Commissioners discuss READI Grants, decide to try evening meetings
- Nathaniel Smith | Editor-in-Chief
- May 14
- 33 min read
The May 6 Commissioners Meeting tackled topics such as dental and vision insurance for county employees, as well as an extensive dive into READI grants and the 4-H building project. They also decided to move the second meeting in June, June 16, to 7:00 pm instead of 9:00 am.
As per usual, the meeting began with public comments. This week, David Lyles was first to speak.
“Thank you all for having me,” began Lyles. “Before I read a short statement, I’d like to ask Todd [Ewen] if he’d like to recant what you had said in a commissioners meeting that I had resigned. I think you had misspoken.”
“I don’t recall. I’ll have to look at the minutes,” replied Commissioner Ewen.
Lyles continued, “on the fifth of January at 4:29 pm, I received a text from Todd Ewen’s phone asking the following: ‘Are you wanting to continue serving on the plan commissioner board?’ My response was, ‘yes.’ His response was, ‘thank you.’ Next, on January 16, 2026, I received an incoming call at 9:40 am from Todd. Pleasantries were exchanged, and then he proceeded to convey that he will not be reappointing me to the board. He never expressed any reason for my dismissal but thanked me for my hard work and dedication to my community. He then expressed how we weren’t that close but that we respected each other. I agreed. This conversation lasted three minutes and thirty seconds, and there was never any conversation about me resigning. I then found out some time later that Todd had said at a commissioners meeting that I had resigned. That’s a bold-face lie if he said that– with no fact or witness thereof that I ever did that and I denied that completely.
“The problem we have is the incompetence of the planning and zoning board,” continued Lyles. “They have me listed for– this is 7/1/2025– they had me appointed by the commissioners on 4/16/2024, my term expired 4/15/2028, they continue that in August and October. Sometime late in 2026, they decided to change it, and my term now has expired on 1/5/2025. They never acknowledged that; they never told me that. Supposedly, I was reappointed in 2025, but that never happened. We all got on the board and found out that as of May 5 of last year, none of us had even taken the oath of office. There was no reason for me not to be given a 30-day notice. A letter that you weren’t going to reappoint me. That’s what the law requires, and I have, to this day, not received anything. I’d like to know, did you tell them I resigned or that I wasn’t going to be reappointed?”
“I told you, David, I don’t recall,” replied Commissioner Ewen. “I do recall our conversation. I think at that time you had said you were going through some personal things, and I thought that you had understood that we found someone else willing to serve. I believe your exact words were, ‘that’s all right.’”
“Of course,” said Lyles. “I did say, ‘all right’ because you’re head of the planning and zoning board, and it’s your position to appoint or not appoint. This is just another continuance of all the illegal activity that’s gone on with this board. We had a trial in 2022 laid against this Turner guy saying that we had a 60 foot setback–”
Lyles was then informed by Attorney April Geltmaker that his speaking time was up. The commissioners then invited Max Greene forward to utilize his time.
“I’m asking that the county acts in good faith because I believe the public hearings should have the same YouTube requirement that you have for this meeting– which should be advertised in a newspaper as well in accordance with Indiana Code 5-14-1.5-2.9. And the notice on the bulletin boards out here requires membership appointments and the terms and their beginning and ending dates according to Indiana Code 5-14-9-6. These are supposed to be staggered terms. One expires each year and two expire on the fourth year, but that’s not what we’ve been seeing on our meeting notices. We’ve not been compliant with Indiana Code which requires the terms actually be reflected on the meeting notices for the zoning board. I’ll also mention we had a moratorium passed for the solar farm issue, but back in 2022, the zoning board had passed unanimously a solar farm ordinance– which never went to public hearing– and we ended up getting a moratorium because we didn’t have any restrictions drawn up and in place, and I think that’s unfair to the people who had these leases signed and not to be able to follow their lease or for the county to went ahead and did it at the appropriate time when they should have to pass what ordinances they had required at the time.”
Lucy Brenton was next on the list for public comments.
“My name is Lucy Brenton, and I enjoy my position being a thorn in the side of those people who would do evil things and bad things against the taxpayers of this county. I was appointed to the Planning Commission, and similar to what David Lisle said, the Planning Commission was suffering from a lack of oaths which are required by law and that Todd's son-in-law was on the Plan Commission. There was a political party makeup problem there where we had too many Republicans, not enough Democrats or others. And then Andrew Katt resigned. If I'm correct, that's Todd's son-in-law's name. The next appointee to the Plan commission actually resigned in protest. Literally got there for his first meeting, and then he resigned because he could see that it was kind of a poop show. Then I came on and was appointed as a libertarian to solve the problem of party makeup. It's been obvious that attempts have been made to steer me towards removal. And according to some, my appointment is going to be up here in January of next year. So, I would like to say that I am not suicidal with regards to the Plan Commission meeting, and I do not want to be removed. I want to continue to serve the people of Washington County. I'm a very important counter voice, going against just about anything that would cost the taxpayers even a penny. I am also firmly in favor of your right to do with your property and your body and your personal assets, whatever you want to do, as long as you don't hurt anybody else.
