OurWeek The Grant County Record in Grant County · Area Plan Commission · Aug 3, 2026 · 2026-08-03 · full transcript https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1838ndAayoM Exported Fri, 14 Aug 2026 22:37:08 GMT Source: Automatic captions from the county's recording, complete: 0:00 to 1:26:22. Full Area Plan Commission meeting, not a data center subcommittee meeting. Copied into the combined index from the data-center-hearings-indexed report; same text, key prefixed by body. These transcripts are machine-generated. They garble proper nouns badly — company and personal names especially. Watch the recording before repeating any name, number, or quotation. The video is the record. ============================================================================== Indexed at https://ourweek.in/grant-county/reports/grant-county-record 0:00 Let's do it. All right. 0:07 Are we on? I think we're going. 0:10 All right. We will call the August 3rd, 2026 Area Plan Commission meeting to order. If you would please uh stand and join me in the pledge of allegiance. 0:21 I aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic 0:28 for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. 0:41 We thank everyone for coming this evening. If you would, Todd, I am ready for a roll call. 0:52 Raymond Bear. 0:55 Cinder here. 0:58 Jerry Codell here. 1:00 Gary Duckwall here. 1:02 Kale Rindle here. Ed Hartman here. 1:06 Travis Lamaster here. Karen Poland present. 1:13 Clayton Schles here. 1:15 Wilbur Web here. 1:17 Randy Atkins here. All right. Thank you. Commission members. Good to see you all. It's been a while. So, if you would please review 1:26 the minutes from our last meeting, which was May 4th, 2026. 1:36 [clears throat] 1:37 I go now. 1:50 I love to approve the minutes. 1:52 Okay, we have a motion to approve the May 4th, 2026 minutes. Any questions or comments? 2:01 Entertain a second. Second. 2:03 Have a second from Karen Pollen. That motion was from Clayton Sold. 2:08 Okay. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. 2:12 Those opposed, same sign. Okay. Motion carries. 2:17 All right. We will move on to old business. 2:23 And um Todd, I am not sure whether you have mentioned the new code enforcement 2:31 first office to the APC. Were they on staff at our last meeting? No. 2:39 Okay. Well, we'll get Can you tell us who that person is? Um, and he's not here. Yeah. Or here. 2:47 Didn't ask him to. Didn't think about it. Um, Randy McAfee is the new code enforcement person. Um, he's come in, 2:56 hit the ground running. He's doing really well. Um, everybody seems to be impressed with him and we're making 3:03 things happen. Um, if we want a little update on one of the things that he was able to uh do that, 3:13 um, Mr. Glickfield had gotten started was um, the Sunshine Reynolds uh, property in which we had a court order 3:21 to clean that up. Um he did a great job along with the uh sheriff's department 3:29 and the work crew, the health department and the highway department was able to 3:36 get involved and coordinate coordinated with all those departments to get that place cleaned up. 3:42 So he has acclimated himself to the process as he has. Yeah, there are a dozen vehicles in Jonesboro we've been trying to get rid of for 3:50 years and he got them off the property in 2 days after he saw them. Perfect. That's all we have. 3:55 Yes, we're very impressed in Jonesboro. 3:58 And he does understand the enormous amount of work that we had to do to clean all these all these things up. So, 4:05 even though we've mentioned a couple of um great successes, don't overload it. 4:16 He sees it. He sees it and he understands, you know, how to eat an elephant one bite at a time. So, well, I'm I'm happy your your office is 4:24 complete and I'm very pleased with the staffing that you've been able to put together, Don. So, thank you all for what you guys are doing in area plan. 4:33 Okay. I want to bring everybody um up to speed in regard to the data center uh subcommittee meetings that we've been 4:41 having. We're going to have um our seventh meeting this coming Wednesday on August 5th. It's going to be our seventh 4:48 meeting. We have covered 30 pages in the past six meetings and we are hoping to finish on Wednesday. Um Todd will begin 4:57 to enter those revisions that have come about of the draft that the data subcommittee has been working on. And uh 5:04 I'm hoping that once we're able to complete it, get through the next six pages and Todd's able to get the 5:12 revisions in that we'll have one final subcommittee meeting just so that everybody on that subcommittee that's 5:18 been part of it can agree that those were the revisions that we discussed with the public um and with the the 5:26 members of the subcommittee upon uh the subcommittee's revision and approval. it will come uh to the APC for 5:36 you guys to review. So I guess the question that I have is um do you want to have the opportunity to review what 5:45 the subcommittee has put together before we schedule public hearing because we'll have to have a public hearing for our recommendation before it goes to the commissioners. 6:01 Yeah, it's about what is it 30 some pages. 37 pages to be able process. 6:09 So, as soon as the subcommittee gets that approved, we will get it out to the APC members. We'll have a not a public 6:19 hearing, not an official public hearing to forward it to the commissioners. 6:24 We'll just have a discuss. Can we do that, David? Can we have just a discussion meeting on it? 6:29 Okay. And then uh at that point once we come up with a recommendation uh then we'll forward on to the commissioners. 6:37 Now we have based on the fact that the subcommittee was approved or our sixth month work on the ordinance area zoning 6:47 was approved on May 4th. We have until November before our six month runs out. So, you 6:55 know, we're going to be we're going to be moving to try and get it through. We may have to have some special meetings in order to meet this deadline because 7:04 we would definitely like to have it within the 6 months that our area zoning ordinance gave us the opportunity to do that. Is everybody okay with all that? 7:14 Okay. 7:15 Any questions about what's been going on with the the subcommittee? 7:19 I want to commend the community. Uh the input that the folks that have attended those subcommittee meetings have been [clears throat] very beneficial to us 7:28 and I want to commend the subcommittee for the efforts that they've made. I mean we're going into our seventh meeting. So we've spent our summer you guys have most of you had the summer off 7:37 and we've been working you know with the subcommittee. So I want to thank everybody who's participated in that. 7:43 But that being said I have no other old business. Anyone else? 7:47 I I hope I'm not speaking out of turn on it, but Mr. Clancy did present it publicly in one of the data center meetings. There was some kind of request 7:56 from some company to be a a test case or a first [snorts] 8:03 option for something and is that something we're going to address? Was that addressed at the subcommittee level? Has is that no longer a 8:12 consideration? I'm just curious if anything happened with that. You want to take that? when we do. 8:17 Um I I'll take it. That's okay. Um that will I I think that should come 8:25 before this board. It's just, you know, we've had July off. The [clears throat] subcommittee meeting was the absolutely 8:33 the first chance I had to put that out into the public and I want to just keep this whole thing, it's a hot topic, as 8:42 absolutely transparent as possible. Um, so if anybody doesn't know what that email is and would like it, send me an email and [snorts] 8:51 I'll send it to you. But it was um, in a nutshell a company wanting to purchase 8:58 the current Bitcoin property and turn into a data center. Um and they were 9:06 within the email stating that they would be could be used as a pilot program to show 9:14 um the benefits of a data center and my reply back to them was I've received your email. 9:24 We're not in a position to uh make a decision on anything like that at this point till we get our ordinance completed. That's my take on it. That's my feeling. 