Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJune 23, 2025 Council Minutes Special Meeting COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JEFFERSONVILLE, INDIANA June 23, 2025 Special Meeting Minutes The Common Council of the City of Jeffersonville, Indiana met for a Special Meeting on June 23, 2025. Council President Stoner called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.The meeting was open to the public in person as well as live streamed via the City Website using Zoom. INVOCATION: Council Vice President Burns led the invocation. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: ROLL CALL: The roll call was conducted by Legal Advisor Larry Wilder and present in Council Chambers were Councilperson White, Council Vice President Burns, Councilperson Semones, Council President Stoner, Councilperson Reed, Councilperson Webb, Councilperson Hawkins, Councilperson Snelling, and Councilperson Anderson attended the meeting via Zoom. Let the record reflect that 8 Council Members were present in Council Chambers and 1 attended via Zoom. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Council President Stoner made a motion to amend the agenda to add 2025-R-9 Resolution Approving the MOU Between GCCS Corporation and Jeffersonville for School Resource Officers, seconded by Councilperson Webb; Legal Advisor Larry Wilder conducted a roll call vote Councilperson White-Aye Council Vice President Burns-Aye Councilperson Semones- No Councilperson Anderson-Aye Council President Stoner-Aye Councilperson Reed-Aye Councilperson Webb-Aye Councilperson Hawkins-Aye Councilperson Snelling- No Motion passed, 7-2. Council Vice President Burns made a motion to approve the Agenda as amended, seconded by Councilperson Semones; Legal Advisor Larry Wilder conducted a roll call vote Councilperson White-Aye Council Vice President Burns-Aye Councilperson Semones-Aye Councilperson Anderson-Aye Council President Stoner-Aye Councilperson Reed-Aye Councilperson Webb-Aye Councilperson Hawkins-Aye Councilperson Snelling-Aye Motion passed 9-0. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Larry Wilder 2025-OR-29 Ordinance Rescinding Ordinances 2025-OR-12 and 2025-OR-13 Regarding the Fire Territory- Passed on the First and Second Reading Council President Stoner opened the discussion by noting that this item had already passed on first and second reading during the June 2nd session, and the council was now prepared to continue the discussion. President Stoner inquired whether a recap from Attorney Larry Wilder would be necessary, which Mr. Wilder approached the podium and briefly addressed the council, stating that his position remained consistent with prior discussions. He expressed confidence that the ordinances in question were defensible should the council choose to rescind them. According to Mr. Wilder, there exists a sufficient legal basis to support such a decision. He acknowledged differing viewpoints expressed by Mr. White, Ms. Simone, and Mr. Snelling regarding the existence of an enforceable contract related to the fire territory's creation. However, Mr. Wilder maintained his opinion that, based on his interpretation of the process, the formation of the fire territory had not reached a legally binding stage. Therefore, if the council chose to rescind, he believed that action would stand up to judicial scrutiny. Conversely, if the council opted not to rescind, the project would proceed as previously outlined. President Stoner reminded the council that during the prior meeting, several members had requested additional information before reaching a decision. In response to those concerns, President Stoner had contacted Baker Tilly, the city's financial advisory firm, requesting a formal written statement outlining their position on the fire territory and identifying any associated risks (see attachment from Baker Tilly). President Stoner emphasized that council members had already heard input from Deputy Chief Sharp, the Fire Administration, and representatives of the fire union. With representatives from Baker Tilly, including Susan Cowan, present at the meeting, council members were encouraged to ask questions. Councilperson Snelling raised a concern about the timing of receiving Baker Tilly's written statement. It was revealed that President Stoner had received the document around 11:45 a.m. that day, but most members did not obtain a copy until shortly before the meeting. President Stoner clarified that his intention was to have the statement printed and placed on the council members' tables for review during the session. He expressed understanding of the concern but emphasized that this was the standard procedure for distributing materials during meetings. Another council member noted that similar situations had occurred previously with other materials being placed on tables shortly before votes. While acknowledging the frustration, President Stoner emphasized that no intentional withholding of information had occurred, and there was an effort to distribute materials equitably. Councilperson Hawkins then provided further context on the matter. He explained that he was among the members who had requested additional clarification from Baker Tilly and had participated in a second Zoom call with the firm to better understand the financial implications of the fire territory proposal. Mr. Hawkins emphasized that this fire territory discussion represented the most extensive research and analysis he had undertaken since serving on the council. He acknowledged that likely applied to other members as well. Councilperson Hawkins reminded the council that when the fire territory was originally presented, he had cast the sole dissenting vote, citing concerns that the proposed budget was excessive and posed 4 an undue burden on other governmental entities. He believed the original proposal included expenditures that were not strictly necessary for the territory's intended purpose. However, with the revised proposal now under consideration, Mr. Hawkins stated that the new figures were far more reasonable. He clarified that, unlike the original version, the current proposal did not represent an extravagant expenditure. To that end, councilperson Hawkins had made every effort to understand the updated plan, including posing difficult questions to Baker Tilly during their recent meeting. Councilperson Hawkins commended Susan Cowan and the Baker Tilly team for providing clear, unbiased responses. He emphasized that their answers may influence some council members' decisions, though he acknowledged that this remained a close-call vote for many. Mr. Hawkins noted that he had also consulted with individuals in Indianapolis to gain further insight, particularly regarding the state's broader shift from a levy-based funding system to a rate-based system, which adds complexity to local financial planning. He also referenced Senate Bill 1, explaining that the legislation has introduced further uncertainty regarding how municipal decisions like the fire territory would ultimately be affected. Councilperson Hawkins disclosed that while he had received the written statement from Baker Tilly earlier that day, he had not yet had the opportunity to fully review it due to his schedule. However, he underscored that he was actively involved in the conversations leading up to the document and understood the issues being presented. He reassured the council that there had been no attempt to withhold information, and he encouraged members to direct any questions to Susan Cowan, who was present and prepared to assist. Following councilperson Hawkins' remarks, councilperson Reed spoke up, reflecting on the divisiveness surrounding the fire territory discussions. She described the debate as one of the most contentious and polarizing issues they had encountered during their tenure on the council, impacting relationships among council members, neighboring communities, and entities supported by the city. She also expressed hope that, regardless of the outcome of the evening's vote, the council would learn to communicate more effectively moving forward. She stressed the importance of recognizing that Jeffersonville does not operate in isolation, but rather as part of a broader community. Senate Bill 1, in particular, has underscored the need for collaboration with neighboring communities to ensure responsible stewardship of taxpayer dollars. She also shared personal experiences from canvassing in their district, recounting stories of residents struggling with financial hardship, including individuals resorting to eating cat food due to a lack of resources. She emphasized that any new taxation or adjustments to property valuations have a direct, tangible impact on residents' daily lives. They concluded by reaffirming their responsibility to advocate for the well-being of District 5 and ensure that policy decisions, such as the fire territory proposal, reflect the community's best interests. With the floor open, President Stoner indicated that Susan Cowan from Baker Tilly was available to answer any remaining questions from the council. Ms. Cowan opened her presentation by summarizing key concerns identified through Baker Tilly's financial modeling. She acknowledged prior interactions with the Council during earlier fire territory discussions and recognized the significance of the Council's decision. Summary of Financial Concerns Ms. Cowan explained that she and her colleague Paige had recently discussed several matters with Council President Stoner and Mr. Hawkins in preparation for this presentation. As a result of those conversations, Baker Tilly compiled a series of financial points and concerns for the Council's consideration regarding the proposed Jeffersonville and Utica Fire Protection District, as well as the broader financial impacts of Senate Enrolled Act 1 (SEA 1). Ms. Cowan emphasized that Baker Tilly's role is to present the numbers as they stand, with the opinions and policy decisions remaining the responsibility of the Council. She stated that, based on their projections, there is an anticipated funding shortfall for the proposed fire territory. Specifically, under the 40-cent maximum property tax levy cap, the available revenues are estimated at approximately$17 million, which would leave a shortfall of about$1.3 million when compared to the pared-down budget proposed by the fire department. She noted that the original budget had included Emergency Medical Services (EMS), but in an attempt to stay within the revenue constraints, EMS was removed from the current version of the plan. Ms. Cowan elaborated on the effects of SEA 1, explaining that it will gradually reduce the taxable base for residential properties over the next six years. At full implementation, no home would be taxed at more than one-third of its gross assessed value, down from the current range of approximately 50 to 60 percent. This change will likely increase circuit breaker losses, compounding the revenue shortfall facing the city. Further, she explained that the 40-cent rate cap effectively limits future revenue growth unless significant new commercial or residential development occurs, or unless tax increment financing (TIF) areas roll off and return to the general tax base. However, even potential growth may be offset by the increased deductions and tax credits created by SEA 1. Ms. Cowan stressed the unpredictability of property values as a revenue source, which introduces long-term uncertainty. Cost increases for operations, coupled with these revenue limitations, present further financial challenges. She also addressed cash flow concerns, explaining that under the fire territory structure, the city would not receive any new revenues until June 2026, requiring the city to fund the fire territory operations for the first six months of 2026 if implemented.The capped revenue stream also means there would be little to no opportunity to build financial reserves for the territory, leaving both the city and the fire territory vulnerable to unexpected expenses, such as major equipment failures or emergencies. Ms. Cowan described SEA 1 as a significant factor regardless of whether the fire territory moves forward, noting its broad impacts on both property tax and local income tax revenues. She estimated that the city could face a $4.3 million loss in local income tax revenues starting in 2028 due to structural changes implemented by SEA 1. Until then, current income tax distributions will remain based on the city's proportional levy relative to other entities within the county. She also noted the potential for a county-adopted local income tax dedicated to fire and EMS services. However, that revenue stream would likely be modest and distributed among multiple jurisdictions, limiting its impact on Jeffersonville's financial position. Susan Cowan further explained the dissolution process for a fire territory should the city later deem it financially unfeasible. Upon dissolution, the special fire territory levy would be redistributed based on net assessed value. Given that Utica's net assessed value is a small fraction compared to Jeffersonville's, the majority of the redistributed revenue would return to the city. However, due to SEA 1 and circuit breaker impacts, the city would still experience a reduction from its current $14 million in fire-related revenues to an estimated $12.5 million following dissolution. Ms. Cowan emphasized that, even without the creation of a fire territory, the city's existing fire- related revenues are expected to decline under SEA 1, with the extent of the decline depending on future decisions and economic conditions. She concluded by underscoring that the city faces significant financial challenges whether or not the fire territory is established.The combination of levy limitations, cash flow gaps, restricted reserve capacity, rising costs, and SEA 1's legislative impacts all require careful consideration from the Council before proceeding. Council Discussion and Questions Following Ms. Cowan's presentation, councilperson Reed inquired whether other existing fire territories in Indiana, particularly those operating above the proposed 40-cent levy cap, were facing similar constraints and how they were addressing their financial outlook. Ms. Cowan clarified that existing fire territories formed prior to January1, 2025, are not to the new 40-cent subjectcap. Those established before that date will continue to receive standard maximum levy growth annually. The restrictions apply solely to fire territories created on or after January 1, 2025, including the proposed Jeffersonville-Utica Fire Protection District. She acknowledged that existing territories are not immune to financial pressures, noting that all taxing units across the state will experience varying impacts from SEA 1, including increased circuit breaker losses. The degree of those losses will depend on the size and economic conditions of their respective regions, with larger cities likely to face more significant financial strain. However, Ms. Cowan emphasized that established fire territories maintain access to levy growth mechanisms that help offset some revenue reductions, a benefit not available to new fire territories moving forward. She further explained that the treatment of new fire territory levies resembles that of a cumulative fund, meaning revenue growth is constrained, unlike typical general funds or other property tax-supported funds that benefit from standard levy increases. Council Vice President Burns raised a question regarding interim funding for the fire territory, specifically whether the city could recoup any funds it advanced to support the territory prior to receiving its first tax distribution. The inquiry centered on whether such funding could function as a reimbursable loan from the city to the territory. Ms. Cowan acknowledged that the city could theoretically treat its interim financial support as a loan to the fire territory. However, she cautioned that structuring the arrangement as a loan may create a perpetual cycle of financial catch-up. Under such a scenario, the city would initially advance funds to cover the fire territory's operational expenses. Once the territory begins receiving tax distributions, those funds could be used to reimburse the city. However, given the absence of reserve capacity within the territory's budget and the broader revenue constraints imposed