[{"_1":2,"_97":-5,"_98":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_25":26},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_27":28,"_29":30},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[31,74,86],{"_32":33,"_34":35,"_36":37,"_38":39,"_40":41,"_42":43,"_44":45,"_46":47,"_48":49,"_50":51,"_52":53,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":59,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":65,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":67,"_71":72,"_73":72},"mediaId",6293221,"mediaKeyId","2523753-6084575fc765215a8657431baa6c6ceb","parentId",2523753,"title","Henry County work session lays out capital priorities: bonds, servers, opioid/ARP funds and youth detention reopening considered","audioSeconds",1138,"startMs",3997000,"endMs",5135000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2523753-6084575fc765215a8657431baa6c6ceb&start=3997&end=5135","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2523753-6084575fc765215a8657431baa6c6ceb/thumbnail_3997000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6293221/Henry-County/Indiana/Henry-County-work-session-lays-out-capital-priorities-bonds-servers-opioidARP-funds-and-youth-detention-reopening-considered","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6293221-a39c2196a5921a672896022afe07c853/orig.mp4?Expires=1769781149&Signature=LS0OsWoCG0HzkstiDIJlQlV9p4IBsLPO2ovQZuIU8alWQeKEWL1C3YpoLlI7t1p4wbHoyQ8MSaXXWn0siyeTzqvD54cO1HuS8ebeYYohK54XXVNK1wtuwm77ixGicEAZcgetO9kXVrf5XBTe7ehpM2NcsILIRkXvF4gk992z6KaOqscJw70aWes011OmzvHfDMAqpk6gHMSJ~Va5ZzhjuLmYYWa2ItPWne04BJ600xyiraOAHyd5I4pg~I5LCvn~sebXCdqumyTJr4W8lxO1hp4XePQtbqniLi18DyLEApaCA9HZ~v0MhmM48IGkGXhDk0EQrsFjFNnlFX8sFjoNGw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Henry County IN","date","2025-03-06T08:55:44Z","article","Commissioners used the work session to review countywide fiscal pressures and capital priorities, including the timing and prudence of new bonding, IT server replacement needs, restricted ARP and opioid balances, and exploratory work on reopening the youth detention center (YOC) under an outside operator.

Why this matters: County leaders said they face a “perfect storm” of falling interest income, proposed state changes that would reduce local revenue, and rising costs for insurance and operations. That medium‑term squeeze affects decisions about borrowing, one‑time capital purchases, and whether to fund continuing services such as EMS or juvenile detention locally.

Bonds, bridges and timing
Commissioners discussed whether to proceed with proposed bonds for infrastructure such as bridges and culverts. Speakers expressed concern about committing to long‑term borrowing while revenue outlooks are uncertain: several commissioners said they would be reluctant to vote for new bonds until pending state legislative outcomes and updated revenue forecasts are available. The commission discussed the mechanics of bonding and noted that bond proceeds and debt service are handled separately from the county’s general fund but acknowledged that levy and tax‑rate interactions are politically and practically relevant.

IT servers and recurring replacement
County IT needs were discussed at length. Staff reported the county operates about 19 servers with seven at or beyond end‑of‑life. Commissioners and IT staff asked for a conservative replacement estimate and a recurring replacement plan:
- No final quote was available at the meeting.
- Participants discussed a planning figure for immediate server replacement and licensing in the low‑to‑mid hundreds of thousands of dollars, with an annual replacement reserve thereafter; one working estimate discussed in the meeting was roughly $250,000 for initial server replacement and licensing, with an annual replacement target of about $100,000 to keep equipment on a multi‑year rotation.

Opioid, ARP and other fund balances
Commissioners reviewed restricted and unrestricted opioid funds (participants said unrestricted opioid funds were roughly $500,000 and restricted opioid funds approximately $900,000 but noted existing commitments) and ARP balances (about $3.9–4.0 million with much already allocated to county building projects). Staff and commissioners emphasized that most ARP and bond funds were already assigned to courthouse/justice center/Masonic building projects and that any reallocation would require formal steps and compliance checks.

