Interesting. Is allowing non-elected officials to decide how best to spend revenue from a government-owned and operated facility, appropriate?
The appropriate (standard) process. County government via “elected officials,” routinely provide the extra funding, in this case $38,825.50, to supplement grants that support core government services such as radios for the fire departments.
Save-Your-Seat. Currently, the cost to “Save-Your-Seat” for a prime location is $600.00. The Music Center is a county government-owned and operated venue. “Non-elected” officials determining how best to spend revenue from the venue may be illegal or at a minimum, inappropriate. This would be a question for the County attorneys, State Board of Accounts, elected officials, and the citizens.
In the case of the Save-Your-Seat program, Commissioner Biddle mentioned at tonight’s (Dec 27, 2022) Commissioner meeting that a financial account for this program was initially established by the Foundation that may have allowed for an individual to take a tax deduction. This arrangement has been referred to as a “pass-through.” She also stated that the Foundation had the knowledge to identify an appropriate recipient.
If individuals are receiving a value for a donation (seat choice for example), it may not be tax deductible and if not and it was taken, an amended individual tax return may be required.
Admin Agreement. The article also references an administrative agreement. The initial agreement was signed by Commissioner Biddle who also served on the Music Center management group. The amendment to the agreement was signed by Commissioner Pittman. This agreement identifies that the Foundation will receive 75% of the excess profits and the county 25%. Excess profits are determined by the non-elected officials. This admin agreement was discussed at county meetings but the county council and commissioners “did not take a Vote” to approve the agreement thus delegating to non-elected officials a responsibility that may not be supported by law.
Budget. Note also the County Council has the legal requirement to review and approve how revenue from the innkeepers tax will be spent which can affect how much “profit” is returned to the taxpayers. The Convention Visitors Commission (CVC) is a 5 member board responsible for developing and managing the budget for the revenue received from the innkeepers tax. This revenue is used as collateral for the loan to build the Music Center and to support operations. Revenue is also distributed to the Convention Visitors Bureau (CVB). The CVB was created in 1984 to market tourism. The council historically has applied a much lower standard of review on the CVC budget than they do for the other offices. This practice needs to be reviewed – especially given the creation of the Music Center and the possibility of this venue providing a new revenue source for the county.
Regarding the Save-the-Seat program, I have asked for additional information from the Music Center officials and from the Foundation who have yet to respond to my specific questions. A request for public information from a government organization allows for up to 30 days for a response.
The intent of the MHMP is to plan for a disaster before it occurs in order to reduce the physical, social and economic impact of that disaster, the press release said.
Topics covered in the update include: an overview of the planning requirements; a summary of the risk assessment and vulnerability analysis; and proposed mitigation projects for prevention, property protection, natural resource protection, emergency services, structural control projects, and public information.”
Comments from the public will be accepted through Friday, Dec. 16, 2022.
Comments should be submitted to Armstrong by phone at 812-988-2063 or by email at EMA@browncounty-in.us.
Trevlac regional/Bean Blossom local (T1 and BB2): $25,367,000
Trevlac regional/Bean Blossom local/Helmsburg as-is (T2 and BB2): $23,897,100
Application Submittal – Target Date April 1, 2023, is the target date for the boards to submit their project for funding by the State Revolving Fund (SRF) and the USDA. USDA requirements include reviewing a completed (shovel-ready) package including all easements. Applications requirements include the completion of Preliminary Engineering Reports (PER), and a Rate Study.
Projected Costs. The target rate has been (prior to inflation) at the $65-85 a month range. Helmsburg customers are paying 92.50 a month. The PER also requires an asset management plan that will provide customers with projected increases in costs over time. A 2017 Income survey of county residents identified that 53.1% of county residents were in the Low to Moderate Income (LMI) category. Consequently, higher costs for utilities (current and future) are a concern.
Project Description. Helmsburg RSD is working to repair/replace its sewer plant and obtain more customers from the Lake Lemon area and Helmsburg. The BCRSD’s project to build a new plant in Bean Blossom failed (after 3 years and 200K) due to their failure to obtain land. They would also have needed to obtain about 190 easements. Their current plan is for HRSD to provide service to what they consider to be their customers.
