Government and the Private Sector: Trump vs Musk

Uncategorized

The Trump and Musk Drama. – Government does not operate like the private sector

The Trump v. Musk Feud, Patriots Are the Losers in the Trump v. Musk Feud, Kurt Schlichter
Jun 06, 2025

    • Here’s the problem that’s probably the root of Elon Musk‘s disenchantment. Elon Musk is, at heart, a visionary and an engineer. He envisions a result, then he creates processes to achieve it. It’s very binary. Either you succeed or you don’t. Something either works or it doesn’t.
    • But that’s not how politics functions. Politics is all about process; the outcome is often secondary. Now, that is suboptimal in an objective world where your only goal is the best-engineered result possible.
    • Politics is not about obtaining the best-engineered result possible. It is not about enacting a perfect policy, program, or paradigm. It is about getting the very best result you can get through the process that exists, a process that must incorporate people whose objectives are not yours.
    • In politics, people are not looking for the best possible result but the best possible result for themselves. That means to build a coalition, you have to compromise.

Clark responds to the article, “Tilton property back on docket.”

Uncategorized, , , ,

LETTER – My letter was published in the June 11, 2025, issue of the Democrat with the title: “Commissioner addresses Tilton Property.”    

This letter is in response to the article by Dakota Bruton, “Tilton property back on docket,” Wed, May 21, 2025. This rezoning issue involves decisions on the type of development that citizens want to support in their respective areas and the process they expect to be followed to ensure the best decisions for the county.

In this case, the initial zoning change of the property was from Secondary Residential (R2), Floodplain, and Floodway to General Business (GB), Floodplain, and Floodway. The change was opposed by surrounding property owners and residents, leading to legal action to stop the change. The case has been delayed pending the decision by the commissioners to reverse the change.

Typically, for many land transactions, before an owner purchases a property with the intent to change the zoning, they can choose to make the purchase subject to pre-approval of the change. This helps reduce financial risk, validates the desirability of the change by citizens, and helps to establish a fair market value for the land. This practice (pre-approval) was not followed in this case, as it was a private transaction. The estimated increase in the value of the change to GB by Tilton is speculative.

A decision not to obtain preapproval before purchase can also reinforce the perception that a change is expected to be approved if it is favored by two commissioners, despite any negative recommendations from the Area Plan Commission (APC) and Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA).

In this case, Commissioner Wolpert spoke on behalf of the change and projects at the November 19, 2024, APC meeting. It was later confirmed that his vote to approve the zoning did not represent a conflict of interest. Commissioner Pittman typically justified changes to GB if the property was accessible from a state highway. This was not a credible justification in this case.

Pittman and Wolpert refused to delay the vote at the Dec 4, 2024, commissioner meeting to allow consideration of the changes being made to the Nashville and Brown County Comprehensive Plans. Comprehensive Plans provide guidance on zoning. Once the property was rezoned, the BZA was required to review the proposed projects – a private recreational development and an RV travel trailer park. At their meeting on January 29, 2025, the BZA did not approve either project. These projects provided justification for the change in zoning.

On the issues that Tilton raised in public meetings, which were also referenced in the article, a mistake was made on the APC application form, where I signed as an owner as opposed to the petitioner. This error was acknowledged as a mistake. The error was not considered relevant by the Planning Director, the APC, the APC attorney, and the County Attorney. Other comments Tilton made regarding notification were also determined not to be relevant since he was present at the APC meetings on the proposed changes. He also acknowledges attending the March 5 commissioner meeting, where the commissioners voted 2 to 1 for the petition to reverse the zoning change.

Regarding the change in commissioner meeting dates to decide on the rezoning, there was some misunderstanding regarding legal requirements, and commissioners were informed that there is a 10-day public notification requirement.

A question for citizens is, when a justification for zoning is based on a change that the APC did not recommend, had significant community opposition, and the BZA did not approve either of the proposed projects, what is the appropriate course of action? In this case, options included a petition submitted by the commissioners to reverse the change back to its original version.

At the commissioner meeting on June 18, 2025, citizens will be provided with the opportunity to briefly share their comments. Commissioners and the owner, Jimmy Tilton, representing William Jacob Capital, LLC, will have more time to present their arguments.