Youth detention center (YOC) reopening exploration
Commissioners discussed preliminary work to reopen the county’s juvenile detention facility under a contracted operator. Participants said the state relaxed some standards and expressed that reopening could reduce out‑of‑county placement expenses (one commissioner said the county was spending roughly $200,000 annually to place youth elsewhere). Commissioners said they were seeking an operator (one named operator group, Abraxas, had been contacted) and waiting for detailed operational cost estimates, IT/security equipment quotes, and lease/contract terms to ensure a neutral or revenue‑neutral outcome to the general fund.

Fiscal framing and next steps
Commissioners repeatedly described a constrained fiscal outlook — falling interest revenue and anticipated state actions limiting levies — and said they would prioritize immediate safety and service continuity while deferring major borrowing decisions until after the legislative picture is clear. Staff were directed to produce: server replacement quotes and an annual replacement plan, refined YOC renovation and operating cost estimates with proposed lease/contract terms from potential operators, and bridge/culvert prioritization to support any future bonding decision.

Ending
No bonding or appropriation decisions were made. Commissioners said they will wait for more complete cost estimates and for post‑legislative fiscal clarity before deciding on large new capital commitments.
","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Joint afternoon meeting 3/5/2025","oneSentenceSummary","County leaders reviewed multiple capital and operational pressures — bond timing, bridge and culvert needs, server replacements, ARP and opioid fund balances, and a possible reopening of the youth detention center (YOC) under an outside operator — and agreed to gather cost estimates and legal/lease details before any commitments.","taxTitle","Henry County, Indiana","taxId",70528,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_32":75,"_34":35,"_36":37,"_38":76,"_40":77,"_42":78,"_44":79,"_46":80,"_48":81,"_50":82,"_52":83,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":84,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":85,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":67,"_71":72,"_73":72},6293226,"County officials ask structural review of aging Expo 4‑H barns; $1.3M restoration discussed as interim option",795,5145000,5940000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2523753-6084575fc765215a8657431baa6c6ceb&start=5145&end=5940","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2523753-6084575fc765215a8657431baa6c6ceb/thumbnail_5145000.jpg","/articles/6293226/Henry-County/Indiana/County-officials-ask-structural-review-of-aging-Expo-4H-barns-13M-restoration-discussed-as-interim-option","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6293226-023c6b3a12a93123336701bf37c27034/orig.mp4?Expires=1769781149&Signature=GdZycS4ExmfHU7AY~aGO1IVSQbsgJvRqnTNqSKie7KJhnFHICDKLlElWcW9KBffWYxLbEJtrrXKRIEK3HQc-Y8lvrTEkQOQG4iM0hVF498~VTjU~StnYU0gX~OypzDGdEOMDbjrmMn3LowqiaXSii80yUhQaKq6J~tkAb6ddKAK7J69leHGK~ZNn3h03fDS5DLDovbEqoqD6d7ZGT14D8l7Q3vY9SXOq7W3aYvGZLs2IcPCKMr4BB2jOIr0oUnUmHwWiM-CUEYNNJSt5swnNCJ-bps9Pl38OL-7~-WYaTydr19yPpZkNodWB-~0fIEWaBGv65OUCobDBSU~x6BdKhg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","County commissioners and staff discussed safety and timing for the aging 4‑H barns at the Expo complex, agreed to commission a professional structural evaluation, and debated short‑term restoration versus building new facilities near the Expo’s planned first building.

Why this matters: 4‑H activities are seasonal and require safe facilities for youth livestock shows and fairs. Commissioners said a structural assessment is needed quickly to determine whether the existing barns are safe for the upcoming 4‑H season and whether $1.3 million in restoration would be a prudent interim investment.

What commissioners heard
- The county’s building inspector recommended a professional structural evaluation of the existing barns before deciding whether to permit the facilities for 4‑H activity this year.
- An Expo board consultant, Jim Ward, is working with the Expo board and county staff and offered to help evaluate options and costs; commissioners noted he has proposed restoration options that could yield a usable facility for 4‑H in the near term.
- The meeting referenced a past geotechnical/soil‑boring report prepared by SteelCore; speakers said borings found deep sand and collapsing borings, and that some earlier engineering work concluded ground conditions would increase rebuild costs because deeper foundations or remediation would be required in parts of the site.

