Updated Mar 10, 2026

In-process:  BC Indian Hill Road Grant Application w-certificate 9-23-2024

Jan 10, 2025. Indian Hill not selected for the grant. Reference:  FY23-24 Railroad Crossing Elimination (RCE) Grant Program Selections

Sep 2, 2025. Signed INDOT Indian Hill Road Letter (edits 09-02-25)

• Regarding a petition for a bike/pedestrian-only crossing, INDOT does not have jurisdiction over a bike/pedestrian-only crossing. This would be an agreement between The Indiana Rail Road Company and Brown County.

Sep 16, 2024.  INDOT 12-Month Extension_DOT-RR-2494_Indian Hill.Brown County_Signed_9-16-2024

The 12-Month Extension to Cause No DOT-RR-2494 grants an extension of time until September 29, 2025, to commence work on the train-activated warning devices as described in the original Order dated September 29, 2023.

• • Commissioner Meeting Notes:  The county is also applying for a federal grant to help with the costs of re-opening.
  • AUDIO of the Meeting 1:01:57 – Discussion Mike Moga and Kevin Allen

Aug 21, 2024, Good news!  Commissioners agreed to an extension. No action has been taken by the county since INDOT agreed on Sept 29, 2023, to re-open the crossing.  20240820 Extension Request Letter – Indian Hill. The first step needed is an engineering plan to address the changes requested by INDOT. This is followed by finding funding sources. A variety of funding options are available.  

This post at Brown County Matters.  Also shared at Brown County Refreshed. (Updated version of the timeline/analysis – Mar 13, 2024.)

July 2024. New Legislation requiring a public hearing. Changes motivated by the consequences of Brown County “not”  holding a public hearing. 

• • [New – effective 1 July 2024] IC 8-6-7.7-3.2 (e) :
  • (e) A unit and a railroad may agree to close a crossing within the jurisdiction of the unit. The unit must conduct a public hearing before agreeing to the closure of the crossing. Notice of the public hearing must be provided under section 3.5 of this chapter.

As added by P.L.81-1996, SEC.7. Amended by P.L.198-2016, SEC.71; P.L.49-2024, SEC.3.

[New – effective 1 July 2024] IC 8-6-7.7-3.5:

• • IC 8-6-7.7-3.5 Notice of public hearing regarding a proposed public railroad crossing closure
  • Sec. 3.5. The unit (as defined in IC 36-1-2-23) under whose jurisdiction a public railroad crossing lies must provide notice of the public hearing regarding the proposed closure as follows:
    • (1) By publication in two (2) newspapers of general circulation in the unit, published not less than thirty (30) days prior to the public hearing.
    • (2) By certified mail to those property owners who would be considered interested parties under the unit’s rules for providing notice under IC 36-7-4, postmarked not less than thirty (30) days prior to the public hearing.

The closures also cut off access to the Tecumseh Trail for hikers and runners:

• • BACKPACK – The 50 Best Hikes in the U.S. – Indiana Tecumseh Trail. [Editor’s Note: Indiana’s Tecumseh Trail has been closed since May 2020 from State Road 45 to the parking area south of Beanblossom Creek. The trail is bisected by a railroad crossing. Hikers who cross the tracks or divert to an adjacent road will be trespassing. The Knobstone Hiking Trail Association is working on a solution to reopen the trail.
  •  OUTDOOR BRIEFS: Tecumseh Trail Challenge this weekend. The route no longer includes the Indian Hill section. 

  TIMELINE – KEY EVENTS

• • 2024_03_13 Remember Indian Hill Closure-Rebuttal-Analysis

    • A detailed analysis of the timelines and supporting documentation regarding the lack of a public hearing, a likely violation of open meeting laws, questionable legal advice, and misleading statements by elected and appointed officials.

  • Part 4: Closure RR Xing, Indian Hill Rd – Petition to Re-Open

    • Sep 29, 2023. INDOT Response to the petition to re-open.  INDOT returned the crossing to the county and approved re-opening based on several (14) conditions.  

      • INDOT-RR-2494_Indian Hill.Final (signed)
      • INDOT Exhibits A and B, DOT-RR-2494

CURRENT EVENTS

Background

Sep 29, “2023.” INDOT accepted the county’s petition to re-open with certain conditions.  INDOT needs to review and approve the county’s engineering plan for the crossing.  An exception (long shot) could be that the county’s decision to close the crossing is vacated because of the impropriety of the process to close. The assumption is that the crossing could be re-opened without any major changes.