You can also share your opinion with the commissioners via email at commissioners@browncounty-in.gov

Tim Clark

Legal Notice – Published June 4, 2025 edition rezone legal notice june 4 2025 edition

ChatGPT – Brown County Economy – Notes May 26, 2025

Uncategorized

It’s interesting to challenge the responses provided by ChatGPT, read the response, and then ask later to see if the changes are consistent.   The AI tools were helpful with the overall context and reinforced the importance of including footnotes to reference the supporting data.

Note: The GDP of the five surrounding counties is 29.5 billion.  The GDP of Brown County is 362 million. Reference: Regional Economic Analysis Project

ChatGPT does include the disclaimer: “ChatGPT can make mistakes. Check important info.”

What are Brown County’s Economic Drivers?

    • In this dialogue, ChatGPT concluded that “Tourism is the most significant economic driver” and then adjusted its conclusion when presented with new information.

    • Ball State economists have identified Brown County, Indiana, as best positioned to grow economically by serving as a “bedroom community” — that is, a residential area where people live but commute elsewhere for work. This recommendation is based on several key economic and geographic factors:

    • How do you explain that AGI of 550 million and only about 10 million in wages from tourism? ChatGPT said:

      Great question — and you’re right to notice the mismatch. If Brown County’s total adjusted gross income (AGI) is around $550 million, and tourism wages contribute only about $10 million, that suggests that tourism is not the primary driver of resident income. Here’s how we can explain that:

I asked similar questions from Grok and experimented with different estimates on the numbers. Interesting comparisons between the two AIs.  Grok- Brown County Economypdf

25-RZ-02 Brown County Board of Commissioners – Reversing the Tilton Rezone

Uncategorized

Last updated: June 18, 2025  

Docket Number: 25-RZ-02 BROWN COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, PETITIONERS
The petitioners requested 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.

IC 36-7-4-602 Zoning ordinance; procedures for adoption of ordinances,
amendments, and map changes.

The Commissioners can require the Plan Commission to initiate the petition. The petition
does not need to come from the owner. The plan commission prepares the legal notice.

The proposal may be initiated either:

    •  (A) by the plan commission; or
    • (B) by a petition signed by property owners who own at least fifty percent (50%) of the
      land involved.
    • (Under the advisory planning law or the area planning law, any participating
      legislative body may also initiate the proposal and require the plan commission to
      to prepare it.)

Citizens (non-landowners) can request a change through their legislative body or through the plan commission. They cannot initiate a petition. 

Zoning. There are only a few counties in Indiana that have chosen not to have zoning. Brown County is not one of them.  The County Comprehensive Plan guides zoning decisions. This document is in the process of being revised and updated.

Introduction: Description of the projects and controversy: UPDATE: RV request on Tilton property to be heard Dec. 18, Brown County Democrat

This post was shared at Brown County Matters  

    • CHANGE – Agenda, Commissioner Meeting, May 21, 2025. We had to move the rezoning decision to June 18, 2025, at 6:00 p.m. due to a miscommunication on public notification requirements.
    • The first commissioner meeting, scheduled for June 4, 2025, at 2:00 p.m., is generally reserved for administrative-related topics. The evening meetings are reserved for major decisions, allowing more people to attend.
    • Legal. Regarding the re-zone decision back to the previous version, a link is provided in the comments that provides a timeline of the process to including the supporting documentation and audio.
    • APC meetings include the APC’s attorney. In addition to the APC attorney, the County attorney was also consulted throughout the process and coordinated with the APC attorney to help ensure all actions met procedural and legal requirements.

Timeline – Agenda, Reports, Minutes, Audio – Available at: https://www.browncounty-in.gov/AgendaCenter  

    • Oct 22, 2024,  APC First Meeting – Request for more details (site plan) was voted on and tabled.  Minutes of the Meeting to include comments from those in favor and those opposed to the projects being presented.
    • Nov 19, 2024, APC – 2nd Meeting – 4 to 3 vote Not to Recommend Approval to the commissioners, 150 signatures in opposition, max attendance and participation at the public meetings  Audio of the Meeting
      • Docket Number: 24-RZ-02 JIMMY TILTON, PETITIONER – CONTINUED FROM OCTOBER 23,2024. The petitioner requested approval for rezoning from Secondary Residential (R2), Floodplain (FP), and Floodway (FW) to General Business (GB), Floodplain (FP), and Floodway (FW). The properties are located to the south and west of 279 West Main Street, Nashville, Indiana within Washington Township.  Minutes of the Meeting.
    • Dec 4, 2024, Commissioner Meeting – Approved 2 to 1. Yes Vote – Pittman and Wolpert, Sanders voted No.  Commissioners declined to table the vote to consider the changes being made to the County and Nashville Comprehensive Plans.  After the property is re-zoned, the proposed projects are reviewed by the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA). The BZA did not approve either project. The projects  provided the basis for the zoning change.

