[{"_1":2,"_123":-5,"_124":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"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","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99,111],{"_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,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6266207,"mediaKeyId","3087376-f1717eb7c1e60f2506e434996c11f75b","parentId",3087376,"title","Commissioners order owner of 5398 East Main Street to show remediation plan; set May 5 follow-up","audioSeconds",1446,"startMs",5273000,"endMs",6719000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3087376-f1717eb7c1e60f2506e434996c11f75b&start=5273&end=6719","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3087376-f1717eb7c1e60f2506e434996c11f75b/thumbnail_5273000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6266207/Dubois-County/Indiana/Commissioners-order-owner-of-5398-East-Main-Street-to-show-remediation-plan-set-May-5-follow-up","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6266207-a97d54424f28fb86b9a0349139dfbd7f/orig.mp4?Expires=1771183073&Signature=HQVPHCxY07ja~fNt8UmFqKDk4zMDaG-WDZeKpAuqqEyV5KQTz1CFiYhnhzVE4OvaMG25dUvEDjxAeWYjQb5eXhxPIzkrerPDA4zzfMt-vwDDVTq0KXB-Wlwx7uQYcor06NTMPKwXdTc5PCX~-77Hl-xXspbz2nPf9vCQHBNXTpW-sLHYn-NDoavlXELjryKSkGq76OOJ0JPIVkhFU9z2unX36V9ELMCV3O-pkN0oT8Ma9wEEcqwOshKfnWSjch2v46HM6ReZM2QHKhKbG2WFwEDFjmO~lFv3hYK8LljkvlpWP2lkUbNwTCjGHVV1B7IajBjhKscwoGseuzK3nytX3w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Dubois County IN","date","2025-04-23T00:50:10.563Z","article","Dubois County health and building officials told commissioners on April 21 that a commercial property at 5398 East Main Street has deteriorated since the county’s initial complaint and a 2019 inspection. The addition’s roof and masonry have collapsed in places; wind and storms have dislodged materials into the adjacent roadway and right-of-way.

Why it matters: The structure’s condition presents possible hazards to traffic and pedestrians and creates a potential county liability if debris in the right-of-way causes damage or injury. The board ordered concrete steps: the owner must present a credible remediation plan or face county-ordered remediation with costs assessed to the property.

What happened in the meeting
Health department staff (Environmental Health Specialist Christina Greenie and other staff) described their inspections and communications with the property owner. They reported the owner was given time beginning in October and again with a follow-up in April; weather and winter conditions delayed some work, but the building’s condition has worsened, including partial collapse and masonry falling into the street after recent storms.

Owner response
Property owner (named in the transcript as Mr. Slaton) told the board he has sought contractor bids and had one bid that was outside his budget, and that two parties had expressed interest in purchasing the property. Slaton said he bought a small backhoe to begin removal work but that the machine and his resources were not sufficient to complete the project safely.

Commissioner action and timeline
Commissioners directed the property owner to produce either: (a) a signed purchase agreement indicating an imminent sale to a buyer who will remediate the property; or (b) a signed contract with a licensed contractor that commits to demolition/remediation and a schedule to complete the work. The board ordered that debris and materials currently in the county right-of-way be removed immediately. Commissioners scheduled a status follow-up on May 5 and told staff they will authorize county remediation and lien procedures if the owner does not present a credible plan by that date.

Quotations
\"We gave him pretty much 30 days to see if he could do some work to it... the building at this point is in worse shape than it was when we received the first complaint.\" — Christina Greenie, Environmental Health Specialist
\"I have reached out to 3 contractors... I have 2 other options. There were 2 people that had contacted [staff] that would be interested in purchasing the property.\" — Mr. Slaton, property owner

