Commissioners approve Temple & Temple paving bid and discuss Capital Asset Policy
- Nathaniel Smith | Editor-in-Chief
- 1 day ago
- 16 min read
The April 7 commissioners meeting saw the second reading of the proposed Capital Asset Policy and the approval of a Community Crossings paving bid awarded to Temple & Temple. As per usual, the meeting began with public comments from Lucy Brenton. The commissioners invited Brenton forward to utilize her time.
“I'm following up on a couple of things,” began Brenton. “I'm going to acknowledge Kyra's [Stephenson] email to me where she says, ‘I've been working on your public records request. What I have so far is on the county website.’ She then gave me some instructions on where to go. Just by looking here on my phone, I don't see the actual documents that I've requested. So Kyra, I will be responding to your email and restating in specificity the things that I had asked for.
“There are also some rumors around the county that I thought were super interesting because there was a former council member by the name of Keeley Stingel. But Phil [Marshall], it's interesting because they're saying that she might run for your spot next year. The thing I found so interesting about that is that what I've heard in the county is that she once sat on the county council and voted for various projects to go to a certain developer that we're all investigating. She might be trying to use that position, like the revolving door at the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) and the federal government, where people hop back and forth between private and public employment in order to extract the most from taxpayers. That really annoys me.
“In other news in the county, Rhonda [Greene] has requested claims and payroll, and she's been told that those documents are threatened with imminent destruction based on a timeline on when documents can be kept. Even though Rhonda has offered to personally pay – even $4,000 to $5,000 – to have these documents copied, $0.10 a page at a time. Apparently, she's been told that those documents may simply not be available. We're talking about historic documents for this county that should be preserved, especially since they may be involved in fraud. I just wanted to make sure that everybody knows what is going on with this county and to make the public alerted, and to get it here on public record that the rumors are going around and we know what's being planned.
“So, as I've said before on every single one of these forums, these things have been reported to the State Board of Accounts in Indiana, they've been reported to the Indiana State Police, we've gone to Todd Rokita and the Attorney General's Office to make them aware of the fraud that's occurring in Washington County. I just want to remind you that those who turn state's evidence are the ones who have the most leniency. As we get older in life, one of those things that we want to think about is, do we want to spend the rest of our lives behind bars at the shame of our family? Or do you want to do the right thing, step forward and be the person who says, ‘yep, we did some things that were wrong. We've stolen millions of tax dollars here in Washington County.’ And I was thinking about that the other day. If it's $3 million in tax dollars for this one project – just the one BOT project – as far as I can tell in the math I've done so far, you're looking at about $3 million over what that project was sold to us to be.
“We have 30,000 people in this county. That means every man, woman and child is paying 100 bucks just for this one fraudulent item. Now, I don't know how many contracts this particular developer has done with this county. I don't know what other fraud there may be that we haven't yet uncovered. But I do know that it is absolutely unfair for the taxpayers of this county to be stolen from time and time and time again. Those of you that are sitting right in front of me, you are the ones who are supposed to protect the individual citizens of this county. It's bad enough that we have to get up and go to work in the morning to pay property taxes so that our money can be wasted. It's bad enough that people go to work every day and try to just take care of their own families. But now we're in a situation where you actively collude, and I brought these documents here before. We have evidence of collusion. Now I'm asking for very simple documents, and I'm being told, ‘they're on the website.’ That is not an adequate FOIA request. That's not an adequate answer… I hope that you come forward with state's evidence. I hope you do the right thing and expose the fraud in this county. These are all my opinions and they are not the opinions of management.”
Commissioner Tony Cardwell then asked, “How long ago did you ask for this information?”
Brenton replied that it had been 49 days since she requested the information on February 17.
“The law specifically says a reasonable amount of time. All I have gotten are delays and non-answers. You're supposed to actually produce the documents for me. You're not supposed to just give me general directions on how to navigate a website. There was not a link to the documents. There was not an acknowledgement of what document might link to a certain or particular page. It was just basically like me saying to you, Tony, just go to the county website. If you go to the meetings and archives, you'll get what you're looking for. I don't think that I'm going to be getting what I'm looking for. There were some very particular documents that I requested: Copies of submissions of RFPs (Request for Proposals) from all responders, whether complete or incomplete, all correspondence and communications in whatever form with companies who did that. That's not something that you're going to publish on a county website. The thing that I was most looking for – and again, this is not something that's going to be published on the county website, so it's a total non-answer from Kyra. But we've already had April [Geltmaker] tell us that it's not legally required for you to tell us the truth, is what April said – but this is what I asked for–”
“That is not accurate,” interjected Attorney April Geltmaker.
Brenton asked, “Would you like me to read the email where you said that they don't have a duty, that it's all about context, whether or not they have to tell the truth? They're not under oath up here. I'll read the email, I'll find it.”