Project Costs. The desire for guaranteed fixed-price contracts for construction was discussed. The general consensus is that inflation will be a factor.
Funding – Planning. American Rescue Plan Funding. The County provided Helmsburg RSD with 340K and the BCRSD 300K. The council has also provided the BCRSD with 270K in 2019 – about 50K is left.
Project Planning. Typically, only one RSD would be needed for such a project. The BCRSD has no capability to provide service to customers. The scope of their involvement is to manage the collection of wastewater for new customers. The HRSD will treat the wastewater.
HRSD. An aging plant and request for service by Lake Lemon Residents that have proven a valid need and have community support. In flooding conditions, over 200 homes have failed septic systems in the Lake Lemon area. Not a new issue but unlike BEAN Blossom, never considered a priority in the county.
Economic Development.
BCRSD. Per the current commissioners, the desire for expanding sewer service is economic development – a “want.” Economic development is also a priority in the State.
History. The BCRSD originated from the Bean Blossom RSD. Per Commissioner Biddle, the desire for sewer service in Bean Blossom was initiated over about 20 years ago by her mother – a realtor/developer. Other commercial interests include Brownies Restuarant, the Bean Blossom Trailer Park, and the Bill Monroe Music Park and Campground.
An agreement and funding to receive service from either Nashville or Helmsburg were never reached. A few years ago, the Bean Blossom RSD was transitioned to the Brown County RSD.
Boundaries. The territory for the BCRSD includes the entire county minus the existing territories covered by current sewer plants in Nashville, Gnawbone, and Helmsburg.
Need. The two previous BCRSD Board presidents resigned due to the lack of support for documenting a need, e.g., proof of failing septic system. This is not an issue for the current Board whose president acknowledged that he has commercial interests in Bean Blossom that can benefit from sewer services.
The BCRSD is proposing a “need” based on the age of homes that infers that respective septic system may have outlived their useful life. Per the EPA and Presby, a well-designed and maintained system can have an indefinite life.
Soils? It has been identified that not all the soils in Brown County are conducive to septic systems. Since around the 1990’s, the state has required soil testing in order to get a permit. No issues have been identified in the county of a systemic problem, e.g., permits being declined.
Violation of State Law? A failing septic system would be in violation of state law. To validate the assumption by the BCRSD that there is a sufficient number of failing systems to justify the expense of providing sewer service, will approving agencies require evidence of need?
Water Quality Study. A water study has also been conducted in the Bean Blossom area and has identified that “some” septic systems “may be: contributing to e-coli in the streams. No analysis has been conducted to confirm the assumption, e.g., which systems and how many may be contributing to the problem?
Sewer Boards Joint Project MeetingNotes – Dec 13, 2022 noon to 1:30. Helmsburg and Brown County Regional Sewer Districts (RSD) and contractors: The BCRSD Board also met Dec 13, 2022 at 6:00 -7:00 p.m.
Next Joint meeting with contractors Dec 21, 2022 at 6:00 p.m. Location likely the Brown County Community Church in Helmsburg.
Application Submittal. April 1, 2023 is the target date for the boards to submit their project for funding by the State Revolving Fund (SRF) and the USDA. USDA requirements include reviewing a completed (shovel-ready) package including all easements. Applications requirements include completion of Preliminary Engineering Reports (PER), and a Rate Study.
Projected Costs. The target rate has been (prior to inflation) at the $65-85 a month range. Helmsburg customers are paying 92.50 a month. The PER also requires an asset management plan that will provide customers with the projected increases in costs over time. A 2017 Income survey of county residents identified that 53.1% of county were in the Low to Moderate Income (LMI) category.
Project Description. Helmsburg RSD is working to repair/replace their sewer plant and obtain more customers from the Lake Lemon area and Helmsburg. The BCRSD’s project to build a new plant in Bean Blossom failed (after 3 years and 200K) due to their failure to obtain land. They would also would have needed to obtain about 190 easements. Their current plan is for HRSD to provide service to what they consider to be their customers.
Project Costs. The desire for guaranteed fixes price contracts for construction was discussed. General consensus is that inflation will be a factor.