• • INDOT-RR-2494_Indian Hill.Final (signed)
  • INDOT Exhibits A and B, DOT-RR-2494

Jan 17, 2024. Commissioner Meeting. Indian Hill Re-Opening.  Jerry Pittman – Keywords: “still alive, major obstacles, costs and source of funding unknown, logistical considerations in meeting state specs, almost impossible, may have to buy land, may impact Bean Blossom Creek which is controlled by DNR, not sure where this will end up at this time, whatever happens, commissioners made a good effort, more to follow. ”

• • 1:45:15 Audio – Indian Hill Update – Jerry Pittman – Lenght 1:27
  • Councilman Rudd concurred with Pittman’s summary.
  • The decision to close – Part 1: Closure – Railroad Crossing – Indian Hill Rd

Feb 22, 2024. I submitted a formal request to INDOT – Rail Program Office for information on the status of the project.  Brown County has not submitted a plan for review.

• • Per INDOT response, Item “I” states “The work on the train-activated warning devices will commence within twelve (12) months of the date of this Order unless an extension of time is requested by the Petitioner and approved by the INDOT Rail Programs Office.”
  • Item “J” states “The road construction can commence as soon as the road plans are approved by INDOT.”

Feb 27, 2024.  The county has no documented agreement with an engineering firm to develop a plan. There have been no invoices submitted for any work done. (Note: Any Pro Bono work would need to be disclosed.)

Feb 29, 2024. Commissioner meeting.

• • At today’s commissioner meeting, Mike Magnor requested and received approval for an “emergency” bridge repair.  This included approval for a 20K plan and specs that are needed to bid the work. Milke (Highway Department) has the money to fund the 20K.
  • Why hasn’t the county or the highway department funded a road plan for Indian Hill?

Mar 20, 2024. Joint Meeting (working session) Commissioners and Council – Indian Hill.

• • Indian Hill Road and Railroad Crossing.   Commissioner Pittman confirmed that he had no intention of re-opening the crossing and road.  He stated that it would be too expensive. His estimates ranged widely regarding the cost of a plan and the work required.  No county money has been spent on a plan or an engineering estimate. Without this information, you cannot identify the cost. Without the cost, you cannot start identifying the funds needed and possible funding sources.  

Letters of Support included in the successful petition to INDOT to re-open. Link to the Petition and supporting documentation.

May 7, 2024 Primary Election. 

• • District 3. Scott Rudd (R), councilman at large.  
  • Tim J. Clark (R) Commissioners – My position – Re-open, submit plan, identify funding sources

May 14, 2023. I contacted INDOT. There has been no change. The county has not initiated actions to re-open the crossing.  

Agenda Commissioner Meeting Feb 21, 2024  

Audio of the Meeting

Commissioner Meeting Notes – Feb 21, 2024. Short and sweet –  about an hour

o.  Commissioners approved new job descriptions for the highway superintendent and an assistant superintendent.   The council voted at their Jan meeting not to fund an assistant supervisory position.

o.  A new (and needed) policy on managing grants was approved.

o. Solar Eclipse.  A draft of a temporary change to the zoning ordinance was proposed to allow individuals and businesses to support overnight camping.  Mike Moga – Barnes and Thornburg, to review. Temporary Ordinance – Overnight Camping

Comments included:

• • Pros – an opportunity for individuals and businesses to make money and collect taxes
  • Cons – Overtaxed resources, impact on neighboring properties

Our EMA Director, Chad Jenkins published an assessment on the event: “Total Solar Eclipse Event, (TSE) 2024 Threat and Hazard Analysis with Risk Assessment”

• • 2024 TSE Risk 012624)

Audio of the Meeting

County Council Agenda February 19, 2024

 County Council Meeting Notes, Feb 19, 2024. 

Highlights:

• • The Sheriff presented an updated request to increase salaries – around 150K. A similar request was made on behalf of all county employees to increase pay that is competitive with surrounding counties.
  • “Pennies from Heaven.” Jim Kemp reinforced that the county would have had a $1.4 million dollar deficit last year and we were lucky to find excess funds in accounts we did not know about. Kemp also reinforced that we must take a hard look at employee benefit costs.
  • Council passed a resolution (policy) to identify goals for savings: $2.5 Million Rainy Day Fund, and planned savings for unexpected Health Insurance costs.