by SEA 1, the city would likely be required to advance additional funds again in subsequent cycles. Ms. Cowan emphasized that this continuous cycle would depend heavily on the territory's phased- in budget, the timing of expenditures, and available revenues. She noted that with significant budget reductions already made and further revenue limitations on the horizon due to SEA 1, relying on a loan- style reimbursement system would likely leave both the city and the fire territory in a constant state of financial shortfall, with little opportunity to stabilize operations. Building upon the previous inquiry regarding interim funding, Councilperson Semones posed a follow-up question regarding the in-kind contributions from the Town of Utica and whether those were factored into the financial analysis for the proposed fire territory. Specifically, the Council member asked whether the analysis accounted for Utica's provision of a firehouse, fire equipment, and other non-cash contributions. Ms. Cowan explained that the analysis conducted by Baker Tilly focused solely on tangible, budgeted items and did not assign value to in-kind benefits such as the use of Utica's firehouse or equipment, including the three trucks the town intends to provide. She clarified that the Indiana Department of Local Government Finance (DLGF) formula governing fire territory funding does not consider in-kind contributions. The DLGF bases its calculations strictly on property tax revenues and other specified, tangible funding sources. Ms. Cowan noted that while these in-kind contributions are not factored into the official revenue projections or budget formulas, they remain an important consideration for the city's inter-local agreement with Utica. Councilperson White raised a detailed question regarding the discrepancies in the budget figures presented (see attachment from Baker Tilly). They pointed out that the funding shortfall analysis referenced a current budget requirement of$18.3 million for the Fire Department, while a separate dissolution scenario indicated a budgetary figure of$14 million for 2025. The Council member sought clarification on the apparent variance. Ms. Cowan responded by explaining that the difference arises due to the structure of the city's current funding sources. At present, portions of the Fire Department's operations are funded through multiple channels, including the general fund, property taxes, and public safety local income tax (LIT) revenues. The $18.3 million figure reflects the last prepared fire department budget, which assumed funding requirements based on initial interpretations of the 40-cent tax rate cap applying exclusively to operations. Ms. Cowan noted that the Department of Local Government Finance (DLGF) has since clarified that the 40-cent cap represents a total allowable rate, meaning it can be allocated entirely to operating expenses or split between operating and capital expenses. This updated interpretation significantly affects how the territory's financial structure is modeled. Further discussion revealed that the $18.3 million figure does not include any LIT funding, as under the current structure, the city retains LIT revenues, whereas the fire territory would not be eligible to receive them directly. The Council member pointed to the first page of the funding shortfall documentation, seeking confirmation that the $18.3 million was based solely on figures received from the Fire Department. Ms. Cowan confirmed this, clarifying that this amount reflects the last provided departmental budget, but acknowledged that the city has the discretion to revise that figure through expenditure reductions or delayed initiatives. The conversation included the potential for budget flexibility. Councilperson White suggested that if a revised budget came in closer to $15 million, the territory might realize surplus funds. Ms. Cowan agreed that delaying certain expenditures, such as personnel hiring, could generate short-term surplus, which could then be used to establish an operating reserve fund. However, she cautioned that under the statutory structure, the 40-cent levy cap remains fixed annually. The only opportunities to increase available revenue would come from reductions in expenditures or by expanding the city's net assessed value through the addition of new development. She emphasized that simple increases in the value of existing properties do not enhance the territory's revenue base under the formula. The conversation continued with Council members raising questions and observations regarding the potential for revenue growth and adjustments to the fire territory budget projections. Councilperson Semones emphasized that while the fiscal analysis provided by Baker Tilly was intentionally conservative, it did not factor in the significant growth occurring in the city's east end. They noted the area is experiencing the highest level of development the city has seen to date, with additional subdivisions already underway and more planned along the Charlestown Pike corridor. She acknowledged and appreciated the cautious nature of the consultant's estimates but underscored that the ongoing expansion, including over 1,800 new homes, represents a realistic opportunity for increased assessed value, which would generate additional property tax revenue for the fire territory over time. She noted that considering both potential expenditure reductions and anticipated growth, the city could find itself in a more favorable financial position than depicted in the preliminary analysis. Specifically, they pointed out that budget figures could be adjusted downward, while revenues could increase, thereby reshaping the overall financial outlook for the proposed fire territory. In response, Ms. Cowan clarified that the $18.3 million budget referenced throughout the analysis represents the last projected budget received from the Fire Department. Importantly, that figure was intended as a first-year fire territory budget for 2026, not reflective of the city's current fire service expenditures. She confirmed that the projected amount was based on preliminary planning for the fire territory structure, incorporating the limitations imposed by the 40-cent tax rate cap. Council President Stoner expressed caution regarding suggestions to significantly reduce the proposed budget. He reiterated that the City Council does not make operational decisions for public safety departments. Instead, they rely on the expertise of professionals such as the Fire Chief, Deputy Chief, and administrative leadership to determine the appropriate staffing, equipment, and funding levels needed to ensure public safety. He stressed that forcing the budget to $15 million, as previously suggested by another Council member, would effectively undermine the recommendations of the qualified personnel responsible for managing the department. It would place the Council in a position of making operational decisions beyond their intended role, which they characterized as a jurisdictional overreach. Council President Stoner concluded by referencing prior remarks from the Deputy Fire Chief and communications from the Fire Chief, which conveyed concerns that the projections provided by Baker Tilly would not adequately fund the department's operational needs under the fire territory structure. Ms. Cowan acknowledged she was not present when the Chief made those remarks, but confirmed her understanding aligns with the concerns conveyed by the department leadership regarding funding constraints. Councilperson White raised questions regarding levy growth and its relationship to the city's budget and the proposed fire territory. Referencing a fiscal impact statement prepared by the Legislative Services Agency concerning Senate Bill 1, Councilperson White read aloud language indicating that political subdivisions' ad valorem property tax levies cannot exceed the prior year's levy unless the fiscal body adopts an ordinance affirmatively approving both a tax rate and levy increase, following a separate public hearing. Councilperson White sought confirmation on whether this process would allow the city to grow its revenues by maintaining or adjusting the tax rate, particularly referencing how the local school district maintains a consistent tax rate annually. He inquired whether affirmatively asserting the tax rate could help generate increased revenue, specifically in areas experiencing growth. Ms. Cowan responded, clarifying that while this mechanism applies to the city's general fund levy, it does not apply to the fire territory. She explained that under Senate Bill 1, the fire territory remains constrained by the statutory 40-cent tax rate cap, regardless of revenue needs or growth in assessed value. Ms. Cowan noted that the city could still benefit from levy growth for general operations under the state's existing maximum levy growth quotient formula, which allows for up to 6% annual growth in the levy amount, subject to an additional public hearing. She stated that beginning with the 2030 budget, the city would be required to hold this separate hearing if it intended to claim any available levy growth beyond the prior year's amount. Councilperson White acknowledged this process and remarked that, historically, the city's assessed value has steadily increased, enabling reductions in the tax rate while still generating higher revenues. Ms. Cowan confirmed this pattern, stating that with consistent growth in net assessed value, the city has been able to lower the tax rate while maintaining or increasing revenues. She emphasized, however, that this growth dynamic applies only to the city's general fund, not the fire territory. Ms. Cowan reiterated that the fire territory's revenues would remain capped under the 40-cent limit, and the only viable way to increase available revenue for fire services would be through additional development and the creation of new taxable properties within the jurisdiction. Councilperson White expressed appreciation for the clarification but underscored the point that while the city's overall financial picture could continue to improve due to growth in assessed value, those gains would not directly resolve the structural revenue limitations facing the proposed fire territory. Councilperson White continued the discussion by referencing additional documentation from the Legislative Services Agency (LSA) concerning Senate Bill 1 (SB1). The document, which included projections for levy growth and revenue estimates, specifically highlighted figures for the City of Jeffersonville. (See attached) It was noted that the first column of the LSA chart displayed the estimated 2025 levy for Jeffersonville at approximately$31 million under the existing tax structure. The subsequent columns provided year-over-year estimates projecting revenue under both the previous system and SB1. Ms. Cowan confirmed that the first set of columns illustrated anticipated levy growth under the current system, while the latter columns presented projections under the newly enacted SB1 legislation. According to the state's estimates, Jeffersonville's revenue would increase year-over-year under SB1, rising from $31.4 million in 2025 to approximately$33 million in 2026, and $35.4 million by 2027. However, it was also acknowledged that revenue projections under the old system would have been higher, indicating a relative reduction due to SB1 but still reflecting overall revenue growth. Ms. Cowan emphasized that these figures were preliminary state-level projections provided to legislators before SB1 was passed. Despite the estimates showing potential growth, concerns were raised regarding their accuracy, particularly as Clark County appeared to be the only county in the state projected to experience increased revenues under SB1. Ms. Cowan further explained that, upon inquiry with LSA, their staff could not explain why Clark County's projections differed from all other counties. While LSA staff speculated that Tax Increment Financing (TIF) may have been a factor, they could not confirm this, nor could they substantiate the accuracy of their own estimates. Despite requests for clarification and sufficient time having passed, no formal explanation or revision to the projections had been provided by LSA to date. The discussion continued with Legal advisor Les Merkley addressing the Council regarding the financial outlook tied to Jeffersonville's TIF districts. He explained that Baker Tilly, through Brian Colton, has reviewed the city's TIF projections but remains uncertain about the accuracy of those figures. They are still working to confirm whether the numbers for the Jeffersonville TIF districts are reliable. Mr. Merkley emphasized that regardless of the final TIF calculations, the City of Jeffersonville faces a substantial funding shortfall by 2028. Specifically, the city will need to account for approximately$22 million in lost revenue, including $18 million in income tax reductions and nearly$4 million in lost property tax revenue resulting from Senate Bill 1. Mr. Merkley further explained that even if the city implements the maximum 1.2% income tax increase, this would only generate an estimated $14 million under current economic conditions, based on gross income tax projections. This leaves the city still short of making up the full $22 million deficit, provided there are no major changes at the state level or significant growth in the city's income base within the next four years. In response to questions, Mr. Merkley clarified that the projected $4 million shortfall specifically reflects the difference in anticipated revenue between the previous tax structure and the new structure under Senate Bill 1. Without the bill's impact, the city would have realized an additional $4 million. Mr. Merkley warned of the potential fiscal crisis if the city does not plan accordingly, pointing out that the current situation is difficult, but by 2028, absent changes, the shortfall will place severe strain on the budget. Turning to the fire department's funding, Merkley referenced the second page of Baker Tilly's letter, which outlines $14 million in net revenue attributed to fire operations for 2025. He cautioned that figure is somewhat misleading. The fire department heavily relies on the Public Safety Income Tax (LIT) for operations, and without that revenue, the department could not function as it does today. Mr. Merkley underscored that under current legislation, the Public Safety LIT will be eliminated in 2028. While the $14 million shown appears to be general fund revenue for the fire department, additional funds from the LIT are also used to purchase equipment and cover other public safety expenses. Finally, Mr. Merkley stressed that as the law stands today, there will be no dedicated public safety funding beyond the portion of the four-tenths tax for fire and EMS services administered by the county.The portion of the LIT that supports both police and fire operations will no longer exist, creating additional financial challenges for public safety services beginning in 2028. Councilperson White opened the discussion by referencing the financial impact assessment related to the proposed fire territory. He highlighted the stakeholder report projecting approximately $17,037,300 in revenue under the 40-cent tax cap scenario and inquired about funding options for upcoming fire apparatus purchases (see attachment). Ms. Cowan responded, confirming that if the city finances new apparatus, payments could be made from the fire territory fund. She explained that if the Department of Local Government Finance (DLGF) approves an equipment replacement fund levy, those funds would be restricted to capital expenditures only. Conversely, if the city levies the full 40 cents for operating expenses, the funds could be used for any fire support functions. Councilperson White and the Baker Tilly representative engaged in a detailed discussion regarding budget projections. Councilperson White noted that without additional hires, the 2026 fire department budget would be approximately$15.5 million, increasing to about$17 million with the addition of nine firefighters. Baker Tilly clarified that the difference between these amounts could potentially be accumulated over the year. They also addressed potential legislative amendments to Senate Bill 1 and their possible effects on levy growth rates. Baker Tilly advised that if no