Tag Archives: music

BCD: Govt Updates Sep 23, 2025

Brown County Democrat (BCD) – Articles covering Commissioner, Council, and RDC meetings.

This post at BCM. 

    • BCM – Press Release – Arrest of former county Surveyor. Background: Following the arrest of the former surveyor (an elected position), various county offices received numerous calls expressing concern and requesting more details. With the advice of our attorney, the Board of Commissioners issued a press release to provide a county response.

Commissioners debate Music Center’s future, delay ordinance, give updates on projects
By Courtney Hughett -September 23, 2025 

County Council holds budget hearing, discusses IU partnership, legal costs, and court evaluations By Courtney Hughett -September 23, 2025

    • “… unresolved legal costs connected with employee compensation matters…” The information was presented out of context and without an understanding of the total situation and the facts.

    • An executive session was held with the council on Friday, Sept 19, 2025, and the issues were explained and discussed, which led to better understanding and support.  The council has no authority to dictate the decisions commissioners should make, which require legal support.

From homes to planning: Redevelopment Commission grapples with affordability and community input  By Courtney Hughett -September 23, 2025

    • A recurring theme of the RDC discussion was the need to update the county’s comprehensive plan with real community input beyond Nashville. Commissioner Clark told the Redevelopment Commission that their role could be to help with the public engagement side of the update. Members agreed that the plan should be broken down by community, Helmsburg, Gnaw Bone, Elkinsville, Bean Blossom, Story, and others, so that each area of the county has the chance to say what it wants, rather than Nashville dominating the process. Some communities, Clark said, are adamant that they want to be left alone, and that preference also needs to be respected.
    • The group discussed holding open-house style sessions in familiar places, such as libraries, churches, and fire stations, where residents could write down or speak about what they want and don’t want in their neighborhoods. Clark noted that the surest way to pack a meeting room is to change something close to home, especially zoning, because “people don’t know what zoning really means until it changes next door.” That reality, combined with the speed at which rumors and social media can spread, led members to emphasize the need for plain, clear communication. They said the county has to focus on the “why, what, how, and who” of any proposal so that misinformation doesn’t take hold before facts do.

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

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