Revenue.   Possible options for raising revenue included charging other counties to house prisoners in our jail and timber sales.  The state has suspended timber harvesting in Yellowwood due to local opposition. 

Grants.  Options for obtaining money from regional economic development interests was discussed. This would be a longer-term source of funds.

Legal Council. Susan Bevers provided helpful insight on meeting protocols and canceling policies that are not being enforced – such as deadlines for departments requesting salary and grade increases.  On financial situation, she offered that we may be 8-10 years away from meeting our financial goals. 

General Obligation Bond. Admin Costs. Around 80K on a 3 million dollar loan. 

Supporting Information: Feb 15, 2024 – BCD Joint Session Council and Commissioners 

Feb 15, 2024. Indiana Supreme Court blocks injunction, opening door for Rust to be kept off May ballot – Indianapolis Business Journal,    | Casey Smith, Indiana Capital Chronicle

Indiana Supreme Court justices on Thursday blocked an injunction against the state’s two-primary rule that prohibits U.S. Senate hopeful John Rust from appearing on the GOP primary ballot in May.

Chief Justice Loretta Rush said that “a majority” of the justices voted to stay the trial court’s order, in which Marion County Superior Court Judge Patrick J. Dietrick found Indiana’s two-primary requirement unconstitutional.

• • This article posted at Brown County Matters.
  • 2024 Primary Candidates in Brown County
  • AP – Indiana Supreme Court issues ruling in John Rust Senate bid
    • Rust issued a statement saying, “I’ve been fighting the establishment since day one. I will never stop fighting. All options are on the table, including relief from the US Supreme Court.”
  • LOYALTY OVER COMPETENCE? “There’s no real way to ensure we have people with relevant experience running for office, but having people with a voting history at least assures that they have been doing more than voting in general elections.” The two primary rule is a good rule

AUDIO – Feb 12, 2024 Oral Arguments  – 20 minutes on each side

If any citizen wants to run for office in the primary, they need to meet the following criteria:

This criteria is currently being challenged – by Senate Candidate John Rust. The Indiana Supreme Court held oral arguments on February 12 – three days after the filing deadline of Feb 9, 2024. Indiana Supreme Court to hear Rust case Feb. 12

For  Republican party-specific positions – precinct chairs, convention delegates, Rule 1-24 and 1-25 can apply.

 Indiana GOP Rules of the Indiana Republican State Committee

• • “Rule 1-24. A “Qualified Primary Republican” is a voter who cast Republican Party ballot at the two (2) most recent primary elections in Indiana in which the voter voted, and who is a Republican in Good-Standing.”  (1)
  • “Rule 1-25. The term “Republican in Good-Standing” shall be defined as a Republican who supports Republican nominees and who does not actively or openly support another candidate against a Republican nominee.”

    • (1)  This law does not mean the candidate must have voted in the two (2) most chronologically recent primary elections and requested a Democratic or Republican ballot; instead, the person’s vote history must demonstrate that the last two (2) primary elections in which the person voted must align with the party the candidate seeks to affiliate in the primary election. For example, if a candidate pulled a Republican Party primary ballot in 2019, did not vote in the 2020 and 2022 primary elections, and requested a Republican Party primary ballot in 2023, then this candidate meets the requirements set forth in state law to file a declaration of candidacy (CAN-2) for the Republican Party primary without attaching the chair’s certification.  Ref: Indiana SOS, 2024 Indiana Candidate Guide.

Additional Information:

• • 2024 County Primary – Candidate Requirements, Notes

  • Brown County Republican Party (GOP) – Organization, Governance, Precincts

  • Local GOP – Controversial Post on Facebook

Joint Meeting Notes, Commissioners and Council, Feb 15, 2024, 9:00 a.m. to Noon

Supporting Information: Feb 15, 2024 – Brown County Democrat, Joint Session Council and Commissioners, published Feb 21, 2024, Dakota Bruton

Audio of the Audio  2:37

On the Good News, good decision to hire new advisors who are experienced with our situation. It will take years to dig out of the financial bad habits that were accepted as the norm over at least, the past “10”  years.

