Had to miss this meeting but did get a copy of the audio.

Audio of the meeting – dead space for the first 2 minutes

2:00 – 17:00 Mark Williams – Mainstream – Tax exemption

18:56 – Recovery Wellness Coalition – Kathy Rountree, et. al.

Back to Mainstream

46:13 Contract 43K – Job classification, Salary Grades – Approved – 1 No vote

49:17 1:20-43 Budget Adoption

• • County Budget – Form 4 at Gateway – formal document -100K overspending will need to be addressed.   Jacquee Clements (consultant for the auditor) on Statewide 911 employee salary.  Get 22,500 a month x 12 – 270K … hole this year …  we are 40K over and can reduce in Jan – move back into county general to fund dispatchers …. (equipment not budgeted?). Not sustainable past 2025. Contract costs from AT&T going down a little … Doing good on interest income (which varies).  We have structurally balanced the general fund accounty- dependent on interest income – not out of the woods ….
    • Challenge to other funds —  600K available revenue from income taxes – lowered one rate, increased the EDIT rate … in 2026 may have to bring down and increase another account LIT rate ….
    • Rudd – 600K available (pushing for funding mental health services) –  No, has been allocated – not available ….  400k “projected” revenue over expenses …..  Cannot increase budget now (Julia Reeves).  May not get supplemental  LIT next year … E911 will be a very important and emerging need (Greg Guerrettaz ).  Sheriff revenue from Dept of Corrections (DOC) not yet received ….
    • Vote to approve: (4 to 3) Redding motion — Byrd seconded -opposed Rudd, Abstain – Swift Powdrell
  • Hamblen Township budget – approved.
  • Solid Waste budget – approved.

Additional Appropriations

• • Assessor – $863.00 – new line item – appeal hearing with the state – approved
  • Circuit Court – Psychology expenses – higher than avg year – $10K – approved
  • Coroner – 14K – autopsy fund – approved
  • Auditor – digitize property books – transfer of funds $42,985 – approved
  • Clerk – transfer -FYI
  • Health Dept –  transfer $8,200 – council must approve before the state
  • Auditor – transfer 1K
  • Rudd – 400k left  this year — public safety, mental health needs — appropriate Jan 1, review in Nov and Dec.

Motion to adjourn

Last Updated: Apr 17, 2025

April 17, 2025,  Apr 22, 2025. Area Plan Commission (APC) Agenda – Titlton Re-Zone and Review Draft Revised Comprehensive Plan  APC Agenda April 22 2025

• •  (Continued from March 25, 2025). 25-RZ-02 BROWN COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, PETITIONERS. The petitioners are requesting approval for rezoning property owned by William Jacob Capital, LLC, from General Business (GB), Floodplain (FP), and Floodway (FW) to Secondary Residential (R2), Floodplain (FP), and Floodway (FW). The property is located to the south and west of 279 West Main Street, Nashville, in Washington Township.  

  • WORK SESSION: Review and discussion of the Comprehensive Plan draft. Tentative plan is that once that review is completed, a public hearing will be slated (likely for the May 27^th meeting.  After the public hearing, the APC will send a recommendation to the Commissioners and then it will be slated for a Commissioner meeting for final decision.

  • REVISED Brown County Comprehensive Plan 3.27.2025
    • Current 2011 Brown County Comprehensive Plan (PDF)
  • “What are best bets for future of local economy?”  Sara Clifford, Brown County Democrat, Dec 28, 2016. Summary from the Community Readiness Initiative (CRI) facilitated by Ball State.  In 2017, our Low to Moderate Income (LMI) level was 53.1%.
    • To be eligible for State (OCRA) planning grants, the LMI requirement is 51%. We are now (April 2025) at 40.4%. – we are not eligible for these grants. Covid and broadband have contributed to an increase in higher-earning residents who can also work from home.
    •  A New Path for Brown County. A Hypothesis for a Modern Plan for growth and Economic Development in Brown County, Indiana, By Chris Schneider – December 5th, 2024
  • Commissioner Suggestions for Next Steps – APC Slide v3.

Mar 6, 2025. Nashville’s process for developing a Comprehensive Plan: Town plan public input deadline approaches

• • Public weighs in on Nashville comprehensive plan  By Dave Stafford -March 4, 2025

Feb 14, 2025.  DRAFT Brown County Comprehensive Plan file size reduced for email. Next steps: A thorough county-wide review.