Ending: The board set a clear follow-up date (May 5) and gave the owner a final opportunity to show a purchase agreement or contractor commitment. Health and highway staff will monitor compliance and proceed with county remediation and assessment of costs if necessary.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Commissioners 4-21-2025","oneSentenceSummary","County health and highway staff told commissioners that a commercial building at 5398 East Main Street has worsened since earlier inspections; the board ordered the property owner to present a remediation plan or face county action and set a May 5 status review.","taxTitle","Dubois County, Indiana","taxId",70545,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6266212,"Commissioners decline to pursue a county ordinance banning mowing debris on roads after public debate",520,3278000,3798000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3087376-f1717eb7c1e60f2506e434996c11f75b&start=3278&end=3798","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3087376-f1717eb7c1e60f2506e434996c11f75b/thumbnail_3278000.jpg","/articles/6266212/Dubois-County/Indiana/Commissioners-decline-to-pursue-a-county-ordinance-banning-mowing-debris-on-roads-after-public-debate","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6266212-3097639a0ec10d2baaf7e9490d1afa0e/orig.mp4?Expires=1771183073&Signature=iR~~PBN00YXNwMoquPcl6Hr5e6aAwbfmn~Ik2vvj62PysHP7GZe4QuseZJ4r5d-2MGu8j2azXvKYM0EREcRcg3pVk892hrhAPtifUSRxmnxle-bHsNfNSDNIEwoI3J0KMKWHTCiM11TKVvaopa3Y4uwIQzqLvYTETcgb6TI~Zij6g6tXZO68fKVwrNYrGqFgldVH2cyzohCv935NLfNwg7Vp3Jhyzuud2PhU495tmaU1CXTODF66kpBxor2y4bTfRMiTVxX3BgvdN0Jp6yooFHVAnb8wR1uBjLfBUO5UqAyb0fThMnieEVaVVCl0vEppiQrmv-x3bAx4ItmWOwTZKg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Commissioners debated a citizen proposal to adopt a county ordinance prohibiting residents from pushing grass clippings and lawn debris onto roadways. After hearing public safety concerns (especially regarding motorcyclists and narrow shoulders) and staff research about existing state law, the board decided not to adopt a new county ordinance at this time and asked county law enforcement to enforce existing state statutes where appropriate.

Why it matters: The proposal drew dozens of public contacts to commissioners’ offices; decisions on whether to create local ordinances affect enforcement burdens, liability and routine maintenance expectations for residents who mow near county roads.

What was discussed
- Public comments and concerns: The board heard that grass and vegetation deposited on road shoulders could reduce visibility or create debris hazards for motorcycles and other vehicles. Multiple callers requested an ordinance; others asked for education and targeted enforcement.
- Research and legal context: Commissioners and staff noted that the issue is addressed in existing state law and suggested the sheriff’s department enforce current statutes when debris creates a hazard. Commissioners also noted practical scenarios where pushing cut grass briefly onto the road may be the safest option for a homeowner.
- Operational issues: Highway staff warned that an ordinance would create additional maintenance and liability (for example, additional blower use and increased time on the roadway) and that enforcement resources are limited.

Outcome: The board did not introduce a county ordinance. Commissioners requested that the sheriff’s department be made aware of abusive or hazardous behavior and issue warnings or citations where state law is violated.

Quotation
\"If people are abusing this or doing this, you know, blatantly throwing big clumps... we need to have them stop and get a warning or whatnot. We don't need to pass a new ordinance. What we need to do is follow the books.\" — Commissioner (meeting speaker)

Ending: The issue remains under advisement; commissioners asked staff to supply the sheriff’s office with guidance and to monitor complaints rather than create a new county ordinance at this time.","After reviewing phone testimony and staff research, the board concluded state law and enforcement by sheriff’s deputies provide avenues to address hazardous mowing practices and chose not to adopt a new county ordinance.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6266218,"Commissioners debate upgrades to livestreaming and meeting-recording equipment; no purchase decided",618,1113000,1731000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3087376-f1717eb7c1e60f2506e434996c11f75b&start=1113&end=1731","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3087376-f1717eb7c1e60f2506e434996c11f75b/thumbnail_1113000.jpg","/articles/6266218/Dubois-County/Indiana/Commissioners-debate-upgrades-to-livestreaming-and-meeting-recording-equipment-no-purchase-decided","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6266218-ee2f8afb13f21820a74afcbd348ed9aa/orig.mp4?Expires=1771183073&Signature=D1GRw5Hy4NSffGpBdHjv6ePEUcQgAMf~cNerhef7iBMtfZBYJjLsJi4T3ffFzcviQvfrIo6HbcyuNhFiJFjpbeZ6Mcm0Bh8lVIZzqfP154~EoLOBtbJbZitxIl-bDCNiPU90ndnlTPbSsuEK7JXgJRYlkw3sAuR1tKBJbohrfkFgkh7iuJIlCIVpKBI3GNK8V8~fr3NIZS6O6PD5nZo3L3U9L4S0dVJkOQXebBZREgGFOjqQhqztNUT-K9lFk5NVeN3eKDRU8CoLq9bmw9DqLRqeL~vhXjAnhfVtkKBn9~oSFwcG4G7ssZL7gtJiyQq6lUTBrZe96F58K9PQPbo7MA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Commissioners reviewed proposals to upgrade the meeting-room audiovisual system used for livestreaming and recording county meetings, including single-camera and two-camera options ranging from roughly $19,000 to $45,000 in vendor quotes, and lower-cost alternatives.