9:32 So we'll discuss it just not right now. 9:34 That's correct. Okay. Great. Yeah. Thank you. 9:37 That'll be once we get the ordinance through then we'll begin that. I mean I think that they would need to follow whatever procedure of application and 9:46 approval that our ordinance is going to direct them to do so. Carter the horse. Right. Exactly. Yeah. 9:53 And I I certainly don't think that it's the position of the director to be making any kind of negotiations with any 10:02 company. It's not the director's role. I can bring it to the attention of commissioners and this board and whoever 10:11 wants to handle that can, but it's it's not this role. It just doesn't belong here. Appreciate that. 10:20 Any other old business topics? anyone would like to bring up? Well, uh since you hit on the topic of transparency, 10:27 uh I think we need to discuss the uh moratorum that we have on kayos 10:34 and uh what's what's happening, bring everybody on the board up to speed on what's happening as far as an 10:42 application that's been received 10:45 [clears throat] 10:46 uh for a kayo by Nolan Holloway and uh how we got to this point. Uh would you 10:53 uh would you elaborate on that a little bit Mr. Clansancy and as far as the moratorum and the application and where 11:02 we're at today and you know then the board will get up to speed with what's going on. 11:10 Um so there in the past history what's documented within our overall ordinance 11:18 and within the recorder's office that I found was and I may have dates wrong a little bit here was in 2006 11:28 the commissioners put a moratorium on and basically the wording was they want a moratorum until the APC acts to be able to revise the ordinance. 11:42 Um, and at that time in 2006, the APC acted and there were revisions made. You 11:50 can clearly see that in the documentation of our current ordinance. 11:56 In 2018, basically the same thing happened again and I don't see any documentation that 12:05 anything was done by the APC to change the ordinance. 12:12 So in my read and I think I sent that to you and so you can give your opinion on that 12:20 is that moratorum from 2018 that I believe used the word temporary 12:28 still a moratorum when they asked for we want this kind of review to happen maybe there was a review that happened but it 12:37 didn't turn into any kind of ordinance change [clears throat] but certainly The way it was worded doesn't appear to me. Um, real opinion lies to my right. 12:49 Is does that is that a forever moratorum? 12:56 Was there an expiration date at all or an expectation of when it might go off or when an ordinance 13:04 might be changed or was there anything guiding that? I mean I saw in the minutes in 2018 of October that 13:13 they placed the moratorum. They didn't mention any expiration date. They just said it is in effect now when the 13:20 commissioners voted on it. There's questions about was it completed correctly? Was the APC involved? There 13:29 are those questions I don't know that we know the answers to. But I think the community is under the understanding that there's a moratorum in place and 13:38 that if uh we don't get out front of this, it's going to be a shock that what's going on. We had a moratorium. 13:48 Who took it off? What's happening? 13:53 I I think we need to get out front of this as, you know, as quickly as possible. 14:03 Doesn't the moratorum expire at some point if no exits taken? 14:07 So, under the area wide zoning ordinance, the APC has the ability for a six-month period, as we've done a couple 14:13 times, to not accept any applications by resolution, which we've done. We did with solar and we're currently doing it with a data center. So that's [snorts] 14:22 just a six-month period of time. Now that's APC's jurisdiction. Now the commissioners have jurisdiction by local ordinance power to also pass 14:31 [clears throat] 14:31 ordinances which in this case I'm assuming an ordinance was done which said there would be no um exception of 14:39 applications for kayos. My understanding of the situation has been I'm going back to 2006. I was not commissioner in 2006. 14:47 I came in that was a brief period of time when I was not there but at some point the state legislature fixed a lot of the issues that were there with KO 14:56 and they took over the control jurisdiction of the operation the the 15:03 stuff that goes into the operation of the kayos and our jurisdiction as a plan simply became making sure the setbacks 15:12 things like that were in place that the the state of Indiana would control the actual oper operation where they go, that sort of thing. That's [snorts] my 15:20 understanding of why nothing ever happened after either instance in ' 06 or 18. 15:30 So if the commissioners passed an ordinance, let's go to 18 as the most recent one because I don't think anyone 15:38 can argue that something from 06 moratorum would still be standing. But if they did it in 18, they if they did it by ordinance, then I think an 15:47 argument could be made that that's still in effect. I've not researched that. I don't know. It's a very unusual situation. 15:54 But if [clears throat] we want to be absolutely sure, maybe the commissioner should revisit the issue and issue a 16:02 mortorium. or this board could do as we've done in the past, ask for a resolution to be drawn 16:09 up to start that six-month waiting period so this board has time to study the issue and make recommendations on 16:16 what actually Grant County has the control over versus the state of Indiana. 16:23 So, but what I understood from the meeting minutes was that the commissioners voted for the moratorum in 2018 16:32 and then later there was discussion from past member of the board that things may 16:38 not have been done correctly by the as far as the APC 16:45 was concerned on this moratorum. never got to the APC for a public hearing or 16:54 something that I it's unclear as to what the problem was there, but that's a 17:02 process error when speaking with an attorney. He said that's a process error that sometimes a 17:10 court will overlook because the commissioners have final say on a moratorum 17:17 no matter what the APC does or doesn't do. Um so that it it could be in place 17:25 is what I'm saying and the community has kind of been counting on that it's been in place for a long time. 17:34 It would be a surprise if it was not. 17:37 I'm only aware of the ability of APC through the area zoning ordinance to ask for that six-month suspension for the 17:46 office to stop taking permits through resolution. Now, if the commissioners referred this to the area plan then and 17:55 then area plan didn't do anything. I I don't know anything about that. 17:58 Yeah, that was in the minutes. And the only other issue might be if there was special legislation in place that 18:06 required area plan to do that, but I think all that legislation has changed since then. So I I don't I think it's a dramatic change between then and now. 18:17 Yeah. So the commissioner stated in that minutes that it's in place now, right? 18:24 You know, so and my my question is okay, the process may have been a bit confused, 18:31 but the end approving authority did approve it. And so is it is it still in place? 18:41 Just off the top of my head, I'd say an argument could be had that it was assuming there's no legislation which says otherwise. 18:47 Yeah. So, I mean, I was asked the question by one farmer and I said, "I don't know for sure if it's in place or 18:57 not, but we all knew one was in place and I think we'd all have known if it was removed." 19:06 So, based on that, I would have to guess it's in place. Yeah. 19:11 But I you know I I really I can't say and I don't know if any of us consider saying the one attorney that I 19:18 questioned about it told me a judge may overlook a process error or he may send it back to be redone correctly. 19:27 Well, you know, but the state may have changed if the state changed the way they did things whether we have one moratorum it'd be moved anyway, right? 19:38 if the state changed something and I and I think there's going to be language in the legislation which covers that covers 19:45 this issue. I my understanding is that the state of Indiana now has the controls over the operations of the kayos 19:54 like environmental checks environmental pollution control item you know yeah that's all through what you're 20:00 right and that our dog in the fight to say is making sure setbacks are met you know it's the road make sure it's in the 20:08 proper zone those [snorts] sorts of things which were in our That's my understanding of all. 20:20 So if Mr. Armen, to finish on your thought, it might be a situation where the commissioners might want to they 20:29 might be the best body to ask if that's still in effect. And if that's a concern, you know, maybe their attorney 20:36 should research that and see 20:39 [clears throat] 20:40 because they're the ones who, as you pointed out, and I do agree with what you're saying, if it did come up legally, well, then the final say, I think it would be the cold harmless error. 20:50 So, I hope that answers your question. 20:54 So, it's a little bit of a slightly unknown, correct? 20:59 But you're kind of leaning more towards it is in effect. 21:03 I would. Yes. Assuming again, this is a big assumption and I have not researched it. There's no special legislation which says otherwise. 