• • New Financial Advisor: Greg T. Guerrettaz. Financial Solutions Group, LLC, Plainfield, In
  • New legal representation for the county council: Susan Bevers, Lorenzo, Bevers, Braman, & Connell, Seymour, In

For the First time in county history – we are working to develop and sustain a 5-year financial plan and budget, along with a capital improvement plan.  The new process includes monthly reviews. It also requires a joint effort and commitment by the council, commissioners, and department heads

I credit new councilman Jim Kemp as being the catalyst for financial reform.  He did the work to uncover an accurate financial condition. Otherwise, it would have been business as usual until we had to apply for a pay-day loan.  Sherrie Mitchell and I have been posting on the lack of due diligence for years. We finally got to the point that the depletion of reserves provided the needed wake-up call.

The old process: Develop a new budget every year by underestimating expenses and revenue and then jump through the hoops during the year to stay above water.  Borrow money to pay for needed capital improvements.  Move money around to rob Peter to pay Paul. Do not set goals and objectives for savings and spending. Do not identify unfunded requirements. Re-elect the same people – many hand-picked to keep doing what they have always done and may not have the desire, time, or commitment to learn.  Avoid developing knowledge, expertise, and SOPs that would build on lessons learned and avoid repeating the same mistakes year in and year out.  Hope nobody notices.

Policies:  Reference to coverage for part-time employees, commissioners and council

• • March 4, 1996 Brown County Personnel Policy on who Qualifies for Insurance
  • May 21 2021 Personnel Policies Handbook

Update as of Feb 9, 2024 

• • There are two Part-Time Employees taking our insurance.
  • There are nine elected officials taking our insurance.   
  • No (zero)  Commissioners and Two (2) council members.

 Part-time employees must work 20 hours a week.

Last updated Feb 6, 2024 – 1300 hrs
Commissioner Meeting Notes Feb 5, 2024.  Music Center, Fire Districts, Appointments

Audio of the Meeting and Agenda 

Disclosure. I am running against Jerry Pittman in the Republican primary for Commissioner, District 3.  I believe in a fact-based decision-making process involving all the stakeholders that will be affected by a decision. I also believe in maintaining the documentation that supports the decision. I  am opposed to decision-making through improvisation – where a few keywords are used to fabricate a story justifying a decision that is not supported by the evidence.

• • Example:  Community Decision-Making Process Process

Fire Districts?  This was interesting. Jerry Pittman expressed his support for Fire Districts. He thinks the fire district in Hamblen Township is a model for the county. Currently, township trustees provide funding and the VFDs elect their own leadership. Townships have taxing authority.

Fire District – Legal Action and Costs $$$$. This issue of fire districts was very contentious a few years ago – Wolpert was a commissioner and voted for fire districts and was not re-elected.  There was pushback and legal action from the community, new commissioners, and the VFDs, and the case eventually was settled by the Indiana Supreme Court.  History: Fire Districts Brown County

Eclipse. County zoning does not allow primitive camping for financial gain. Our EMA Director, Chad Jenkins wrote an assessment of the situation: “Total Solar Eclipse Event,(TSE)  2024 Threat and Hazard Analysis with Risk Assessment” 2024 TSE Risk 012624

Gnaw Bone Regional Sewer District. Board member Dave Hess identified his intent to retire from the board after 15 years and has been asking for help over the past year from Commissioner Pittman and the BCRSD. He is finally getting the needed support and had to cut short his convalescence from a medical procedure to attend the meeting.

On the call for help, the BCRSD could have provided immediate assistance but they wanted to first know the condition of the plant and maintenance/repair needs.

Kevin Allen of BLN has been selected to provide engineering support.  The county’s legal counsel stated that the commissioners can appoint new board members for vacancies for a county elected office exceeding 30 days (IC 3-13-7-2). The Gnaw Bone RSD has approval from  IDEM to opt for the option of customers “electing” board members as opposed to appointments from elected officials.

Gnaw Bone RSD – Future?  Per Pittman, future management of the RSD is up in the air – sell it, remain an independent board, let the BCRSD manage it?  Gnaw Bone has two packaged Sewer Plants – one is 24 years old and the other is 14.

Costs per Customer.  To keep costs down (60.00 a month)  Gnaw Bone RSD board members were a “working” board where members performed maintenance and responded to calls. This made it nearly impossible to recruit new board members and could not be sustained.  Customers owe these board members their thanks and gratitude. 

Helmsburg RSD.  The cost is 92.50 a month.  Helmsburgs RSD board members are appointed by commissioners/council and have received funding to build a new plant to replace their aging plant. They contract for maintenance.  Helmsburg developed its own economic plan that identifies what the community wants and does not want in terms of development and quality of life. They also created their own 501c3 – Community Development Corporation. More info: Helmsburg Revitalization – Community Led. 

