevin Ault, Jim Schultz, Diana Biddle, Bruce Gould) and two elected officials – Darenn Bryd of the Council and Jerry Pittman from the Board of Commissioners.

Councilman Jim Kemp sharing his perspective as a taxpayer, reinforced that costs of tourism are subsidized by county taxpayers and suggested that a new fund be established and profits from the Music Center applied to cover these expenses.

Commissioner Wolpert proposed that they meet with the Music Center management group and discuss changes. I suggested the Commissioners hold a public meeting to get citizen input on this arrangement.  I will be surprised if this happens.

Courthouse Addition – 25K Change Order  – “Last Summer”, a change order was needed and approved to correct a mistake in the specifications. Typically, the additional cost is at the expense of the architect – DLZ. However, DLZ wanted the county to pay for it. Commissioners are proposing that the county pay half and DLZ pay half.   This agreement is contingent on DLZ accepting the proposal.

Gifts and Gratuities.  DLZ also proposed that the county pay 100% and they would provide future services at a cost equivalent to the change order.   Note that DLZ (and other contractors to county governments) offer gifts/gratuities at commissioner and other county government-related conferences.  To prevent the appearance of a conflict, should the county develop the “first ever” policy on accepting gifts and gratuities. Background information: Personnel Policy – Gifts and Gratuities

Kevin Allen of BLN questioned the practice of a company offering free services for future projects.  BLN is a competitor of DLZ and is emerging as the local GoP’s favorite go-to contractor.

Cottonwood Road – Condition. The condition of the road and request for help was discussed at the Derc 6 meeting. Commissioner Sanders committed to following up with the request for more gravel on the road. Background info: “Gravel Road Policy – Safety, Maintenance, Costs https://independentvotersofbrowncountyin.com/2023/12/07/gravel-road-policy-safety-maintenance-costs/