Last updated: Oct 1 , 2024  

Sep 24, 2024 Meeting. APC voted not to recommend approval of the ordinance as written. They reinforced their justification for their vote on Aug 27, 2024. 

• • Audio of the Meeting. Includes discussion on survey results. They had 66 responses with the majority voting No.

August 27 2024 APC Agenda (image also provided below)

Audio of the Meeting 

APC – Special Meeting, Thursday, Sept 5, 4:30 – Select a consultant for the development of the  County Comprehensive Plan.   

• • Veridus Group, in partnership with Contacts Design, was selected. 
     
  • Audio of this meeting
     
  • This post at Brown County Matters

SUMMARY

• • 55 second mark. Lit Sign Ordinance Change- discussion starts at the beginning of the meeting. Vote to table is at 1:02:40 followed by a brief discussion on follow-up ideas.
    • Post at Brown County Matters
  • Comprehensive Plan – Budget Challenge — 80K vs $36,750.
    • 1:11:35 – Pete Olsen, Veridus Group in partnership with Contacts Design. Three required items: (1) Statement of objectives for future development,  (2) Statement of policy for land use development, and Statement of policy for public ways, land, structure, and utilities.
    • 1:48:11 – Kevin Allen, EGIS Group. Starts off with a discussion on the format of a comprehensive plan.
  • 2:31:00  Health Code and Zoning Enforcement. When a property owner may be in violation of zoning and/or health codes (such as a full-time camping without a septic system or pump and haul permit), resolving the situation can be a long process and ultimately may require the county to incur the expense of litigation.

MORE DETAIL

Internally LIT Signs.  The APC tabled the decision for 60 days. Hard to see how this ordinance change as written should ever be approved. Board members asked good questions and provided insightful comments. They also reinforced the need for more meetings to gather citizen input on the change. Opponents reinforced that internally Lit signs may represent current technology but would make us the same as any other community.

• • A community discussion on external vs internal Lit signs could be included as part of the community discussion supporting the development of the new County Comprehensive  Plan.  Opponents of the changes to the ordinance reinforced that the external lighted signs are part of the Brown County aesthetic and contribute to our uniqueness, which residents, visitors, and tourists appreciate.

  • Comments at the meeting and on social media: 

    • The existing sign ordinance has been effective in maintaining the aesthetic quality, safety, and overall character of our area. The proposed loosening of these restrictions threatens to undermine the careful balance that has been achieved.

    • The current sign regulations have served our community well by ensuring that signage remains tasteful, unobtrusive, and in harmony with our local environment. These standards have helped to prevent visual clutter, preserve the distinctive
      charm of our county, and contribute to the safety of pedestrians and drivers alike.

    • By loosening these restrictions, we risk opening the door to a proliferation of larger, more intrusive signs that could detract from the character of our community. This could lead to a more commercialized and less cohesive appearance, which is believed not to be in the best interest of our residents or our long-term planning goals.  

    • Although greater flexibility in signage supports local businesses,  the current ordinance strikes an appropriate balance between business needs and community values. The regulations in place have not only preserved the visual integrity of our county but have also contributed to a sense of place that residents and visitors alike appreciate. The possibility of “animated” or moving display signs is also a concern.

County Comprehensive Plan (CCP).  APC is in the process of selecting a consultant.

Commentary.  The Comp Plan falls under the responsibility of the commissioners.  A first step would be for the commissioners to identify a vision for the county.  The APC then supports action to ensure the plan meets the needs of the county and has community support.

• • We are among the most heavily forested counties in the state. Over 50% of our land is non-taxable and owned by state, federal, and non-profits. Landowners can also choose to designate land as “classified forest,” which lowers the property tax.  Although non-taxable land reduces the tax base, it is what retains and attracts new residents!  
  • Who are we?  We are a bedroom and retirement community with tourism.  “77% of the earnings realized by local residents originate elsewhere. “
    • GDP – County Economic and Income Base.  The GDP of the five surrounding counties is 29.5 billion.  The GDP of Brown County is $362 million.
    • Tourism (Rockport Analytics Study) brings in 12.2 million in taxable wages. The gross taxable income of all residents is $550 million.
    • The county is funded primarily by income and property tax. The county tax policy: County income tax is among the highest in the state; property tax is among the lowest.
    • We are also a regional tourism destination.  Attractions include forests and landscape, the historic town (artist colony) of Nashville, Brown County State Park, art galleries,  hiking and biking (mountain and road), camping, shops, restaurants, wineries, distillery, resorts, Brown County Music Center.
    • What is the optimum balance between residents and visitors/tourists?
    • The justification for the new traffic light at the North Gate of the park included the increase in traffic volume that affects safety.  Will a light also be required at some point at 46/135 South?  Where else?   The new traffic/pedestrian lights in Nashville and at 46/135 North also indicate an increase in pedestrian volume and safety concerns. The two-lane roads in Brown County do identify a constraint.