amendments are forthcoming, the city would have until March 31, 2026, to withdraw from the fire territory. Upon dissolution, the fire levy would revert to the City of Jeffersonville and Utica Township, each subject to maximum levy growth limits. Councilperson White highlighted that circuit breaker impacts on property taxes would continue regardless of the fire territory status. Further, Councilperson White discussed the general fund budget, noting that the fire territory could free up approximately$4.8 million, assuming a balanced budget. After accounting for contract increases in the fire budget, this figure might decrease to about$4.2 • million, with a conservative estimate of$2 million available to address budget gaps. Baker Tilly elaborated on the complexities surrounding property tax replacement credits (PTRC), explaining that the county receives an estimated $6 to $7 million in PTRC, with Jeffersonville likely receiving a significant share. The elimination of PTRC could increase homeowners'tax bills, although the precise financial impact remains unquantified. The council and Baker Tilly representatives acknowledged that the assessed property values, expected between August and September, will provide essential data on the impacts of recent legislative changes. Toward the end of the discussion, a question was raised regarding the procedural requirements for rescinding the ordinance remotely, given prior in-person voting mandates for budget items. Legal Advisor Les Merkley addressed this question by stating that under the current Indiana statute, there are restrictions on what council members can vote on remotely. Specifically, the statute prohibits remote voting on items that impose, increase, or renew taxes. However, Mr. Merkley clarified that the statute does not expressly prohibit voting remotely to repeal a tax. This distinction implies that, while council members had to be physically present for prior votes establishing or increasing taxes related to the fire territory, it remains legally permissible for members to participate remotely in a vote to rescind those measures. Mr. Merkley continued on with a question of his own requesting clarification from the Ms. Cowan, regarding the process and implications of dissolving the fire territory agreement after formation. Mr. Merkley referenced the perception that the city could implement the territory, monitor its outcomes for a year or two, and, if necessary, pursue dissolution, comparing the concept to the process of a divorce. Ms. Cowan agreed with the analogy, stating that the inter-local contract governing the fire territory functions much like a prenuptial agreement, defining the framework for how the territory could be dissolved and how assets or responsibilities would be divided. Mr. Merkley then raised concerns over the financial estimates presented, particularly the figures associated with the fire department's budget. He stated he disputed the notion that the fire department budget was limited to $14 million, pointing out that the actual amount exceeded that figure when accounting for all relevant funds. In response, Ms. Cowan explained that the $14 million referenced was related specifically to the general fund portion, not the total fire department budget. The representative went on to explain that under a dissolution scenario, the city could conservatively expect to regain approximately$12.5 million in levy capacity. However, this figure was intentionally conservative due to the potential impact of circuit breaker tax caps. Ms. Cowan elaborated that, should the fire territory dissolve and revenue revert solely to the City of Jeffersonville, the city's circuit breaker losses could increase to as much as 35%. The representative explained that by forming the fire territory, the assessed value of Utica Township would be included, providing a broader tax base that helps dilute the circuit breaker effect. Consequently, while the fire territory remains in place, the overall circuit breaker impact is projected to be slightly less than it would be under a purely city-based structure. Council discussion resumed regarding the financial impacts of the proposed fire territory, specifically concerning circuit breaker losses and local income tax restructuring. A Council member raised a question regarding the circuit breaker estimates being circulated, with some suggesting losses as high as 35%.The Council member clarified that even without the formation of a fire territory, some level of loss would still occur due to circuit breaker limitations, and asked if the fire territory would trigger additional losses beyond what was already anticipated. Ms. Cowan responded, confirming that some revenue loss is inevitable regardless of whether a fire territory is implemented. They explained that while the projections provided do not include a direct comparison of revenue loss without the fire territory, the losses would likely still fall within a similar range. They noted a potential for a slight increase, approximately 4%, in revenue based on the 2025 figures, but estimated the circuit breaker impact without the fire territory would still be in the range of $11 to $13 million. Councilperson Semones then recognized Mrs. Reed, who had been waiting to speak. Mrs. Reed addressed the Council, emphasizing that residents beyond the immediate city limits, including those from the county and Utica Township, are also affected by the decisions under consideration. She asked that those individuals be invited to provide input regarding their concerns. The Council President agreed, indicating that an opportunity for public comment would be provided shortly. Council Vice president then asked additional questions regarding the restructuring of local income taxes, expressing concern that reliable figures would not be available from the Indiana Department of Revenue until 2027, as revenue has never previously been separated by municipality. He questioned the methodology being used for the current projections in light of that uncertainty. Ms. Cowan explained that current calculations are based on Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) using available census data. She clarified that projections incorporate AGI figures from the county, the city of Jeffersonville, and any other community with a population over 3,500. She further explained that if AGI increases, revenue loss would be mitigated, but conversely, a decline in workforce participation within Jeffersonville could worsen the revenue outlook. She acknowledged that future conditions remain uncertain. Council Vice President asked if it would be fair to describe the revenue projections as conservative, to which Ms. Cowan agreed, assuring the Council that overly optimistic estimates had been avoided in favor of more cautious assumptions. Council President Stoner returned the floor to Legal Counsel Les Merkley, noting that he had an outstanding point to address regarding the proposed fire territory and related funding structures. Mr. Merkley explained that, based on guidance from state officials, the 40-cent tax cap associated with the fire territory includes both operations and the potential Equipment Replacement Fund (ERF). He emphasized that the full 40 cents can be allocated entirely to operations for greater flexibility, or it can be split between operations and equipment replacement. Mr. Merkley inquired about the process for reversing or modifying the Equipment Replacement Fund petition if the Council chooses to prioritize operational funding for the fire territory. He noted that the ERF petition had already been submitted to the state due to an earlier statutory deadline and asked how the Council could redirect those funds entirely to operations if they wished to proceed with the fire territory. Ms. Cowan responded, clarifying that the Equipment Replacement Fund did not require an inter- local agreement, unlike the fire territory itself.Therefore, even if the Indiana Department of Local Government Finance (DLGF) were to approve the previously requested three and one-third cent rate for equipment replacement, the Council retains discretion during the budget process. They could simply opt not to request any funding for the ERF, effectively leaving the fund unfunded while maintaining the full 40-cent cap for operational purposes. Ms. Cowan explained that, per the DLGF's legal interpretation, the maximum combined rate for operations and equipment replacement cannot exceed 40 cents. If the city applies for the full 40-cent operating rate and the DLGF questions the overlap with the ERF, the city could inform the state that they do not intend to move forward with equipment replacement funding, thereby allowing the full allocation to operations. Additionally, they advised that the Council could intercept or withdraw the ERF petition before approval, if desired. However, procedurally, the Council is not required to rescind the ERF ordinance outright; rather, they simply need to avoid requesting a tax rate for it during the budget process. Mr. Merkley confirmed his understanding, acknowledging that the fund could technically exist without being funded, providing the Council with flexibility moving forward. The Council agreed, and the discussion concluded on that topic. Council members and Ms. Cowan continued discussion of the projected property tax impacts and operational considerations regarding the formation or dissolution of the proposed fire territory for Jeffersonville City and Utica Township. Referencing a letter from Baker Tilly(see attachment), it was noted that under the fire territory, the estimated change to Jeffersonville City's property tax bill in 2026 would be an increase of 2.8%, while Utica Township's estimated increase was projected at 17.9%. If the fire territory were dissolved, Jeffersonville's estimated increase would be 0.9%, which was confirmed to still constitute an increase in taxes. Ms. Cowan clarified that even with dissolution, property tax rates would likely rise, as a portion of the fire territory levy would be reabsorbed into the city's general fund, applied to only Jeffersonville's share of net assessed value. The anticipated tax rate under dissolution was cited at 0.426, whereas maintaining the fire territory could keep the rate near 0.40. Without forming the fire territory or after dissolution, rates were projected higher than with a functioning fire territory due to the reallocation of levy amounts. Further discussion addressed the proposed $15 million operating budget, excluding health insurance costs. It was noted that adjustments from Senate Enrolled Act 1 could reduce available revenues, impacting the ability to cover health insurance expenses through local income taxes or general fund property tax collections. Ms. Cowan confirmed that under current assumptions, rescinding or dissolving the fire territory would still result in slight tax increases, although revenues collected would not be earmarked exclusively for fire services and would instead flow into the general fund. Council members acknowledged the legal distinction between rescinding and dissolving the fire territory. The city is currently not operating under an active fire territory, and rescission would prevent the necessary steps from being submitted to the Department of Local Government Finance (DLGF) for formation. If the territory were formed and subsequently dissolved between January and March of 2026, the city could potentially receive an estimated $13.4 million in fire territory tax revenues as part of the June 2027 tax draw. However, only approximately 60%of that amount would be received during the first draw, with the remainder following later in the year. Given the city's current fire service budget exceeding $14 million, concerns were raised about potential shortfalls, operational cuts, and layoffs resulting from delayed revenue availability. Additional concerns were expressed regarding the risk of operating with insufficient funds during the transition period and the possibility of layoffs for public safety personnel. It was emphasized that the anticipated fiscal challenges were not solely dependent on the creation or dissolution of the fire territory but were also influenced by external factors, including Senate Enrolled Act 1 and broader revenue reductions expected in 2027, regardless of the fire territory's status. The conversation included hypothetical scenarios regarding county-level implementation of a public safety local income tax (LIT) at a rate of 0.4%. Revenue distributions from such a tax would be based on population, with priority given to fire territories, fire districts, and municipal fire departments. Ms. Cowan explained that if the fire territory were formed and maintained through 2028, it would qualify for LIT distributions as a fire territory. Without formation, the Jeffersonville Fire Department would still be eligible under the municipal category. The final allocation of funds would depend on the inclusion of additional eligible entities, such as township or volunteer fire departments, at the discretion of the county council.The proportional share received by Jeffersonville could therefore be reduced if more entities are included in the distribution formula. Council members concluded by acknowledging the complexity of the financial projections, the uncertainties posed by state legislation, and the critical need to balance public safety funding with taxpayer impacts under various scenarios. Council members further discussed the logistical and financial challenges associated with funding fire services during the first half of 2026 if the fire territory were to proceed. It was acknowledged that, aside from the general fund budget, the city would be required to establish additional appropriations to sustain fire operations for the initial six months of 2026, prior to receiving any tax draws from the new fire territory levy. Council members noted that reserves would likely need to be utilized to bridge this funding gap, as reliance on short-term loans or debt instruments was not viewed as a favorable option. It was suggested that the city might not need to cover a full 50%of the annual fire service costs during the first half of the year, with some discussion indicating that efforts could be made to reduce that obligation to approximately 40%, though exact figures were not immediately available. Council members questioned the sufficiency of revenue projections, with one member pointing out that if the city's fire budget is currently over$14 million and projected revenue from the new fire territory levy totals$17 million, the excess funds from the May 2027 tax draw would not resolve cash flow challenges in early 2026. Members emphasized that covering operational expenses in the first quarter, particularly payroll obligations such as those in February, would still require reliance on reserves. Ms. Cowan confirmed that the use of reserves would be necessary to sustain operations until the first significant tax draw in mid-2027, with repayment to reserves occurring once those revenues are received. The discussion then shifted to potential countywide fiscal actions, including the possibility of the Clark County Council implementing a 0.4% public safety local income tax (LIT). Council members inquired whether estimates were available regarding how much revenue Jeffersonville would receive under such a countywide tax. Ms. Cowan explained that distributions would be formulaic, based on population, and that Jeffersonville could receive approximately one-third of the revenue generated by the maximum 1.2% LIT allowable under state law. Given recent estimates suggesting that the full 1.2% LIT could generate $14.4 million for the city, a 0.4% countywide LIT might result in roughly$4.8 million being distributed to Jeffersonville, though exact figures would depend on updated population data. Ms. Cowan clarified that under statute, distributions from the public safety LIT prioritize fire territories,fire districts, and municipal fire departments. If Jeffersonville forms and maintains the fire territory through 2028, it would qualify for funding under the fire territory category. If the city operates under its existing municipal fire department structure, it would still be eligible for distributions under the city fire department category. Council members also discussed how the inclusion of other entities, such as township or volunteer fire