“I am going to say something about your records request,” said Auditor Kyra Stephenson. “You didn't read the part in the email that said, ‘you can find part of your records request on the website. If you would like to look at it on the website, or if you would like to pay for them’ – you left out that part – ‘it's $0.10 a page.’ I'm working on it. So, if you would like to look at what's on there, you can. Otherwise, if you want copies of it, then you will pay for them.”
“I will pay $0.10 per copy for the things that cannot be on the website?” Brenton asked. “Let's be very clear. I asked for any email correspondence between county commissioners, the county attorney, the county auditor, and representatives from Temple & Temple containing the words ‘BOT acreage, site size or change order.’ We're talking about major theft. We're talking about county commissioners who are giving away 19.5 acres of Washington County taxpayer assets to a developer, and you're saying, oh, the bot project went over by $400,000. Look how nice it is that this developer will just take this 19.5 acres in exchange. But the project shouldn't have gone over in the first place because it was never built to specifications. We've got a building that's 85ft short.”
“Mrs. Brenton, your time is up,” said Geltmaker. “And I'll also point out that the Indiana Public Records Act does allow for an agency to point you to a website where you can access those documents.”
“Where can I access documents, including email correspondence between you, the county commissioners and the county auditor?” Brenton asked.
“It's tax season, which is a very busy time, and I have other things to do that come before the records request,” said Stephenson.
Brenton once again remarked that it has been 49 days since the records request was submitted to the auditor’s office. Then, Jennifer Bowers spoke up and said, “I would just like to add, I also have a public records request, and apparently I received the same email that Lucy received saying they're available on the website under the BOT tab. Only part of the records I requested are available under that tab. So, only part of the requests are being filled. My request was submitted March the 3rd.”
Commissioner Cardwell then asked Rhonda Greene if she had received her records requests. Greene stated she has yet to submit a request but plans to do so, saying, “I don’t care how much it costs. It's important historically that these documents be saved. And to put it directly, these documents were generated on a computer. There is no reason that we shouldn't have [records from] all the way back to 2000.”
The meeting then pivoted to the approval of the meeting minutes from March 3 and 17. The minutes were approved 2-1, with Commissioner Cardwell opposing. He stated that the minutes claim he, “did not specify what he was saying.”
“I did,” he said. “I said the whole last part of the meeting did not get put in the minutes. As far as I know, they have never got corrected and I had asked for it in the previous meeting.”
“You didn’t put it in writing,” said Commissioner Todd Ewen.
The commissioners then invited Ron Higgins, State of Indiana Department of Veterans Affairs, and Veterans Affairs Service Officer Andrew Bush forward to discuss a new state law that affects the veterans affairs office. However, Bush has already been compliant with this new law, so there will be no change in how the Washington County office operates. Those interested in reading the about the law can do so here:
April Geltmaker then proceeded with the second reading of the ordinance meant to establish a capital asset policy. The first reading was during the previous commissioners meeting.
“The State of Indiana and the State Board of Accounts require each county in Indiana to adopt a policy,” she said. “This policy must detail the threshold at which an item is considered a capital asset. In order for the commissioners to ensure compliance with various accounting and financial reporting standards, including the State of Indiana and the State Board of Accounts, Accounting and Uniform Compliance Guidelines for Counties and Governmental Accounting Standards Board. Commissioners believe that an update to its capital policy is necessary to keep track of, and inventory of the assets belonging to the county.
“This capital asset policy is attached to the proposed ordinance. This will replace Ordinance 2023-09. Capital assets are defined as assets having a useful life of more than one year and an acquisition cost of $10,000 or more. Capital assets may include land, land improvements, buildings, building improvements, machinery and equipment, vehicles, construction work in progress, works of art, historical treasures and infrastructure. Those items with a useful life of more than one year and a cost of $10,000 or more shall be capitalized, including acquisitions by lease, purchase agreements and donated items. Land will be capitalized but not depreciated. Construction work in progress will be included in the capital asset inventory and depreciated once the project is complete and transferred to the county. Items costing less than $10,000 that are permanently installed as part of the cost of the original construction or installation of larger building or equipment unit, or that prolong a fixed assets economic life or expand its usefulness will be included in the cost of the larger unit.