“Having been a member of that plan commission since last August, I was at the meeting where Mr. Ewen announced that David Lyles had resigned, but he was very appreciative of the amount of time that Mr. Lyles had served on the board,” continued Brenton. “I'm sure that anyone can see that my recollection is correct by simply listening to the live stream at Washington County, Indiana YouTube channel. I think it's just indicative of the kind of subtext of underhanded things that go on in this county that Mr. Ewen up there would disavow his own memory and his own actions at removing Mr. Lyles in favor of somebody that is perhaps more easily persuaded to go along with certain things in this county. I just want to let you all know I am here to be the person that stands against the government, who is always getting in your way. As Ronald Reagan said, ‘“I'm from the government, and I'm here to help you” are the most frightening words in the English language.’ And so in closing, I also want to let everybody remember that Lori Gilstrap, who's on the Planning Commission, claims to be a Democrat but votes in Republican primaries. She is on there as a Democrat, yet lists herself as a Republican. More subterfuge, and just more examples of what goes on in this county.”
Jennifer Bowers came forward next to use her time. Bowers signed up for multiple topics, which allowed her multiple sets of three minutes.
“On May 21st, I was here and spoke in front of this body,” said Bowers. “The current proposed minutes state the following: ‘Miss Bowers questioned who decided on the 4-H building project for the READI grant. Commissioner Ewen explained the process. Miss Bowers was still not happy with the response.’ I feel a better reflection of what actually transpired would be: ‘Miss Bowers asked how the county decides projects for READI and other grant funds, specifically the 4-H building. Commissioner Ewen explained the process for READI grant submission itself, but not how the county decides on projects. Miss Bowers also asked how the 4-H building project went from $358,095 to $1,756,058. Commissioner Ewen stated it has not gone up and gave an explanation regarding in-kind donations from the city of Salem and day-to-day expenditures that need to happen in the moment. Commissioner Cardwell asked who is approving these expenses and why they are not being ratified by the commissioners. During the meetings, Commissioner Ewen and Commissioner Cardwell disagree about what needs approval by the body as a whole. Miss Bowers asked why there had not been more discussion and disclosure of the 4-H building project during commissioner meetings. Commissioner Ewen stated that everyone has the commissioners phone numbers and should call them if they have questions. Miss Bowers disagreed that taxpayers should have to reach out to commissioners personally for information. Commissioner Ewen offered to answer her questions after the meeting. Miss Bowers stated she did not want to speak after the meeting but would rather discuss in the open meeting. Attorney Steve Langdon stated Miss Bowers' three minutes was up. There was a disagreement between Miss Bowers and Attorney Langdon about whether she actually received three minutes to make her comment, as Commissioner Ewen was the one speaking the majority of the time. During this exchange, Commissioner Ewen called on Sheriff Brent Miller. Miss Bowers asked if she was going to be arrested. Attorney Steve Langdon stated no one was threatening to arrest anyone. Miss Bowers was told if she would remain after the meeting adjourned, her questions would be answered.’
“That is why I'm assuming that Commissioner Cardwell continues to object to the meeting minutes,” Bowers added. “They are not a true reflection of what actually transpires. I would also like to note that I stayed until 11 to have my questions answered, and I was then told I needed to vacate the galley [sic] for an exit interview that was not open to the public. It was then agreed between myself, Commissioner Cardwell, Commissioner Ewen and Attorney Langdon that I would be called and could return to have my questions answered. Mr. Cardwell called me at 12:20 pm to tell me the meeting had adjourned, but he was the only one still present. I opted not to return because Commissioner Cardwell could not answer the questions I have. So, here I am again.
“My next topic is board appointments. I've asked about the document on the county website that's titled Washington County Appointments several times in this meeting and even off the record, as the document is often out of date. As far as I'm aware, the names and dates on the boards listed are current. However, there are boards that are missing from the document, such as the Washington County Economic Growth Partnership, our Southern Indiana RDA (Regional Development Authority), River Hills Economic Development District and Salem Planning Commission. There are people appointed to those boards by this body, so they should be reflected on that document that all the other county boards are on. I asked during one of the January meetings who's responsible for maintaining this document. And the answer for Commissioner Ewen was the auditor. These boards were on previous versions of the document, so I'm wondering why they are not on the current version.
“My next topic is the grant project selection process. The reason I was here two weeks ago was to ask not why we are doing this 4-H building, but how that process is determined. I would like to know who specifically– or what entity specifically– decides on the projects to submit for grant funding for this county. Is each department head responsible for sourcing their own grant funds? Do department heads or others meet with the commissioners to determine what grants are available and the best projects to be presented? Maybe the projects are identified and then grant funding is sourced. I heard Deni from the EMA come and talk about a grant that she had sourced for windows for this building. I'm just trying to figure out how these things work. Do we source the grant and then decide the project, or do we decide the project and then source the grant? I understand there are different types of grants and they have different types of rules, in regards to READI grants, I'd like to know how the county determines which projects it's going to submit for READI funding. Are the council and commissioner representatives making those recommendations? Because there are representatives from this body and the council that sit on these growth partnership and RDA boards. Are there guidelines that they follow when selecting a project? Is there a scoring matrix? Maybe there's a master list of projects like Rick has at the highway department. I know he has a master paving list, so if somebody says my road's not paved, they can call Rick and say, here's my road. Can you tell me where it is on the schedule to be paved? Maybe we maintain a list like that for county projects. And I'd also like to know why the commissioner representative from these boards doesn't come to this meeting and give updates on those projects.