departments, could dilute Jeffersonville's share of the LIT revenue. It was noted that the Clark County Council holds discretion to expand the list of eligible recipients beyond the statutory priorities. If additional entities, such as smaller volunteer departments serving populations of 10,000 or more, are included, the overall distribution formula would shift, potentially reducing Jeffersonville's share. Ms. Cowan indicated that while the specific status of all fire protection entities within Clark County was unknown, it was reasonable to assume that if additional departments exist, they would likely petition for inclusion in the LIT distribution, subject to county council approval. Council members acknowledged that the county could also implement other fiscal policies or actions that might impact municipal revenues or public safety funding. Historical examples were cited, including changes related to economic development incentives such as tax abatements, which have affected city finances in the past. It was recognized that the evolving state legislative environment and potential county-level decisions would continue to influence both short-term and long-term funding strategies for public safety services. The Council's discussion turned to the logistical and operational implications if the fire territory were to be implemented and maintained. A key concern raised was how the city would fund fire protection services from January through June of 2026, prior to receiving the first distribution of fire territory tax revenue. Ms. Cowan reiterated that the city would need to appropriate funding within its general fund for the first half of 2026. Council members agreed this would likely require the use of existing reserves to avoid the need for short-term borrowing. It was noted that the city may not need to cover the full equivalent of six months of fire service expenses upfront. Efforts could be made to reduce that obligation, though no precise calculation was provided during the discussion. The consultant acknowledged that, even if tax collections in 2027 generated approximately$17 million in revenue and the fire department's operating budget was estimated at $15 million, the timing of revenue receipts would create a short-term funding gap early in 2026. Council members expressed concern that while surplus funds might be available after the first tax draw in May or June 2027, those funds would not address the immediate cash flow needs to meet payroll and operational expenses in the early months of the prior year. Ms. Cowan confirmed that the use of reserves would be the most prudent option to manage the interim funding gap, with repayment to reserves expected once the fire territory revenue was received. Council members acknowledged the importance of maintaining adequate reserves to meet these obligations without disrupting city operations. The conversation also addressed potential fiscal strategies at the county level, specifically the possibility of implementing a countywide public safety local income tax (LIT) at a rate of 0.4%. Council members inquired about revenue projections for Jeffersonville under such a scenario. Ms. Cowan explained that the distribution formula for public safety LIT is based on population, with top priority given to fire territories, fire districts, and city fire departments. Assuming the full allowable 1.2% public safety LIT could generate $14.4 million for Jeffersonville, a countywide rate of 0.4%would be expected to yield approximately one-third of that amount. Ms. Cowan emphasized that actual distributions would depend on updated population data and the final list of eligible recipients. Council members discussed the statutory framework for LIT distributions, noting that forming the fire territory would qualify Jeffersonville for distributions under the fire territory category, provided it remains in place through 2028. If the fire territory is not formed or is dissolved, the Jeffersonville Fire Department would still be eligible for distributions as a municipal fire department. It was further clarified that the Clark County Council retains discretion to expand the list of LIT recipients beyond statutory priorities. If additional entities such as township or volunteer fire departments are included,Jeffersonville's share of the LIT revenue could decrease proportionally. Ms. Cowan indicated that the precise number of eligible fire protection entities within Clark County is not currently known, but it is likely that any existing departments would seek inclusion in the LIT distribution, subject to approval by the county council. Council members acknowledged that the county possesses additional fiscal tools and authority that could impact municipal revenues. Previous examples were cited, including changes to tax abatements and other economic development policies, which have historically affected Jeffersonville's financial position. The conversation concluded with recognition of the complex and evolving fiscal landscape, with council members agreeing that decisions regarding the fire territory, local income taxes, and broader public safety funding must be made with careful consideration of long-term revenue stability and operational readiness. The Council discussion proceeded with a focus on how revenue timing and operational budgeting would function if the fire territory were established and subsequently maintained. The financial consultant explained that, aside from the city's standard general fund appropriations for 2026, Jeffersonville would need to ensure adequate appropriations are in place to cover fire department operations during the first six months of that year. It was confirmed that property tax distributions for the new fire territory levy would not be received until the June 2027 tax draw, with approximately 60% of the annual revenue arriving at that time and the remaining 40% distributed later in the year. Council members expressed concern regarding the period between January and June of 2026, emphasizing the need for prudent fiscal planning to ensure uninterrupted fire protection services during that gap. Ms. Cowan confirmed that the city would need to rely on existing reserves to fund operations during that period, avoiding the need for loans or other short-term borrowing. It was noted that the full equivalent of six months of fire department expenses may not need to be advanced upfront, and efforts could be made to manage that financial obligation, though exact calculations were not available during the meeting. The consultant further clarified that, based on projections, approximately$17 million in revenue is expected to be generated from the fire territory levy, while the fire department's operating budget was estimated at$15 million. Council members acknowledged that, while the city may ultimately have surplus funds following the first tax draw in 2027, the challenge lies in covering operational expenses in early 2026, including payroll obligations in months like February, before the new revenue is realized. It was agreed that reserves would need to be used for this purpose, with the expectation that those reserves would be replenished once the new fire territory funds are received. In addition to discussing internal budgeting strategies, council members revisited the potential impact of a countywide public safety local income tax (LIT) at a rate of 0.4%. The financial consultant explained that the statutory distribution formula for the public safety LIT is based on population, with fire territories, fire districts, and municipal fire departments receiving priority. Should Jeffersonville form and maintain the fire territory through 2028, the city would qualify for distributions under the fire territory category. Without the fire territory,Jeffersonville would still qualify under the city fire department classification. Council members explored estimated revenue projections, with the Ms. Cowan noting that a full 1.2% public safety LIT could generate approximately$14.4 million for Jeffersonville, suggesting that a 0.4%countywide tax could yield roughly one-third of that amount, subject to updated population data and final allocations. It was acknowledged that the Clark County Council holds discretionary authority to expand the list of eligible LIT recipients to include township and volunteer fire departments. Should the county opt to distribute funds to additional entities,Jeffersonville's share could be reduced proportionally. Ms. Cowan indicated that the number of potential eligible fire protection entities within Clark County is not precisely known, but existing departments are likely to petition for inclusion, pending county council approval. The conversation concluded with council members recognizing that, beyond the fire territory and LIT considerations, the county possesses other fiscal tools that could influence Jeffersonville's financial position. Historical examples, such as adjustments to tax abatements and economic development incentives, were cited as mechanisms that have previously impacted the city's revenues. Council members agreed that all decisions surrounding the fire territory, public safety funding, and broader tax policies must be made with careful consideration of both immediate operational needs and long-term financial sustainability. At this stage of the meeting, the Council opened the floor for public comment and remarks from other officials, noting the significant number of community members and stakeholders present who wished to speak on the fire territory proposal. Remarks from Ronnie Blevins—Clark County Council Mr. Ronnie Blevins, a member of the Clark County Council, addressed the Jeffersonville City Council. He began by expressing appreciation for the work and time invested by both the City Council and those involved in the proposal process. Mr. Blevins acknowledged the complexity of the issue and recognized the importance of ensuring Utica Township receives adequate EMS and fire protection services. Despite supporting public safety efforts, Mr. Blevins voiced strong concerns regarding the negative financial impacts the proposed Jeffersonville-Utica Fire Territory could have on Clark County residents as a whole. He explained that the territory's formation, in its current form, would significantly strain the county's budget, a sentiment shared by multiple members of the County Council. Mr. Blevins urged the Council to reconsider proceeding with the fire territory, suggesting that the City and County should pause, reassess, and collaboratively develop alternative solutions that serve all Clark County communities equitably. He described the current proposal as a "train wreck" in the making, drawing an analogy from his experiences as a pastor and counselor, where he advises against entering into commitments likely to fail, comparing the situation to a troubled marriage. When questioned by Council members, Mr. Blevins confirmed he is not currently prepared to support the proposed 0.4% Local Income Tax (LIT) for EMS and fire services, citing the need for additional budget analysis. He noted that Baker Tilly is scheduled to meet with the County Council on July 14th to review county budget projections, after which more informed decisions could be made. Mr. Blevins reiterated his commitment to public safety, emphasizing the need for realistic financial planning and the elimination of wasteful spending. In conclusion, Mr. Blevins affirmed his willingness to assist in rebuilding relationships between the City, County, and other stakeholders. He expressed support for ensuring Utica Township is adequately protected and pledged to be part of the solution in developing a collaborative, sustainable path forward. Remarks from Greg Fifer- River Ridge attorney Mr. Fifer addressed the Council by stating that he had not originally intended to speak that evening, noting that the River Ridge board met the previous week at its June meeting but did not have any new information regarding the fire territory matter, so no formal discussion occurred. He emphasized that he was not given authority by his board to make any commitments on their behalf at this meeting. Mr. Fifer acknowledged the difficulty of the process over the past year, characterizing it as a challenging period that has strained the relationship between the City and River Ridge. He expressed that this situation was unfortunate and stressed the importance of beginning to repair that relationship. Reflecting on the process, Mr. Fifer explained that when River Ridge's financial analyst first reviewed the preliminary budget and assessed the financial impacts of the fire territory proposal, they calculated that including River Ridge's assessed value (AV) within the fire territory would raise approximately$1.3 million for the City this year. River Ridge had offered to remove their AV from the fire territory calculation and, instead, provide $1.3 million annually to the City. However, that proposal was not accepted. Following that, River Ridge reassessed their Tax Increment Financing (TIF) revenue streams and debt obligations to determine what they could offer while still meeting their financial commitments. Based on that analysis, River Ridge formally offered $1.7 million annually for fire services. Mr. Fifer stated that this offer was presented during a meeting involving two River Ridge board members, the Mayor, and Mr. Merkley, but it was not accepted. He emphasized that River Ridge does not take a formal position on whether the City should create a fire territory but believes an alternative path exists. He suggested that if the City were willing to exclude River Ridge's TIF assessed value from the fire territory, the two parties could enter into a binding fire services contract similar to the existing police services agreement. He recommended beginning those discussions at the $1.7 million annual figure. Mr. Fifer explained that such a contract would include standard provisions protecting River Ridge's financial obligations, such as ensuring that funds pledged to debt service take precedence if, under unforeseen circumstances, River Ridge could not meet both obligations. He emphasized that allowing the City to capture River Ridge's assessed value within the fire territory would violate the pledges made to bondholders and significantly complicate future debt issuances. He warned that doing so would compromise the financial tools River Ridge relies on to operate effectively. He further shared that when he and Mark Hildenbrand first began addressing these issues, they worked with their financial advisors to conduct a thorough review of River Ridge's revenue and debt projections.The conclusion they reached was that River Ridge should contribute financially to both police and fire services, recognizing the growing service demands in the East End area. However, Mr. Fifer noted that while such payments help offset operational costs for the City, they do not address impacts on the City's maximum levy. He explained that state law provides for contracts for police and fire services, which are expressly authorized and not subject to levy limitations, and the Department of Local Government Finance (DLGF) confirmed that TIF funds can be used for such service contracts, similar to other professional services. Mr. Fifer concluded by expressing his hope that discussions could resume, regardless of the Council's decision that evening regarding the fire territory. He reiterated that the invitation to explore a contractual solution remained open. Following his remarks, Mr. Fifer responded to an additional question, clarifying that even if the Council chose not to form the fire territory, entering into a fire services contract with River Ridge could provide the necessary resources to meet fire service needs, including those in the Town of Utica. He specified that River Ridge would not request an accounting or place limitations on how the City used those funds, stating that the payments would be for general fire protection services. Council President Stoner addressed Mr. Fifer before he left the podium, President Stoner asked for clarification, stating that he recalled prior discussions about River Ridge potentially pursuing legal action to prevent the City from capturing River Ridge's TIF revenues within the proposed fire territory. He asked Mr. Fifer to confirm whether that issue had been raised during the public hearings. Mr. Fifer