Why it matters: Meeting-recording upgrades affect public access and transparency for county business. Commissioners expressed particular concern about audio clarity and reliability for remote viewers and discussed trade-offs between an automated multi-camera system and simpler or cheaper alternatives.

Key points from the discussion
- Proposal details: One vendor proposed a single-dome camera solution with audio microphones and installation for roughly $19,008.82. A two-camera solution — adding a second camera to capture the speaker — was priced higher (the presenter described a $22,006.47 option and referenced a separate $45,000 figure from another vendor). A local integrator offered competitive quotes in the mid-$20,000 range but later became nonresponsive.
- Audio clarity prioritized: Several commissioners and staff said volume and intelligibility for YouTube viewers were the most important upgrade, citing past recordings where speakers were hard to hear. The treasurer and other staff suggested testing lower-cost products (examples mentioned included Owl Labs-style conference devices) before committing to a high-cost installation.
- Operations and staffing: Commissioners discussed whether the system should automatically track speakers or require a camera operator, and whether the auditor’s office could staff an operator if an automated solution proved unreliable.

Outcome: The board asked staff to gather more information and vendor responsiveness and did not authorize any purchase at this meeting.

Representative quotes
\"The 1 camera solution was the $19,008.82. So you get 1 camera and all the equipment that goes with it and you get 8 microphones...\" — meeting presenter
\"I think we need to research it... '22 was a little bit on my side. So I think it's... let us look at this.\" — Commissioner Sethanov

Ending: Commissioners favored improving audio and picture clarity but directed staff to pursue additional quotes, verify vendor responsiveness, and examine midrange options before committing funds.","County leaders discussed multiple proposals for upgrading the VIS digital meeting-recording system, including a one-camera and a two-camera solution with audio upgrades. Commissioners asked for more research and did not approve a purchase at the meeting.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6266221,"Treasurer presents county financial-software options; commissioners hear costs and migration issues",1193,1938000,3131000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3087376-f1717eb7c1e60f2506e434996c11f75b&start=1938&end=3131","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3087376-f1717eb7c1e60f2506e434996c11f75b/thumbnail_1938000.jpg","/articles/6266221/Dubois-County/Indiana/Treasurer-presents-county-financial-software-options-commissioners-hear-costs-and-migration-issues","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6266221-1dc4495396a547c7ae24bb59fdd7dc96/orig.mp4?Expires=1771183073&Signature=BHXwN2dBa41SR~yw9EKqDD4m6~4d2qwEWaEUeVX9w7t6DrdjrZc-HgaWR0Seg2uVLoQ9xNHa1BT6c5xVokdgFympqe-hrDtFJYfYovGut~ufM2h~61msxfhhqEcq7K0riZYjsV1BOfEaqOaLKjhRZouUlnS~KiEU9yVz4RRegSK1HzFX-AZ3XZnIn83nuhLFPJwB5IktbOCAlrh-cRT4QjzV~nxP9eLHPb4p0EGordQzSGmb1GyQNjvMs7Oj6zCNM~6DX5bqZL6SdzpkaTn~~OA~uYpVfcoJT-DYf6D3Yq2tMTjEbF5IGyP~kVDrzmEOOQ3iPncOlIe0l57FwPc8mw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Dubois County treasurer presented an informational review of the county’s financial-software landscape at the April 21 commissioners meeting, advising the board that the county’s current system (Harris) has functioned since 2001 but has had unresolved technical tickets and that several vendors have presented replacement options.