“We're back to the 4-H building because my questions from two weeks ago still remain, as I was not giving any answers after the meeting adjourned. I stated this already, but I'll state it again. I was told I needed to vacate the galley [sic] for an exit interview. It was not open to the public. Commissioner Ewen, Attorney Steve Langdon, Commissioner Cardwell and myself all agreed that Commissioner Cardwell would call me when the exit interview was complete so that I may return. Commissioner Cardwell called me. No one was still here. I didn't come back. I'm still asking the same question. I'm not against this project. I just do not understand the process used for selecting the project or how the costs were determined. My understanding is that it was submitted by the growth partnership. Yet the application itself lists Kyra as the submitter and Commissioner Ewen stated that the commissioner submitted it. Maybe this is normal, but outside of generic updates regarding READI funding and being told this was the project submitted, the general public, which is the taxpayers, have been given no information on how this project was chosen on our behalf, or how the cost went from $358,095 to $1,756,058. I would like to state again I understand how the READI grant itself works. I understand the flow. That's been discussed here numerous times. I'm not disagreeing with that. But I've been back through old minutes. I've watched old meetings when the READI grant was discussed, and it is just solely an overview of how READI works. There's no information about how this county chooses projects for READI. That's what my question is. How does this county determine what it's going to submit for READI grant funding?”
Bowers then finished her comments by suggesting that the commissioners consider evening meetings. She then returned to her seat and was replaced by Rhonda Greene. Greene stated that she believes a signal jammer is being used in the courthouse in order to disrupt wireless livestreams. She then stated that she plans to record videos of the meetings in addition to livestreaming to ensure she retains a usable recorded copy of the meeting.
“Are you saying somebody's done this to the county?” asked Commissioner Phillip Marshall.
“No, I'm saying that you– and I don't know if you knew what you were talking about– you were talking on the phone with someone named Bill, and you asked if there was a jammer up there. But my time's up, Phil. Thank you so much,” Greene said.
Lucy Brenton then announced from the gallery that she also heard that conversation in the meeting recording, adding, “anybody that listens to the actual recording can hear you ask about the jammer, and they can also hear you ask Steve Langdon why I didn't issue an apology for the alleged defamation.”
Commissioner Marshall then offered to speak with Greene after the meeting regarding the topic, to which Greene replied, “I think it would be prudent not to talk to me about it.”
“Isn't using a jammer in official public communications a felony in this state?” asked Lucy Brenton from the gallery.
The commissioners then made a motion to approve the following meeting’s minutes as well as claims and payroll. Commissioner Cardwell voted against approving the minutes and did not vote to approve claims and payroll. Both passed 2-1.
“I’ve got a few questions on that,” Cardwell said. He then asked about a “change order” on a claims docket for the amount of $277,500.72.
“I need some explanations on why– why are we taking the whole amount when that was for the stone and we done paid 181– I want the public to hear why,” said Cardwell.
“Have you got the paper on the 181 he keeps talking about?” Marshall asked Auditor Kyra Stephenson.
“This is the amount of one of the claims,” said Commissioner Todd Ewen. “This does not reflect the total amount of the stone, which needs to be transferred from one fund to another. It has nothing to do with the total amount.”
Cardwell asked where the funds were being transferred from, to which Ewen replied, “Edit funds. We do it all the time.”
“The original contract was for $4,800,000,” added Commissioner Phillip Marshall. “The previous change orders were zero. The current change order is $277,500.72. Revised contract $5,077,572. Time for performance on the BOT agreement was adjusted. The original completion date was April 15th, 2026. The council came to us and Rick [Voyles] and gave us the name of the engineer to do this project to figure everything out. The blacktop was shorted 2,400 tons. You see what 2,400 tons do out there right now. You haven't got the whole blacktop area. Rick doesn't want to move into the highway department until the whole thing's done. Now. We did not haul the stone, which was in the original proposal. We were going to haul the stone. We didn't do that, so we failed on our part. I talked to Dave Umpleby and I talked to Cam a week ago, and right now we are being threatened with a lawsuit if we don't honor our part of what we stated. There's some other discrepancies on the fuel tanks. DNR had come to us about a year or two ago (3-4 years ago according to Rick Voyles) saying our tanks were pretty well obsolete. And so what happened was the decision was made before we go putting tanks into the ground that we're overcrowded in, it's actually a health or a safety hazard out there on Mulberry Street with the traffic of Walmart. We decided to find a different location. Everybody came to us about a DOT and a BOT and a BBB and whatever, and it was decided that would probably be the best way to go. So we took the county and asked if anybody wanted to do this. We had two bidders: Cottongim's and Temple & Temple. Cottongim was out on 56, Temple was down here. Most of our stone– and we took a scoring system on each one– each project of figuring out what's the best way to go. The council gave us $4.8 million, and that was the total amount we were going to do. The engineer that they had was supposedly going to take care of all the wording. We haven't had a damn thing done with the wording out there. It's been short changed, and I understand now he's wanting back into the county for supervision to oversee this project. Why would I want to give somebody that didn't do the job right the first time?”