responded, stating that if the City continued efforts to capture River Ridge's TIF assessed value, he would be obligated to formally object to the Indiana Department of Local Government Finance (DLGF) and continue those objections through the legal process until a final determination was made by a court of law. He stressed that proceeding with the capture of River Ridge's TIF revenues would, in his view, cause irreparable harm to River Ridge, and therefore legal action would be necessary to protect their interests. Council President Stoner then directed a question to Mr. Wilder and Mr. Merkley, inquiring whether the City had ever received a firm legal opinion regarding River Ridge's ability to successfully challenge the capture of TIF revenues. Mr. Wilder responded, explaining that while River Ridge would likely have standing to pursue legal action, predicting the outcome would ultimately depend on how a judge ruled. He noted that he was unaware of any previous court case that dealt with this specific set of circumstances. As a result, he characterized the matter as a "case of first impression"—meaning both the administrative proceedings and any potential court ruling would be based on legal questions that had not yet been adjudicated in Indiana. Councilperson White addressed Mr. Fifer with a question, asking whether the Charlestown Fire Protection District currently receives payments from River Ridge's TIF area. Mr. Fifer confirmed, stating that the Charlestown Fire Protection District does, in fact, receive payments from River Ridge's TIF revenues, although he characterized those payments as relatively minor. Mr. Fifer added that he did not fully understand the historical reasoning or mechanism behind those payments but acknowledged that they occur. Remarks from Joe Jarles—Utica Township Fire Protection District Board Mr.Jarles began by explaining that during their public meetings, several entities requested that the proposed funding amount for the fire territory be reduced. Mr.Jarles acknowledged that, whether people liked it or not, Senate Bill 1 had effectively achieved that outcome by significantly reducing the amount under discussion. He emphasized that the funding amount had been reduced as far as it could reasonably go. Mr.Jarles stated that, to his recollection, no one at those public meetings expressed outright opposition to the formation of the fire territory. Rather, the feedback was focused on reducing the financial impact, which had now occurred. Reflecting on comments made earlier in the meeting regarding financial concerns and the potential loss of homes, Mr.Jarles shared his personal experience witnessing many homes lost to fires. He stressed that the City Council, the fire department, and other stakeholders all shared the same goal— protecting citizens. However, he reminded the Council that providing effective fire protection comes at a cost and does not happen for free. Mr. Jarles urged the Council to avoid viewing the fire territory proposal solely as a financial issue, reiterating the devastating impact fires can have on families and communities. He also pointed out that the fire department plays a critical role beyond fire suppression, contributing to broader public safety efforts. Concluding his remarks, Mr.Jarles stated that his position on the matter was well known. He encouraged the Council to move forward with establishing the fire territory and expressed his appreciation for the opportunity to speak. Remarks from Chris Fox—Clark County Council Mr. Chris Fox, a member of the Clark County Council, next addressed the Jeffersonville City Council. Mr. Fox began by emphasizing that regardless of municipal boundaries, all those present are part of Clark County, including Jeffersonville, Sellersburg, Utica, and the broader community. Mr. Fox agreed with earlier remarks describing the situation as a breakdown in communication. He expressed frustration that the County Council only learned of the proposed fire territory through their own financial analyst, rather than through direct engagement from the City. Mr. Fox asserted that had conversations been initiated earlier, collaborative solutions could have been developed that served both the City and the County. He voiced support for reevaluating the proposal, advocating for rescinding the current fire territory ordinances and restarting discussions to ensure comprehensive involvement from all stakeholders, including the County Council. Mr. Fox emphasized that the goal should be to find a path forward that provides fire protection not only to Utica but to the entire Utica Township, which extends beyond the town's limits to include significant portions of Jeffersonville's East End, including rapidly developing areas near River Ridge. During his remarks, Mr. Fox acknowledged the valid concerns about ensuring adequate fire protection but stressed the need to approach the issue in a way that considers the fiscal realities and interests of the entire county. He urged the Council to delay final action on the fire territory and instead focus on rebuilding cooperative relationships between the City and the County. When questioned by Council members, Mr. Fox stated that he is not currently prepared to support the proposed 0.4% LIT for EMS and fire services. He explained that the County Council will be meeting jointly with the County Commissioners and their financial analysist on July 14th to review detailed financial projections and evaluate available options. He committed to considering all factors at that time before making a final decision. Following public comments, Council members directed questions to Ms. Susan Cowan of Baker Tilly regarding the financial impacts of the proposed fire territory. One Council member referenced the financial impact statement produced by Baker Tilly in April. He noted there had been considerable discussion about how the fire territory would affect property taxes. He pointed out that according to page 11 of the report, homes valued above $139,000 would experience a tax increase. However, with the revised 40-cent tax rate, the estimated increase for most homeowners was calculated at approximately$30.89 annually, or$2.57 per month. The Council member recalled that only around eight to ten homes within Jeffersonville were valued below$144,000 and asked Ms. Cowan to confirm whether most homes were already subject to the property tax caps, minimizing the overall tax impact. Ms. Cowan confirmed that the majority of homes in Jeffersonville were already at the state- imposed property tax caps, resulting in what she described as a "very insignificant" impact for most homeowners within the city limits. Another Council member raised a separate question, referencing an earlier inquiry from Mr. Hawkins. He asked Ms. Cowan to explain how the dissolution of the fire territory would impact other taxing units within Clark County. He expressed concern that other units, whose revenues may have been reduced to help fund the fire territory, might not automatically see that funding restored if the territory were later dissolved, noting the complexity of the redistribution process. Ms. Cowan explained that following the dissolution of a fire territory, tax rates would revert to their pre-territory levels in the following year. She referenced prior charts provided by Baker Tilly, which showed that if the fire territory were formed, the projected tax rate in 2026 would be approximately 40 cents. If the territory were dissolved in 2027, the rate would decrease, though there would still be a slight increase of around 2 cents compared to pre-territory rates. She elaborated that while rates would largely return to baseline, other county-wide impacts would persist due to how local income tax (LIT) is allocated. Specifically, LIT distributions are based on the gross property tax levy rather than net collections. For example, with Jeffersonville anticipated to have approximately$16.5 million in gross property tax levy returning after dissolution, this amount factors into the LIT allocation calculation for the city in 2027. Ms. Cowan further explained that 2026 would function as a transitional "island year." If the territory were dissolved in 2027, conditions would resemble those of 2025, but with adjustments reflecting two years of growth among other taxing units, as those entities could continue to increase their maximum levies annually. She emphasized that anytime a taxing unit increases its levy—whether through fire territory formation, debt service additions, or other mechanisms—it has potential county- wide impacts, including circuit breaker effects and altered LIT distributions. The Council also discussed the projected LIT increase associated with the fire territory. A Council member recalled a projection of approximately$2 million more in LIT revenue for 2027 due to the fire territory and asked Ms. Cowan to confirm. Ms. Cowan responded that the $2 million LIT increase would only be available with approval from the Clark County government, as required by state law. She noted that prior redistributions were automatic but that under current legislation, any LIT reallocation due to a fire territory requires county approval.Therefore, while Jeffersonville would be eligible for the increased LIT funds, the County Council would ultimately need to authorize the allocation in 2027. Council President Stoner addressed Council Vice president Burns, noting that he had questions he wanted to ask. Council Vice President Burns directed questions to Deputy Chief Jason Sharp from the Jeffersonville Fire Department regarding coverage needs and fire service infrastructure in the eastern portion of the city. Mr. Burns began by asking Deputy Chief Sharp to confirm whether the East End of Jeffersonville currently lacks adequate fire coverage. Deputy Chief Sharp affirmed, stating that coverage in that area is insufficient. Mr. Burns then inquired whether opening the existing Utica Fire Station would help address coverage gaps in the East End. Deputy Chief Sharp responded that while the Utica station would provide minor improvement, it would not fully resolve the coverage deficiencies. Mr. Burns continued, asking if acquiring the Utica station would allow Jeffersonville to utilize multiple fire apparatuses, including two or three trucks, without the city having to construct new facilities. Deputy Chief Sharp confirmed that as the providing unit,Jeffersonville would gain access to the station and its equipment, noting that the city does not currently have the budget, nor a foreseeable budget, to build a new fire station in the East End. Vice President Burns clarified that the Utica Fire Station being discussed is located on Utica Pike at the far end of the area. He asked whether acquiring that station would provide the operational advantage the Fire Department seeks, specifically with proximity to River Ridge. Deputy Chief Sharp acknowledged that the Utica station would help, but emphasized that based on his analysis, the optimal location for a new station would be within River Ridge itself. He stated that the lack of a station in River Ridge is currently contributing to negative impacts on the city's ISO rating and overall emergency response capabilities. Mr. Burns referenced the $15 million funding figure that had been mentioned during the meeting and asked if Deputy Chief Sharp was confident the Fire Department could operate effectively with that amount. Deputy Chief Sharp responded directly, stating, "No," and reiterated that he stands by his original, higher funding estimates. Other Council members followed up with additional questions. One member asked whether Deputy Chief Sharp had participated in any meetings with River Ridge representatives concerning funding for fire services. Deputy Chief Sharp explained that since assuming his current role, he had presented information to River Ridge on three occasions. After the first two presentations, he did not receive any follow-up communication. In the most recent engagement, the Fire Department was invited, along with the Police Department, to discuss emergency services. However, he noted that after that meeting, the Fire Department was excluded from further conversations, while the Police Department's discussions with River Ridge continued. Councilperson Reed asked who currently owns the fire station in Utica. Attorney Les Merkley responded, explaining that based on previous discussions, ownership of the fire station, or at least the land it occupies, resides with the Clark County Commissioners. He clarified that the Commissioners have some form of legal control or involvement with the property, though the exact details of ownership between the structure and the land may differ. Councilperson Reed followed up, questioning how the city or the proposed fire territory would be able to acquire the station if Utica does not own it. Mr. Merkley explained that, initially, city officials did not believe acquisition would be problematic. He stated that transferring title to the fire territory would require the cooperation of the county, either through voluntary action or, if necessary, legal proceedings to secure ownership. He noted that years ago, the station and land were placed under county ownership to qualify for certain funding sources during its construction, and as a result, ownership was never transferred back. Councilperson Reed interjected, summarizing the situation by pointing out that the city is essentially asking the same people—those who are displeased with the proposed fire territory—to transfer ownership of the station so Jeffersonville can gain a territorial advantage in that area. Councilperson White emphasized the city would not be receiving the station for free, but rather, paying for it. Mr. White stated that an arrangement had been discussed wherein the city or the fire territory would assume approximately $400,000 in outstanding debt associated with the fire station. In exchange for paying off that debt, ownership of the station would transfer. He reiterated that the city would not simply be "given" the station—it would be paying for it through the debt payoff arrangement. Council President Stoner initiated questions back to Deputy Fire Chief Jason Sharp concerning the condition of the apparatuses that the Jeffersonville Fire Department (JFD) would receive as part of the fire territory arrangement. Deputy Chief Sharp confirmed that the ladder truck and pumper truck included in the arrangement were in good condition and would be usable for JFD operations. He acknowledged that, when the department initially received the apparatuses, they had been behind on upkeep and maintenance; however, those issues have since been addressed. Chief Sharp also mentioned a mini pumper that was part of the equipment package, explaining that, while it does not significantly contribute to ISO ratings and the department currently lacks a way to effectively deploy it, the vehicle still retains some operational and monetary value. Following this, Councilperson White posed additional questions to Deputy Chief Sharp regarding departmental funding and resource capacity. Councilperson White asked if the department currently had funds available to construct a fire station within River Ridge. Chief Sharp replied that, to his knowledge, there are no available funds for such a project. Councilperson White further questioned whether, even if a new station could be constructed, the city would have sufficient funding to hire additional personnel needed for operations without the implementation of the fire territory. Deputy Chief Sharp clarified that determining funding sources for personnel is outside the scope of his administrative responsibilities as Deputy Chief.That responsibility, he explained, falls to the City Council and the city's fiscal advisors. He did, however, confirm that, based on the department's current operational budget,there are insufficient funds to hire nine additional firefighters, which would be necessary to adequately staff expanded operations. During that moment Fire Chief Shawn grant stepped to the podium to speak, and began by addressing the Council, expressing his support for his department and calling for an end to prolonged uncertainty regarding fire protection and resources. Chief Grant acknowledged that his deputy chief and administrative staff had taken the lead on much of the discussion but stated that he could no longer remain