• • Feb 11, 2025.  A corresponding effort in Nashville. “Nashville comprehensive plan to get second public workshop”  Brown County Democrat
    • The Jan. 28 session was intended to lay the groundwork for a similar public workshop that will take place Monday, Feb. 24, at the Brown County Public Library.

Purpose: A County Comprehensive Plan (CCP) represents the voice of the citizens as to what they want and do not want in terms of quality of life and development.  It supports zoning, and zoning influences the tax base.  The current plan was approved in 2011 and is less than 14 pages. A good argument can be made for or against a respective change.

• • DRAFT 1993 County Comprehensive Plan for Brown County and Nashville

    • BC_Nashville1 – Narrative
    • BC_Nashville2_Maps – Associated page numbers with the text are identified on the left hand side of the maps. For example, page 15.1 follows page 15 of the text.
  • Economic Context – Best Bets for the Future –  2016 Assessment with a 2025 Update – A New Path for Brown County (Hypothesis). 

In order to compete for grants and to manage change,  the plan should be updated at least every five years.  

Cost. A good plan has been estimated to cost around 80K.  Volunteers can also be used to lower costs and provide the opportunity for more community involvement. The funding currently available is around $37,000. The Community Foundation provided $26,750, and the planning department $10,000.  The money from the foundation needs to be spent by the end of the year.   it is expected that grant money will be available in 2025 to expand the plan. 

• • The Indiana Office of Community and Rural Affairs (OCRA) offers a 60K grant if the county qualifies. The low to Moderate Income Level (LMI) must be 51% or higher.
  • An income survey in 2017 indicated an LMI of 53.1%. 

Approval. The commissioners approve the final plan, and the vote to approve will include public meetings.  

Quality. It should be an interesting process that will include phases.  Two months with holidays is a short time frame.  There is no deadline for completion.  Minimum requirements by the State include a Land Use Plan, Growth Plan, and Transportation Plan.

Contractor: Veridus Group. Jack Woods, Director of Community and Economic Development; Pete Olsen, Director of Government Services.

TIMELINE

Nov 19, 2024.  Dave Stafford: Survey says: County’s future needs your input 

• • We’re talking about establishing a new set of guidelines for what may be built or developed — and perhaps just as significant, what may not — right here in our community.
  • Survey takers generally have options to say that these things are not as important, but the questions themselves are revealing. They frame the discussion.

  • Well, primacy bias or not, let’s face it. It’s hard to argue that 46 East of town isn’t THE growth area of Brown County. It has been and will be. Right? Why, who knows what may come down the pike and set up shop out by the music center!

  • But hold on a minute … what about Bean Blossom? … Why not 46 west of Nashville? Why not Nashville itself? Wouldn’t these areas like a taste of this sweet, sweet growth and development? Or not? What do you think?

Nov 19, 2024. County gathers public input for master plan, By Staff Reports -November 19, 2024

• • The plan, which is expected to be presented for consideration next year, will serve as the county’s guide for future growth, development and local priorities.
  • The money for the consultant has to be spent by the end of this year, but that doesn’t mean the work will be completed by then.
  • Robertson said she didn’t believe the plan would change any existing zoning districts, though it may loosen or tighten rules for what may be allowed in those districts.

Nov 7, 2024. BCD, County comprehensive plan meetings, survey set

Nov 7, 2024. Post at Brown County Matters – Meeting locations, times, and survey questions.

• • PDF -Brochure Survey and Community Meetings

Nov 5, 2024. Survey Comprehensive Plan

• • Link to the Survey  
  • PDF  – Complete Survey SurveyMonkey_520634699

Oct 21, 2024.  Kick-Off, Steering Committee

Steering Committee members:  Bob Blass, Alice Suesmichel, Gary Huett, Kara Hammes, Andy Voils, Buzz King, Dan Raines, Clint Studabaker, Ross Benson.

Planning Director – Kayla Robertson.