“You fired him before the actual job got started, so I don’t even know why that’s being brought up,” Cardwell said. “My original question is about the $277,000 that's coming out of this edit fund you're saying is being transferred. It's being transferred out of one line item to another line item. Who are we shortening the budget [of] if that happens? That's my point here. Is somebody being shorted? Because it's an approved budget, correct?”
“He wants to know if the $277,000 is coming out of Rick Voyles' edit, non-paving or paving fund,” added Councilman Preston Shell.
“It will come out of the non-paving fund,” replied Marshall.
“I asked the question in a council meeting, did we have to come back and re-appropriate Rick $277,000 if you take it out of this budget?” asked Shell.
“We decided that each commissioner was to give up one mile of road one year to do this because of the short change of the engineer that didn't do what we were promised,” Marshall said. “So, each commissioner is sacrificing one mile of road in their district. Am I right, Rick?”
“It's my understanding that the $277,000 will cover the blacktop,” said Voyles. “The wording there sounded like this would cover the rest of the blacktop in the parking lot. Is that correct?”
“They’re saying that’s for stone, Rick,” replied Cardwell.
“Phil said it was to cover the short change on the blacktop. So is that right?” Voyles asked.
“That's where I'm getting confused and would like some clarification,” Cardwell said.
“No,” said Ewen.
“It was also said in the council meeting– the 181 done been paved, so that only leaves in my mathematical mind– I know I've been accused of not having fifth grade mathemacation [sic], but I think that's around 90 some-thousand dollars there. So, why are we not just transferring the remainder versus the whole $277,000?” Cardwell asked.
“Everything you've got that's been done– you should have just had an email come from somebody and it shows line item by line item of what's been paid and what's not been paid,” Marshall said. “And there was a discrepancy on one.”
“You want to check my email? Because I don’t get that stuff,” said Cardwell as he tossed his computer in front of Marshall. This prompted Ewen to say, “let’s move on.”
“There is another claim on here I had a question about before they get totally passed,” Cardwell added. “For the actual highway department building loan, $462,736. Do we got an itemized statement for that bill? So we know what that money is being used for and what it's going towards.”
“Of course we do,” replied Ewen.
Then, Mayor Justin Green and Angie Buchanan were invited forward to provide clarification on the READI grant process.
“I would like to have you speak to give some relief to Mrs. Bowers about how the process works and that there is no vote required on selection of projects until the projects are approved,” said Ewen. “In other words, when you get the money in your hand, then you decide whether you want to take the money or not.”
“In 2023, the governor announced that there was going to be funding for READI 2.0 projects,” began Angie Buchanan. “That was a money available to regions across the state, and it was an announcement so that anyone essentially could apply for grant funding centered around– and they were very clear in their announcement, they were looking for quality of life, quality of place initiatives for this go around of READI 2.0 funding. But at that point, anybody had the ability to put in for a particular project. It did not just have to be government elected officials. It did not have to just be a county or cities. It could be independent developers. In Washington County alone, there were upwards of 25 plus projects that were submitted. We had township water departments submitting for water lines. We had independent developers such as Colin Receveur with Mason Manor and a multifamily housing unit. We had other housing development projects from independent contractors who were looking to receive grant money to help with funding to go towards the housing shortage that's in the area. The city submitted four projects. The county submitted four projects. This was very much a public announcement by the state, the RDA, the River Hills Development Authority, then worked with the Economic Growth Partnership. But not just them. It was any other LEDO (Local Economic Development Organization) or regional economic development director. All communities have one to just make sure that we were all aware that this was an opportunity that was out there.
“The Economic Growth Partnership even submitted for some projects as well,” she continued. “The Economic Growth partnership has very limited funding. The organization is trying to do good and bring growth to the county. There's not a lot of grant opportunities out there. And so there were a number of organizations and/or governments that requested and put in for projects. I cannot speak necessarily, and I don't think Mayor Green can either, to how the county decided to choose projects. However, a commissioner oversees the roads, public health, safety, etc. That is their responsibility. They together determine what projects should move forward based on community need and community sentiment. They are talking to the community on a regular basis. From what I see, they are hearing the needs. And so there were multiple projects that were applied for. There was a 4-H building that did originally start as a 300 and something thousand dollar building. There was fairgrounds parking, there was the courthouse steps, there was the County Highway Project building. All of those were projects that were submitted just like the city submitted projects as well.