silent on the matter. He commended his staff for the work they had done and emphasized that they had performed exceptionally under challenging circumstances. Chief Grant highlighted the presence of both county officials and members of the Council who have expressed willingness to find solutions, particularly concerning fire coverage in the River Ridge area. However, he stressed that his department, and particularly his leadership team, had been subjected to repeated scrutiny and pressure, which he felt was unfair, given that the department operates within the confines of the budgets established by the Council. Chief Grant reiterated that the fire department does not set its own budgets but is responsible for following them and seeking additional support from the Council as necessary. Chief Grant firmly stated his desire to stop the cycle of pushing his staff"through the ringer" and called for collaboration to reach a solution rather than continuing to delay action. Chief Grant specifically addressed Joe Jarles, assuring him that the Jeffersonville Fire Department would not abandon the residents or the community, regardless of the challenges ahead. He encouraged all parties to come to the table, work together, and resolve the ongoing issues, particularly those affecting River Ridge and the east end of Jeffersonville. Chief Grant emphasized that for 16 years, fire services in the east end had been stretched thinner and thinner without meaningful resolution, which not only strained resources but also compromised the safety of his personnel. He made clear that his top priority is ensuring the safety of his firefighters and providing them with stable, long-term careers within the Jeffersonville Fire Department. In conclusion, Chief Grant announced that the fire department's involvement in ongoing searches or evaluations regarding fire territory logistics was complete. He urged the Council to make a decision, stating plainly that it was time for action, not further delay. Councilmembers and representatives continued to engage in an extended discussion regarding the future of the fire territory, budget projections, and long-term planning for fire protection in Clark County, particularly concerning the River Ridge area and Utica Township. Councilperson Webb directed a question to Councilperson White, recognizing his involvement and research on the fire territory issue.The Councilmember inquired about the financial implications of remaining in the fire territory temporarily, then rescinding participation later. Councilperson White explained that if the City proceeded with the fire territory but exited within a year to a year and a half, they would likely realize approximately$2 million in additional revenue for 2026. However, by 2027, with the dissolution of the territory, the City would revert to its existing fire department funding structure without further revenue boosts. Councilperson White also clarified that if the City pursued the territory but refrained from hiring additional firefighters, the one-time revenue benefit would apply. Otherwise, the long-term financial outlook would differ. Mr. Pfeiffer, representing Utica Township, addressed the Council regarding their willingness to negotiate a $1.7 million annual contribution for fire protection, provided the City does not attempt to capture revenue from River Ridge TIF funds. Pfeiffer expressed confidence that his board, which previously supported the proposal unanimously, would likely still favor negotiations, but acknowledged formal discussions would be necessary. The conversation emphasized the need for cooperation among Jeffersonville, Utica Township, River Ridge, and Clark County officials. Several speakers noted that recent discussions have illuminated the disparities in resources across the county, particularly Utica's position as a "have-not." Councilmembers stressed their shared commitment to ensuring Utica Township is not abandoned in any scenario. A Councilmember voiced concerns about using TIF revenues, noting that TIF funds cannot be used for salaries and expressing skepticism about building long-term fire service expansion on temporary or uncertain revenue sources.The need for reliable, long-term agreements to support fire service personnel and infrastructure was underscored. Several Councilmembers reflected on how the current proposal differs from the original fire territory plan approved in prior years. They reiterated their intent to ensure fire coverage for Utica but emphasized the importance of balancing that commitment with the financial stability of the rest of Jeffersonville. The topic of building a fire station in River Ridge was revisited, with acknowledgment that this need has existed for over a decade. Councilmembers emphasized the desire to resolve the issue collaboratively and sustainably, without negatively impacting other areas of the city. Mr. Pfeiffer confirmed that the next River Ridge Board meeting is scheduled for the 21st, and stated he would inquire whether the board is willing to include public discussion of fire territory matters on that meeting's agenda. He clarified that such discussions often occur in executive session due to their impact on economic development obligations, but committed to raising the possibility with the board. 4 Regarding police services, Mr. Pfeiffer compared the potential fire protection agreement to existing police services contracts with River Ridge, noting that while emergency response is inherently difficult to contractually define, the police agreement includes specific expectations beyond emergency calls, for which River Ridge provides additional funding. Councilman Fox confirmed that the Clark County Council and Commissioners will hold a joint session on July 14 at 4:00 PM, during which this issue could be raised under new business. Other Councilmembers welcomed continued dialogue, emphasizing the significance of this long-standing challenge and the need for concrete next steps. One Councilmember acknowledged that while both options—pursuing the fire territory or dissolving it—carry uncertainties, their personal judgment suggested that moving forward with the fire territory proposal is the most productive next step.They expressed frustration that the topic had been ignored for years and commended recent efforts to finally bring stakeholders to the table. Councilman Ronnie Blevins requested to speak, stating he agreed "100%" with the prior speaker's remarks regarding the history and lack of prior action on the fire territory issue. Blevins clarified that when these discussions originally began, neither he nor Councilman Fox were members of the Clark County Council, and they had no knowledge of the groundwork that had been laid for the fire territory initiative. Mr. Blevins emphasized he could not answer for those who previously failed to act, but stressed that going forward, with the current council in place, there is a renewed commitment to addressing the county's challenges. He noted the new council includes individuals ready to step up and take responsibility, asserting, "we're all Clark County," and highlighting the need for unity among Jeffersonville, Clarksville, Charlestown, and other communities. Blevins directly criticized what he characterized as "lazy politicians" in the county's past, stating bluntly, "I'm not a politician, I'm a straight shooter," and suggesting prior leadership's inaction allowed problems, particularly those stemming from former Utica Township Trustee Jamie Noel's tenure, to fester. He referenced recent remarks made by a representative from the State Board of Accounts indicating the Council should have exercised greater oversight over Mr. Noel's activities. Mr. Blevins expressed frustration that the community is now dealing with financial deficits and instability in Utica Township as a result of that lack of oversight, but stated firmly that, "we're running the show now." He urged citizens to be mindful of these issues during upcoming elections and to evaluate candidates carefully, expressing hope that voters would "make the right choice." Recounting personal experiences with fire loss from his own childhood, Blevins conveyed empathy for those impacted by inadequate fire protection. He underscored the importance of safety and pledged his support for enhancing fire services, while also noting the complexities of funding and the need to work within budget constraints. Mr. Blevins reiterated that he, along with fellow council members Richard Snelling Jr., Chris Fox, and Tia Hampton, are committed to working together to support Utica and Clark County as a whole. Blevins acknowledged he could not speak for every council member, but confirmed that group of new leadership is aligned in their goals to help resolve the county's fire protection challenges. Blevins closed by assuring residents that the new council will "cover all Clark County" and expressed a willingness to explore solutions, including, if financially viable, considering the establishment of a fire station at River Ridge. He concluded by reiterating the county's commitment to do its best to support the needs of citizens moving forward. 4 Attorney Greg Fifer requested to make a brief comment in response to the ongoing discussion. 4 Fifer expressed concern about the unproductive nature of continuously rehashing the past regarding decisions or lack of action taken over the last 18 to 20 years. He emphasized that River Ridge Commerce Center did not even receive its first deed to property from the U.S. Army until 2007 and did not conduct its first land sale until 2010. Fifer further noted that when Jerry Acy was hired by River Ridge in 2010, the entire inventory of equipment consisted of a single weed eater, illustrating how little operational infrastructure existed at that time. Fifer stated that even if River Ridge had been asked to provide significant support for public safety or other resources back then, "they couldn't have said yes if they wanted to," due to lack of development and resources. He asserted that only in recent years has River Ridge begun to reach a position where it can contribute meaningfully to these types of community discussions, concluding that the focus should be on looking forward rather than dwelling on past shortcomings. Following his remarks, Fifer was asked if he would be willing to start negotiations at a higher contribution amount of$2.5 million. Fifer clarified that such decisions are made by the River Ridge Board, not by legal counsel, humorously adding that if he answered that question himself, they would likely be "dealing with a different lawyer." There was additional discussion among council members about funding needs, including references to $1.7 million proposals and the estimated costs associated with staffing and equipping a fire department. One attendee cited a figure of approximately$220,000 to hire and equip a single firefighter, while others suggested the overall startup and operational costs for necessary personnel could run closer to $1.36 million or more. Fifer reiterated that these negotiations and funding decisions would ultimately rest with the River Ridge Board, not with him personally as legal counsel. Council President Stoner asked Mrs. Heather Metcalf to come forward to clarify a financial point discussed in a previous meeting. Stoner referred to their prior conversation about adjusting the fire territory budget, noting that there had been talk of removing certain expenses, including health insurance, and reducing the budget to approximately$15 million while keeping specific items out. President Stoner reminded Metcalf that during that discussion, she had referred to the proposal as "a wash" and asked her to explain what she meant by that. Ms. Metcalf explained that if health insurance and property and casualty insurance were removed from the fire territory budget, those expenses would still need to be paid, but they would simply shift to another area, such as the city's general fund. The money saved in the fire territory budget would be offset by the additional costs now carried by the general fund, resulting in no real financial gain or reduction in overall expenses — thus making it "a wash." President Stoner acknowledged the explanation, noting that even with the proposed budget reductions,the city would still face those same obligations elsewhere. Councilperson White addressed the council, referencing a specific handout that had been distributed to all members titled "Estimated Change in Fund Balance." Mr. White emphasized that the figures outlined in the document did not account for health insurance costs or the other insurance- related expenses that Mrs. Metcalf previously referenced. Mr. White further clarified that those insurance expenses remain part of the Human Resources budget and are not factored into the $4.8 million figure presented on the handout. White stressed that these costs will continue to be paid as they are today and do not impact the money projected to be freed up in the general fund. 4 Councilperson Reed made a motion approve 2025-OR-29, seconded by Councilperson Semones; Legal Advisor Larry Wilder conducted a roll call vote Councilperson White- No Council Vice President Burns- No Councilperson Semones- No Councilperson Anderson-Aye Council President Stoner-Aye Councilperson Reed-Aye Councilperson Webb-Aye Councilperson Hawkins-Aye Councilperson Snelling- No Motion passed, 5-4. Councilperson Snelling made a motion to recess 08:08 P.M, seconded by Councilperson Reed; motion passed 9-0 Councilperson Steve Anderson left the meeting via zoom at 08:11 P.M NEW BUSINESS: 1. Chief Kavanaugh/Les Merkley 2025-R-9 Resolution Approving the MOU Between GCCS Corporation and Jeffersonville for School Resource Officers Attorney Les Merkley addressed the Council regarding Resolution 2025-R-9, which relates to the school resource officer agreement. Mr. Merkley explained that recent discussions had taken place between Greater Clark County Schools and members of the Council, specifically noting that Mr. Webb had communicated with the schools and reached an agreement. Mr. Merkley stated that based on that agreement, he had prepared an updated version of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) regarding the SRO program, which had been voted down at the previous meeting. He clarified that the only substantive change to the MOU appeared in Article 3, which outlines the financial terms of the agreement. Merkley then read the revised language into the record for confirmation, asking Mr. Webb to verify the terms. According to the updated agreement, the parties acknowledge that, as of June 8, 2025, Greater Clark County Schools has paid $79,647.20 toward its shared costs for the 2025 calendar year for the school resource officers.The school corporation will remit an additional $112,647.20 for the remainder of 2025, payable in two equal installments of$56,647.20 per remaining quarter, covering GCCS's share of the costs for the five SROs. Beginning in 2026, GCCS will pay the City an annual sum of$340,150, to be paid quarterly in equal installments of$85,037.50, covering the school corporation's portion of the costs for the five SROs moving forward. Councilperson Steve Webb confirmed the terms of the updated agreement presented by Attorney Merkley regarding the school resource officer program. Mr. Webb explained that he had been contacted by a third party last week and asked to meet with representatives from the school board to discuss the 14 issue. He was asked to step in to help facilitate an agreement, particularly because the school corporation wanted to have SROs in place prior to an opening event in July at Pike Elementary. Mr. Webb stated that prior to the meeting with school officials, he gathered the necessary financial figures to ensure that the proposal would be fair to both parties. He clarified that although he was not a part of the Council when the previous agreements were made in 2017 and 2018, he had reviewed the history and noted that the schools had been paying the City approximately $39,823 per officer for four officers at that time. Mr. Webb explained that the City had rejected a recent proposal from the school corporation, which sought to expand to five officers with a contribution of$66,000, which came to a total of$225,000, considering that amount inadequate. In response, Mr. Webb proposed a more equitable split based on actual costs. After reviewing