Affiliations (Reference is the audio and personal knowledge)

• • County Government:
    • Gary Huett, President of the County Council. Initiated the steps to select a contractor.
    • Clint Studabaker – Brown County Regional Sewer District
    • Ross Benson – Redevelopment Commission
    • Area Plan Commission – Andy Voils (Contractor), Kara Hammes (Retail Business owner, guest rentals – Barn Burner in Nashville). Andy may be the only member who represents a resident/family that has lived in Brown County for more than one generation. 
    • Gnaw Bone Regional Sewer District – Dan Raines  (Wedding Barn Owner)
  • Brown County Community Foundation: Alice Suesmichel
  • Town of Nashville: Buzz King, former Nashville Town Council
  • Bob Blass – Owner – Tourist  Rental (s)

Audio of the Meeting

Oct 21, 2024. Comprehensive Plan – Project Outline – Veridus

• • Oct 29, 2024 -Next Steering Group Meeting
  • Nov 5, 2024 – Pass out surveys/information – voting locations
  • Nov 16, 2024 – Public Meetings – 2 locations (TBD)  10am-3pm

State’s Minimum Requirements

1. Land Use Plan
2. Growth Plan
3. Transportation Plan

Additional Context

• • Aug 28, 2024. APC Meeting Notes, Internally Lit Signs, Comp Plan (Contractor Selection) , Code and Zoning Enforcement
  • History – Draft 1993 Plan. Comprehensive Plan for Brown County and the Town of Nashville

Oct 22, 2024.  Standing room only.  Strong opposition from residents opposed to the change.  The decision by the APC was “tabled” until the next meeting. A site plan was requested to provide a clearer understanding of how the property would be used. The follow-on meeting for Wed Night with the BZA is postponed until next month.

• • Issues raised by residents: Traffic, Noise, Flooding, Narrow roads, Not a good fit for the area.  Area is in a flood plain and flood area. DNR has review and approval authority of any proposed permanent structure in a flood way (if even possible).
•  
  • In 2021, “the Brown County Board of Zoning Appeals denied a special exception to allow a 185 spot luxury RV campground.” The location was on old 46, across from the North Gate of the State Park in a field off of Old State Road 46 near the intersection of Clay Lick Road. The petitioner, Stephen Alexander, was requesting a special exception for a private recreational development on 20 acres of his 71.76 acre parcel. BZA members commented it was a good idea but bad location.  The proposal included an extensive site plan  and tentative approval for sewer service.  Also, preliminary discussions with DNR  on floodway issues.
    • Nov 2, 2021. Democrat. Zoning boards approve, deny different tourism attractions
      
      
    • Oct 27, 2021. Indep Voters of Brown County IN. New Retail Project – Special Exception for the Proposed 185 Site Luxury RV Park Denied – For the Record

AUDIO of the MEETING

• • Audio – Part 1 – Starts at 28:50 Arts and Nature Park plus RVs – 85 acres
  • Audio – Part 2 – 00:37 – Presentation  Jimmie Tilton followed by residents, Break
  • Audio – Part 3 – Discussion and Decision

APC Agenda October 22 2024

Agenda Item 

• • 20241021 APC 24-RZ-02 Tilton Rezone -Packet Briefed to the APC
  • Post at Brown County Matters

Published in the Brown County Democrat, “Clark responds to BCRSD Board member on E coli” Oct 23, 2024, By Tim J. Clark

In response to Brown County Regional Sewer District board member Matt Hanlon’s letter in the Democrat, Oct 16, 2024, “BCRSD board member corrects candidate Clark on E. coli” regarding statements I provided at the commissioner candidate forum on Sept 21, 2024.  Specifically, my response to question 6. “Last Saturday, at the Septic Summit, the audience was informed that the majority of the waterways tested positive for E.coli … what are the major causes, septic and sewer issues, and strategies …..”

What needs correcting?  In my comments on E. coli and pastureland, I referenced the information provided in the BCRSD’s “published” watershed study. To quote: “Figure 33 details that pastureland loads more E. coli to Brown County Streams than other sources under all modified septic failure modeling scenarios. Only if 100% of documented septic systems are failing do they contribute a significant volume of E. coli to the entirety of Brown County. When individual sample site drainage is reviewed, the Lake Monroe Watershed loads more E. coli to Brown County Streams than Beanblossom Creek Watershed Streams.”   (Reference: Appendix B, 2021 Watershed Study, pg. 70).

This reference was shared with Hanlon in our communications. If the study’s assessment is wrong and no longer accurate as written, then the change to the study needs to be documented and made available to the public. The expectation would be that the author of the study or another credible and objective expert (not a BCRSD Board member) would concur with the correction and provide an updated assessment.

Regarding the samples and lab results that indicate failing or inadequate septic systems (human-caused), what analysis, if any, has been done to determine the number of systems that may be contributing to the problem? Could 80 percent of the problem be due to 20% of the systems? If so, what are the cost-effective options for addressing the 20 percent? Sewer service to these areas may be a few years away.