“This application's timeline was September of 2023. Washington County had an opportunity in February of 2024 to present in front of the RDA. The RDA brought their entire board. They sat here in this room, and everybody that had submitted for four projects was invited to do a presentation on their project. They also had a tour bus where they traveled around, and they looked at the various sites that were being proposed. The YMCA, the courthouse steps, they looked at all of that. They went to the fairgrounds. They went to the area where the city was looking for particular projects. They looked at the housing. They drove around. Our RDA serves a five county region. They went to each county and did this. Every county had this opportunity; every person that put in for a project had this opportunity. It was very much a public meeting, and the room was packed. The RDA, several months later, came back and said, ‘we have reviewed all of the applications. We have had this opportunity to visit all these communities and we're thankful for that. But from that, here are the projects that we believe we're probably going to be able to move forward with.’
“So, they chose those projects. That being the 4-H building. At that time, they were not considering any of the other county projects. And quite frankly, even the city didn't move forward at that given moment. Since they were not considering any others, we were advised to shoot for the stars. Do a building, and do it right. The initial building plan was essentially for a shell. It was no more than a pole barn. That was a shell that was going to be $300,000. From there, we were going to have to figure out how to really outfit that building and make it viable for our community. So when we got the go ahead, we went back, put together some new plans, presented that to the RDA, and the RDA made a public announcement. We had no idea until the day we got there that they were going to grant us a gift of $1.2 million to put towards this project. They typically seek a 50/50 funding split where they want to see a match. Because we're a government unit, we don't have that. They know that we don't have that match. So, they did want to see a little bit of skin in the game from us as a community for giving us a gift of $1.2 million. Therefore, we brought to the council a proposal to not even use taxpayer dollars, but to take interest off of a bond that was coming due so that we could use a little bit of that interest, upwards of potentially $300,000, to put towards this project, to allow us to be able to receive this $1.2 million gift to move forward with this project. So that's kind of the background in terms of how we got here today, why the amount changed for the construction and where we're at. This is a gift that we are being given. If we don't accept this gift, it's likely that we won't get another gift.
“I am serving alongside to ensure that the project documentation, the budget, and the appropriate paperwork is getting to the right people. It is in the process right now where we have a conditional approval. We don't even have the official, true go ahead. At this point, it's under conditional approval. It has to be reviewed by the Indiana Economic Development Corporation as well as Ernst & Young, the accounting facility for them. Ernst & Young is in the process of review right now. They've again asked for some additional information that we provided to them about what they need to make sure all the checks and balances are there from a state standpoint. When they give us that official approval, then it will come before a vote– because at that point, this governing body will need to sign a contract. That contract will then come before a public meeting and a public vote. Right now, we don't have a full guarantee even that we're getting these dollars. But as I'm in continual discussions and conversations with the appropriate bodies, they're saying to me, ‘Hey, we're watching the meetings. What is happening?’ They're getting a little concerned about actually giving us this gift because of what's happening right now in our community. I just want to be very honest with everybody in this room that we are risking a huge gift from the state. Because they are watching our meetings and they are very concerned with the disruption that's going on. They are getting phone calls from elected officials asking for updates and making other inquiries about this project. It is becoming concerning.
“I have heard from a community perspective that maybe there's concern. Did we pick the right location? I want to make sure that it's clear that the pool had to be demolished. It had to be filled in because there is a sinkhole under that area. It was told to Mayor Green that we cannot build upon that area. It can never be anything more than parking, which we greatly need. So, it will remain a parking lot, but that is one of the reasons why the location cannot go over top of that old site. We can't do the construction of a building and risk a sinkhole pulling it in.
“We're trying to be very thoughtful with the approach and how we do things to make sure that the community has a safe place to meet. Has something that is going to be an annual facility. Right now, that current building has to be closed down in the winter months or certain times of the year. We're not going to have that problem anymore. Even as the fair and 4-H goes on, right now, children are using bathrooms without bathroom doors. This is resolving a lot of issues. There are some sewer issues up there. If anybody attends the fair. I think they're very well aware of sewer issues up there that this will additionally resolve. So, there are a lot of pluses to this project,” concluded Buchanan.
Commissioner Marshall then stated that there have been rumors that bids were already received for the project. Buchanan explained that this is untrue.
“There are no bids,” she said. “We have asked Cottongim Enterprises. They have provided an in-kind donation. We have a signed letter that has gone to the state stating such. They are helping with initial design, but still an RFP (Request for Proposal) process is required and will be followed. We will be engaging with HWC Engineering to actually review those proposals once we go through that process. But yes, there will be a bid process. I have drafted an RFP. I still need to make some tweaks to it, then the RDA has to review it, Ernst & Young has to review it and the IBC has to review that RFP. We have to make sure that we are following everything to the tee, and then that RFP will be placed. Closed bids will be taken in. They will be opened and handed to HWC to evaluate, because they are the appropriate engineers to do such. They will then help us to select an appropriate contractor for this project… The IEDC is reviewing every step of the way, so this isn't just us looking at it locally. This has a lot of hands on it and reviewing and making sure that everything is followed to the tee of the law.”