Current Plan – Revised 2011, 14 pages.  Although the plan meets the minimum requirements to support zoning, it is too general in many areas, and good arguments for or against a project can be made.   When applying for grants from various sources – a current plan – no older than 5 years, is expected.

The Comp Plan identifies what citizens want and do not want regarding Quality of Life/Place and Economic Development. It supports zoning, which affects the tax base.  Commissioners have the final vote on approval of the plan.

The recent discussion on allowing internal Lit sighs as opposed to the current external Lit identified citizens with changing the 

Reference: 2023 Indiana Code (IC), Title 36. Local Government, Article 7. Planning and Development Chapter 4. Local Planning and Zoning, 36-7-4-501. Comprehensive Plan; Requirement; Approval;

Funding.  The cost of a plan is estimated at $80,000.  The APc has 37K.

• • APC – $10k is available.
  • Community Foundation – $26,750. Contingent on a commitment to spend by the end of the year. (Extending the deadline is being reviewed).
  • Office of Community and Rural Affairs (OCRA) – $60K.  Qualifying for this grant requires a low to moderate income level (LMI) of 51%. It was estimated that the county may be at 50.5 percent if rounded, which would meet the requirement. There is an action to get a decision from OCRA. In 2017, the county’s LMI was 53.1%.

Consultants. Both consultants stated that 37K could be used to update the current plan to reinforce the minimum state requirements.  Generally, a current plan (no older than 5 years) is required by various funding agencies to qualify for grants. Grants are expected to be available to support further upgrades to the comprehensive plan.

• • Veridus Group, INC, in partnership with Context Design, which specializes in placemaking projects.
  • Kevin Allen / EGIS Group.
    • Kevin is a local and  EGIS has a current contract with the Brown County Regional Sewer District (“BCRSD”). Kevin led the development of the Bicycle and Pedestrian  Master Plan and is currently supporting a private developer who is requesting a tax subsidy for a proposed apartment project. Kevin also provides unpaid advice and support for other projects in the county, such as the Gnaw Bone RSD,  Indian Hill RR Crossing, and the Redevelopment Commission (RDC). Kevin has also been asked to attend the county GOP meetings that are closed to the public. The GOP chair (Mark Bowman) and his wife (who routinely attends county government meetings) are realtors (Tramcore Realty) and public advocates of development and development-related zoning changes, including advocacy for county-wide sewers.
    •  EGIS is a merger of Beam, Longest & Neff, LLC (BLN),  with McIntosh Perry

    • Handouts :

      • Comp Plan Requirements

      • A.1A Why , C1 Who, C2 What, 
      • C3 How, D13 Anchor Instit
      • Why Comp Plans Fail  and 8. Public Opposition
      • Apx A IN Code Controlling Document
  • Until this election, the local GOPs policy was to avoid a political platform.  After the primaries, they posted 

Camper Discussion 2:31:00.  Health Code and likely  Zoning Violations.

Dollars on the move

Brown County is more typical: 32% of the earnings generated in the county flow out while 77% of the earnings realized by local residents originate elsewhere.

        The two Indiana candidates for Governor might hold up their hometowns (New Castle for McCormick and Jasper for Braun) as models for the concerns surfacing lately about small city survival.

In the 50 years from 1970 to 2020, New Castle has seen its population drop by 3,800 from a high of 21,200 . Jasper has nearly doubled from 8,600 to 16,700 in the same period. Seymour added 8,200 residents while Logansport has lost 3,300 and Vincennes declined by 4,100.

        Both growth and decline are serious issues for places between 10,000 and 20,000 persons.

        Instead of focusing on population, let’s talk about an economic dimension of counties where data are more readily available than places. Specifically consider the $77 billion in earnings that counties imported and exported in 2019.

        Before Covid and expanded internet services, money, in form of  wages and salaries, moved through commuting. A worker from Warren County went to Tippecanoe or Montgomery County for a job.