    • Jan 2, 2025,. Lawsuit filed challenging the zoning decision to include the legal action (Motion to Intervene) filed on Jan 17 on behalf of Jimmy Tilton.  At this point, the discussion on the issue between the commissioners and Jimmy Tilton are ceased. Summary_as of May 22,2025 MyCase_Rezoning. The case was extended pending the decision by the commissioners.

    • Jan 3, 2025  – New Commissioners hold Executive Session. 
         
    • Jan 16, 2025 – New Commissioner Petition to Reverse Re-Zoning.
      • Memorandum to the APC – Petition to Re-Zone.  This information was also provided to the Brown County Democrat and the information was published on January 20 (link to article below).   It identifies the intent and basis for the petition.
      • Docket – Commissioner Petition – Moved from Feb 5 to March 5, 2025. A “docket” refers to the official record or list of items scheduled for consideration by the APC, Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA), or legislative body.
      • APC Application for Hearing.  This form/information was used by the APC to develop the formal/legal notification letter that was sent via certified mail to 99 residences.  Re-Zone, Certified Letter mailed to 99 homes (March 5, 2025)
        • Note: Page 1 of the form identified the owner as William Jacob Capital, LLC. I mistakenly signed page 3, which is just for all the owners of record, not the individual submitting the petition. This issue was reviewed by the APC, which determined that it was not an issue or grounds for dismissing the petition. All the APC members understood I was not an owner.  Jimmie Tilton also confirmed this point in his comments at the meetings.
        • The county attorney also reviewed the issue.
        • The fact that Jimmy Tilton was not directly notified of the petition was an oversight. This issue was also addressed by the APC attorney, who described that Tilton’s attendance at the APC meetings met the notification requirement. Tilton was also present at the Mar 5, 2025, Commissioner Meeting. 
    • Jan 20, 2025  Brown County Democrat: Commissioners aim to reverse Tilton property rezoning, lighted sign ordinance, By Dave Stafford.
    • Jan 29, 2025, Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) Meeting – PRD, Travel Trailer Park DENIED.  These projects were provided as the justification for the zoning change.
      •  
    • Mar 5, 2025. Commissioner Meeting. Commissioners vote (2 to 1), reinforcing the petition to reverse the zoning change. Sanders and Clark voted yes, Patrick voted No.
    • March 11, 2025.  Brown County Democrat: Voiding Tilton rezoning advances, Staff Reports.  (Article incorrectly identified that the commissioner meeting was held on Mar 12, not Mar 5).
    • MAR 25, 2025. APC Meeting   – Decision Tabled – moved to April 22, 2025.   APC members requested additional info from the commissioners.  Discussion reinforced the need for understanding and improvement of the process. Audio of the Meeting.
  • April 22, 2025, APC Meeting – Presentation – Review of the process.
  • June 18, 2025, Commissioner Meeting – Vote to Rezone back to the previous version.  The discussion and vote were rescheduled from May 21, 2025, to the second Commissioner Meeting on June 18, 2025, at 6:00 p.m. due to miscommunication on the public notification requirements.
    • The first commissioner meeting (June 4, 2025, at 2:00 pm) is generally used to cover administrative-related issues.  Major decisions are held during the second meeting to allow more citizen participation.

  • May 21, 2025. Commissioners vote Wednesday on rezoning Tilton farm, By  Dakota Bruton, Brown County Democrat

Updated May 21:  The Brown County Commissioners have moved the Tilton Farm re-zoning petition to Wednesday, June 18 at 6 p.m. in the Salmon Room, Brown County Government Center, 201 Locust Lane, Nashville.

June 11, 2025. Letter: Brown County Democrat: Letter: Brown County Democrat,  “Official addresses Tilton Property.”
 