Music Center – Disposition – Options.

Barry Herring and Derek Clifford were re-appointed to the Convention Visitors Commission (CVC). The CVC develops the budget for how revenue from the innkeeper’s tax can be spent. Typically, the Convention Visitors Bureau (CVB) is given most of the money but other non-profits can receive funding if they support tourism.  The County Council reviews and approves the CVC budget.

Ron Sanders is advocating for public meetings to discuss the idea of selling the venue.  Barry Herring expressed his opinion that it might be hard to sell, the venue is performing as promised, and excess revenue is being returned to the county.  I support public meetings and allowing citizens to express their opinions as to the options. These meetings also provided the opportunity for fact-gathering.   Pittman offered his comments – keep as-is for now (status quo).  Pittman is on the Music Venue Management group but attends very few meetings.

Authority – Elected Officials.  The council and commissioners (elected officials) had to approve building the music center. I have seen no documented opinion from the county’s legal counsel that they cannot also vote to sell.  Further, I have seen no documented legal opinion that non-elected officials have the power to determine the distribution of excess revenues. Further, I have seen no documented legal opinion that elected officials can delegate their responsibility for decisions regarding this venue to unelected officials. The local Republican  Party has always been a vocal advocate and supporter of this venue -and supports the hands-off policy taken by our elected officials. Ron Sanders is the exception – he was not the preferred candidate of the local Party.

Options for the Music Center – include:

(1) Sell it. The premise is that the County Government should not be in the music business. Sell it at a profit, collect the property tax, and use the money to fund needed capital improvements. This “government-owned and operated music venue” will always be opposed by those expecting a limited role from the government.

(2) Status quo – continue to allow non-elected officials with business acumen, to manage the venue and decide how best to determine and then distribute excess revenue. A proposed change for distribution is 50% instead of 75% of the excess revenue be given to the Community Foundation and the remainder to the county.

(3) Win/Win?  Voters and Elected officials take responsibility with input from the non-elected officials. 100% of excess revenue is returned to the county and can be used for infrastructure needs such as capital improvements. Elected officials can document their intent for the funds via a Resolution. If capital improvements are a priority, funds can be used to reduce/eliminate the need for the county to borrow money where loans are repaid through a property tax increase. In other words, the excess revenue can support a property tax decrease. 

By law, the County Council reviews and approves how revenue from the innkeepers’ tax will be spent. Their decision can also determine how much excess revenue can be returned to the county.

• • Revenue from the Innkeepers Tax – History, Opportunities, Public Input

  • BCMC: Brown County Music Center (Maple Leaf): For the Record

Board Appointments.  I was re-appointed to the Redevelopment Commission last year (unanimous vote by Sanders, Pittman, and Braden). I was “not” re-appointed this year. Sanders votes Yes and Pittman and Wolpert No.  Jerry Pittman said the decision was not and would never be “political” – good to know 😊

I was working on a follow-up project to analyze our property tax base to determine trends and provide baseline data. We have about 15 years of data.  Newer technologies make it easier to collect and analyze the data. The idea for the project started when I was appointed to the RDC in 2016 and 2017.

Before being appointed, I developed an assessment of the sustainability of the county’s economic base using indicators developed by the state called Community Vitality Indicators (CVI). This led to the need to get more information on leading indicators of economic health. The goal of the RDC Project was to develop a financial decision support model. This would allow projections on revenues, expenses, and tax rates, to better anticipate potential deficits and allow time for corrective action needed to avoid problems.

This information would have helped prevent last year’s budget debacle.  I worked with IU/SPEAs Graduate program and supported two student-led projects.  The third project would have included gathering income and property tax data.

I was not re-appointed to the RDC in 2018 (I challenged the fast-track process being used to approve the music center project).  I think 2017 was the last year the RDC published the required annual report. More information is provided in the link.

If interested:

• • 2018 Appointments – Redevelopment Commission (RDC)
  • IU SPEA/MPA – 2019 – 2021 Projects
  • Financial Decision Support Model – IU Student Support  

Last  updated: Feb 5, 2024

Council Working Session Meeting Jan 31, 2024, 8:00- 5:00. A long day.  (Audio to be posted by the council). The meeting started at 9:00 am.