21:12 No statutes would say otherwise because you still place a moratorum. 21:18 Yeah. I didn't have to look at that. I would guess there are is a statute somewhere that says if a moratorum is in place, this is how it needs to be done. 21:27 This is how long it could last. But I don't know that cuz I haven't researched it. Yeah. But I will look into it. You'll look into it? 21:35 Yes, I will. That would be helpful. 21:38 Okay. And possibly the commissioner's attorney also though may need to look into that. Yes, I think they definitely should. 21:46 Todd, you have something, Dad? 21:48 Yeah, I'm sitting here trying to wish I had my folder, right? I'm trying to think how I can find it. Um, 21:56 so I I dove into it a little bit. Going back to the document. Um, [snorts] and I could be wrong here. 22:04 It's resolution 5 2018 is the resolution we're talking about from the commissioners. 22:12 and um it directed an APC review within 60 days 22:19 and so it paused approval until the commissioners had an opportunity to act on the APC recommendations. 22:27 So if it has that wording right that they 22:34 were putting a limit on it of 60 days and paused approval 22:42 until the commissioners had that time to act. Some of that worry might be coming from the actual meeting minutes cuz I 22:49 had those dug out also. But that was at least their intent. And so one could argue that okay whatever went on I 22:57 didn't go back to every and try to find the meeting minutes and the APC records to see if there was ever any discussion about it but there were there's 23:06 certainly no changes in our ordinance concerning kayos in the 2018 23:15 there hasn't been any changes to it since 2006 but that way but they gave the APC 60 days to make 23:24 recommendations. It didn't say it expired at 60 days, but they did put time limitation on it. 23:31 Yeah. On the APC to do something. 23:34 We want to get this done. Here's a reasonable time frame that the APC may not have done anything or they may have done something, but 23:41 anyway, then later on it was passed by the commissioners and they said it's in place now, effective immediately. 23:53 That's that was from the minutes, right? Then when you look at the resolution, I just I'm saying that it 24:01 will be it will be an interesting conversation for Yeah. 24:06 David and I sat down and look at both sides of it and I think there's an argument to be had on both sides and we need some legal resolution to it. 24:15 We need that resolved. 24:16 Yeah. Isn't it I agree but isn't this academic? 24:21 If either the APC, which is us, takes some action like we request our six-month moratorum to try and come up 24:30 with recommendations or we you know go to a commissioner meeting and ask them to I mean 24:37 if either the moratorium lasts until we make some kind of recommendation that the commissioners act on or the commissioners can act on their own and 24:45 then it does it particularly matter what interpretation you have. the Gordian knot has been cut, right? 24:52 If action has been taken by either body, right? So I I to me it sounds like the question is 25:00 do we want to, as Mr. Glickfield suggested, do like a six-month moratorum and look into what recommendations we 25:08 want to make for amendments or do we want to request that the commissioners weigh in on this without our input? That sounds like the two options to me rather 25:17 than trying to chase legal tales from 2018. 25:21 Well, you probably need to settle this from 2018 because you've got an application in play right now. 25:27 [clears throat] 25:27 So, the question is would they be eligible to be to build under the current right would be your current ordinance 25:37 and they may want to come for a hearing soon. 25:42 Can [snorts] that be presumed that an application will be accepted? 25:48 We have an you know for all transparency we have an application in progress and 25:55 um we're going by the current ordinance and you know 26:03 trying to fill in all the boxes. So this legal framework an application has been 26:09 received and it's not complete to be able to bring in front of this board. 26:15 Okay. But nothing nothing that you know of is stop is forcing a stop to that application moratorum or not. No. 26:22 Okay. 26:25 Well, if the moratorum decisions decided then it could stop it or it could let it go. Right. 26:33 So it's pending. 26:36 until we get legal review of till we get that a legal opinion of whether we're on or not 26:43 whether I can accept the application or not. 26:47 Maybe I have overstaffed you accept it but not right and I certainly haven't brought brought to the board. 26:57 Yeah. Would I mean again I don't I don't know this applicant 27:05 [clears throat] but if I mean would they be willing to 27:12 could it suspend their application until this has been resolved? I mean I don't know maybe not has been waiting since 2018. 27:21 Yeah. And who it is isn't the issue. 27:24 Well right. But yeah, I'm just concerned about the idea that 27:32 there's so many possible interpretations as Mr. Glansancy said when this could be resolved if it happened 3 months from 27:39 now after discussion with the commissioners, but I suppose that ship has sailed. 27:45 [clears throat] 27:46 Recommendation, Mr. Glickfield. 27:48 [cough] 27:50 [clears throat] 27:50 Well, I had forgotten that an application was pending. Um, I would suggest if we want to discuss this, we do it in an executive session. 28:02 Uh, because doing this in a open meeting is when an application is pending and talking about which course of action to go is probably not a good idea. 28:13 Okay. This that discussion because it could be a legal matter. I mean, we look at a court of everything everyone says in here could be admitted. 28:23 So, but I also know um that the ordinance that we have in place now is 28:31 going to have to be adjusted at some point. So, that there is there is going to be an issue of 28:39 and my recommendation will be [snorts] whether this petition that is already this application is in place whether it 28:46 applies to this or not. Let's let's keep that aside for the moment. But we are going to need to do that six-month 28:54 resolution to revisit the ordinance and see what changes need to be made to it to take to the commissioners. So to make 29:03 sure the county's duties are laid out correctly versus the state's duties cuz I think our current ordinance has a lot 29:10 of the state's duties in place now and those that needs to change and this is the body that needs to make those recommendations. 29:18 Okay. Are we able to go into executive session after the public portion of this meeting or do we have to You have to advertise. You have to advertise executive session. Okay. 29:26 Unfortunately. Yeah. How many days in advance? I'm sorry. 29:30 How many days in advance do we have to advertise? 48 hours. 48 hours. 29:33 48 hours. [snorts] We got a data center on Wednesday night. 29:38 Would it catch us Wednesday? It would, wouldn't it? If you do it first thing in the morning. 29:45 Yes or no? Who does math? It wouldn't. 29:47 What's the date of inter 6 p.m. 29:53 6 on Wednesday would have had to have been made 2 hours ago. Yeah. How long do those videos last? 30:01 Uh we can we at 8? 30:04 Well, you got 2 minutes. Yeah, you can do it at 8 if you want. I'm going to do it Wednesday. I'll leave that up to you. 30:12 No, cuz we're going to finish the day the sub. We're going to finish the sub many days. a longer day if you don't mind. 30:19 Yeah, let's um let's shoot [clears throat] for next week. 30:26 Next week that'll give us opportunity to and give David the opportunity to research some things. 30:32 Next Monday, um could be. 30:38 Let me look at Okay, meeting time for the room. 30:42 Um council budget hearings are coming. I think we've been stuck in there before they take up the room for a couple weeks of time. 30:51 Town meeting we have board Yeah. town board meetings on Yeah. schedule Monday. 31:00 Yeah. There are no decisions that are acted on in a executive session nor does it require a quorum. 31:07 So okay. All right. This discussion ends. 31:12 We're moving to item number five, new business, the budget. What you folks have in front of you is the 31:20 proposed budget that Todd has put together. 31:31 Check this again. 31:32 Whenever you want to, Todd, I'll let you expand on it. 31:39 I think I would like to just review the sheet that has the red and green on it. 31:47 It's kind of the highest level sheet um that compares 24, 25, 26, and 27 31:57 requested budget. So these are the adopted budgets. 32:01 Um things that are in red is where it um we 32:09 raised um the requested budget and things in green are where we had lowered 32:18 things. So in personal services, yeah, we did raise our salaries a little bit but we that's in comparison to the year before. Correct. 