Funding – Planning. American Rescue Plan Funding. The County provided Helmsburg RSD with 340K and the BCRSD 300K. The council has also provided the BCRSD with 270K in 2019 – about 50K is left.
Project Planning. Typically, only one RSD would be needed for such a project. The BCRSD has no capability to provide service to customers. The scope of their involvement is to manage the collection of wastewater for new customers. The HRSD will treat the wastewater.
Contractor Support.
Reedy Financia Services. They will be developing the required rate study for both RSDs.
BCRSD. Beam, Longest and Neff (BLN).https://b-l-n.com/ will be developing he Preliminary Engineering Report (PER) for BCRSD.
HRSD. An aging plant and request for service by Lake Lemon Residents that have proven a valid need and have community support. In flooding conditions, over 200 homes have failed septic systems.
Economic Development.
BCRSD. Per the current commissioners, the desire for expanding sewer service is economic development. The BCRSD originated from the Bean Blossom RSD.
History. Per commissioner Biddle, the desite for sewer service in Bean Blossom was initiated over about 20 years ago by her mother – a realtor/developer. An agreement and funding to receive service from either Nashville or Helmsburg was never reached. A few years ago, the Bean Blossom RSD was transition to the Brown County RSD.
Boundaries. The territory for the BCRSD included the entire county minus the existing terrtueroy covered by current sewer plants in Nashville, Gnawbone, and Helmsburg.
Need. The two previous BCRSD Board presidents resigned due to the lack of support for documenting a need, e.g., proof of failing septic system. This is not an issue for the current Board whose president acknowledged that he has commercial interests in Bean Blossom that can benefit from sewer services.
The BCRSD is proposing a “need” based on the age of homes that infers that respective septic system may have outlived their useful life. Per the EPA and Presby, a well designed and maintained system can have an indefinite life.
Violation of State Law? A failing septic system would be in violation of state law. To validate the assumption by the BCRSD that there is a sufficient number of failing systems to justify the expense of providing sewer service, will approving agencies require evidence of need?
Water Quality Study. A water study has also been conducted in the Bean Blossom area and has identified that “some” septic systems “may be: contributing to e-coli in the streams. No analysis has been conducted to confirm the assumption, e.g., which systems and how many may be contributing to the problem?
– Dec 13, 2022 noon to 1:30. Helmsburg and Brown County Regional Sewer Districts (RSD) and contractors: The BCRSD Board also met Dec 13, 2022 at 6:00 -7:00 p.m.
Next Joint meeting with contractors Dec 21, 2022 at 6:00 p.m. Location likely the Brown County Community Church in Helmsburg.
Application Submittal. April 1, 2023 is the target date for the boards to submit their project for funding by the State Revolving Fund (SRF) and the USDA. USDA requirements include reviewing a completed (shovel-ready) package including all easements. Applications requirements include completion of Preliminary Engineering Reports (PER), and a Rate Study.
Projected Costs. The target rate has been (prior to inflation) at the $65-85 a month range. Helmsburg customers are paying 92.50 a month. The PER also requires an asset management plan that will provide customers with the projected increases in costs over time. A 2017 Income survey of county residents identified that 53.1% of county were in the Low to Moderate Income (LMI) category.
Project Description. Helmsburg RSD is working to repair/replace their sewer plant and obtain more customers from the Lake Lemon area and Helmsburg. The BCRSD’s project to build a new plant in Bean Blossom failed (after 3 years and 200K) due to their failure to obtain land. They would also would have needed to obtain about 190 easements. Their current plan is for HRSD to provide service to what they consider to be their customers.
Project Costs. The desire for guaranteed fixes price contracts for construction was discussed. General consensus is that inflation will be a factor.
Funding – Planning. American Rescue Plan Funding. The County provided Helmsburg RSD with 340K and the BCRSD 300K. The council has also provided the BCRSD with 270K in 2019 – about 50K is left.
Project Planning. Typically, only one RSD would be needed for such a project. The BCRSD has no capability to provide service to customers. The scope of their involvement is to manage the collection of wastewater for new customers. The HRSD will treat the wastewater.
Contractor Support.
Reedy Financia Services. They will be developing the required rate study for both RSDs.
BCRSD. Beam, Longest and Neff (BLN).https://b-l-n.com/ will be developing he Preliminary Engineering Report (PER) for BCRSD.