Why it matters: The county’s core financial system affects bookkeeping, payroll interfaces and interdepartmental workflows. Software change would be a multi-month process, could require a substantial one-time purchase and ongoing maintenance costs, and would affect how multiple offices (treasurer, auditor, assessor) share and reconcile fund data.

What presenters said
Treasurer (name not specified in transcript) noted recurring application freezes and an open support ticket with Harris that lacked timely resolution. The treasurer reported Harris’s annual support cost of roughly $6,800 and described three replacement vendors that gave demonstrations: Lao (presented as a third-generation vendor and a common alternative), XSoft (early stage, tax-focused) and “Latt” (described as a longer-established vendor). The treasurer said a combined switch that would unify financials across departments would raise up-front implementation costs (presentation figures in the meeting indicated an example combined cost roughly in the mid six-figure range for full departmental conversion), with an annual maintenance figure quoted in the board presentation.

Commissioner and staff reaction
Commissioners asked for more comparative research and for input from the auditor’s and assessor’s offices; several commissioners suggested a cautious approach. One commissioner asked whether it would be practical to continue with Harris for another two years while monitoring vendor maturity and pricing. Treasurer staff indicated a multi-month conversion timeline (estimated several months, with data conversion and onsite support from vendors) and stressed the trade-offs between low current annual costs and larger replacement costs.

Quotations
\"We have our Harris Financial Software that we utilize to reconcile, make deposits, make withdrawals, write checks out, and all those sort of things.\" — Treasurer (presenter)
\"...we've had problems where our software will... freeze up. We've had a ticket that's been out there for over a year that continuously doesn't get fixed.\" — Treasurer (presenter)

Ending: Commissioners did not direct an immediate replacement; instead they asked staff to continue vendor research and to coordinate with the auditor and assessor on feasibility, cost-sharing and a realistic migration timeline.","The county treasurer briefed commissioners on current financial software (Harris), alternative vendors (Latt, Lao, XSoft), costs and migration timelines. No procurement decision was made; commissioners asked for more research and possible coordination with the auditor's office.",{"_33":112,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":113,"_41":114,"_43":115,"_45":116,"_47":117,"_49":118,"_51":119,"_53":120,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":121,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":122,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6266225,"Dubois County commissioners approve highway contracts, budget increases and several community requests",4503,447000,4950000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3087376-f1717eb7c1e60f2506e434996c11f75b&start=447&end=4950","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3087376-f1717eb7c1e60f2506e434996c11f75b/thumbnail_447000.jpg","/articles/6266225/Dubois-County/Indiana/Dubois-County-commissioners-approve-highway-contracts-budget-increases-and-several-community-requests","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6266225-8c3aad06793cd0a6c7b201eeb13d1603/orig.mp4?Expires=1771183073&Signature=k0QquSVVJXHkabDtWaCaP~5nyOVKEAzP9XqyeKWccF008j6KTTztjrofRoe3QfVwTaJ4Hi~r3jK3bqnW2Fib7uMyR53Asa85-9Zw5agEaI2MjS5Zx0rYJNl-iI25dYC~ZumCJ0w6xUkydSlvAky8CfuTin4lJDjc731HPkf4ehJQrNc~y89Vm6FAD68yt3Bc7RbvI6u4gLW63UwT~6CEyltFrNIhOYM5eTkMMAV07aXy0NU4lReR8mPTuOMwyvKsVo6iwRCor0v7~Asd794Q54Qp0eXEY24PIIvoB5AP-ESONkGaP1~Y822oyUFh4DoGw0B8s5zFq-Bv2cphZ54PdA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Dubois County commissioners approved a package of highway contracts, funding requests and community event permits during their April 21 meeting, and authorized staff to pursue judgments on delinquent Community Corrections accounts.

The board signed a contract and required bid documents for the Community Crossing (CCMG) paving program — described in the meeting as “Community Crossing’s 2025 Metro 1 paving projects” — and approved forwarding a rejuvenation/preservation contract with Rejuptech to county council for appropriation. Commissioners also approved multiple additional appropriations for highway and local road programs and granted event permits and road-closure permission for a St. Henry run/walk and the Strawson Fest celebration.