This in-flow of funds benefits Warren Co. while the place of work gains when the worker is also a customer at several establishments. Further, that worker is not burdening the work county with school children and the attendant costs of a residence.

 But in the “new” world, as the commute gives way to the computer, where is the money earned when the employee is in Shelby Co. and the employer in Henry Co.?

        On balance, in 2019, 20 Indiana counties were net exporters of salaries and wages, leaving 72 counties as net importers of earnings.

        Spencer Co., in Southwestern Indiana, had an unusual situation. Residents of the county had 88% of their earnings originating outside the county while 82% of the earnings generated in the county left for other areas. If the people who live in a county don’t work there, and the people who work there don’t live there….is this a classic labor market mismatch?

        Brown County is more typical: 32% of the earnings generated in the county flow out while 77% of the earnings realized by local residents originate elsewhere. The net result of this strong inflow and comparatively low outflow is that two-thirds of the earnings enjoyed by county residents is dependent on jobs located elsewhere.

        In addition to Brown, Ohio, Franklin, Morgan and Union counties were the most impacted by the inflow of earnings relative to the outflow.

        The top five counties impacted by the net outflow of earnings were Martin (Crane), Marion, Gibson, Elkhart and Vanderburgh.

        Do these figures show the labor market is inefficient? Should there be more matching of jobs and housing? Or is the market working just fine? People find employment where they can and live where they choose to, subject to their ability to earn.

        What do you say? The future of our state may depend on your thoughts. Or, leave it to the political insiders as we have for decades?

= = = = = = = =

Mr. Marcus is an economist. Reach him at mortonjmarcus@gmail.com and follow him and John Guy on the Who Gets What? podcast available at mortonjohn.libsyn.com

This Posty at Brown County Matters

8.21.2024 Agenda Commissioners (version 8/20-2024)

• • In addition to the agenda, the county requested an INDOT for a one-year extension concerning the re-opening of Indian Hill RR Crossing and Road.  Discussed at the end of the meeting.

AUDIO of the Meeting

• • SPOT Zoning.
    • The conversation starts at 3:09. Comments from Oppoenent start at 9:45.
    •  The request to approve general business zoning for a hotel in a residential area has been delayed. Commissioners have 90 days from Aug 7 to vote on the proposed change.
    • This example and discussion is the proverbial “canary in the coal mine.”  There are interests in the county that want to take advantage of every development opportunity possible.  In opposition, Brown County is a bedroom and retirement community where people choose to live for the peace, quiet, and beauty of the land.
    • The neighbors oppose it.  Commissioner Wolpert (who has lived on Lanham Ridge) appears to be supporting the change. Commissioner Pittman wants more information on the issues.  Ron Sanders is supportive of the arguments from the opponents.
    • One resident mentioned that if you change this property to commercial business, he could also request a change to build a hotel and estimate a significant increase in his property value. He was against the change but raised the point regarding the motivation for developments throughout the county,
    • Illegal SPOT Zoning.  SPOT Zoning that identifies a specific use is illegal under Indiana law.
    • A newer resident (25:30) in the area stated he moved here for peace and quiet and wants to keep things that way.  The case for change reflected the theme – Things change; get used to it … You are not going to get things your way.”
    • The county started the process of developing a new Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan identifies what residents want and do not want in terms of development, zoning, and quality of life. Zoning influences the economic base.  The discussions on the interests of development vs residents need to happen throughout the county.
• Traffic Volume and the Stop Light – North Entrance to the Park.  INDOT has rejected a stoplight in the past because of traffic volume. They also discussed adding a roundabout.  The fact that a stop light is being installed reflects the increased traffic volume in Brown County. Another stop light at 46/135 is probably not too far off.

Other:  

• • Aug 7, 2024. Commissioner Meeting Notes, copies of the SPOT Zoning petition

MEETING AUDIO 

 Council Agenda 20240819 Council

• • Rescinded an adoption agreement where a retired employee receiving a  PERF pension would also receive an 11.2%  county contribution into their 457b plan.  The adoption of this agreement by the council was illegal and is recorded as a contribution by the employee subject to FICA / Medicare-related taxes. The county may need to pay the IRS around 20K, not counting penalties.
    • A short discussion on creating a stipend to retain the 11.2 percent contribution as salary as opposed to a pension plan contribution.
    • More info: County Council Working Session, Aug 15, 2024 – 9 – noon
  • Ordianance approving the General Obligation Bond was approved. The amount to be borrowed is not to exceed 4 million.
    • Notification posted at Brown County Matters
  • Sheriff.  Stipends funding salary increases were approved for 2024.  the increase were funded through monies received from the Department for Corrections for housing out-of-county inmates.  This generates about 25-30K a month.