total expenses, including insurance and benefits, the full cost to the City for five officers came to approximately$680,300. Mr. Webb stated that he proposed splitting that amount evenly, with the school corporation contributing $340,000 annually. Mr. Webb noted that the new agreement reflects a significant increase—over 50%—from the $225,000 the school originally proposed, and he expressed confidence that this arrangement fairly offsets the costs, especially since the additional officer would only be working half the year initially. He concluded by stating that he believed most of the Council members supported the new agreement. Councilperson Reed expressed appreciation for the work done by Councilperson Webb in negotiating the financial terms of the updated school resource officer agreement, noting that he achieved favorable numbers that provided a sound financial foundation. However, she emphasized her broader concern that tax dollars are collected from all constituents and that elected officials have a responsibility to ensure those funds are used equitably to benefit all residents. Mrs. Reed distributed materials prior to the meeting (see attached) that detailed the current placement of SROs across the school system, as well as student enrollment numbers. She pointed out that both Utica Elementary and Riverside Elementary schools, each with enrollment exceeding 500 students, remain without an assigned SRO. She stated that despite repeated requests from teachers, parents, and community members for an officer to serve those schools, the proposed agreement instead places a new SRO at a recently constructed elementary school adjacent to an existing school that already has an SRO assigned. Mrs. Reed stated that, while she agreed the financial terms of the agreement were impressive, she could not support the arrangement as presented because it does not provide equitable services to all students. She reiterated her belief that every school deserves protection but acknowledged that financial constraints require difficult decisions. Mrs. Reed shared that she had requested the new SRO be shared between Utica and Riverside under the agreement but was told that would not be accommodated. She concluded by stating she would not prolong the debate but maintained her opposition based on the lack of equity in service distribution. Councilperson Webb addressed the Council to provide additional context regarding the ongoing discussions with Greater Clark County Schools concerning school resource officers. He stated that following his conversation with Councilperson Reed, he had spoken directly with representatives from GCCS. He explained that the school corporation's new budget would be released in November, and within that budget they intend to request funding for a sixth SRO for the 2026 fiscal year. Mr. Webb indicated that GCCS's long-term plan is to place an SRO in every school within the district. He emphasized that the updated agreement being considered represents meaningful progress toward that goal by securing additional funding from GCCS to cover a larger portion of the current SRO costs. Mr. Webb described the agreement as a "stepping stone," providing the city with a clear financial framework for the addition of future officers, including the proposed sixth and seventh officers, for 4 which the school corporation has already expressed support. He acknowledged that the agreement does not solve every issue immediately but characterized the process as one of compromise, stating, "We all bring our best hogs to the slaughterhouse, and then we grind it up to get the best deal possible." Mr. Webb concluded by expressing confidence that the school district's next budget will include funding for the sixth officer, advancing the goal of equitable SRO coverage across all schools. Councilperson Snelling inquired how long Utica Elementary School and Riverside Elementary School have been without a school resource officer. Councilperson Reed responded that both Utica and Riverside have not had an SRO at any time since their respective openings. Councilperson Webb then addressed the Council, stating that similar to discussions around the fire territory, progress requires collaboration and compromise. He emphasized that neither the city nor the schools can accomplish everything by demanding specific outcomes without considering budgetary realities. Mr. Webb explained that these decisions must account for available funding, similar to how businesses operate. He urged the Council to approach this as a long-term partnership with the school system, stressing the need for a working relationship to ensure all schools eventually receive the protection they deserve through resource officers. Councilperson Reed responded that she agrees completely with the importance of partnership and working together. However, she noted that her research revealed other communities use alternative funding sources to provide SRO coverage. Specifically, she stated that New Albany utilizes funds from the Sheriff's Department to support some of their school resource officers, and similarly, Sellersburg also relies on Sheriff's Department funding for certain SRO positions. Mrs. Reed emphasized that she does not view those approaches as negative, but expressed her belief that existing schools such as Utica and Riverside should have been prioritized for SRO coverage before placing an officer at a brand-new school. Council President Stoner thanked both Councilperson Webb and Councilperson Reed for their efforts. He expressed that the agreement now before them is a significant improvement from where discussions stood the previous week. Mr. Stoner emphasized that they have received assurances that Greater Clark County Schools is actively making plans for the future regarding school resource officer coverage. He further stated that while the Council is responsible for the financial aspects of the agreement, it is ultimately the school corporation that will make operational decisions regarding where SROs are placed. "I don't think that we, as a council, can decide how to operationally control what Greater Clark County Schools does," President Stoner remarked. He noted that the schools have engaged in negotiations with the city, and this agreement reflects what they are requesting at this time. He concluded by encouraging that the broader conversation about SRO placements continue in the future. As council discussions continued, several members raised concerns and clarifications regarding the funding and deployment of School Resource Officers (SROs) within Greater Clark County Schools. A point of confusion emerged around whether the officers in question are considered city employees or school employees. One council member noted that the memorandum indicates the SROs are classified as school officials under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) and Senate Bill 1, even though the positions are funded with local tax dollars.There was a financial breakdown provided comparing the current arrangement and the proposed changes. Currently, the city receives approximately$159,000 annually for four SRO positions. Under the new proposal, the city would receive $340,000—an increase of over$180,000—with only one additional officer being added. However, council members expressed skepticism about verbal commitments from the school corporation, noting that prior promises had not always materialized. It was mentioned that a sixth officer is anticipated for 2026, but that detail was not formally included in the memorandum of understanding (MOU), raising further concerns about long-term commitments. Some members questioned the logic behind the placement of the new officer, asking why they wouldn't be assigned to Utica Riverside, which currently lacks coverage, rather than placing them near Pike Elementary, where another SRO is already stationed. There was also concern that unless this agreement is approved, the city would only retain four officers and receive less funding, meaning one less officer on patrol. The Mayor's position was referenced, indicating that any new SRO assignment should come from new hires, not by removing existing patrol officers from the 92-officer roster. Council members debated the practical implications of this plan, weighing the financial benefits against the operational impacts and equity of officer placement across schools. One member emphasized the importance of protecting all schoolchildren, particularly questioning whether funds were being utilized effectively to protect areas with no current SRO presence. The financial argument remained a key factor, with members acknowledging that approving the agreement brings in significant new revenue, even though only one additional officer is being added at this stage. It was also noted that in 2026, the district plans to add six more officers at a higher per-officer reimbursement rate of$68,000, compared to the current $30,000, but these future positions and funding levels were not formally documented in the current MOU. Attorney Les Merkley weighed in during the discussion, reminding the council that they have the ability to modify the agreement if they feel certain concerns need to be addressed formally. His remarks emphasized that the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is not a fixed document and that the council has the authority to propose amendments, such as including formal language regarding future officer commitments or clarifying deployment expectations. Councilperson White made a motion to Call the question, Seconded by Councilperson Snelling; ; Legal Advisor Larry Wilder conducted a roll call vote Councilperson White-Aye Council Vice President Burns-Aye Councilperson Semones- No Councilperson Anderson-Absent Council President Stoner- No Councilperson Reed- No Councilperson Webb-Aye Councilperson Hawkins-Aye Councilperson Snelling-Aye Councilperson White made a motion to approve2025-R-9, seconded by Council Vice President Burns; Legal Advisor Larry Wilder conducted a roll call vote Councilperson White-Aye Council Vice President Burns-Aye Councilperson Semones-Aye Councilperson Anderson-Absent Council President Stoner-Aye Councilperson Reed- No Councilperson Webb-Aye Councilperson Hawkins-Abstain; due to employment Councilperson Snelling- No Motion passed, 5-2. ATTORNEY COMMENTS: Larry Wilder- None Les Merkley- None DEPARTMENT HEADS: None PUBLIC COMMENTS: None COUNCIL COMMENTS: • Councilperson White—Stated that he looks forward to seeing what recommendations and solutions are proposed by those with greater expertise regarding coverage in the eastern part of the city. • Council Vice President Burns— No Comment • Councilperson Semones—Stated she was disappointed and that an opportunity had been missed • Councilperson Anderson—Absent • Councilperson Reed—Mrs. Reed addressed the Council to clarify the reasoning behind her "no" vote on the School Resource Officer (SRO) agreement was based solely on concerns regarding equity and the lack of a formal commitment to equitable resource distribution. Mrs. Reed further expressed the importance of ensuring that the tax dollars entrusted to the Council by the public are always allocated with fairness and equity in mind. In closing, Mrs. Reed extended appreciation to Mr. Webb for his efforts. • Councilperson Webb— Mr. Webb addressed the Council, expressing appreciation for Councilperson Reed's concerns regarding equity in the School Resource Officer(SRO) agreement. Mr. Webb acknowledged the importance of the discussion and described the recent meeting with school officials as very open and straightforward, though noting that the meeting did not start off particularly well. Mr. Webb expressed confidence that the additional resource officers needed would be secured. Mr. Webb stated optimism that these positions would be filled • Councilperson Hawkins—Mr. Hawkins provided remarks reflecting on the recent votes and ongoing discussions, stating that not moving forward with the fire territory was "probably the worst vote I've ever taken in 10 years." Mr. Hawkins shared that typically, after council meetings, there is confidence in decisions made; however, uncertainty remains regarding this issue. Mr. Hawkins acknowledged that respected individuals may disagree with their vote but emphasized a belief that the fire territory process created leverage with River Ridge, potentially securing at least$2 million in funding that otherwise may not have been obtained. Hawkins clarified an awareness that there are no written guarantees but expressed optimism that the process would yield financial benefits. Hawkins urged council members and the public to prepare for challenges ahead, describing the upcoming period as a "wild, woolly ride" as the effects of the situation continue to unfold. Hawkins mentioned recent conversations with individuals from Indianapolis who handle such matters, 4 reinforcing the expectation of complex developments before year's end. Mr. Hawkins expressed 4 appreciation for the work done by Councilperson Dustin White on the fire territory process, stating, "Great deal of respect for the time and energy you put into that," while also acknowledging the contributions of others involved. Citing personal conservative principles, Mr. Hawkins noted concerns over growing uncertainty and predicted that the county would eventually need to impose taxes they had not anticipated during recent campaigns. Hawkins emphasized that municipalities across the board, including the county, face similar fiscal pressures. Mr. Hawkins concluded by expressing hope that collaborative promises would be upheld, particularly regarding River Ridge, and noted the potential for progress following River Ridge's upcoming July meeting. Hawkins expressed optimism that early financial benefits could materialize and closed by thanking all council members for maintaining civility during what was described as a tense and difficult vote. • Councilperson Snelling—Mr. Snelling expressed appreciation to Councilmembers Dustin White and Amy Semones for their work, acknowledging the challenges faced over the past year and a half. Mr. Snelling reflected on the ongoing concerns regarding fire protection and emergency services, emphasizing that many residents, particularly those in Utica Township, are currently without adequate fire and ambulance coverage. Mr. Snelling clarified that the issue extends beyond the Town of Utica, noting that Utica Township covers a larger area, including Whispering Oaks, two new subdivisions, and two new schools. Mr. Snelling stated that they had hoped the fire territory proposal would ensure reliable fire protection for residents within Utica Township, but acknowledged that circumstances have changed and other individuals may now need to take the lead on addressing fire protection concerns. Mr. Snelling closed by again thanking Councilmembers Dustin White and Amy Semones for their efforts, stating, "It was a good run," and expressing confidence in their continued contributions moving forward. • Council President Stoner—President Stoner expressed appreciation to everyone who participated in the public process, including those who attended meetings and provided comments throughout the discussions, dating back to the initial public hearings. Mr. Stoner emphasized that when considering the process in its entirety, all participants conducted themselves professionally and with respect. Mr. Stoner concluded by thanking council members, staff, and the public for their diligence, engagement, and commitment demonstrated through numerous meetings, phone calls, and communications over the course of the process. ADJOURNMENT: Council President Stoner made the motion to ADJOURN the meeting at 08:37 p.m. DISCLAIMER: These minutes are a summary of actions taken at the Jeffersonville City Council meetings. The full video archive of the meeting is available for viewing at www.cityofjeff.net for as long as this media is supported. APP VED BY: Al: cLl Evan Stoner, Council President ATTEST: Li a Gil Clerk CG kerti ll ba y June 23, 2025 Baker Tilly Advisory Group,LP 9229 Delegates Row Suite 400 Indianapolis, IN 46240 Members of the CityCouncil and United States of America Ms. Heather Metcalf, Director of Finance City of Jeffersonville T:+1 (317)465 1500 500 Quartermaster Court, Suite 300 F: +1 (317)465 1550 Jeffersonville, Indiana 47130 bakertilly.com RE: Considerations Regarding the Establishment