Numbers and timing discussed
- One restoration estimate cited in conversation: approximately $1,300,000 (described as “restore what we have now” in a way that would make the existing barns serviceable for 4‑H). Speakers emphasized that the Expo’s larger barn/arena buildout (the “first building”) has a longer timeline and different funding sources (grants), so timing is uncertain.
- Participants warned that full reconstruction or relocation to the Expo’s new building footprint could cost materially more and take several years; speakers said Expo grant applications and matching funds are progressing but would not necessarily accelerate the barns’ timeline.

Safety and liability concerns
Commissioners and staff repeatedly framed the issue as a safety and liability concern for children and volunteers. Several participants said they had received comments from community members who believe the barns should be condemned; others said the barns have stood for decades but that wiring, drainage and structural elements need attention. A professional structural engineer’s review was requested as the next immediate step.

Options and policy considerations
- Commission a single neutral structural engineer (vetted and recommended) to evaluate the existing barns and submit a written report on safety, remediation costs, and whether the facility should be closed pending repairs.
- If the engineer deems the barns unsafe as‑is, consider temporary relocation of 4‑H activities or regionalization with neighboring counties for the season; attendees discussed Purdue Extension’s movement toward regionalized 4‑H administration in some places.
- If remediation is feasible in the short term, consider targeted repairs (electrical, drainage, restroom upgrades) versus full demolition and rebuild; commissioners asked staff to produce comparative costs and timelines for repairing in place versus building near the new Expo first building.

Next steps recorded
- Commissioners asked staff to commission a structural engineer’s evaluation and to share soil‑boring reports (SteelCore) and any prior engineering documents with Jim Ward and interested commissioners.
- Commissioners asked Expo board contacts to provide current timelines and grant status for the Expo first building so the county could compare costs and avoid duplicative spending.

Ending
No funding decision was made at the work session. Commissioners said they wanted a clear engineering assessment of safety and a short list of remedial options before committing county funds; several commissioners expressed reluctance to spend significant taxpayer dollars twice if the Expo buildout completes a different permanent solution in coming years.

","Commissioners discussed safety concerns and timing for Expo area 4‑H barns, requested a professional structural evaluation, and debated whether to invest in a roughly $1.3 million restoration now or wait for a longer‑term Expo buildout; soil borings and past reports were cited.",{"_32":87,"_34":35,"_36":37,"_38":88,"_40":89,"_42":90,"_44":90,"_46":91,"_48":92,"_50":93,"_52":94,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":95,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":96,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":67,"_71":72,"_73":72},6293230,"Henry County officials briefed on Newcastle EMS preliminary $915,000 ask; commissioners weigh alternatives",0,475000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2523753-6084575fc765215a8657431baa6c6ceb&start=475&end=475","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2523753-6084575fc765215a8657431baa6c6ceb/thumbnail_475000.jpg","/articles/6293230/Henry-County/Indiana/Henry-County-officials-briefed-on-Newcastle-EMS-preliminary-915000-ask-commissioners-weigh-alternatives","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6293230-705e31f3fa37cc91c4c3261e3bcc6075/orig.mp4?Expires=1769781149&Signature=iv3dnUJH-C8ODDiJ53Lf1gMdzD3i7YJ0ZbrxBaYJufRvQ1aXXGX0BY38nPQx0mTm7255HnsQiFEEv583Q1rHKrtx5mjRq3QFgNYvJEZw9AtDBpEpy-s3xwRpTg09yklbPHKpd8RZDPOh7-yzZ4FWR4r0bgGI~~CtoiGTeKchjSY-etND9MTdDJSutVetOY0ml9Hs2ui6CUltjDJ4swRSL9kLU4t68uVZofGBe~H9x54usQ-x4UBtvDDMky24tacGQ0L5qxy8~lbvvLoEqaujnEwKM1P40lYX88CI27gXIt0JLvbaEDE7ZqkhGcm4Fz4iHUbjYTFFyEdnbDDckzWYfg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Commissioners and county officials discussed a preliminary budget from Newcastle EMS that would raise the county’s share of emergency medical services to a figure materially higher than current payments, asking officials to prepare options before the April budget season.

The meeting heard that Newcastle EMS’s total proposed budget is roughly $4,550,000, of which the service attributed about $210,000 to grant‑funded community paramedicine programs; Newcastle’s stated breakdown of runs showed 61% of calls as city and 39% county. Using Newcastle’s numbers, county staff reported a calculated county receivables figure of about $780,000 and a preliminary “incremental expense” to the county of roughly $915,000.