Mayor Green added that the IBC will continue to oversee the project until its completion, not just until funds are granted. Commissioner Cardwell then asked about the timeline of the project assuming the funds are granted.
“I put together a timeline based on what was communicated to me in terms of the needs of our community,” she said. “The 4-H and fairgrounds are constantly being used, but the fair is the heaviest time. Ideally in a perfect world– but again, that's if we receive the approval, as we hope we will. What we have been told is that all final approvals should be received by June 30th. Hopefully we do get that by June the 30th. Then after the fair, we would begin the process or we may actually start the RFP process as soon as we have approval. And we have to give that plenty of time. It has to be out there a certain number of days or weeks. Once we have done all the selections, I think the goal is that the demolition and cleanup of the site would potentially happen around that August time frame. Immediately following, once that is cleaned up, start the construction with the whole goal in mind that we're going to have this construction completed by the end of March or first part of April of 2027… It's an aggressive goal. We've got to start drawing funds almost immediately from when they award us this gift. We really can't miss a beat. We've got to be moving pretty quickly.”
“But in the same sense, we don’t need to skip procedures and all that,” said Cardwell. He also expressed concern that the procedures followed by the commissioners may slow down the project timeline.
“Like I said, the RDA, Ernst & Young and the Indian Economic Development Corporation, they are going to be following and watching the steps all along the way,” Buchanan replied.
“Your demolition permits and whatever you need to have lined up, you're right, Tony, that that may take a few weeks to a month,” Mayor Green added. “Those are charted, and those go into a timeline that the IEDC understands and knows. That is one of those benchmarks. Let's say you're not on track, but you're showing what you're doing. That counts as progress. ‘They got their demo permit. They got their engineering signed off on. It's stamped and it's been submitted for state review.’ All these things are benchmarks, and they'll be graded as such as you move forward. To Angie's point that that's what makes the project move forward. Some of those don't produce an invoice, but maybe it produces a $50 invoice. That is still something you would draw against your award.”
“From the moment we have official approval, it is required that we give them a monthly progress written update on where the project stands. And at any point, any of them (RDA or IEDC) could even come and visit the site and review as well,” Buchanan said.
“One last clarification,” said Mayor Green. “The growth partnership is the LEDO. We are the LEDO. The growth partnership always is at anybody's request. To Angie's point, we did not do all of these. Some of the folks hired a financial advisor. Some of them did their own thing and submitted their own application on their best intel. Those were graded by the RDA. It was scored internally. It also gets graded by the IEDC. And then we talk about River Hills Economic Development District, River Hills contractually is the administrator for the RDA board. They are the ones doing the paperwork, collecting data and submitting it to the IEDC on behalf of the RDA board. The RDA board doesn't have staff in our five counties. Some do. We are in a state with 15 different RDAs. Ours does not have a paid staff, and that's where River Hills comes in. That's their background and area of expertise. They're the ones doing the daily contact with the state. Then those findings go back to the RDA board and are reported to as such. Nobody here at our organization-- the Growth Partnership doesn't receive any funding for READI. We are strictly doing our jobs as trying to help facilitate whatever project makes sense in the world of economic development.”
“They are very competitive,” Mayor Green said. “There is nothing that has it easy right now. This particular READI 2.0 came out with a KPI, Key Performance Indicator list. If you could not check that box time and time again on about five bullet points, you were not competitive. Those KPIs were very much different this time than they were in READI 1. They were quite frankly in stone. That is what it had to be for the IEDC to even acknowledge it. Those grants then get funneled even further down when you think about what qualifies and who can apply.”
Commissioner Cardwell then requested to be included on any email communications regarding the READI grant and the project. He said, “There was some information sent out on behalf of the commissioners that I wasn't aware of until somebody done a public records request. If that would get relayed to all the officials within the county, there would be no questions asked at that point.”
“There was documentation that was requested, and we had a very tight turnaround time frame,” Buchanan said. “There was a document called Sources and Use, there was the budget, the project description– which is essentially the same form and application that was originally submitted. We've been asked to update that multiple times. Then they came back during their final review and requested a project memo. That project memo was an outline of a project just in a different form that was required to be on the commissioners letterhead. It was not signed or anything at that time. The project memo simply outlined this project as we've discussed today. Ernst & Young has been reviewing. They did ask for the project lead to sign. I did place a phone call to them at that moment and said, hey, I have this project memo on commissioner letterhead. How many signatures do I need? They said just the project lead, which Todd [Ewen] was assigned project lead in 2023. So, Todd did sign that recently. Just to clarify and let everybody know. But again, it is nothing more than an outline of the scope of the project.”
The meeting then shifted to the change order for the Highway Garage project. The change order was read aloud by Attorney April Geltmaker.