Budgets, Fund Accounts and Descriptions

Uncategorized

2025 Approved Budget Dec 17, 2024.  Brown-241217-2025-Budget-Order

Standard Chart of Accounts for Indiana Counties : Rogers_chart_of_accounts_instructions_

Statutory Funds, Numbers, “Some” Descriptions, References to Indiana Code: Fund-Descriptions-08_01_21

List Fund Numbers and  Descriptions: Pulaski-County-Funds-Descriptions-and-Guidelines

State Board of Accounts – Fund Types (Categories) and Fund Numbers SBOA-AIM-Budget-Wrkshp-05_2021-

Mar 6, 2025. Presentation – Reedy Financial Group,  Primary Funding, Sources for Local, Governments, , Educational Work Session, Brown County, March 6th, 2025

Budget Process Review – ICC Annual Conference 2024  Budget Process

SBOA:  Funds Sources and Uses Caldwell-Fund-Source-and-Use-2022-ILMCT-corrected

    • Motor Vehicle Highway (MVH & MVH Restricted)
    • Local Road & Street (LRS)
    • Cumulative Capital Improvement (CCI)
    • Rainy Day
    • Riverboat
    • Public Safety

Restricted Funds in Indiana Government

In the context of Indiana’s state and local governments, restricted funds are revenues earmarked by law for specific purposes. For example, the Motor Vehicle Highway (MVH) Restricted sub-fund is designated for construction, reconstruction, and preservation activities related to roadways. Expenditures from this fund must align with these specified activities to ensure compliance with state regulations. WikipediaIndiana Government

Additionally, Indiana’s fund accounting system requires that these restricted funds be tracked separately to maintain transparency and accountability in public spending.

Key Takeaways

    • Purpose-Specific: Restricted funds must be used solely for the purpose specified by the donor or legislation.

    • Legal Compliance: Misuse of restricted funds can lead to legal consequences and undermine public trust.

    • Modification Protocols: Any changes to the restrictions on these funds typically require donor consent or legal approval, ensuring the original intent is honored.

SBOA: MVH-CRP-definitions-ver-V

    • Items identified under the heading of Construction, Reconstruction, and Preservation (CRP) would be considered in compliance with expenditures allocated to the MVH Restricted sub-fund.
    • CRP activities are defined as expenses for work performed by internal forces or outside contractors that result in a new or improved roadway – paved or unpaved, including capacity enhancements. Activities result in the structural improvement of a roadway improving its ability to support vehicle traffic. Costs include personnel, material, and equipment expenses.

Mountain Tea State Forest

Uncategorized

Gov. Holcomb establishes two new state forests in Morgan, Brown counties, Lydia Gerike Indianapolis Star, Aug 15, 2020.

    • Mountain Tea State Forest is a 1,153-acre area in Brown County, Indiana. It was previously part of Yellowwood State Forest. The forest is used for recreation such as hiking, hunting, wildlife viewing and mushrooming. The majority of the property was previously owned and managed by the Nature Conservancy. The DNR is planting 60,000 to 70,000 trees in Mountain Tea and Ravinia as part of its program to plant 1 million trees by 2025.

DNR: Mountain Tea State Forest, Pumpkin Ridge Road, Nashville, IN 47448

Mountain Tea State Forest currently encompasses more than 1,153 acres, 705 acres of which was deeded to the State of Indiana in 2013. The deeded portion was locally known as a part of the Mountain Tea property and was previously managed by The Nature Conservancy. The land was acquired by the State of Indiana with the assistance of the U.S. Forest Service through the Food, Agriculture Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990, aka the Forest Legacy Program. The Forest Legacy Program was developed to help protect intact forest lands from conversion to non-forest uses while still allowing for sustainable timber management and recreational use. An additional 490 acres was acquired by the state in 2009 through purchases from private landowners.

Historical aerial photography suggests that, before government acquisition, the valleys and ridgetops were farmed and the side slopes were grazed. The ridgetops are composed of old field mixed hardwoods. The side slopes are mostly composed of mixed hardwoods and oak-hickory communities known to occur within the Brown County Hills natural region.

The city of Nashville lies roughly 6.4 miles west, and Columbus is roughly 10 miles east.

Mountain Tea State Forest is one planting location for the Division of Forestry’s ForestIN program, an effort to plant a million trees by 2025.

Activities

Although no permanently established recreation areas are present, there are still several recreational opportunities.

Hunting is permitted on State Forest property, and this area also offers opportunities for off-trail hiking, mushrooming, and wildlife viewing.