The BCRSD’s refusal to present the wastewater (WW) strategic plan and watershed study (WSS) at a public meeting was communicated at the BCRSD Meeting on March 28, 2023. The president of the board of commissioners and the president of the county council were present. Questions may be allowed at these meetings, which can upset one or more BCRSD board members who have refused to provide answers. (Reference BCRSD Meeting, Feb 14, 2023.)

Regarding my questions on the WW strategic plan and WSS, these were submitted in response to the Public Hearing on July 8, 2023, regarding the application for funding. This application was supported by the Preliminary Engineering Report (PER). A response to the questions asked by me and Lynda Sandow, Ph.D. was not provided under the pretext that they were “not related to the PER.”   This is a bureaucratic sleight of hand. They did relate to the “justification of need” that supported the PER. These were the types of questions that could and should be addressed at public meetings. (Reference: BCRSD website, PER, Responses to Questions and Comments Submitted to Funding Agencies (SRF), pg.30.)

I did not identify a “goal” regarding forced or optional sewer hook-ups. Hanlon confirmed that the BCRSD offers a temporary waiver. The Helmsburg and Gnaw Bone RSDs have not forced residents to receive service.

On the topic of transparency, what is the status and timeline for the current projects? Should this be available on the BCRSD website? The last meeting minutes available are from June 13, 2024. Why did it take months for the BCRSD to respond to my request for a public document that should have taken less than 15 minutes to produce?

The county WW strategic plan needs to be incorporated into the development of a new county comprehensive plan. This plan supports zoning and development strategies. The scope and extent of the challenges regarding water quality and wastewater management must be clearly communicated to the extent that there is community awareness and support for projects.

Tim J. Clark
Republican Candidate for Commissioner, District 3.

Brown County Democrat, Oct 16, 2024.

• • Hanlon page A4 
  • Hanlon Page A5

Additional Information:

• • Impaired Waterways and Causes – Septic Systems and Sewers – For the record
  • Lake Monroe Watershed May 26, 2022

Audio of the Meeting  

10 16 2024 Agenda Commissioners.

(22:03) Internally LIT Signs with messaging capability. The decision was tabled. Commissioner Pittman wants to review the concerns shared by Area Plan Commission members who unanimously voted “not” to recommend the ordinance as written.

• • Prior post on the topic at Brown County Matters.

  • APC Meeting Notes, Internally Lit Signs, Comp Plan, Code and Zoning Enforcement

Courthouse Bell. This topic was covered in this week’s Democrat. Courthouse bell display project taking shape, October 15, 2024. In support of fundraising, individuals can have their names engraved on bricks for 100.00 (cost around 20).  The targ  number is 430.

Parking on Government property. Nonprofits charging residents to park on government property were briefly discussed. The follow-up action is to check on insurance and liability. The legality of the county allowing citizens to be charged for parking on taxpayer-owned property was not discussed.

20241016 Highway Superintendant Report

AUDIO

RDC Lindborg Proposal 10.2024

• • Vision – CCP, Zoning Maps, Tax Base (Businness, obs, Property, Income), Strategci Plan
  • Mission – RDC Guidance, EDA Package

20241015 RDC Meeting Agenda for October 15, 2024

20241015 RDC Agenda, Motions and Minutes from 2024 RDC

20241015 RDC Sock Factory History

20241015 RDCMinutes Sept 2024 Meeting

Director of Indiana Precinct Committeeman Project – “The MOST POWERFUL Role in Politics!”

Steps and Timeline for Reorganizing Republican Leadership

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

This post at Brown County Matters.

Context. Rich Stanley wrote a letter in the Democrat (Stanley, 9/17/2024)  calling for a change in the leadership of the local Republican Party led by Mark Bowman.  A response to Rich’s letter was provided through a surrogate.

The Brown County Democrat declined to publish Richard’s rebuttal in its entirety to include the names of individuals who supported Rich’s response. The individuals include Clara Stanley, Greg DeLong, Dara DeLong, Vivian Wolf, Michael Painter, Charles F. Shaw, Jeanne Shaw, Jacob Adams, Amie Yoder, Charlene Marsh, Ben Phillips, Mercy Phillips, Daniel C. Huston, Holly H. Huston, Willow Snider, Ron Lawson, Jeff Marshall, Joy Martin. 