“This is change order number one. This change order is issued to modify the following items in the original project. The county had originally committed to supplying the base stone to be delivered on site as in-kind payment furnished to the developer. This was not possible due to the county trucks not becoming available in a timely manner prompted by seasonal asphalt paving, operation commitments. In the absence of in-kind services, the county will fund the required expenditure to the developer for the stone base in the amount of $277,500.72. The original contract amounted to $4.8 million. The current change order amount is $277,500.72, resulting in a revised contract amount of $5,077,500.72. This change order will become an addendum to the original BOT agreement and is issued in accordance with the terms of the BOT.”
“Plus the land,” said Jennifer Bowers from the gallery.
“What land? That has nothing to do with it,” said Commissioner Ewen. “That's not a change order. That's an addendum. Not an amendment.”
“I'm not disputing that,” she replied. “You're asking for this amount of a change order plus the trading of the land. So, we're going to give them this much in cash plus the land.”
“That has nothing to do with the original BOT agreement. It's totally separate,” Ewen said.
“Those are all county assets whether it's money or property for the same project. That's what I'm trying to verify,” she said.
Commissioner Cardwell then explained that the land was traded in exchange for aggregate bins. The value of the bins totaled $409,000.
“I'm asking what is the total that the county is in for this project?” asked Bowers.
“She just told you,” Commissioner Ewen replied. “$5,077,500.72.”
“Is that including the cost of the land?” she asked.
“That has nothing to do with that, no,” replied Ewen. “That will increase the value of the property, yes, but it is not part of the original BOT agreement. It was an addendum.”
“So you need to add $409,000 to it,” said Stephanie Rockey from the gallery.
“So, we're at $5.5 million that we've paid for this building,” said Bowers.
“Plus other items that’ve been getting put in,” added Cardwell.
Then Lucy Brenton said, “I'm curious as a citizen, I remember that looking at the original BOT, that one building was supposed to be 360ft long, and it's actually 285ft. So, I'm wondering if there's some sort of change order that credits back. And I remember the original specifications were for 36 inch stem walls, and we got 12 inch stem walls. Are we getting a credit back for that too as the citizens? Because that's a lot of space.”
“Your information is incorrect,” Ewen said. “Vote on this. Let’s go. We’ve been down this road a thousand times.”
Bowers and Ewen had a brief exchange where she stated Ewen’s answers “are not valid,” and Ewen stated that Bowers simply does not like his answers and that they are legal. Bowers then said, “You are there because we elected you to be there. You were to represent us, not just Lord over us.”
“I represent the good people of this county,” replied Commissioner Ewen.
This caused an uproar in the room. Among the shouts, Stephanie Rockey said, “Are you saying she’s not good?”
“That’s terrible,” said another.
“What is the total cost to the community?” asked Bowers.
“They don’t know it, just to be simple,” said Commissioner Cardwell.
“We just basically need a discussion, truth and answers, of what it is with the numbers in front of you where you can see everything,” said Commissioner Marshall.
Bowers asked if that could be done at that moment in a special meeting, to which Commissioner Ewen said, “When we’re done, you’ll know everything. We know the numbers.”
“It's in the original contract of the original signature,” Commissioner Marshall said. “But to do it all, you need to see everything line item by line item, what's been done so that you've got the actual numbers in front of you so that you know nothing's been done. Right now to be compliant with what we owe Temple & Temple, we owned $277,000. That's what this change order is today. That's within the original scope of the plan.”
“Then how do you need a change order for something that's part of the original plan?” she asked.
Marshall said it was not a change order, to which Bowers replied, “you just said it was.”
“Phil, there’s a motion on the floor for the change order,” said Cardwell.
April Geltmaker then interjected, “As I previously explained, the county had originally committed to supplying the base stone to be delivered on site as an in-kind furnish. However, due to issues, it is no longer an in-kind service, with the county paying for the stone. The developers provided the stone and the delivery.”
“It took a whole $277,000 going directly to the contractor,” said Cardwell. “We already paid 181,700 and some dollars towards the stone on this. That was my original question. That only leaves $95,000 or whatever it is.”
“That’s correct,” said Ewen.
“So, why are we doing $277,000 at this point in time?” asked Cardwell.
“Because you don’t understand,” Ewen replied. “That was the amount of a claim for a portion of the stone. On our end, we have to have funds available in a certain account to pay them out of that. This is why the change order is required within the edit funds transferring from paving to non-paving.”
“Bingo!” said Cardwell. “That’s what I asked originally. What line item is coming out to be transferred to that. So, Rick, would that short your budget to where you’ll have to come back and ask the council for re-appropriation later in the year?”
“We’ll have to cut about 4.5 miles of paving from the schedule,” replied Rick Voyles.
“So, we’re cutting 4.5 miles instead of one mile per district?” Cardwell asked.
“It equals out to roughly 4.5 miles,” he replied.
Following this, the commissioners passed the motion regarding the change order 2-1.
Then, Zack Richards was invited forward to discuss renewals regarding vision and dental benefits packages for county employees.