HRSD. An aging plant and request for service by Lake Lemon Residents that have proven a valid need and have community support. In flooding conditions, over 200 homes have failed septic systems.
Economic Development.
BCRSD. Per the current commissioners, the desire for expanding sewer service is economic development. The BCRSD originated from the Bean Blossom RSD.
History. Per commissioner Biddle, the desite for sewer service in Bean Blossom was initiated over about 20 years ago by her mother – a realtor/developer. An agreement and funding to receive service from either Nashville or Helmsburg was never reached. A few years ago, the Bean Blossom RSD was transition to the Brown County RSD.
Boundaries. The territory for the BCRSD included the entire county minus the existing terrtueroy covered by current sewer plants in Nashville, Gnawbone, and Helmsburg.
Need. The two previous BCRSD Board presidents resigned due to the lack of support for documenting a need, e.g., proof of failing septic system. This is not an issue for the current Board whose president acknowledged that he has commercial interests in Bean Blossom that can benefit from sewer services.
The BCRSD is proposing a “need” based on the age of homes that infers that respective septic system may have outlived their useful life. Per the EPA and Presby, a well designed and maintained system can have an indefinite life.
Violation of State Law? A failing septic system would be in violation of state law. To validate the assumption by the BCRSD that there is a sufficient number of failing systems to justify the expense of providing sewer service, will approving agencies require evidence of need?
Water Quality Study. A water study has also been conducted in the Bean Blossom area and has identified that “some” septic systems “may be: contributing to e-coli in the streams. No analysis has been conducted to confirm the assumption, e.g., which systems and how many may be contributing to the problem?
Rezone of 44.5 acres – Harmony Cove Development. Commissions approved a re-zone at their Nov 2, 2022 meeting. The project fell through and the re-zone was canceled (vacated). The developer is looking for new land and the commissioners expressed their support for the project.
Animal Control Contract. Approved for 50K.
Roads and Bridges. County received 1 million from the state’s community crossing grant. This is a recurring grant – the county has received it 5 times previously.
American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA )FundsDistribution: County received around 3 million. Employee bonuses: 2021/22 – $748,000; Helmsurg RSD: 340K, Brown County RSD: 300K; Helmsbug Stormwater projects: 350K, Flood Control: 100K, Health Department Building renovations 50K, COAD 5K, Nashville Bicycle/Pedestrian master plan: 20K.
Bids – Courthouse Additions. Sally Port: $803, 996; Public Entrance with security: $404,913.00. County likely has the funds but will require a shift in priorities. The old CRC building is expected to be used as an alternate site for jury trials during construction.
Plans – New Coroner Office: Plans for the new building for the coroner’s office have been approved.
Follow-up.
Auditor’s Office. Health Benefits and Costs. Request for Information.(RFI). I have asked the auditor for the history on the “total” budgeted to actual Health Insurance related costs that is reportedly available through the new accounting system. Intent is to confirm that changes are resulting in less risk and costs to the taxpayers while still providing adequate health care for employees. Costs have typically been underreported in the annual budget which routinely has been exceeded by over 500K a year.
Clerks Office. On Oct 1, I requested a copy of the state’s audit report on the 2020 elections. County did receive a positive review.
Dec 7, 2022. UPDATE – tonight’s commissioner meeting: Project has been canceled (buyer/seller disagreement). Commissioners canceling the re-zone to General Business. The developer is still interested in locating land for their project, and the commissioners agreed to provide any support needed.
New Development. The APC recommended and the Commissioners approved a zoning change to allow for residential development for up to 51 homes in the 800-1,400 hundred square feet category. The target market is retirees and second (weekend) homes. The rezone involved 44.5 acres from Primary Residential (R1) to General Business (GB). The area is located across from the new RV trailer park on 46 in Gnawbone.
Note: When an area is rezoned from residential to general business, easy enough for plans to change if/when needed. The only constraint for the approval is that no rentals under 30 days would be allowed. (The petitioners have been working on their primary Major Subdivision paperwork for a future hearing and I believe they close on the property next week.)
Final Budget for 2023. Council will need another meeting to approve final changes.