Disclosure:  I am running against two-term incumbent Jerry Pittman for Commissioner, District 3, in the May Republican Primary.

This was a follow-up meeting and advertised as a County Council Work Session. the purpose was to discuss “the Sheriff Department’s salary increases.”  (Just looked it up – The meeting announcement was posted in the Jan 24, 2024 edition of the Democrat, Legal Section).

Update: This was a county “council” working session meeting which means no formal vote on a decision could be made. The purpose of a “working session” is to gather and discuss information that may lead to a decision (vote) at a council meeting.  The Commissioners can attend a council working session but as observers.  Commissioner Pittman participated in the meeting and discussed, and provided information regarding the capital improvement plan and a proposed new bond despite any opposition from the public regarding the amount. No specifics yet  (just general ideas and estimates) on proposed projects and estimated costs.  Ref: Indiana Public Access Counselor

No Money. The Sheriff had notified the council on at least three previous occasions, that they would continue to lose personnel (deputies, jailers, dispatchers) if they could not provide competitive salaries. Several hours were spent discussing needs and options. The council could find NO money in the budget to sustain a salary increase.  This is expected to lead to more turnover. The risk to the county of an under-staffed Sheriff’s department was not discussed. Less personnel does create more payroll money that can be used to fund the higher salaries.  This option has been identified as a strategy for the county.

A Way Ahead.  The county’s new financial advisor/consultant was present as was the council’s new attorney.  These are needed and critical resources that may help the county recover from years of overspending, financial mismanagement, and lack of due diligence.  It is expected to take years to recover.

• • New Financial Advisor: Greg T. Guerrettaz. Financial Solutions Group, LLC, Plainfield, In
  • New Council: Susan Bevers, Lorenzo, Bevers, Braman, & Connell, Seymore, In

Illegal meeting?  Two Commsiooners (a quorum) also attended (Wolpert, Pittman), and their admin assistant did most if not all the talking on their behalf. The meeting was not announced as a “joint meeting.” Nor was there a separate commissioner meeting announcement.  Their attendance may have been in violation of Indiana’s Open Meeting Laws. I have filed an inquiry with the public access counselor. The “council’s” attorney who was present at the meeting did not comment on the situation.  She declined to offer commissioners advice when it came to an administrate vote. The commissioner’s attorney was not present at the meeting.

General Obligation (GO) Bond.  In addition to the discussion on the sheriff’s salaries, several hours were spent on financial planning and budgeting. This included brainstorming (which was curious) a capital improvement plan (1) and discussions on a new bond (debt). The three million dollar bond expires at the end of this year and was financed with an interest rate of around  1 percent or less.  Council wants the new debt to be “revenue neutral” which means they can claim that your taxes will not change.  But with higher interest rates, the amount borrowed may need to be less.. Or, the length of the loan may need to be extended from 2-3 years to 10 or more?  The county does impose a property tax to finance the bond.   Note the county has to borrow money for capital improvements that include the repair and replacement of infrastructure. Infrastructure can include software leases, office equipment, vehicles/

Capital Improvement Plan. Until this year, county elected officials – commissioners and council have REFUSED to demand and support the development of a capital improvement plan and budget. The motivation was likely because the required funding would compete against other favored funding priorities and has contributed to our financial train wreck.

The financial advisor suggested using an “owner/rep” to help collect estimates on repair/replacement projects.

The lack of a plan was a consistent recurring audit finding by the State Board of Accounts (SBOA) which county officials can and do often ignore. It is up to the voter to elect citizens who will do the right things.

Financial Goals:

• • Target fund balances at 15%
  • Develop Five-year Capital Improvement Plan and Budget
  • Establish a Health Insurance Reserve Fund

(1). Commissioner Sanders.  Newly elected commissioner Ron Sanders has been working this year on developing the capital improvement plan.  Commissioner Pittman publically criticized Sanders for not being at the (illegal?) meeting.

The commissioner’s office is dysfunctional – Sanders was not the preferred candidate of the local GOP who has a monopoly on political power, and who prefers that the admin assistant (secretary of the local GoP) take more of an active administrator-type role in running the county.

New Work Session? Capital improvement planning and budgeting needs its own working session meeting.

Financial Report.  Councilman Kemp provided a budget/expense report ($15.00) where he shared his research into our budget and challenges. The council’s financial advisor helped in explaining the needed  “government context” to include the difference in terms and concepts between the private and public sectors. The 1782 the most important document.