32:26 Right. Okay. But we removed the part-time um person. 32:33 Um so overall in personal services uh section the subtotal is actually 32:41 lower than what it was well it's the same actually as what it was um 32:49 no no it's lower than what it was in 2026. Sorry about that. 32:55 Um, so supplies, uh, we raised by $500 overall. 33:04 And, uh, other services and charges, if you just go down to the subtotal, we raised that slightly by $1,000. And that was in photos, blueprinting, and legal. 33:18 Um, just certain things are just costing a little bit more. But overall the over 33:26 all total budget we reduce by I didn't do that math uh four about $5,000 in that range. 33:37 Yes. 33:39 And we're doing that with this requested budget and actually 33:47 requesting uh an increase in salaries. 33:53 I don't know if I have that and what I gave you per person. I don't think I have that 34:02 from what last year's to this year's. I didn't put that in there. Sorry about that. But there's a small increase in salaries, but it's reflected. 34:13 It's reflected on this. 34:15 Yeah, it's reflected in the 2027, but I don't have the 20 26 numbers in there of what the increases are. 34:23 You know what the overall percentage increase is salaries that I requested? Yes. 34:30 No. Okay. 34:31 I mean, the number goes I've got 6%. I was just wondering if that's consistent throughout the department or 34:40 Yeah, I think the the percent increases was the same throughout. 34:46 [clears throat] 34:46 You gave us a chart back in April of salary increases. Pardon? 34:55 Yeah. 34:55 You gave us a breakdown of salary, right? And that was for that was for this year, right? after we requested remove the part-time person. 35:05 So, this is for 2027. 35:09 So, overall, you know, I'm hoping that overall I'm asking for a little less 35:15 money and give the staff a little increase. And we're still, if you look at the average bars that I gave out 35:24 earlier this this year, we're still all under that. 35:27 You lost a person though. I mean, part time. 35:30 Yeah. Right. cost part time. So, yeah. Yeah, we removed the part-time person, too. 35:37 Did Did we elevate someone to full-time then though or? No. 35:42 No. Okay. Yeah, it was just But all the other staff stayed the same, right? Okay. Okay. 35:47 It was it was a part-time permit clerk and you know one single permit clerk is 35:54 does us well and then we're cross trainined enough where the rest of the staff when they take vacation they're not there 36:03 that we have somebody be able to service people that come in the office this was proposed to the council correct you talked about 36:11 this 2027 budget no you you talked about the change in the personnel issues Right. That was approved through the council and so it's 36:18 ongoing. We They all were happy. I didn't get a raise, but the rest of the staff was pretty happy other than Tammy. 36:26 [laughter] 36:27 Tammy was very happy and satisfied, but we, you know, got to commend her to be 36:33 able to make this um decrease happen and adjust the salaries because that 36:41 particular position of the administrator administrative assistant [snorts] was quite a bit higher than the inspector, 36:50 the code enforcement officer. And that just doesn't stair step well um with the way the rest of the counties in the 36:58 state are run. The inspector and the code enforcement are um certainly inspectors higher than that. So she did 37:05 take a pay cut to be able to make that all work out and stair step correctly 37:13 and she accepted that before she accepted the position. So thank you Tammy. 37:20 Any other things you want to share, Todd, about the budget proposal? 37:27 Any questions? I just kind of hit the highlights and go into details or if you have some questions that you want me to 37:35 look up and send to you, I'm happy to do so. 37:41 So, I know we've taken down buildings. 37:49 Why is there $0 expended in 24 and 25 for unsafe building 37:58 or is that only maybe it was only 26 that we did that expended. 38:06 Did we really not say building fun? Yeah, it says 24 expended zero 25 expended zero. 38:15 The 26 one is the one that keeps me already used the entire budget for this year. 26 of 55,000 38:25 I actually believe that we've taken down a lot less 55,000 right 38:33 which is amount if we already spent that in 5 months. 38:37 Yeah. Or is that just a wrong entry in that cola? Yeah, good question. 38:45 Carrying the budget amount into that cola rather [snorts] than expended. 38:51 H that's a good question. 38:55 Is it Todd? Because this is general fund budget and that's a separate fund and you've given them the general fund budget and you have not given them the 39:03 unsafe building fund. The unsafe building fund is a is $200,000 as a separate fund. Yes. 39:10 And then we have the unsafe building fund that's under this. 39:13 I think this right here, if I understand what you have, let me pull it up. This is part of the general fund. Yeah. 39:21 I think this is just your general fund budget, right? 39:23 Right. Yes. And the same here. I think this is just I think the question be is 39:31 why is that not on here? Well, it wouldn't be on here because it's not general fund. It should say building fund. 39:37 So, you're saying that shouldn't be a line item on this budget? 39:41 It would be a line item for a separate budget. Okay. Okay. 39:46 Because I I was going to say, [snorts] you're not going to hear me say this often. I'm all for spending less money, but given that we've saved 5,000, I 39:55 would almost rather see the unsafe building. And what I don't know is if that unsetting fund and he just has the ability to to 40:04 submit a claim to the commissioners each time. I don't know that for sure. Yeah. 40:09 But it's something along those lines. I think what he's presented to you for approval is just his general fund budget. 40:16 Yeah. But so it's 55,000 been spent from the general budget moved into the unsafe building fund cuz that's why it says that 40:24 if it doesn't get spent I believe that I I would think well I don't know how he's done he's got 200,000 in his unsafe building 40:32 fund accumulation of those I would I think is this your this general fund 40:40 or is this from unsafe building fund at 55? I see I was under the understanding that the unsafe building fund was out of 40:47 the general fund and was separate from the $200,000 of the demo fund. 40:55 Um, okay. 40:58 Separate line item and they vote on it separately. So they being the county council. 41:04 Maybe you can just give us a clarification next [clears throat] month. You know, we Clayton, we approved this last year, 41:12 the 55 cuz it used to be 50 and we added five to it. 41:15 So, we approved [clears throat] it on the same Yeah, I I believe that. I just I must not I probably didn't notice any spent last time or money. 41:23 I'm not also We haven't taken down many. 41:29 That's when you look back at I mean that's thought he probably knows. Yeah. smaller. 41:38 How many houses would you say we've taken down in the past few years? 41:42 [snorts] 41:43 We two and a half [clears throat] not taken we didn't get any taken down this spring. Okay. 41:48 You know, and that is usually a time in which or or late last fall this spring. 41:54 Um and that's a time in which we utilize the highway department to get things done when they're down. So, we missed an 42:04 opportunity there. Um, again, Randy Mackey is doing an excellent job coordinating with the highway 42:11 department, lining up buildings to get things done. Um, working with the towns to say, "Hey, you know, what do we 42:19 really want to get done and what kind of money do you have to get done?" And some of it, the hardest part is who's got 42:26 ownership of these things and let's how do we get the legal ability to tear these things down? 42:36 And some of it is just people just need to get them signed [snorts] over and or they're in the commissioner's hand. We just need to get them signed over, 42:44 [cough] 42:45 [clears throat] right? I mean, I'm [laughter] looking at people here. I know there's issues out here. Yeah, we've been it's good to have somebody that's on 42:52 point that has has these things in their mind. And so I believe we're going to be able to use up that fund um and 43:01 hopefully get it to spread out as many places as we can, but certainly get that used up this year um and utilize the 43:09 highway department and then be able to start and actually have some when 2027 43:18 starts, we'll have a a busy late 2026 and 2027 with the highway Jerry run through all that. So, 43:27 I I'd like to talk to a state legislature cuz here's the thing that's always rubbed me wrong and and you brought it up. These 43:35 properties change hands after they've been condemned and that should never happen. Yeah. 43:41 And again, that starts us on a different time frame when a new owner gets a hold of it cuz, you know, we're going to remodel this and that never ever happens. Yeah. 43:50 So, there should be some kind of legislation to stop that. So, that can't happen until they prove they're going to improve it or it gets tore down. 43:59 They need some kind of bond or something. Something should But you've got these investment companies, they're buying properties blind on the internet 44:07 and then and they're horrible. We've got three or four that should have been tore down two years ago. 44:12 They've got some too. And that includes the county, not just cities, right? 