“All capital assets meeting the criteria will be included in the county's fixed asset inventory and reported in the county's financial statements. Assets that are not capitalized and are expensed in the year of the acquisition. County departments must maintain an inventory of capital assets under their supervision. Capital threshold and inventory is defined as: capital threshold, a fixed asset for financial reporting purposes at a cost greater than $10,000. The cost of the asset will include expenses necessary to make the asset fully operational. Assets acquired through lease purchase agreements that meet these specifications are to be capitalized. The cost will be determined as the present value or discounted value of the future stream of lease payments, not the total lease. Capital assets are recorded at historical costs. Normally, the cost is recorded at purchase price or construction costs of the asset but may also include other reasonable, necessary costs incurred to place the asset in its intended location and use, including legal and title fees, closing costs, appraisal negotiation fees and survey costs, land preparation costs, demolition costs, architect engineering and accounting fees and transportation charges. Assets that are donated or contributed should be recorded at the fair market value on the date donated. If no cost is available for a fixed asset, replacement cost with historic cost index may be used. Items that do not meet the definition of capital assets are to be expensed in the year the asset is acquired.
“Capital assets valuation: Land is defined as specified land, lots, parcels or acreage, including right-of-way owned by Washington County. Buildings and improvements are structures designed and erected to house equipment, services or functions, including systems and fixtures within the buildings and attachments such as stairs, fire escapes, canopies, lighting fixtures, flagpoles and other items that serve the building. Plumbing systems, lighting systems, heating and cooling, venting and air handling systems, sound systems, surveillance, elevators, built in casework, walk-in coolers and freezers, fixed shelving and other fixed equipment are included as building components. Equipment includes all other types of physical property such as mechanical equipment, heavy equipment, office furniture, appliances, furnishings, machinery items, maintenance equipment, communication equipment, laboratory equipment and data processing equipment. Supplies that typically get used within one year are not included in equipment. Vehicles include all vehicles for which title and license must be obtained, including cars, trucks, buses, road-going trailers, dump trucks and highway trucks. Vehicle accessories are defined as a component asset of the vehicle to which they are attached. Infrastructure is defined as assets that are long-lived. Capital assets normally can be preserved for a significantly greater number of years than most capital, and are normally stationary in nature. Some examples include roads, bridges, storm water and drainage systems.
Geltmaker continued, “Responsibilities for inventory and reporting these capital assets: Department heads are the stewards for each piece of property utilized by their department, and the steward will be the focal point for questions for availability, condition and usage of the asset. The steward shall be designated as the person to record the receipt of the asset, to examine the asset, to make sure no damage was incurred during shipment, and to make sure the asset was received in working order.
“The steward is also responsible for arranging the necessary preventative maintenance and any needed repairs to keep the asset in working condition. The steward also ensures that the asset is used for the purpose for which it was acquired, and that there is no personal or unauthorized usage. The steward is responsible for reporting any loss, theft or damage to the assets. Departments are to maintain inventories of all capital assets, including those that are capitalized and reported to the county's capital asset inventory, and controllable assets with an acquisition cost of $999.99 or less, and which are tracked in inventory. Department heads are to report newly acquired assets, retired assets, transferred assets, and assets used that previously were not included in the county's asset inventory to the Washington County Auditor's Office. Department heads are required to use the auditor's office, prescribe forms and to meet with the auditor's office or its designee if necessary, for the proper preparation of the capital assets reports. Department heads must abide by all auditor office deadlines for reporting. Typically, asset reporting is to be completed by the first Friday of the first full week in January each year. Those assets below capitalization thresholds but considered sensitive may include, but are not limited to weapons, radios, computers, chainsaws, equipment and power tools. These minor but sensitive items shall be inventoried and controlled at the department level by the head of the operating department. Stated inventory shall be conducted annually. The County Auditor's Office is to receive a copy of the inventory and or updated inventories for minor but sensitive items.
“Department heads are responsible for ensuring that the acquisitions of capital assets follow all policies, statutes, regulations including proper advertising, use of proper budgetary codes and accounting forms, and all required appropriation approvals. The Washington County Commissioners and the Auditor's Office may conduct spot checks of the asset inventory and condition on a random, unannounced basis.
“Responsibilities of the County Auditor's Office: The County Auditor's Office is responsible for ensuring that accounting for capital assets is being exercised by establishing a capital asset inventory that is updated annually for additions, retirements, transfers and items retroactively added. The auditor's office is responsible for securing a fixed asset advisor for the county if deemed necessary and for the financial reporting of the capital assets, including depreciation, expense and assets included in the inventory but not depreciated.
“Depreciation methods: the county will depreciate capital assets by using a straight line method. Salvage value will be determined on an asset by asset basis. Assets will be depreciated based on the estimated useful life of each asset. The following are the estimated useful lives for each asset class:
Buildings - 50 years
Infrastructure being Depreciated - 50 years
Building Components and Improvement - 20 to 50 years
Machinery and Equipment - 5 to 15 years
Vehicles - 5 to 10 years
“So this ordinance establishing a capital asset policy is presented for the commissioners for approval today. And as I said, this is required by the State of Indiana State Board of Accounts and is in compliance with all accounting and financial reporting standards.”