“We've got an upcoming renewal date of seven one with the ancillary lines on the benefits package that you guys provide the employees,” began Richards. “And this includes the dental and vision. Dental and vision, just to make everybody aware, is a 100% voluntary option, meaning that the employee pays 100% of the cost for these plans. The open enrollment dates will be soon released to the employees by Megan Carver. We're working to get all the documents put together and be sent out so they can review all of the different options that they have. I also want to make sure that the employees are aware of the voluntary life options that are available to them throughout the year. It doesn't have an open enrollment period. They can come at any time through the year and see if they can get more life insurance for not only themselves, but their spouse and children are available for this benefit. This is also a benefit of paying 100% by the employees. The employee can get up to $100,000 in coverage for themselves, up to $50,000 in coverage for their spouse, and they can also elect to have coverage to children up to $25,000. This is all up to the employee if they would like that. They are all pending, riding on approval on the voluntary side. So there is a form that will be attached to the emails that are being sent out. They would need to complete the application and get that submitted to Megan.
“At the time of new hires, the maximum guarantee is available without approval. It is just when you're a current employee and you want to increase or add coverage, that's when the medical underwriting occurs. Just keep in mind for employees, the county pays 100% for $25,000 in basic group life coverage. Typically in the group space, you see that number usually in the 10 to 15,000 range. So, you guys do have a higher than average amount that you do provide for life insurance for every full time employee, and you also pay an additional amount for accidental death and dismemberment of $25,000. It's a very great benefit that you guys provide the county employees. Getting back to dental and vision. On the dental we did have a little bit of an increase. Delta Dental is a great carrier in the group space, both on the provider side and the member side. Speaking on the provider side, all of our local dental providers, it's in-network, which makes it a lot easier for our employees to gain access for in-network services. On the member side, you know, that just makes a lot of them happy that they don't have to travel outside our county, and it also supports our local providers.
“On the increase, that was basically just due to utilization of the plan by the employees and dependents. The employee-only rates went up from 31.41% to 39.90%. Now keep in mind you guys are on a two-year locked rate. So, that does account for some of this rate increase. But this is going to be a new two-year lock on this rate, so you won't have any rate increases coming up next year. It will be the same. On the Delta Vision, they use the VSP network. Once again, the network provider per carrier network is very vast in our local county. Those are very tiny increases, but there was an increase on employee-only. On employee-only, it's going to go from $5.48 a month to $5.82. So, about a 34 cent increase per month on the vision. Just to speak about the benefit on the dental side, you guys have a $2,000 benefit max per year, per member. If they have a spouse that sits on the plan or children, that's a $2,000 benefit per member there. There's a $50 deductible per member. Once that's met, you can get into that $2,000 benefit.”
The commissioners passed a motion to accept these changes, and Cardwell asked Richards to obtain quotes on spousal insurance for next year.
Attorney April Geltmaker then proceeded with the second reading of an ordinance regulating campaign signs.
“This is a second reading at Clerk Stephanie Rockey's request. We worked on revising that. It went to the commissioners for first reading on April the 7th. And I provided that revised ordinance in an open meeting. Since then, there has been just one revision to Section 5(d)1. The only change before the commissioners is reflected in that language there. Previously providing for the sheriff to be the point of contact for approving county program and event signs at the Justice Center. That's been revised to not put that on the sheriff, but on the commissioners, as the commissioners are responsible for all the property and the signage in any other situation. We didn't believe that that should be something the sheriff should be tasked with. That's the only change to that sign ordinance since the first reading.”
The ordinance passed unanimously.
Emergency Management Director Deni Stempowski approached to inform the commissioners about an important emergency exercise that will be taking place at the end of September.
“I have been trying to get us compliant with emergency management over the last few years, and one of the things we have not done is we need to have an emergency management advisory council. That is required both by state law, and we also have a Washington County ordinance covering that. I'd like to reinstitute that. I'm not asking for anything today, but I need a member of the commissioners, I need a member of the council, the mayor, the chief of police, the sheriff, any other designees that would oversee emergency management. What that would be is they would review the policies that I'm writing right now, that I've been sending all of you. The emergency operations plan and anything else that I get into that I have to submit to the state… It is going to be September 26th. That's a Saturday from 9:00 am to 3:00 pm, and we will provide food.”
Before the meeting adjourned, Commissioner Cardwell mentioned having evening meetings. After some discussion, it was decided that the second meeting of next month, June 16, will be held at 7:00 pm instead of 9:00 am. However, Commissioner Ewen opposed.
“I'll tell you why,” Ewen said. “Because we've tried it before. It doesn't work. What people don't understand, they want to use the excuse, well, I can't get to the meetings. When there's evening meetings– most people are busier in the evening than they are in the morning. I don't know what it is that would be so important that your employer couldn't allow you to take off work for 30 minutes or an hour if there was something that was really true to your heart. And once again, we've tried this before, and we don't get any better attendance than if we had normal meetings. It puts an extra burden on the county offices. It puts an extra burden on vendors or people who want to visit from several miles away. They can't get to evening meetings. It is much easier for them to get to morning meetings. That's why I'm opposed to it.”
Following this discussion, the meeting adjourned.
Comments