44:17 Yeah. Everybody's everybody's got everybody seems to think nobody cares if it's out in the county if it's not in the town. 44:25 And that's something that [clears throat] is really frustrating to everybody in the office. Sure. Everyone 44:32 in the board, everyone in the county that drives by these dilapidated properties and um you know 44:40 and in my mind is data driven and we look and we just keep gathering the data and looking at the data. what are the 44:47 biggest causes and then what are the solutions? We need to know what the causes are. And so trying to clean them 44:54 up one property at a time like we do the property on nine took over a year and a lot of coordination and a lot of money. 45:06 Seriously, that's we'll never recoup as a county. not really the way to that's not the way to get everything cleaned 45:14 up. But what we're talking about here as far as these investment companies and LLC's and the way they work that shell game. 45:23 Yeah, that's a bigger place that's that's a bigger place to target and we'll we'll look we're working on it. We're working 45:31 on trying to gather the data and then solutions around that. 45:35 Do we have any power locally within this concern, David? Do we what? 45:39 Do we have any power as a local government? I've always been under the impression. 45:44 There's a lot of power under local government to get torn down. I know when I was city attorney in Marian and now as a city attorney in G city where we have 45:52 a property, we just take it to the board of works. We go through the legal procedures outlined by statute, get the 45:59 order of enforcement authority, and if they don't appeal it to the courts, we tear it down. [snorts] the new pays for it. 46:08 That's what at that point in time the the city pays for it. Yeah. 46:12 But I know at gas city we do something similar to what the county does. You have the street department do it and 46:20 then your main cost is just for dumpsters which is dramatically cheaper than hiring someone to do it. Mhm. 46:25 You put a lean on it if the county takes it down. You do put a lean on it. 46:28 Can you add it to the property taxes so if somebody buys it they're paying that? Correct. 46:34 Okay. Most of the time they end up at a commissioner's deal and they're written off, right? 46:40 Because once it once the commissioners take title to it, all leans are wiped off. 46:46 They have the ability to sell the property. 46:48 So is it fair maybe the issue that smaller communities or counties then is that we have the jurisdiction, but maybe we just don't move fast enough and 46:57 that's when they're able to because I think like what Jerry was saying, the issue is okay, we finally have the money to do it. We have the court order, we have the statute, we've gone to the 47:05 board of works, and then we go to file the paperwork and oh, there's a new owner now. They have a they like reset this 6-month block. 47:13 So, is it fair to say like maybe if we could just move faster? 47:17 Well, I would I would ask your city attorney, but I would contend that that action goes with the land. 47:24 Okay. So, you you feel like that shouldn't reset a clock or there's an argument that could be made. Yes. Yes. 47:31 Okay. Yeah. Have you have Have your attorney give you that opinion, though. Yeah. 47:34 Is there any pattern of a property with a house having been torn down worth more than one abandoned? 47:43 Rarely would a house that be torn down. 47:47 The property is worth more without it than it happens. Sometimes your prop the house itself is worth less Yeah. 47:56 than it would cost to tear it down, right? So it's it's it's worth and where I'm going with that if it goes into a commissioner sale 48:04 is it worth more without a house than a right is sometimes Mr. Web would know that better than I would 48:11 I'd say most of them would I mean you know percentage wise be more than not yeah the ones you're leaving are usually the ones in such poor condition they 48:19 can't be rehabed so now you have a cost of tearing them down so it's not a tremendous risk for the county to go ahead and tear it down. 48:26 I I didn't intend to derail it so much. 48:28 I'm sorry. I I do am I am just now wondering if there's a separate demolition fund, what is the unsafe buildings fund? 48:37 Todd Todd, he he cleared that up for me. 48:40 He said the council budgets 55,000 a year of general fund money for him to use and then he also has the unsafe 48:47 building fund. So he has there's two different pots to take to take care of that. That's what I understood his explanation. 48:56 Okay. 48:56 All right. So, unsafe building fund is what we use to clean up a property, not necessarily demo. Yeah. A whole home. 49:04 Okay. And we or buildings. 49:07 Okay. And we didn't use any of that in 24 or 25. Yeah. Fair enough. 49:13 That's what that's what this Did you have to ask the council for the 200,000? 49:18 That's not been an issue. They just No, they just stamp it. Yeah. 49:22 Okay. So have you only if you only put claims out of that then you haven't taken the claims out of the annual 55 because I know work's been done 49:30 like this we know yeah we what we've done so far has been out of that okay [clears throat] and so then within this discussion if I 49:38 may put in one other item which is then what I'm thinking of good discussion 49:45 glad you're here is if we're allowed or able to flag some of 49:54 these companies, right? Although I know they could just whip up another LLC, but it's like, okay, well, you bought 50:02 five properties or 70 properties and two of them improved and the rest of them all but declined. 50:13 You can't buy anything else from the tax sale. I don't know if that's an avenue we can go down, but you know, let's let's cut the head off the snake. 50:24 I don't know about that. Could be a commissioner question. 50:26 Yeah. I mean, they'd have to pass an ordinance to do that, right? 50:30 We don't have the ability to do that, right? 50:33 And I don't know if any they may not have the authority cuz that's kind of off somebody's rock. Yeah. 50:40 But how do we how do we stop that activity? Mhm. 50:44 Well, yeah, if we can figure something out because that is not going away. That is not going away. 50:50 But I I'm encouraged here there's something we can maybe take back to our city attorneys and and just get service get service on the building. Right. 50:58 And once you have service, proceed, right? 51:00 If someone else buys after the fact, then it's their duty to find out what's going on. 51:05 Fair enough. Can you find these owners for these dilapidated structures that are just sitting out there? 51:12 Live in different states. months of doing nothing. Got to undo. 51:16 Can you find them for that? 51:19 Um, or is it just take it to court? 51:25 I certainly I think there's probably I would assume the county has nuisance statutes somewhere and you probably 51:33 could find them under those statutes. I know cities have them. Um, I know we do it all the time for in gas city for 51:41 weeds and uh any other trash accumulations, that sort of thing. I think the county, I'm sure somewhere in 51:50 the ordinances, there would be ordinances which provide for that. So, yes, we could do that. 51:58 Any other questions related to the budget? This has been good educational discussion that we've had. 52:05 Any other questions? Hearing none, we'll entertain a motion to approve the proposed budget. 52:15 Have a motion from Web. Second. Have a second from Karen Poland. Oh, I'm sorry, Travis Lamaster. 52:23 All those in favor signify by saying I. I. Those opposed, same sign. No. 52:31 Clayton is opposed. I just don't understand it. That's fine. 52:35 I'm I'm not offended. It's just I'm not going to vote for something I don't understand. Okay. 52:41 We have one opposed. Mr. Glansancy, you want to do a roll call to clear that up or are you okay with it? 52:49 You're the chair. You say if it passes. Okay. Passes. It passes. Okay. 52:58 To the council. Okay. Okay. 53:04 All right, let's go to item six. Mr. Glickfield, anything to share with us? 53:11 Mr. Glance already highlighted the work that's been done on the Reynolds property. I won't go back into that. And are you going to talk about this in your direct report? 