Why it matters: The votes advance paving and road-preservation work planned for 2025 and authorize the county to seek funding or council approval where required. Several public events now have the permits and traffic controls they requested, and Community Corrections will move to collect outstanding fees through small-claims filings.

Most significant actions
- Community Crossing paving contract: commissioners approved the county’s contract and required bid paperwork for the Community Crossing 2025 Metro 1 paving projects (vendor/contract name in the meeting: Calcar). The motion passed by voice vote.
- Rejuptech rejuvenation/preservation work: commissioners approved moving forward with a $186,595.20 quote from Rejuptech and referred the contract to county council for appropriation approval. The board approved forwarding the contract to the council rather than committing county appropriated funds at the meeting.
- Highway and paving appropriations: commissioners approved requests described in the meeting as additional appropriations totaling $910,000 for highway/paving funds (meeting discussion listed $10,000 from MBH unrestricted; $90,000 MBH restricted for bituminous; and $810,000 for paving projects — recorded in the board discussion as a $910,000 total request). The board also approved a separate Local Road and Street appropriation request totaling $470,000 (the meeting item listed $70,000 for stone, $200,000 bituminous, $200,000 painting projects). All appropriations were approved to be forwarded to county council as required.
- St. Henry Run/Walk road closure (June 14): commissioners granted the requested brief road closures on County Roads 1100, 100, 1000 and 200 for a 4-mile walk, contingent on standard liability/indemnification and coordination with sheriff’s, fire and ambulance services; motion carried.
- Strawson Fest / courthouse-square use (July 31–Aug 3): the board approved the Strawson Fest Committee’s requests for use of the courthouse square, decoration and limited after-hours access to restroom facilities, subject to coordination with custodial staff and standard indemnification; motion carried.
- Jail communications-site fence: commissioners approved supporting construction of a security fence around the county’s radio/communications tower at the jail complex and directed the requester to seek county council funding approval; motion carried. A low bid in the meeting was $4,366.74 (quote text in meeting). The presenter (Scott Wilson) said the low bidder is a local fence contractor and requested council funding support.
- Community Corrections small-claims filings: the board authorized Community Corrections to file small-claims suits in the name of Dubois County for delinquent supervision/fee accounts dating back up to six years so unpaid balances can be reduced to judgments and collection pursued; motion carried.
- Dilapidated building enforcement (5398 East Main Street): the board directed the owner to produce either a purchase agreement or a contractor contract to remove the unsafe addition, and ordered materials in the county right-of-way cleared immediately. The board scheduled a follow-up status item for the next commissioners’ meeting and approved enforcement if the owner does not demonstrate a credible plan.

Other meeting decisions and next steps
- Several routine items (minutes, consent agenda items) were approved early in the meeting by voice vote.
- Multiple approvals related to highway and road funds were forwarded to county council for appropriation or final funding action; the commissioners repeatedly noted that appropriation authority rests with council.
- Where the meeting recorded only “all in favor say aye” and “motion carries,” no roll-call vote counts were recorded in the transcript.

Quotations from the meeting
\"I'll make a motion that we approve the Calcar contract for Community Crossing's 2025 Metro 1 paving projects and the accompanying required bid for Magnitude.\" — (speaker on record presenting the contract)
\"I had a hard time finding a fencing company. The quotes were significantly higher than what I expected... The low bid was $4,366.74.\" — Scott Wilson, requester for communications-site fencing

Ending: The board’s approvals set multiple projects in motion and will require county council action in several cases before funds are released. Commissioners scheduled enforcement review and follow-up items for the next meeting where required.","At their April 21 meeting the Dubois County Board of Commissioners approved multiple highway contracts and budget appropriation requests, granted permits for community events and authorized small-claims filings for Community Corrections. Several items were forwarded to county council for appropriation approval.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Commissioners order owner of 5398 East Main Street to show remediation plan; set May 5 follow-up

Commissioners decline to pursue a county ordinance banning mowing debris on roads after public debate

Commissioners debate upgrades to livestreaming and meeting-recording equipment; no purchase decided

Treasurer presents county financial-software options; commissioners hear costs and migration issues

Dubois County commissioners approve highway contracts, budget increases and several community requests