Appropriation Transfers.  A standard format would help streamline this decision. Format would include the justification, account number and amount of funds to be transferred from and account number and amount to be transferred to.

Last hour of the meeting:  Presentation: Positive and Adverse Childhood Experiences Initiative (PACES)

• •  PACES – Program Description. Brown County PACES (Positive and Adverse Childhood Experiences) Initiative . This project, created by Centerstone in partnership with The Brown County Recovery and Wellness Coalition, seeks to prevent substance use disorders and strengthen family services in Brown County. PACEs approaches its targeted disparities through the ACEs (Adverse Childhood Experiences) questionnaire, which measures early childhood adversity and is used as a predictor for various physical, mental, and behavioral disorders later in life. The PACEs team works to meet their goals through community outreach and trainings, transportation programs, criminal justice advocacy, and more. By raising awareness of ACEs and providing direct support to those who have experienced them, PACEs aims to reduce the impact of ACEs on individuals, families, and their community.
  • Partners: Centerstone – Nashville, The Brown County Recovery and Wellness Coalition

This post at Brown County Matters

Future of Tourism – CVB Presentation and Discussions – For the Record

The Flaw or Opportunity in our system of government?  Our system was designed to enable We the People (top management) to work towards “a more perfect Union.”  The founders left it up to future generations to determine how best to do this. We elect representatives and then hope they can and will do the right things in the context of the Constitution. In terms of political involvement, given a particular change, a few will love it, a few will hate it, many may care less, and the rest may be persuadable one way or the other.

 On controversial policies, some win, some lose (win/lose), and those who did not get the outcome they wanted can accept it or work to undermine and/or reverse the decision, which, if successful, starts a new cycle.

Consider a local example.   How should citizens determine the best options for investing the excess revenue from the innkeeper’s tax?  Who should decide? Is it solely the responsibility of elected and appointed officials?   What role, if any, should the citizen play?  Should a citizen even be aware of these decisions?  The revenue from the tax generates over $1.3 million a year and has indirectly become a new source of revenue for county government via the Music Center.

I drafted a System Map to help illustrate how the money is received and managed. There are likely very few people in the county who could explain the total system or maybe even care.  The supporting documentation for the system would be over 100 pages.

My point is this: We can implement a more robust process for educating citizens about the system and investment policy and provide feedback on at least an annual basis. This can lead to a more balanced outcome. While everyone may not get exactly what they want, they can confidently believe the decision-making process was as fair and objective as possible, with the expectation of future improvements.

How? The one responsibility we have as citizens is to serve as jurists. A justice/citizen is responsible for understanding the facts presented, listening to both sides of the argument, the counterarguments, and closing arguments, and then making a decision.  The decision becomes a precedent. The process includes a transcript of the proceeding and can even be streamed and made available on video (24×7).

Collaborative Decision-Making Process.  This would include a series of presentations (15-20 minutes ?) on each aspect of the “system” that can be videotaped, documented, maintained on the county website, and shared via the media via articles and posts.  This allows those involved in the system to explain their role and responsibilities and allows citizens the opportunity (at any time) to educate themselves on the system and policy. This “process” can assure citizens that we are working towards the best solutions for the county.

 The Benefit?  This would include “Community buy-in for the solution,” less time discussing one or more aspects of the process without understanding how all the pieces fit together, and recognition for the citizens taking the time to improve our county.  An optimal decision is fixing something in one area without making it worse in others – everyone benefits or, at least, is not any worse off.