53:19 That's next. Yeah, I won't I won't talk about the new statutory changes which have come up on our fee review. He's going to handle that. So that's all I have. 53:29 All right. Thank you, David. Todd. 53:33 Okay. So, like what we have [snorts] talked about some tonight 53:40 in a process of changing the ordinance, we're giving out a draft for a change in 53:50 our fee structure again this year. 53:56 And so, this is to look it over, but it's a draft. just a place to start. 54:01 And until we get some movement and everybody's ready to 54:07 have a public hearing to um recommend it to the commissioners to 54:15 change the ordinance, we'll we will um just keep working on the details. 54:25 So, I put a statement together, so I'm just going to read it. 54:28 and it kind of mirrors the front page is the purpose of bringing uh appendix A back before you is not simply to 54:37 increase increase fees. The general assembly adopted IC 3672.3 54:45 which is the new India law which changes how counties must calculate, collect, 54:51 account for and use certain planning, zoning, building development fees beginning January 1, 2027. 55:00 So under this new IC code covered fees for building permits, construction, zoning, development, subdivisions, 55:08 classifications, rec re reccast classifications and related applications cannot exceed the amount reasonably necessary to cover the county's uh cost. 55:20 These costs may include processing applications, reviewing plans, conducting inspections, and preparing required information or statements for the applicants. 55:31 So, the Indiana State Board of Accounts has also directed counties to deposit these covered revenues in a county fund 1240. 55:40 These revenues must be separated at separately accounted for by fee type and used only for the applicable cost associated with the fees collected. 55:51 The money placed in 1240 does not revert to the general fund at the end of the year. 55:58 So it is recognizant to recognize that Grant County increased its fees last year. That increase was completed under 56:06 our ordinance that was in effect at that time and the ordinance required fees to be adjusted according to the 56:14 change in the county assessed valuation and the county followed that requirement. 56:21 This new review is necessary because of the change in the state law and change changes the basis for the structure of 56:29 the fees. The county can no longer rely solely on the automatic assessed valuation adjustment. 56:37 We must now be able to demonstrate that each covered fee is reasonably related to the county's cost of providing the service connected to that fee. 56:48 The proposed uh schedule was developed using the area plan's actual budget, staffing cost, workload information. The 56:57 calculations include salaries, fully loaded salaries by the way, and reasonable operating expenses associated with the services being provided. 57:08 Those expenses were used to estimate the hourly cost of employees involved in receiving the applications, reviewing the zoning, construction plans, issuing 57:17 permits, preparing public hearings and materials, conducting inspections, maintaining records, and completing follow-up work. 57:26 The analysis also considers the office's actual permit and inspection workload. 57:32 This included the number of permits issued, number of inspections performed, approximately 15,000 miles of annual 57:40 inspector travel, average inspection time, and the fact that 57:47 inspections are normally grouped into an efficient daily route rather than treated as separate trips from the office. 57:55 It's I think 5.5 miles per inspection, something like that. For many construction permits, the proposed 58:03 schedule uses a base fee plus a charge per square foot. This base fee recognizes that every project requires a 58:11 minimum amount of application intake um and recordeping [snorts] 58:18 inspection work regardless of the project size. The square foot portion recognizes that a larger projects 58:25 generally require additional review and inspection work. 58:30 So the proposed schedule does not attempt to recover the county's full calculated cost in every category. 58:37 Appeals, variances, special exceptions, reasonzoning, and similar petitions were intentionally kept lower because excess 58:45 excessively high filing fees could discourage people from using the lawful approval and appeal process procedures available to them. 58:57 Uh, this new state law establishes a ceiling on what counties may charge that does 59:04 not require the county to recover every dollar of its cost for each applicant. 59:09 So, it's not telling us to pay our own way. 59:15 A general comparison was also completed using fees scheduled for Madison County, Howard County, Wbash County, and the city of Marian. 59:24 I kind of used a 10point range to describe fees as generally the same. 59:31 Um, so Grant County appears lower overall than Madison County. We're about the same as Howard and we're higher than 59:40 Wash and higher than the city of Marian residential building permit schedule. 59:46 Those comparison are not exact because each jurisdiction handles permits and inspections and classifies them differently 59:55 and other expenses. Uh so however the comparisons indic falls within the overall regional range 1:00:04 and does not make Grant County the highest cost jurisdiction. And I think you have some more detailed numbers in um in the packet. 1:00:15 And so this remains an APC review draft. 1:00:19 The purpose of presenting it is at this stage is to allow a full commission to examine, take your time, examine the 1:00:27 assumptions, the questions, the proposed amounts, and make changes before the matter advances the public hearing. 1:00:33 The goal is a fee schedule that is clear, legally defensible, reasonably related to the work performed, and fair 1:00:41 to the applicants, and consistent with code. 1:00:44 The other thing that we did not do last year was it was just kind of what we have and then making an increase. 1:00:55 And then what I found over this last year is there's a lot of places that describe in the text of the ordinance 1:01:02 where we could charge don't make a statement on how much to charge and is not in appendix A in the 1:01:09 table. So how do we charge for something when there's no guidance on how to charge for it? So that's why this is so 1:01:16 much larger than what we had before. And so I've taken quite a bit of pains to there's a lot of changes in the text and 1:01:25 the body of the ordinance to reflect what we have in appendix A because they 1:01:31 the body should coincide and mesh with the appendix. So I went both ways on that analysis. 1:01:39 I have not been able to really read this over super close. So have at it and 1:01:46 don't feel bad if you see some blazing error or even any small errors. So what questions? 1:01:55 Why do we think that the state got involved and created an IC code for this? so that these offices can become self-sufficient or 1:02:02 no from what I've been able to gather, believe it or not, it is to for 1:02:10 affordable housing to bring the cost down. 1:02:15 So, I'm assuming like large cities and the donut counties, there's some 1:02:23 real high fees, which I've heard. I haven't went and explored them, but that the fees are getting a little outrageous 1:02:31 on you level the playing field a little bit. Yeah. Okay. 1:02:35 That's what I've heard of is that at my attorney conferences on new municipal and county 1:02:43 laws. In fact, a state legislature was there, state representative was there and said the exact same thing he just said. Okay. 1:02:51 So, I think that is the intent. 1:02:55 Although it's going to raise the issues, raise the cost for the citizens of the county 1:03:03 overall and there'll be charges and fees that are backed up in ordinance that were not before, 1:03:12 if that makes sense. This fee schedule is much more extensive than the two or three pages that we had before. 1:03:20 Do we have a time frame that we must accomplish this task? that goes into 1:03:25 effect January 2027, January 1 and 2027 1:03:31 and then so long as we have it passed um they extended it from I think 60 days 1:03:39 to 90 days. So after the commissioners pass it then I cannot implement the fee increases for 90 days and I'll have to advertise again. 1:03:51 That makes a lot of sense. software support makes sense. 1:03:55 Will you have the software software support to be able to integrate this into the office? Yes, we did it before. 