ARPA – Employee Bonuses. The Commissioners (Biddle) provided 700K of ARPA funds to increase the pay of “essential employees” – those that worked with the public during Covid. No analysis on the effects of such a policy were discussed but problems became apparent during the development of the 2023 budget.
The Biddle plan was to increase the hourly pay by $2.00 an hour over a three-year period providing employees with about 12K. During the budget hearings, those receiving the extra pay were not going to get the 3% cost of living increase which had adverse impacts on the salary ordinance (pay system). Also, the cost of employment taxes and benefits not covered by ARPA would have increased costs to the taxpayers. The council developed a plan to provide bonuses in 2022. The changes by the Feds on ARPA funds allows for the change. In summary: 7K for essential employees, 2K for everyone else, different process for the 5 employees at the Law Enforcement Center (LEC) due to different pay-related processes Commissioners to review/approve the changes at their Dec 7 ,2022 meeting.
Over Budget. The prosecutor asked for an additionlal 8K to cover court related costs (expert witness – forensic pathologist) and the election board asked for an additional 8,610.03/ This included $7,100 to cover legal expenses associated with a request to retain voting records. The judge dismissed the case on a technical issue. (BC DEMOCRAT).
Budget Processes. Once the county budget is approved by the state, changes such as requests for additional money and transfers between accounts have to be advertised in the paper in support of “transparency.” The council is required to review and approve the change (s). This “can be” a simple process that requires the identification of the need, specific accounts and changes.
Post of the article at Brown County Matters. The article provides insight from those who voted Yes and from two individuals that voted No. No mention that Kevin Patrick was the only candidate that publicly stated he would vote No.
FACT CHECK: “Had the referendum passed, the overall increase in property taxes — not per homeowner — paid to the schools would have increased by 33.91%, an increase of about $3.26 per month.” HOW does this statement align with State law? Link to the calculation provided by Brown County’s Auditor on the calculation approved by DLGF:
Interesting headlines in last week’s (Nov 16) Democrat. Republicans swept local elections and the referendum received a No Vote. Post at Brown County Matters
“What’s next for the school district? Tracy said they will seek another referendum in 2023, before the current one expires.” –
I believe the language on the ballot is confusing and misleading for voters and it is our effort to continue to educate and inform our community.
o. Note that only the school board can approve moving forward with a new referendum – not a school employee. And once citizens understand the full scope of the situation, the number of No Votes on any future referendum will likely significantly increase.
Who is confused? The ”spin” regarding the tax increase was that the language by the state was confusing and misleading. Indiana Law, the math, and the language on the ballot is VERY clear. Example: If the taxable value of the property (assessed value minus deductions) is $87,792, then the total tax is $105.35. (87,792 divided by 100 multiplied by 12 cents), e.g. grade school level math. This is an average 33% increase in the amount of tax paid to the school corporation. To quote: “The average property tax increase paid to the school corporation per year will increase by 33.91% for residences and 20.91% on business property.” Ref: Auditor Julia Reeves, – worksheet submitted to the DLGF.).
Higher Taxes. Higher property taxes may have motivated many citizens to Vote No on the referendum. Under our Constitution, citizens “also” have a civic responsibility to expect the application and demonstration of critical thinking skills, that might support a good argument for a tax increase. A good argument is free of fallacies and would be supported by a comprehensive analysis with supporting detail. The following link identifies the elements of a good argument. The “premise” for the school’s argument is that a referendum should be considered a permanent source of new revenue for the school corporation.
The Spin and Reaction. The superintended took the position of comparing the “expiring” tax (8 cents per 100 of assessed value) to the new 12 cent tax equating the increase (4 cents) as equivalent to a McDonald’s Extra Value Meal or only 3-6 dollars per month. … “If the Brown County Schools referendum would have passed, the median assessed value homeowner would have paid roughly $3 to $6 more per month in property taxes.” .
Many citizens may have considered this spin along with the claims that the state language was “confusing and misleading,” as insulting, demeaning, and professionally unethical without the supporting context. The new tax would transfer over 15 million dollars over 8 years from the citizens to the school corporation – hardly a trivial amount.