LETTER:  Richard Stanley:  Response to Paul Hazelwood’s October 1, 2024, letter to the Editor. 

There are a number things about Paul’s letter (Sep 17, 2024) that I feel should be addressed, and the least important of those issues is Paul’s question of “Who is Rich?”  I don’t fault Paul for not being sure who I am because I am more commonly known in the county as “Clara’s husband”.  But besides being less well-known than my wife, I am a woodworker, a horseman, a hunter, a gardener and a churchgoer.  What I mean by that is that in some way or another, I am no different than most people in Brown County.  And one thing you are most certainly wrong about Paul is that I am not a RINO.  I have never once in my entire life voted for a Democrat – or even an independent for that matter, and I do not foresee myself ever voting for a Democrat or an independent.

But let’s talk more about your sloppy RINO accusations.  At the local level here in Brown County, what does that term really even mean?  Definitionally, it refers to someone who pretends to be a Republican but who in reality does not support core Republican values.  So, in order to use that term correctly, we would need to know what the core values of the Republican Party are in Brown County.  And yet, Paul, you failed in your letter to directly explain what the core values of the Republican party are in Brown County.  However, your letter does offer some clues about what you appear to believe are the core values of Brown County Republicans.

First, you seem to believe that the primary core value of Brown County Republicans is unrestrained commercialization of the county.  I am just an ordinary Brown County Republican voter, but that is not what I support.  I do, however, support reasonable commercialization of the county as opposed to unrestrained commercialization.  And your letter completely mischaracterizes this issue.  Nobody (including Tim Clark) wants to shut down tourism in the county – that’s absurd.  Tourism is an important part of our county that we all appreciate.  But let’s also be honest.  The vast majority of residents in Brown County do not have financial interests that are tied to Brown County tourism.  I don’t mean this in any negative way at all, but the number of people in Brown County who are economically impacted by tourism is a minority, not the majority.  When it comes to governance in Brown County, we need to take into consideration the interests of all Brown County residents.

You also seem to believe that Brown County should be run by the few for the benefit of the few.  I don’t agree with you about this either, and the Lincoln Day Dinner controversy is emblematic of this problem in Brown County.  You expressly state in your letter that you approve of Mark Bowman’s exclusion of Tim Clark from that event (“Personally, I’m glad he didn’t attend.”).  But what I want is open, honest and responsible governance in Brown County.  Above all, that is the seminal issue of Tim Clark’s campaign.  He simply wants to open up Brown County governance and get more input from the public on matters that affect all of us.  That is most certainly not what Mark Bowman was doing when he excluded a Republican candidate (Tim Clark) who is the preferred candidate of a majority of the Republicans in the county.

And your support of Mark Bowman as Chairman of the Republican Party in Brown County is the height of duplicity.  You accuse myself and Tim of being RINOs (which is not true), but it’s already been established that Mark actually does satisfy the definition of a RINO according to the Indiana GOP rules.  (Rich Stanley, BC Democrat, 9/17/2024).  If your concern was really about RINOs, you would be attacking Mark Bowman, not Tim Clark and myself.

Now, let’s talk about special interests, and I have to point out that you, Paul, are the epitome of a special interest.  You pushed through the off-road vehicle ordinance that permits almost unrestricted use of off-road vehicles on Brown County roads, even though the number of Brown County residents who will actually benefit from this is exceedingly few.  And you did it in such a rushed manner that the opposition had little chance to offer any input.  (Rich Stanley, BC Democrat, 7/30/2024).  Special interests are fundamentally undemocratic because they seek to benefit a minority while burdening the majority.  I am fundamentally against this type of special interest governance, but you seem to think special interest governance is a core value of Brown County Republicans.

In your letter, you also argue that Tim Clark only won the primary against Jerry Pitman because of a smear campaign.  But, your hypocrisy is shocking!  First, no one intends any ill will towards Jerry, but he knows himself why he lost and it had nothing to do with a smear campaign.  He lost of his own accord.  And second, Republicans in Brown County want a change in the way our county is governed and that is why the majority of Republicans voted for Tim Clark over Jerry Pitman.  The real smear campaign has been against Tim Clark.  I have heard far too many smears against him, and every one of them is either so vague as to lack any real meaning or are outright lies and distortions.  I say this to everyone.  If there are county issues that you are concerned about, go talk to Tim.  He does not play favorites and will talk to anyone who has good faith concerns.