1:04:03 Okay. Okay. So, what do you want from us? 1:04:12 Review and see. I mean, there's a lot here. I mean, even if you all want to call each other and say, you know, you take this section, I'll take that 1:04:20 section. However you want to split it up. 1:04:24 But I I hope everybody knows by now I like feedback and you know break stuff over the coals. We whatever our end 1:04:32 product is, I want it to be the best it can be and it can't be the best just by one person, you know, putting stuff on paper. 1:04:45 This is subject to commissioner approval once we Yeah. 1:04:48 So, we'll take this as a starting point and let's see where we get, how much feedback we get, what kind of changes we 1:04:57 want to make, and um then maybe put it up for a vote in October or November. 1:05:06 Questions, commission members? I have a question for Mr. Glitterfield. 1:05:13 So I'm confused about when we go to the city legislators and when that's just 1:05:21 the commissioners. So like would because like for flood plane ordinances or some ordinance changes we have to take it to each legislature. Would this have to be 1:05:29 approved by each legislature or is it the commissioner? 1:05:32 This would have to be the commissioners are the legislative branch in county government. So they have to approve it. 1:05:38 But so like Van Beer and and Fairmount wouldn't have to approve it or No, I this is the Grant County feast. 1:05:45 Grant County. Oh, okay. And then the cities just kind of sign on to that and say whatever. 1:05:51 I would assume you would have the same responsibility in your individual city. 1:05:57 If you have fees, I would I believe this would apply to you also. You would have to be able to justify those fees. 1:06:07 So it's creating more work. I know. 1:06:10 Clayton, is your question related to like you're talking about it because of the the towns that are part of area there? 1:06:16 Right. Yeah. So, like my thought would be But this isn't a change to the zoning ordinance. This isn't a change to the area zoning ordinance. 1:06:25 Yes, it is. This will go in the area. 1:06:27 This is But this is this is a fee schedule though, right? But this isn't a this isn't like 1:06:33 a a change, right, of a zoning plan that has to then adopted as an ordinance by 1:06:41 each of the towns that are part of area plan. 1:06:46 I'm just always trying to drill down on what precisely the relationship is between the area plan commission as constituent cities that are signed on. 1:06:56 And maybe someday I'll understand 1:06:59 [laughter] 1:07:00 But thank you for your clarification. Yeah. Right. Yeah. I'd love to. Yeah. Let's get lunch sometime. Sure. 1:07:07 [clears throat] 1:07:08 Other questions? 1:07:13 All right. Hearing none, we will move to item seven, public input. If you would come to the podium. I've got one more item. 1:07:21 Oh, I'm sorry. Real quick. Okay. Sure. 1:07:29 I'm sure everybody is very aware of the current storms we've had and it's been unprecedented 1:07:36 with our permitting system in the office right now. So for example in 2025 for the entire year there were 187 roofing permits issued. 1:07:49 This year we are at 717 roofing permits for the year. We 1:07:58 o over 187 for the year last we were doing in um electrical permits the whole thing. Um and sorry 1:08:07 I'm trying to remember what year it was 2017 there was an ice storm and they were breaking their records there uh for 1:08:15 entire permits 1,291 so far this year and we still have four full months to go. We're at 1,034. 1:08:25 So, we're just a few below the record-breaking years. There's been no backup. There's no been no extended way. 1:08:33 The office is moving smoothly. And Randy Barry, our building inspector, has as 1:08:40 you can imagine for every, you know, a single broking permit, it's three inspections on average. So he is just 1:08:48 going really above and beyond but lots of activity in the office and you know 1:08:55 we took it down from a part-time to a full-time regen with that position and there's been no glitch. 1:09:02 So just update you all on that. Very good. 1:09:06 Well, thank you Tammy for what you guys are doing in that office. Appreciate you. Anything else Todd? That's it. 1:09:14 All right. At that point, we will open it up to state public comment. Yes. Comment. 1:09:20 We need you to sign your name. State your name. You don't have to give your address, but state your name and sign it. You're right. Fair. 1:09:30 Uh I'm a grain farmer in Fairmont and then also the policy chairman for Grant County Farm Bureau here in Grant County. 1:09:36 Um, I was watching the meeting prior on video and so I didn't realize that um, hey brought up earlier by Ed Hartman 1:09:44 about memoratoriums, but I guess I have a question for Ed. Why are we talking about the moratorum and I've been [clears throat] told by the APC that 1:09:54 when Ron Mauy put this on 8 years ago that it was never legal because he never had a public hearing and now we can't 1:10:02 even find the records on a moratorum. So why are we discussing a moratorum when I thought we was past that? 1:10:09 Well, some records we've found says that a moratorum was put on. 1:10:14 And [clears throat] for one thing, I don't want to get down the road and find out we didn't do things right. 1:10:21 This will have a be a hot button issue. I know it will. 1:10:25 We don't want to just jump into it without knowing what we're doing. 1:10:29 this moratorum that you've been talking about. Do you have a public record on it? 1:10:34 I have minutes from 2018 when it says the commissioners passed the moratorum. 1:10:41 Was it filed? And then you have records of that viol. 1:10:44 You can actually find that on the public website. 1:10:48 Was it legal when he didn't? No. The memorial? I don't know. 1:10:53 He didn't have a public hearing. He had a public meeting. Well, you know, that's definitely a process error. Now, would 1:11:01 the court overlook the commission have the final say? [snorts] That's that's a question. 1:11:08 Well, yeah, I think it is an error. So, how can it be legal? And why are we discussing this? 1:11:13 Sometimes the courts will not send that back just because it was a process error. When the commissioners 1:11:22 have final say, when the commissioners have final say of what is done, you know, it's going to be the way they want it. 1:11:32 So, they passed it. The question is, would it be thrown out 1:11:39 because it take a court? 1:11:43 Would you have to have a public hearing for that to be legal? The wrong matter. 1:11:47 That's the process for the APC to have a public hearing. 1:11:52 And you know, we also had a solar ordinance passed without a public hearing that we recently replaced that solar ordinance last year. 1:12:04 And you know, the only way we could get that overturned was if we had sued. 1:12:12 We could have taken that to court for a summary judgement, but it was one 1:12:18 attorney coded us $38,000 to do that and it was like that's a terrible amount 1:12:28 and they didn't do it. Instead, they focused on trying to get two new commissioners elected and get a new 1:12:36 solar ordinance then. So it is the same situation. 1:12:41 An ordinance was passed by the commissioners. We think there was no public hearing. 1:12:49 I don't see any documentation about it. 1:12:52 [snorts] 1:12:52 And unfortunately we have a trouble we have a trouble spot here in that we cannot find our records. 1:12:59 I know. So that's a lot of records even legit whether it's even legal. Well, 1:13:07 what we have is we've have evidence that it was passed by meeting minutes that were recorded. That's what we've found. 1:13:16 And you've also found the moratorium in the recorder's office. 1:13:22 So, I mean, like we've said, and you've asked me before, and I told you, we all 1:13:28 knew a moratorum was put on. We don't know if it was taken off. 1:13:34 And if it had been taken off, I think a lot of people would know it. 1:13:38 So, what's the next step if you think it's legal at this point, legit? 1:13:42 He's going to try and find out. But it's a tough issue because we've already been down that road on solar. And they said, "Well, 1:13:51 you'll have to sue to find out." And by the way, even if you spend all that money, the court may 1:14:00 just say it goes back to the APC to do it correctly. It's not necessarily straight. 1:14:07 Well, I'll tell you, Ed, I just I get this feeling that we're just against everything [cough and clears throat] in this county. Well, you know what? That's aggravating. 1:14:15 I feel we're in favor [snorts] of transparency and being a little bit more careful. Well, I think they run into 1:14:23 I think you're grasping at straws and you're trying to pull out a moratorum that we don't even know that's legal and legit and you're trying to use that to slow this process down or stop it. 1:14:34 Well, slow it down for sure and do it right. For sure. 1:14:38 I tell you, we've been waiting for 8 years to get this done and get one straight down. Mr. President, this is a personal argument, not public. It'll be taken up after the meeting. 