Handouts

• • Agenda for August 20 2024
  • AUDIO
• Changes to Minutes for June (Delete – No value from RDC) and July (add elected official brief)  
• RDC Aug 20 2024 – Pre meeting Notes – agenda Items
  • On the 2019 economic development strategic plan, Good idea on using the format for goals and objectives. (This document was approved for payment only and then tabled by the commissioners for a variety of reasons).
  • In the area of strategic planning, it helps to start with an overall concept – a common operating picture. This “picture” varies by group and it helps to at least identify the groups (stakeholders) and their respective interests. There is a format for development of a strategic plan at the following: https://browncountyleadernetwork.com/support-services-2/.
  • The BCLN was developed as a result of a grant that the RDC received in 2017. On the development of the new county comprehensive plan, we do need a support strategy. I suspect people are not aware of the zoning maps and what exactly can be allowed within the respective zones, Spot Zoning is a concern. Some areas may want more commercial development that can be supported with an EDA, CDC, TIF/Other.
  •  On agenda items, (1). RDC Annual Report. The RDC is required to produce an annual report to include budget expenditures. This follows the discussions we had after the last meeting about informing the council and commissioners on the RDC’s concept for supporting development via EDAs, CDCs and possible TIFs (and other RDC funding options) in the various areas. This has been the major focus this year and included conversations with the county’s financial advisor and Tom Pitman from B&T. (2). Tilton/Apartment Project Update.
  • Any updates from the briefing to the joint session of the county council and commissioners? This occurred the day after our last meeting. What if the project is approved – then what?
  •  Nashville’ Sewer Expansion Plan. On the possible EDAs that fall within Nashville’s Sewer Expansion area, what is the position of Nashville’s Town Council and Utility Service Board (USB) on the issue? What are the USBs priorities and timeline?
  • TIFs and Other Options for the RDC to Fund Projects. I would like to know more about the funding aspect. If the county does not have the money to fund an infrastructure project, is the process similar to what we have to do for the capital improvement loan? This requires a resolution to approve a General Obligation Bond which is paid for with a new property tax. On any new taxes to support private development projects, taxpayers will expect to be informed of the risk related to the expected return on investment. TIFs eventually provide a source of revenue from increases in assessed values but capital is needed up front.
  • Property Tax and Assessment Database. I did get the needed approvals that granted the RDC access to the data. There is a learning curve. For example, I attached a list of the available data but they did not have a “dictionary” to define the terms. Getting this information will require digging into any manuals that are available.
    • GUTS Adhoc_Objects
    • MEMO – Approvals by Elected Officials RDC MEMO Access to Information_Signatures
  • IU. I do want to reach out to IU to see if they are interested in supporting. I developed a good relationship in 2017-2018 with IU’s Graduate Masters Public Administration (MPA) program, and we had two successful student-led projects.
    • May be good to wait until after the Nov election when we have two new commissioners. A software (analytics) package that we can use is Tableau. This is used by The State of Indiana Management Performance Hub (MPH). Tableau is also used by IU, to include Stats Indiana. Once we get the needed support, we can create additional databases to add income data and job categories (NAICS) to assess trends. Longer-term, I would also like to develop a financial decision-support model.   

Main Topic was on the management of the various retirement plans and options.

Jim Kemp developed a good report. Action steps include correcting policy, validating the need for corrective actions, and identifying future options.

20240814 Brown County Retirement Plans – Kim Kemp

Nov 12, 2008. BCD. Commissioner (Wolpert) Recaps his six years, gives opinion on county officials.  Brown_County_Democrat_2008_11_12_Page_4 

Our Readers Speak Out

• • Brown_County_Democrat_2008_11_19_Page_4

• • Additional letters criticizing Wolpert’s  comments:  Brown_County_Democrat_2008_11_19_Page_5

Jan 22, 2024,  This change was first proposed in January and then rescinded.

Area Plan Commissioner Hearing,  Aug 27, 2024, at 6:00 p.m. County Office Building.

Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance.  Blake Wolpert for the Brown County Board of Commissioners is proposing an amendment to the zoning ordinance to allow internally lit signage.

This post at Brown County Matters.

Other proposed changes in Signs:

Brown County Matters – “Electronic” Signs – First proposed in 2018 https://www.facebook.com/groups/1749284288485538/posts/1875630182517614

The “Electronic Sign” issue received a resounding “No-Way” vote on Brown County Democrat’s Facebook page.

Brown County Matters. https://www.facebook.com/groups/1749284288485538/posts/1875782035835762

July 25, 2018. Here is the PDF file about traffic safety and electronic signs that I mentioned in an earlier post. This file contains much information concerning the dangers of electronic signs on traffic.

Given that a sign of Maple Leaf would be aprx. 500 feet from a stoplight on SR46, it is a MUST read for anyone who values their driving safety and /or has concerns about traffic distractions in an already congested area.

While the report is long, the critical sections are highlighted in bold type so it does not take much time to review its critical points.