Paul, you also criticize me in your letter in one way that I actually agree with.  You say, “I haven’t seen [Rich] at any Republican events, county meetings or town halls.”  Generally speaking, that’s somewhat true.  I am coming to realize that it is a problem when very few people show up to county events like this.  But, on the other hand, that is one of the key reasons why I am supporting Tim Clark.  Even though this is Tim Clark’s first campaign and he has never held elected office, he has been attending every single one of these events for years.  Tim Clark is very levelheaded, and I am so thankful to him for spending the amount of time that he does on county governance.  Admittedly, having someone like Tim Clark in office allows someone like me to be a bit lazier than I should be.

I am not alone in believing that Brown County needs a change in our governance.  Perhaps we should start by defining what the core values of Brown County Republicans actually are.  The undersigned are in agreement that the following should be considered to be core values of the Republican Party in Brown County.  Tim Clark represents these core values, and therefore Paul, you are wrong to call Tim Clark a RINO.

1. We are against special interests.
2. We are for open, honest and responsible governance.
3. We are for common decency, including for those we disagree with.
4. We are for fiscal responsibility.
5. We are for maintaining the unique character of Brown County, which includes nature, solitude and tourism.
6. We are for reasonable commercial development.

Rich Stanley, Clara Stanley, Greg DeLong, Dara DeLong, Vivian Wolf, Michael Painter, Charles F. Shaw, Jeanne Shaw, Jacob Adams, Amie Yoder, Charlene Marsh, Ben Phillips, Mercy Phillips, Daniel C. Huston, Holly H. Huston, Willow Snider, Ron Lawson, Jeff Marshall, Joy Martin.

Afterword. I would like to briefly explain why I did not publish this letter in the Brown County Democrat.  When I submitted the letter to the Editor of the Brown County Democrat, Dave Stafford objected to including signatories and also to the length of the letter. 

In response, I requested that the Brown County Democrat publish an alternate letter that I provided which was only a paragraph long and simply stated that I had drafted a response to Paul Hazelwood and that it would be published at independentvotersofbrowncountyin.com. 

The Editor also refused to publish my alternative letter.  My view is that the Brown County Democrat is seeking to minimize political debate in its newspaper, and that is yet another thing that I fundamentally disagree with.  We need more public debate in Brown County, not less. 

Tim Clark has inspired a movement that we desperately need in this county.  In order to effectuate those changes, we need to keep up the charge against those entrenched forces who would stifle this movement.

Brown County Democrat – Policy on Letters and Guest Opinions.  The new editor of the Democrat has reduced the length of articles that have been allowed previously.  Clarification on the current policy on the length of letters was published in the October 22, 2024 edition of the paper.  Dave Stafford: We’re setting some standard rules for letters

 The county is about 278K over budget.

The Council identified a goal of having 2. 5 million in the Rainy Day Fund:  One (1) million in the health insurance reserve fund, and a 15% balance in the major funds.  Also not included in “needs” are infrastructure repairs and replacement, roads and bridges, and unfunded requirements of the departments (including salaries).

AUDIO – Part 1

08:54 Veteran Services – Andy Alexander, Dave Pate. Presentation of Accomplishments, Strategic Plan, Request to convert the part-time position to full-time (approved).

25:20 – – Ross Benson – Redevelopment Commission – Concept for Development.  Will be included in public discussions in the development of the County Comprehensive Plan.

• • Funding to provide revenue for the RDC via Tax Increment Financing (TIF) or other source  will be a “challenge.”  Some areas of the county with a low to moderate-income (LMI) higher than  51%  may be eligible for “planning” grants from OCRA. 
  • Interesting – An income survey in 2017 identified an LMI of 53.1%. As a county, we are below this level, which indicates an upward trend in incomes.
  • The trend in Gross Income – 2011-2021
    
    

52:24 Gnaw Bone Sewer District – Potential financial liabilities to the county.  

AUDIO – Part 2

1:05:55 New Revenue. An adjustment in how Local Income Taxes are distributed results in an expected 500-600K of new revenue in 2025 (1/12 per month). See reference to trend above on increases in Gross Incomes. 

• • Food Fights over what the money should be spent on. Councilman Rudd lobbied for budgeting this money now on mental health services. This was discussed at the Sept 16 Council Meeting.    The financial advisor recommended (approved) this money should be budgeted in a future appropriation. 
  • Susan Bevers (attorney) identified that county money should not be used to pay salaries. of Centerstone employees.

1:40.  Shared Frustration with the process.