1:14:47 Thank you. Thank you, sir. Anybody else? 1:14:57 Chad Kirkpatrick 2885 North 1100 East Van Beurren 1:15:03 um memorial we need to support our Grand County agriculture u for several years 1:15:10 now I've heard u we need to support our local farms we can't have solar we can't do this well we need to [snorts] make it 1:15:17 so farmers can actually farm and do agricultural things on agricultural land instead of arguing about it. Um, you 1:15:25 know, I went and checked on this moratorium thing way before all this even started and every was like, we think there might be one, but we couldn't ever find any paperwork for it. 1:15:32 So now here we are that this young man spent a lot of time and money getting ready to do this process and now it's like, well, sorry, but you're going to 1:15:40 have to wait another 6 months. That's just uncalled for. So, um, very disappointing. Um, hope you 1:15:48 guys can make the right decisions coming forward. So, Mr. President, Chad, no one's saying 1:15:55 that. We're going to look into it and try to get the facts and we're going to make sure the statute because my guess is the statute covers 1:16:04 that anyway. And I think that's why we're going to be in executive session and discuss this to make sure we're correct. 1:16:11 It's just funny. It comes up now. I know I've been knowledge of all this 1:16:18 because I know the gentlemen brought it right before the 1:16:22 [clears throat] 1:16:23 well Mr. Glance and myself have had some discussion on this because the issue the gentleman before you was talking about 1:16:31 needs to be examined and there there is an issue on if there [snorts] the moratorum either one is gone or two is 1:16:40 not in correct was incorrectly put in place or three whether state statute governs it then the issue becomes there 1:16:48 is no the moratorum is not there and then the state statutes are going to concern govern what happens And I [snorts] think that's what we're 1:16:55 going to be discussing at the executive session. I hope that helps. 1:17:02 Hi, I'm Andy Ellis. Um, Fairl and, uh, you can already see this is an 1:17:08 emotional issue, right? And the folks of Grant County, I think, deserve to know. 1:17:16 And [snorts] I think I have to commend the body that we've had here that the things that that you've gone about 1:17:24 and trying to put in place to try to make sure that there's full transparency within our community. 1:17:32 I think that is critical to get buy in from your constituents, from the people that you're supposed to represent. So 1:17:40 [clears throat] 1:17:41 I I I it sounds to me like there's a difference of opinion on the moratorum and and and how it was decided somewhat 1:17:48 unilaterally that it was over which is probably deserved a little bit of 1:17:55 investigation before doing that. Um but at the same time um it it it sounds like 1:18:02 that uh um that they're trying to do the right thing, but as you can see, there's a lot of emotion around this. And the 1:18:12 people on the other side that are going to be impacted by this probably would like to weigh in also. [snorts] And and 1:18:20 it sounds like that we and tell me I'm wrong, but we backed into an obsolete ordinance from 2006 1:18:28 that can't really represent what the needs are of Grant County today 1:18:35 and and partner, but there's also other people in this community. Got people that work at factories, people that work 1:18:43 in restaurants, people that live in the country, people live in the city. 1:18:47 They all should be involved and understand what's going on. And so I just would ask you to very much 1:18:56 I hate to use the term slow down, but don't we've all lived through where it seemed like things were being done in secret 1:19:05 and then we didn't find about it out about it until it was, you know, in our face. And I don't think we have to go about it that way. I think it's 1:19:13 important to go out ahead, get out in front of it. Um, Ed is taking a sounds like a little tough stamp, but I think he's just trying to pass um, pick out 1:19:22 process and make sure that we follow the law, follow the rules, and make sure that we got something that the community can live. So, I'd ask you to please do 1:19:31 due diligence, and try to try to take care of your neighbor. Thank you. 1:19:47 Michael Duke, Green County. 1:19:51 Um, where I was sitting over there, I sat basically in the same chair in 2006 1:19:59 at the culmination of the 1:20:02 [snorts] 1:20:04 discussion of the issue of whether or not a CAFA was going to be approved in northeastern Durant County. 1:20:13 Um it was very very emotional at that time and we don't need that kind of emotion 1:20:21 again. We need reason this as words been said by Mr. Ellis about commending you 1:20:28 for trying to keep if that's the right word for men that uh this body for being 1:20:36 transparent and addressing the issue head on. 1:20:39 [snorts] 1:20:40 um that is appropriate. 1:20:43 I would ask that our citizens look at this in a judicious way just as 1:20:52 the body is trying to make an effort of looking at this issue in a judicious way, 1:21:00 in a transparent way in order to solve a problem, get an answer and solve a problem. 1:21:07 I would appeal to the community for calm. 1:21:10 We we do not want to have that emotion that existed here in 2006 1:21:17 and probably you know a couple of years along the way since then has been there. 1:21:23 The thing that strikes out in the back of my mind, and I will remember this for a long a long time till I'm put in my 1:21:31 grave, is that the person that was sitting next to me in that seat over there made a comment about putting a bomb in a 1:21:40 car of one of the members of the body up here. 1:21:46 So when I say emotion, that's when I'm making him feel that we avoid 1:21:54 and progress in a judicious methodical fashion as quickly as possible if it can be done expeditiously 1:22:03 and to do the conversation in a civil way. Thank you. Anyone else? 1:22:14 Okay. I I've heard the claim of lack of transparency. Todd and I have had continued discussion in regard to 1:22:20 whether this ordinance is uh lawful or still in effect or not. Uh there's been no 1:22:28 intended lack of transparency. We've we've believed that the ordinance wouldn't in 1:22:36 effect and we are following the procedure that would follow with any other application of any other development in the county. So, I'm 1:22:45 personally offended by this accusation that there's a lack of transparency. 1:22:51 There's been no attempt by myself as the president or Mr. Lansancy as the executive director to not have transparency. 1:23:01 [cough and clears throat] 1:23:02 I want that to be understood. 1:23:05 We have a plan. We'll meet in executive session. We'll discuss it. Mr. 1:23:10 Glickfield is going to look into the legality or the effectiveness of the current ordinance and we will move forward upon that point. We didn't 1:23:18 believe that there was any reason that we could not receive an application based on the discussions that we've had and the research that Mr. Glancy's done. 1:23:29 So there is no attempt to not provide transparency. Okay. 1:23:38 All right. Any other comments, commission members, before we end this? 1:23:41 Mr. President, can I try to clarify one thing? It sounds like there's been a little bit of confusion over something I said. 1:23:49 I firmly believe that the state of Indiana has taken over the vast majority of jurisdiction over kayos and most of 1:23:58 the requirements are going to come from the state of Indiana. When I was talking about a review, I was talking about a review in the sense because our 1:24:06 ordinance is going to be conflicting with state statute. When that happens, state statute overrides local ordinance. 1:24:14 So therefore, [snorts] we have to we as area plan have to construct a new 1:24:21 ordinance which covers what our jurisdiction is. That's what I was talking about potentially that period of 1:24:29 review to do that. That's what I was referring to. Nothing more. I hope that helps clarify. 1:24:38 Anything else, commission members? Anything, Mr. Glansancy? We good? 1:24:45 Okay. All right. We'll entertain a motion to adjurnn. 1:24:49 I have a motion from Mrs. Bowman to adjurnn. Do we have a second? Second. 1:24:53 Second. [clears throat] From Clayton and Gary. All right. Forget the second. 1:25:00 We'll put Gary on the record. All right. 1:25:02 [laughter] All those in favor signify by saying I. I. Oppose. Same sign. Meeting adjourned. 1:25:18 Yeah. 1:25:28 All right. 1:25:41 most 1:26:08 about We're still recording. 1:26:22 Thank you. No, I am.