Why this matters: county leaders said the figure is substantially higher than the roughly $300,000 the county currently pays and would force decisions in upcoming budget sessions as state revenue pressures intensify.

County Commissioner Chad (Commissioner) summarized the briefing: “They presented us with a budget, not actual expenditures,” and warned, “no matter where we settle here, I'm sure it's gonna be more than the 300,000.” He and other commissioners urged further review rather than accepting the preliminary total at face value.

Key numbers and sources discussed in the meeting
- Newcastle EMS budget presented: about $4,550,000 (presented budget figure).
- Grant funding (community paramedic program) included in that budget: about $210,000 (presented as grants, removed from net calculation).
- Newcastle stated run-share: 61% city / 39% county (presented by Newcastle representatives).
- Newcastle‑reported county receivables (runs billed in county): ~ $780,000 (presented figure).
- Preliminary county incremental expense based on Newcastle’s approach: about $915,000 (presented figure).
- Equipment/service contract referenced (ZOLL): roughly $200,000 a year; commissioners said getting out of that contract could reduce Newcastle’s budget by about $100,000 and reduce the county’s share by the 39% proportion if that occurred (presented by meeting participants).
- Balance‑billing pilot estimate mentioned: collection impact potentially “50,000 plus” (presented, collection history noted that $32,000 had been charged originally in one reported instance but not fully collected).

Options and constraints discussed
- Audit and data verification: multiple commissioners asked for actual expenditures and run‑by‑run data rather than a top‑line budget divided by 39%. “I just wanna make sure it's an accurate number,” one commissioner said, urging line‑item and run‑level review.
- Quarterly vs. annual review: Newcastle reportedly requested the county pay a quarterly‑reviewable amount so the parties could revisit costs every three months; county leaders noted quarterly adjustments complicate annual budgeting.
- Balance billing: commissioners discussed pursuing balanced billing as a modest revenue source but noted legal limits (Medicare and Medicaid cannot be balance‑billed) and uncertain collection yields.
- Henry County EMS capacity: participants described Henry County EMS as able to perform ALS transports and to back up the city when Newcastle is busy but not yet staffed to be the sole 9‑1‑1 ALS provider. Commissioners asked staff to quantify what ramping Henry County EMS to provide more 9‑1‑1 ALS responses would require (staffing, training, equipment).
- Third‑party/hospital partners: commissioners discussed asking hospitals that receive transported patients or private ambulance companies for cost‑sharing or contracts; participants said some neighboring counties contract with hospitals or private vendors, but arrangements vary widely.

Concerns and context
Commissioners placed the Newcastle figure in a larger fiscal picture: several cited looming reductions in state revenue, falling interest income, and other pressures that will shrink the county’s general fund in the next two to three budget cycles. “We don't have $600,000,” one commissioner said bluntly about the ability to absorb such an increase. At the same time, participants recognized that ambulance services operate on narrow margins because Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements are low and insurance negotiated rates vary.

Next steps recorded in discussion
- Commissioners requested more detailed documentation from Newcastle: actual expenditures, run counts and classifications (ALS vs. BLS), payroll detail (paramedic staffing levels), and receivables/collection history.
- County staff were asked to obtain comparative quotes from private providers and to analyze options for Henry County EMS to cover more BLS runs while contracting ALS responses when needed.
- Commissioners agreed to reconvene with Newcastle and city representatives after legislative changes and the next round of budget information (proposed meeting in April) to discuss a negotiated price or alternative service arrangements.

Ending note
No formal vote or contract amendment occurred at the work session; the briefing functioned as an initial fact‑gathering and planning step. Commissioners emphasized that any payment increases will need documented justification and that the county will explore multiple service and funding options before committing funds.

","County leaders were briefed on a preliminary Newcastle EMS budget that would increase the county’s payment substantially; commissioners discussed auditing the numbers, pursuing balance-billing, expanding Henry County EMS capacity, and seeking hospital or third‑party partners as stopgap options amid broader county budget pressure.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Henry County work session lays out capital priorities: bonds, servers, opioid/ARP funds and youth detention reopening considered

County officials ask structural review of aging Expo 4‑H barns; $1.3M restoration discussed as interim option

Henry County officials briefed on Newcastle EMS preliminary $915,000 ask; commissioners weigh alternatives