The council legal rep also clarified that county budgeting is different than a household budget.  Such as rate relocations.

Jail Capacity. Currently 44 inmates with the capacity of holding 117. The option of housing more out-of-county inmates was discussed – the conclusion was that costs exceed revenues. This is a revenue stream for other counties.

Salary Increases – All Employees. Further, the council identified that any salary increases would need to be across the board.   If there is no new revenue, increases in salaries have to come from available funding, Options would include hiring freezes, re-organizations, contracting out, et.al.  When losing/cutting personnel and using available payroll money to fund higher salaries, the risks need to be identified.  Any reduction in personnel needs to be supported through a “workload analysis/”

$$ Music Center Admin Agreement $$. Commissioner Pittman stated that “unelected” officials granted their permission for our “elected” officials to reduce the excess revenue distribution from 75% to the Foundation and 25% to the county to a 50/50 arrangement.

I have asked Commissioner Sanders to request county attorneys to publish their opinion on this Admin Agreement. Why isn’t the county receiving a 100%?  Note that the Council can approve a distribution of innkeepers’ tax revenue to any area in the county that supports tourism – arts and crafts, history, preservation, sports, wellness, solar eclipse et.al.

Payment instead of Property Taxes (PILOT). The Music Center does pay the county $54K to compensate the county for the loss in property tax revenue that we would receive if this was a privately owned venue.  Council members discussed that the tax should be higher and the assessor agreed to re-assess the property as she would for a privately owned commercial property.

Zoom Votes. Councilwoman Swift-Powdrill attended the meeting via Zoom. She can vote as long as she can be seen –  which she could be. And, the state allows only one vote per elected office per year when not physically present. The Council voted to table any decision on the sheriff’s request.  Note: Woking sessions are used to understand an issue (s). Votes to approve/disapprove a policy decision MUST be made at a regular meeting.

Last updated Jan 31, 2024

Revenue from the Innkeepers Tax – History, Opportunities, Public Input

Question: With more revenue coming in from the innkeeper’s tax, is now a good opportunity for the commissioners and council to hold public meetings to ask for citizen input on how best this revenue should be invested?

Options

Innkeepers Tax Revenue – Discrepancies – Working to understand the differences. UPDATE from the Treasurer – today Jan 30, 2024, 4:30 pm.

• • 2021 $1,221,412.15
  • 2022 $1,161858.25
  • 2023 $1,327512.15

• • Innkeepers Tax Report 12-31-23 Provided by the BCMC Management Group
    • 2020: $821,438.58
    • 2021: $1,221,412.15
    • 2022: $1,161,858.25
    • 2023: $1,327,512.15
  • Innkeepers Tax Revenue Trends (source: Treasurer – corrected)
    • 2017: $829,687.66
    • 2018: $865,890.34
    • 2019: $891,179.53 (BCMC opens)
    • 2020: 821,438.58  (COVID)
    • 2021 $1,221,412.15
    • 2022 $1,161858.25
    • 2023 $1,327512.15

By law (and Govt 101), revenue from the innkeeper’s tax is a county asset.  However, a former long-serving councilman remarked that the revenue belonged to the tourism industry.

At the vote to approve the Music Center project, he stated that “It was their money.”  He has since retired from the council but the attitude remains. The County Council is legally required to review and approve how these funds are spent. Unfortunately, they still take a hand-off approach and may only meet the minimum standard required by law.

BCMC Management Board. Regarding the Music Center, a 7-member board –1 county council rep, 1 commissioner rep, and  5 unelected members determine how the revenue will be used to fund the Music Center and how excess revenue from the BCMC will be distributed. Per the current admin agreement, 75% of any excess revenue (“if legal”) will be donated to the Community Foundation and 25% to the county.

Costs of Tourism. County taxpayers are expected to pick up the cost of tourism-related expenses that include sheriff, ambulance, and emergency service to the State park, costs of crime, and accident-related expenses, and county roads. It has been estimated we get about 3 million visitors a year.

Tax Revenue. The county is primarily funded by income and property tax. The “state” is funded primarily by “”sales and income tax. The innkeeper’s tax helps generate sales tax revenue for the state.  Regarding property taxes, all property has to be assessed at least once every four years. Residents’ property can be reassessed every year resulting in citizens paying higher taxes.  Few if any (?) businesses are assessed yearly which can delay the payment of any additional taxes until the 5th year.