of the Jeffersonville Utica Township FPD Fire Territory Introduction This memorandum serves to outline the key considerations associated with the establishment of the Jeffersonville and Utica Township FPD Fire Territory. The consideration of this proposal is crucial as it carries implications that could affect the financial stability and operational efficiency of the City and the provision of fire services. Funding Shortfall There is a notable difference between the proposed property tax levy of the Fire Territory and the current budget of the fire department. The property tax levy and other revenue estimated for the fire territory beginning in 2026 is projected to be $17 million, which falls short of the current budget requirement of $18.3 million for the fire department. This shortfall of $1.3 million annually poses a risk of maintaining the current level of fire services without the ability to generate additional funding sources. Rate Cap Implications The fire territory will operate with a property tax rate capped at$0.40. While this cap might offer taxpayers some predictability, it limits the territory's ability to adapt to increasing costs over time. The only avenue for revenue growth within the fire territory is through the appreciation of property values. This reliance on property value growth is unpredictable and may not keep pace with the increasing costs of fire services, including personnel, equipment, and maintenance. Initial Cash Flow Challenges As of January 1, 2026, the fire territory will commence operations with no beginning cash balance. This poses a significant challenge as the fire territory will have to depend on the City's General Fund for supplementary funding for the first six months of operation. This situation creates an immediate financial burden on the City's General Fund, potentially diverting resources from other critical city services and obligations. Absence of Future Cash Reserves The $0.40 rate cap restricts the fire territory from building any future cash reserves. Cash reserves are essential for addressing unexpected expenses, emergencies, and ensuring uninterrupted services. The inability to create such reserves means that the fire territory will be vulnerable to any unforeseen financial demands and may require additional support from the City's General Fund in the future. Baker Tilly Advisory Group. LP and Baker Tilly US, LLP,trading as Baker Tilly,are members of the global network of Baker Tilly International Ltd.,the members of which are separate and independent legal entities.Baker Tilly US, LLP is a licensed CPA firm that provides assurance services to its clients. Baker Tilly Advisory Group, LP and its subsidiary entities provide tax and consulting services to their clients and are not licensed CPA firms. June 23, 2025 City of Jeffersonville Page 2 Implications of Senate Enrolled Act 1 The impact of Senate Enrolled Act 1 is another factor that needs to be considered. The property tax relief in this legislation is expected to limit property value growth, potentially raising tax rates and reducing revenue through increased circuit breaker tax credits. The specifics of this Act and its financial implications on the fire territory need to be carefully considered. Any additional funding requirements mandated by this legislation will exacerbate an already strained financial situation. Restructuring of Local Income Tax in 2028 An additional consideration is the restructuring of local income tax set to begin in 2028. The restructuring of local income tax is expected to reduce the City's revenue by$4.3 million. The City's local income tax revenue for 2025 is $18.3M from Certified Shares (General Fund), Public Safety, and Economic Development. Beginning in 2028, if the City implements the maximum rate of 1.2% for Municipal LIT, the expected revenue will be $14M. As the fire territory will likely rely on the General Fund for supplementary funding, any reduction in local income tax revenue will further strain the City's finances and could jeopardize the sustainability of fire services. Dissolution of the Fire Territory If a unit decides to withdraw from the fire territory in the first quarter of any year, each participating unit will receive a percentage of the property tax levy based on their contribution to the territory's net assessed value at the time of dissolution. The table below shows the estimated net revenue allocation and resulting tax rate for a future potential dissolution. 2025 2026 Dissolution (current) Fire Territory Net Revenue Property Tax Rate Net Revenue Property Tax Rate Net Revenue Property Tax Rate Jeffersonville City $14.036,517 $0.3200 $17.037,300 $0.4000 $12,539,398 $0.4260 Utica Township FPD 284,690 0.0986 N/A 0.4000 958,580 0.4559 Total Funding $14,321,207 $17,037,300 $13,497,978 Est.Change to Property tax Bill 2026 FT Dissolution of FT Jeffersonville City 2.8% 0.9% Utica Township FPD 17.9% 2.8% Baker Tilly Advisory Group. LP and Baker Tilly US.LLP.trading as Baker Tilly,are members of the global network of Baker Tilly International Ltd.,the members of which are separate and independent legal entities.Baker Tilly US,LLP is a licensed CPA firm that provides assurance services to its clients. Baker Tilly Advisory Group. LP and its subsidiary entities provide tax and consulting services to their clients and are not licensed CPA firms. June 23, 2025 City of Jeffersonville Page 3 Conclusion In conclusion, while the creation of the Jeffersonville and Utica Township Fire Protection District Fire Territory would provide a dedicated funding source for fire services, it is imperative to address the associated financial concerns. The shortfall in the property tax levy, the constraints imposed by the $0.40 rate cap, the absence of initial cash flow and future cash reserves, potential legislative impacts, restructuring of local income tax, and implications of potential dissolution all present significant challenges. Careful consideration and proactive planning will be crucial to ensuring the financial stability of the City's finances and the sustainability of fire services. Signature, BAKER TILLY ADVISORY GROUP, LP Paige E. Sansone, Principal Baker Tilly Advisory Group, LP and Baker Tilly US.LLP,trading as Baker Tilly,are members of the global network of Baker Tilly International Ltd.,the members of which are separate and independent legal entities. Baker Tilly US, LLP is a licensed CPA firm that provides assurance services to its clients.Baker Tilly Advisory Group. LP and its subsidiary entities provide tax and consulting services to their clients and are not licensed CPA firms. LEGISLATIVE SERVICES AGENCY OFFICE OF FISCAL AND MANAGEMENT ANALYSIS FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT LS 7244 NOTE PREPARED: Apr 10,2025 BILL NUMBER: SB 1 BILL AMENDED: Apr 9,2025 SUBJECT: Local Government Finance. FIRST AUTHOR: Sen. Holdman BILL STATUS: As Passed House FIRST SPONSOR: Rep. Thompson FUNDS AFFECTED: X GENERAL IMPACT: State&Local X DEDICATED FEDERAL Summary of Legislation: Prope rt v Tax Provisions General Obligation Bonds: This bill places restrictions on the issuance of certain general obligation bonds. Farmland Assessments:This bill amends a capitalization rate percentage under the statewide agricultural land base rate determination. MLGQ: This bill provides that the percentage cap used to determine the maximum levy growth quotient (MLGQ)is 470 in 2026. Annual Levy Growth: The bill provides that,notwithstanding any growth in a political subdivision's assessed value(AV)in the previous year,a political subdivision's ad valorem property tax levy shall not exceed the ad valorem property tax levy for its last preceding annual budget,unless the fiscal body of the political subdivision adopts an affirmative tax rate and tax levy increase by ordinance following a separate public hearing.It requires a resulting decrease in tax rates for each political subdivision in which there was an increase in the political subdivision's AV in the previous year,subject to any affirmative tax rate and tax levy increase adopted by the fiscal body of the political subdivision. Erre.Ss Leto,Appeals: This bill phases out the authority for the Department of Local Government Finance (DLGF) to permit an excess tax levy that is based on AV growth, school transportation costs, and other circumstances.It retains the provisions that permit an excess tax levy if the civil taxing unit cannot carry out its governmental functions in the case of annexation, a natural disaster, an accident, or an emergency,and for property tax revenue shortfalls resulting from erroneous AV. Personal Property!fie A'finimis Exemption:This bill phases in an increase in the acquisition cost threshold for the business personal property tax exemption from$80,000 to$2,000,000. 1 1 PROPOSED JEFFERSONVILLE AND UTICA TOWNSHIP FPD FIRE PROTECTION TERRITORY (CLARK COUNTY, INDIANA) ESTIMATED CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE -2026 City of Jeffersonville - General Fund General Fund Index 1 Operating Receipts: 2 2025 Property Tax Levy (before adjustments) $ 31,672,106 3 Less: Adjustment for Fire Territory (9,418,436) 4 Plus: MLGQ (104.%) 890,147 5 Less: Circuit Breaker Tax Credits (18.4% of levy) (4,248,422) 6 7 Net Property Tax 18,895,395 8 Auto Excise, CVET, & FIT 1,586,773 9 Other Receipts 16,270,294 10 11 Total Operating Receipts 36,752,462 12 13 Operating Disbursements: 14 2025 General Fund Budget 45,337,498 15 Less: 2025 Fire Budget (13,482,157) 16 17 Total Operating Disbursements 31,855,341 18 19 Change in Fund Balance 4,897,121 (Internal Use Only) (No assurance is provided on this financial analysis.) 8 I Fae5 a4 aee aYt,Tep.T aeae qA9 egggpeng�4.lingag°gaze°.:g ga4.1g45 e��$ agAAgec w v - on NQO moo .3�h o�v n 0 0 ^ - a N � v a N v N v N � N a N - �N N n N p w t gfIg g g el g g v 4r4 M g gma n a eegg 4 m 4 a gg e g e g g T e 4 o e g o g g g f v V Mggggg RMm""+1vmrvbMONaM� M M "mm " bmu "MbmmmanmbNmmM rvNHbbmamnNa MN ^o G 4 B tm a e V A 4 V 4 "4 g"gu, *4 Wt .anggga444e=orvg agog f,e4, va4ge gr g n gn °gnua4i o-N" N-N o ^^ ry „ _ ry S ^ O N R m:m p Nr v��OY,N-aTN N mm M n m m "vM v m N t$ m aN m 0 0 0 0 P O N m N il• l_ N $nN"nnoNn bA- i - +NmOnmGG iO2fvOmaO NAY 101lIOO.D Ri v S E5 W—i1 Vi,1q O m SNaN amino NN 0 NO�YI.p,.Nntav O V Mma N FM aMo 00000E IR FN.mv_ n G .m r YI IC^rl_morn Nm n_4W:2!O 0bn nm pNp v m� m! CO k4yf+_- v - -^N. c"v�i ODC- o .ten NNO^O_N tYl_Nf�OO� N^w^ -m- t.! Om S f+ N b b C Yy H r n N b!mi P N o O F M ^0 O f+^o E O m e'n m O v"i n n m V�i F N m m W m O m E O O m N h G O m O O o 0 0 o m m a n r m n o c 3 m N-m n-q •N v M S n.�m q m -N N O v M- ry - C 3 "V ai E2A" f mN Ri- r o road'w-- oN v'y E� . "' n m N-e m C I,. uu F LL C o T Q o „ eOtmpENm"m Nm vOimbO.nTN.N- nn O Y~NN Mn MPmN^ n NOi .p m o00 ^ LL` _ n Y N v�i " gmrvv Zvi M 00"m m - m ilab m 3. `, IS."^.l Mo$"m�.EEREVMN ER�RN �ro2'.3ER N - "RYr''RuENorro EFSZHl� iUF, gm Nox a W� u m m _ M- N W1042 M n ^.aN_ .o N 4 O e LL i m,U ","m m� m o E mm E o RI- am1,._w Nn.N on o e oaIn lI v-,nm N m p m O V r WVf N n E m"N_ o 0 E dik:aRs,oNx21man^ ag M 4nn, 4E,n .i Nao Y,sEF&EIIA 1pa e Mm- N mi ?Ili r U ` w BC.rmMbWT R OWPrvOE"nmg0mA0A owE N E"h mmEOoO >n02jj"ONnmmzgTaO. sv m.MYVm,n G- mN2'°.TRIM+w Z „Uu -m Noom0� N m ”, .,. - -OVnN moR*mm. n ' m M- N MAb N r v ---b c f N a 4 ill W O'>X 1 r O v M-O m a N"n m o0 o m O b m N O -m O n b v _O n v o 0 0 0 a, . {� Nva.��.NnM 18mmNm mrnr �o�<uo.mye$°M"o o8m:1�0�Nnm ��.'^'�M'�:a-rvS�Nn. m<nP «e. m o0 HIV ow a N§0m0NE m.w� EHM N$0tim _-Z� ��Ma� Ma-;� ������ as�� e$�_m�ms�^rnn��m Mom ��a�mmP. WI M"a^_ M n N M ^"oN_- " m C f> • o O - -m ry N n w N O m^.O mm m 0 n N ry v O v M o o m m-N m O m O m O N m a n"Ory G O rcm wlego=a mcivNooull Damon on�.i M!immgm NMg F,:iV `�r Pa!P6anv 'g o o :M1 222-roscnnovM ai E117-�� Zan Nnryr�nurGG,iRRIV_ ' 232.V''Io.+CirrvlJ R 0.-N 80m.p Nm -.II--N Of M Yl- a r Yi.Cl m' N i n ^Ov n.n m - .-.=N- N m w U m mx vy K m 1.m N v n n N m ry m b m N - n m m M M R E— IL J� ^�nNOn r"CC m a0� �P."n�On om ♦ O�amm - of ehP uai O o0�mO.a 00 NCa wm iOP o Oul O r n'N O Y Yf m yg/w v R m p - �p CC o o N O C O s„.: C° t Alan "��NN�' m N00 n0 53"NO t�i N m V N�N n I-V-nat- VC U t M -- n"m__ N M_ N M - N r �i YI aN__-m - . m alO q Opl���pp ty Y J m N 0 m v."n' O N M M O a ^'n N 0 N -m m 0 0 0 O o- �<m��o �."=�s ,,��m�s�����a��� .a��m � �a�"s���m�N" �NxiiFF RiEn"nmP =RH8m8eR m oo ^'R�m91R�8H�n=N��NRrvryRh N'm�"N�rSN�cB.nX Rm`nr I > m _- N- n _ U N M - - li o EE o a S .n5 n anj�II E E EEE o.& 6 � U E, µ - O U o U V�O 'ii- _w U E U„ -m LL LL 0 S G`r aFF C n 0?0 3 U- 02 C . U 0.'c>° 11 F N nfi ter n$>,0at ag-Og _ y„ I _ g"c cs € 0 oc o zCov3T'sL �4iii gQ S san„ut;= w1RU'"a'-oq°gn`L` N o;nv oa „ s!rc= SESpuonLL°' geEN-VIE5O°±Y 3 c„ „aUSuvt¢vUmVa �0.1-Mz =gfIttti t lge Ogz81~u u"F amaeguucciuuc�i �`a U =5mce e`.a I I 1 "I �-"„3 00 4 U al- :wU 43vo fiSSea m'e'-I nI MI �„ „3S4 cV-R SaXc nog n� a�c�cFC� dos a,m n.s cAvm >d -^_ 3m ��r2'�S5`oq`od" =„cicN�Nm'aocomO���Co ���=_��m'Ohu ���«v t�v;Sl=�cicis�o 00000o b� l rya tli c``„-'„ ;,-„ o�O ioiq--`O -_'a.cloo� vi�ov3Kil „one �;� l io �^0:4 m o C m „F LL LL F LL s g g 7��z ��C7 0 K S LL m�U J K�U�U F r f U m U U i���0 j J 5 U h 41 Vi m$U)U(J 2 V U 8-ui F ,2 vv :s a� m„„ „ „„„ „ „„„„m„„x Z'---_- -t'Y x s x s Y :x `w.`:x w Y w n m=m s x r,e s r W U�VUVUciVVUUUUUi�UUUCJUUuuUUUUUUUUUUUVUuuVUUUVUUUUUUUUUUUUUVUUUUUVVUUUUVV a 0 Ts 0 a co GI Ef 23 £ o 7nJ I,: 77 T..- _ E 3 >- /§ wX 2 in- a _qI- / 2Z E 0 § 1.3 " k ce E \ } 0 CD a f \ � � � � ?\ ƒ > C W < ) & 2 / » m ® (11 _ � § \ o CD y{ ) f u- � � -� CA f { 0z § k ` ` en < \ \ \ < 0 / » r ' c } 7 j < § \ 20c i — / ° ° & % 0 , E - " > " X ® 0H \ / _ \ ( . / ) ? ƒ 07 « / \ k ± 7 \ ! k 7 \ 2 i- m _. o } ¢ \ < # ( } - 0n /- o I - k \ \ \ 2 �\ > 7 aim ` } 2 % { \ \ ) j ® a ) ( - } \ 2 \ \ ( ) \ ) § _ 10 coc \ k_ c c mz ( m f £ | 4 \ } } \ \ \ kk \ - am � � a & d Z 4 o wCC ■ o1$§A ig�Es�.8 f. 'r�xa§§s TO§g§§1§§1§§g§' $ " l-i .. 8 §1§a 88 s$ 8 yp;vV8 ex:9� V: % F:g. mX1II I8QR-'i?-u:.R- o S ! - sss gg gg § lei — __ i.,,. v 1 R L 3 --' R 1FI2 !'r.: .1 -0'fo . fig!§§1 2 g s 32 s11§33333a3311._ o- r'"A $ 883E8 - 1Assa^ttsissa-R 4 r„F o1R^-xRsARerim sI g s,§g$sg 0 w a e a s S L1hJIlli . � f pi lc ��. wlk E w r ^� t1 � P B� � gt$51i: ;J 44Iii! � u�. saT F'2 m > > fi ia °r� � owN � s1" `� � � °g 0 4�aK guarsig,.lit �t a2 °JVnw " ' � o ��gsoog5�_ os $'sm Rs^�ssa�'sn $. a _ 0 wII 6 t _ Q-- "0 S2 3' og a° = 0 .i pp i ° < u K r rre i un w , W n i1,1 , . • �a 1.1 • ay m '2W ., �g = g1 z FVB i g w11 li kill yL °uZ� Y 3 ;F.s g E w t n' 71. a . Vt. N a m' Pm� 4 'SA& e .-V, 4 7 (a°. o or SA p O 41 o s; Rai°' }� m'wa �'$ pw-� w 1 °a4 E 8 o4 s" - z .3as JUo""LLxz0�0 IN _� : u".-"f T0.0 3 aE1va J. ° paj O ° u. __ W. 1_ a N -NN N.N.....nnm _.. 0 - --_-— . s. • 12) .. ' 'r r - 111ia t Cluki tse 5[dth r a '7r =1 �° * • Bass RO Sht ;-Q I` a< 4 Cts af.wit.cop,.-,.ns ` Cec,m 11rr 141I lc) ` 45 flk Its,n Fll CI:ra9 fl v` ' , 9 Ey =v-, Gla•rviow % �+ Polk R4ak +'' W g 0 0 V of I' Qan Wavut Rdgr Granter,, ---.K 1-� Io h ," z3 �i �� � . a' eid,.{rl:Ia W Pe nn ,. - !4' x x A\,_,-----_---- 111114,4, tk''' 0O. Greater Clark Counter Schools I e `- , 111111 2112 Utica Sellersburg Road, 1`-1, Jeffersonville,IN 47130 iiiii, - ,- Tel:(812)288-41102 Fax:(812)288-4804 Pike Elementary School-Projected-900 Riverside Elementary School- Current-518 Utica Elementary School-Current-525 Northaven Elementary School- Current-544 Greater Clark County Schools JPD-SRO 2025 Year (As of June 2025) 4 Officers 159,294.40 Annually Paid Quarterly: 39,823.60 Initial request: One additional officer for Pike Elementary (900 Students and on Veterans Parkway-major traffic) Add: 66,000 1 Officer for Pike Elementary New Annual Cost: 225,294.40 Proposed: 50%of Cost of Officer's average benefits and salary Jan 1 2026-Dec 31 2026 (Charlestown and Clark County Charges 50%average Salary and Benefits: Clarksville charges$0.00) Average Salary&Benefits: 136,060.00 5 Officers 680.300.00 340,150.00 Half responsibility of School District (Officers only work 178 days) New Quarterly Amount (March,June.Sept,Dec.) 85,037.50 If Proposal is accepted then the completion billing for 2025 should be as follows(which includes the officer at Pike;a S66,000) Current Annual: 159,294.40 I Officer Add(Pike)for half year: 33,000.00 192.294.40 Paid as of June 18th 2025: '`17 220) To be billed in two installments: 112.647.20 56,323.60 Each quarter(2 remaining quarters)Payment to fulfill the 2025 Obligation w/Officer