Commissioner Cardwell then brought up a concern he had about the increase from $500 to $10,000. He stated that he had received information that recommended $5,000 instead. He also mentioned the need to involve the county council and asked County Council President Brad Gilbert his thoughts on the matter.
“I just would like to add that the concern of multiple members of the council is primarily two things,” began Gilbert. “We just want to make sure that we are not being excluded from a process that is duly in our elected role as council members. And there's been some questions about making sure that everything has been transparent and everyone is involved. So if those questions come back that defines us specifically where we need to be in the process and where the commissioners need to be in the process. I think that's a good thing to discuss, to make sure that we're all on the same page and not just rush something through when there are still questions. The other aspect is there's been questions about the amount being raised. So we would just want to make sure that raising the amount from $500 to $10,000 is the appropriate thing for Washington County. The state recommendation is $5,000. Just making sure that we're all on the same page, that no one is being excluded from the process, and that $10,000 is the appropriate amount. If that is what the appropriate amount for Washington County is, then so be it.”
Commissioner Phillip Marshall then asked Commissioner Tony Cardwell if he would be satisfied with raising the amount to $5,000 instead, to which Cardwell replied, “not with excluding the council out of the process.”
The commissioners decided to table the discussion to allow time for the commissioners and county council to communicate more on the matter.
Rick Voyles was then invited forward to provide updates on highway projects.
“Bridge 61 has been opened to through traffic, but it is not yet complete,” he said. “We're going to wait a couple weeks and let it settle before paving. Highway 150 and Radcliffe Road intersection improvement: there are two pieces of property affected by the project. We have met with the landowners, and as a result, property number one to the west of Radcliffe Road has been donated by Mr. [Mark] Ratzloff and Ace Hardware. Property number two to the east of Radcliffe Road, we've agreed upon a price of $1,550 for 0.176 acres of permanent right-of-way to be purchased for Mr. Osborne. If the commissioners are agreeable to move forward with that.”
The motion was made to approve the purchase, and it passed unanimously. Voyles then began to present three Community Crossings paving bids for the commissioners to vote on:
Temple & Temple - $1,497,509
C&R Construction - $1,649,102
MAC Construction - $1,886,343.40
A motion was made to accept Temple & Temple as the lowest bidder, and it passed unanimously. Before the meeting adjourned, Commissioner Cardwell brought up some concerns he had.
“You probably don't want to hear it, but it's been brought to my attention over and over and over, and I've tried to get it put on the agenda and everything about maybe having some of the meetings in the evenings and all that for the attendance of the public. The ones that work and can't make it. There's been several people approach me about it and asked, how come I have not brought it up before now? So I'm bringing it up. I think it's something we need to look into. Just for the purpose of the community and the public and everything. You might not agree, but I think it's a great idea.
“It's also been brought to my attention – I'm a hands-on person. I go around and talk to a lot of the employees and this and that, and I think that's something that any public official probably ought to do and get both sides of everything. With that being said, a lot of people I walk in, they say, ‘well, I can't talk to you,’ because they're afraid of retaliation from other public officials or whatnot, this stuff has got to stop, guys. It's got to stop.”
“What are you talking about?” asked Commissioner Todd Ewen.
“Exactly what I said,” replied Cardwell. “Maybe you should go out and talk to the people.”
“I talk to them every day,” Ewen said.
“Not the ones I talk to, evidently,” Cardwell said. “They’ve got the problem with you. They don’t have it with me.”
Ewen laughed and said, “you have a wild imagination.”
Cardwell then mentioned the fact that the commissioners meetings used to feature a time at the end of the meeting before adjournment where members of the public were allowed to ask questions and make comments. He inquired as to why that is no longer the case.
“Yes, you're right, we used to do that,” said Ewen. “And that was fine. But I believe you were told early on that according to what the state requires, there are certain rules and protocols that you're supposed to follow and that didn't fit into it according to what April [Geltmaker] said… We have three minutes designated to anyone who would like to speak.”
“But it's our choice to do it the way we want. If we want to have one at the beginning where people can talk and have one at the end, that's our choice as commissioners.”
Geltmaker explained, “the reason for having public comment in the beginning is so that the public can comment on agenda items. If we had it at the end, then you would have already voted on agenda items not having heard from the public.”
“I understand that point, but the point being too after the fact, after we go through the meeting, people may have questions of what would happen, and that would be a good idea to open it up at such a point,” Cardwell said. “We can limit it to half an hour or whatever, But to deny it totally, it is unjust to the people we serve. I try to stay in touch with reality and go around. I talk to department heads. I talked to the other elected officials. I talked to the community on a daily basis. This is what I hear. I vowed to bring it up and I'm bringing it up. Now it's in your all's court. I will continue to bring it up.”
Following his comments, the meeting was adjourned.