History.  Brown County was eligible to start collecting  Innkeeper’s tax revenue in 1984. This is a 5% tax added to the cost of an overnight stay.

Revenue from the tax must be used to promote tourism. In addition to restaurants and hotels, the revenue can be used to promote any type of tourism.  In addition to general categories of tourism such as building a music venue, other categories include Nature tourism (Hiking, walking, camping); Ecotourism (Guided tours focusing on educating, summer camps, outdoor classes); Adventure tourism (biking), Agritourism, History/Heritage, Sports, and Wellness.  Wikipedia also identifies about 25 niche market segments.

CVC/CVB. The law establishes a five-member Convention Visitors Commission (CVC) and allows for the establishment of a non-profit – Convention Visitors Bureau (CVB) to provide marketing services.  CVC members are appointed by commissioners and the council.

The Inneepers collect the tax and the auditor and treasurer manage the funds.  The CVC prepares a budget each year for how the revenue will be allocated. Historically, most if not all of the funds were given to the CVB.  The law requires the County Council to “review and approve” the CVC Budget.

Accountability?  However, once the revenue is transferred to the CVB, county elected officials have no oversight over how the money was spent and the results that were achieved.

Collateral.  Revenue from the Innkeepers tax, with agreements from the tourism industry (CVB),  was used as collateral for the loan (12.5 million) to build the Brown County Music Center (BCMC),  The Music Center would be the priority for funding.   In the 2024 budget, only $200,00 was budgeted for the BCMC.

More Information. Another post with links to the law and agreements. Leveraging Revenue – Innkeepers Tax

By law, revenue from the innkeeper’s tax is a county asset.  However, a former long-serving councilman remarked that the revenue belonged to the tourism industry – “it was their money.”  He has since retired from the council but the attitude remains. The County Council is legally required to review and approve how these funds are spent but still take a hand-off approach.

Regarding the Music Cente, a 7-member board –1 council rep, 1 commissioner rep, and  5 unelected members, determine how the revenue will be used to fund the Music Center and how excess revenue from the BCMC will be distributed. Per the current admin agreement, 75% of any excess revenue (“if legal”) will be donated to the Community Foundation and 25%  returned to the county.

County taxpayers are expected to pick up the cost of tourism-related expenses that include sheriff, ambulance, and emergency service to the State park, costs of crime, and accident-related expenses, and county roads. It has been estimated we get about 3 million visitors a year.

Regarding property taxes, all property has to be assessed at least once every four years. Residential property can be reassessed every year and result in paying higher taxes,  but not all businesses.

Revenue Trends (2021-2023 updated by the Treasurer Jan 24, 2023.

• 2017: $829,687.66
• 2018: $865,890.34
• 2019: $891,179.53 (BCMC opens)
• 2020: 821,438.58  (COVID)
•  2021 $1,221,412.15
• 2022 $1,161858.25
• 2023 $1,327512.15

History

Brown County started collecting  Innkeeper’s tax revenue in 1984. This is a 5% tax added to the cost of an overnight stay.

Revenue from the tax must be used to promote tourism. In addition to restaurants and hotels, the revenue can be used to promote any type of tourism.  In addition to general categories of tourism such as Music, other categories include Nature tourism (Hiking, walking, camping); Ecotourism (Guided tours focusing on educating, summer camps, and outdoor classes); Adventure tourism (biking), Agritourism, History/Heritage, Sports, Wellness.  Wikipedia also identifies about 25 niche market segments. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tourism.

The law establishes a five-member Convention Visitors Commissioner (CVC) and allows for the establishment of a non-profit – Convention Visitors Bureau (CVB) to provide marketing services.

The Innkpeers collect the tax and the auditor and treasurer manage the funds.  The CVC prepares a budget each year for how the revenue will be allocated. Hisotoralu, most if not all of the funds were given to the CVB.  The law requires that the County Council review and approve the CVC Budget.

However, once the funds are transferred to the CVB, county elected officials have no oversight over how the money was spent and the results that were achieved.

Revenue from the Innkeepers tax, with agreement from the tourism industry (CVB),  was used as collateral for the loan (12.5 million) to build the Brown County Music Center (BCMC) and agreements were reached that the Musci Center would be the priority for funding.   In the 2024 budget, only $200,00 was budgeted for the BCMC.

My post with links to the law and agreements. Leveraging Revenue – Innkeepers Tax