A way ahead? The school leadership should review the Guest Columns written by the previous superintendent on the required downsizing as a result of the systemic decline in school enrollment since 2009. They should also explain the school leadership’s opposition to Indiana policies on funding school choice (vouchers, educational savings accounts) and how this may justify their decision for a referendum. A position on opposing vouchers is also supported by the controversial National Education Association (NEA) which is aligned with Indiana’s teacher’s unions.
o. A Good Argument. A good argument and counter-arguments (based on logic and reason as opposed to emotions) supported with a comprehensive assessment and supporting detail would be helpful. This should address why the superintendent believes that closing schools is not a viable option.
o. Managing within the Budget. Likely, the school leadership may find that managing within the budget provided by the state is sufficient. Very few of the 291 school districts in Indiana (reportedly 8 in 2022) opt for a referendum. Three of these eight referendums were rejected by the citizens.
o. County Tax Policy. Note also that the lower property tax rates in Brown County are the result of a deliberate policy decision by Republicans who swept the local elections. The County opted for higher income taxes (among the highest in the State) as opposed to increasing property taxes as the major source of revenue. The lower property taxes are of value to many including the 53.1% of our population in the low to moderate-income categories and to the many that are on fixed incomes.
Commissioner Meeting Notes: Nov 16, 2022 – 30 minutes crammed into 90.
ARPA Funds – No Change. The final decisions on the use of the ARPA funds is still being reviewed. Changes as to which county employees will receive Covid related bonuses (around $700k) have been discussed.
The Foundation – in support of child care-related funding, requested 195K of ARPA funds. This was before the referendum was approved to be placed on the Nov ballot that included a funding source for the Birth to Five program. The referendum was defeated by the voters.
Road Paving Plan. The plan going out to 2026 was briefed at the Oct 5, 2022 commissioner’s meeting. It has yet to be posted to the Highway Departments Website. Commissioner Pittman asked Mike Magnor that this be posted. https://www.browncounty-in.gov/262/Road-Improvement-Plan
Health Benefits and Costs. Request for Information.(RFI). I have asked the auditor for the history on the “total” budgeted to actual Health Insurance related costs that is reportedly available through the new accounting system. Intent is to confirm that changes are resulting in less risk and costs to the taxpayers while still providing adequate health care for employees. Costs have typically been underreported in the annual budget which routinely has been exceeded by over 500K a year,
New Buildings. The courthouse projects – sally port and expanded entrance, are out for bid. Plans for the new buidling for the coroner’s office need some minor changes.
New Development. The APC recommended and the Commissioners approved a zoning change to allow for residential development for up to 51 homes in the 800-1,400 hundred square feet category. The target market is retirees and second (weekend) homes. The rezone involved 44.5 acres from Primary Residential (R1) to General Business (GB). The area is located across from the new RV trailer park on 46 in Gnawbone.
Note: When an area is rezoned from residential to general business, easy enough for plans to change if/when needed. The only constraint for the approval is that no rentals under 30 days would be allowed. (The petitioners have been working on their primary Major Subdivision paperwork for a future hearing and I believe they close on the property next week.)
ARPA Funds. The final decisions on the use of the ARPA funds is still being reviewed. Changes as to which county employees will receive Covid related bonuses (around $700k) have been discussed.
The Foundation – in support of child care-related funding, the Foundation requested 195K. This was before the referendum was approved to be placed on the Nov ballot that includes a funding source for the Birth to Five program. The referendum spend plan identifies that $157K will be budgeted. Unclear at this point what if any additional funding can be used to support the program.
New Development. The APC recommended and the Commissioners approved a zoning change to allow for residential development for up to 51 homes in the 800-1,400 hundred square feet category. The target market is retirees and second (weekend) homes. The rezone involved 44.5 acres from Primary Residential (R1) to General Business (GB). The area is located across from the new RV trailer park on 46 in Gnawbone.
Note: When an area is rezoned from residential to general business, easy enough for plans to change if/when needed. The only constraint for the approval is that no rentals under 30 days would be allowed. (The petitioners have been working on their primary Major Subdivision paperwork for a future hearing and I believe they close on the property next week.)
Dec 21, 2022. A huge opportunity’: Funds awarded to support new radio systems for local fire departments By Corbin Parmer
Independent Voters of Brown County IN 