JCDC to consider points

Jay County Development Corporation’s executive committee will review new points of consideration as part of its contract negotiation with Jay County Commissioners.

The organization held a special meeting Wednesday to discuss contract stipulations from Jay County Commissioners that were shared with the board last week and detailed in a story in Saturday’s edition of The Commercial Review. Those stipulations included not renewing the contract for Jay County Development Corporation executive director Travis Richards, returning the organization’s budget to county control via the county auditor, reducing the board from its current 25 members to between nine and 11 and finding a “qualified director.”

They were not discussed Wednesday, however, as Jay County Commissioner Rex Journay presented a document rescinding the email that detailed those stipulations and asking the board to “consider” points for a revised contract. He said after the original proposed stipulations were published by The Commercial Review online Friday night and in print Saturday, he received calls from fellow commissioners “rethinking their position.”

Among the new points presented to the Jay County Development Corporation board Wednesday were:

•The JCDC board reduce its voting membership to between nine and 11, including the mayors or council presidents of Portland and Dunkirk, one county commissioner, one county council representative and representatives from Bryant, Redkey, Pennville and Salamonia. The remaining voting members would be elected by the JCDC board and have term limits. Additional non-voting members would be allowed. (Commissioners noted difficulty in getting a quorum as a reason for the reduction.)

•The JCDC board would meet monthly or as needed

•The lease agreement the county has with the city for space in Community Resource Center will be renegotiated to contain the same language as other leases in the building

•The manufacturing sector would be the purview of JCDC while the retail business sector would be the purview of the community coordinator, a position currently held by Nate Kimball

•The JCDC executive director would be the lead local economic development official for the county with the community coordinator as the assistant

•Improved communication between the JCDC executive director and the community coordinator, including set hours for the community coordinator

•The JCDC board would set yearly goals, with the executive director to report on them quarterly and also report monthly on projects and calls made to manufacturers

•Any future unused funds from completed projects would be returned to the county

•The executive director would explain once annually the benefit package he and the assistant director are paid

The document notes that the major points are a reduction of the size of the Jay County Development Corporation board and more clarity with reporting on finances and ongoing projects.

Journay pointed out that the document does not address two items — the amount of funding JCDC is to receive from the county for 2024 and repayment to the organization for utilities — that have been points of contention.

Reactions from Jay County Development Corporation board members to those proposals ranged from some being willing to consider some of the commissioners’ points — reporting on projects and finances, renegotiating the lease and returning unused funds from projects — to others who said they are not interested in discussing any of them. 

Board member Mike Medler said he felt JCDC could consider the points offered by commissioners but that it is unreasonable to expect them to do so in one meeting on the same day they were presented.

Board members also expressed frustration over commissioners continuing to propose new stipulations.

“We continue to move the goalposts,” said board member Doug Loy. “We still don’t even know what we’re going to get, even if we agree to all these changes. That is a concern to me.”

JCDC board members took issue most significantly with the proposal to reduce board membership to between 9 and 11, with board president Angela Paxson saying getting a quorum has not been an issue. (Eighteen of 25 board members were in attendance Wednesday, with one of those via phone.) Others said that while a 25-member board is large, they feel it is valuable to receive input from all of the communities and various sectors the organization is tasked with representing.

Jay County Chamber of Commerce executive director Tabby Sprunger, a JCDC board member, questioned the proposed division of labor between JCDC executive director and the community coordinator. She referenced a situation in which Dunkirk Mayor Jack Robbins came to JCDC for assistance after he said he did not get responses from the community coordinator.

Journay said commissioners should be notified of such problems. (The community coordinator is employed via the county’s contract with East Central Indiana Regional Planning District.)

Robbins, a JCDC board member, responded that he was told two weeks ago that anything the city needed was to go through commissioners rather than JCDC.

“I’m gonna go with the people who’s benefitted Dunkirk. I have to,” said Robbins.

“He hasn’t helped Dunkirk one bit,” he added later in reference to Kimball.

JCDC board member Bryan Alexander referenced Tuesday’s primary election, which saw Duane Monroe defeat incumbent Brian McGalliard for the Republican nomination for commissioner in the south district and Doug Horn win the GOP nomination for the north district seat being vacated by Journay, who chose not to seek a second term.

“We’re eight months away from new leadership,” Alexander said, suggesting that JCDC hold off until 2025 on further contract negotiations.

He added that he’s at a loss for what the expectations for JCDC are, noting contradictions between the points provided Wednesday and previous conversations with county officials. He seemed to soften later, noting that a majority of JCDC’s funding comes from the county and that commissioners should be able to make suggestions.

That drew a response from Sprunger, who said that in “normal circumstances” she would agree.

“But you guys, let’s face it, they don’t like Travis,” she said. “They wanted to fire him. That is a personal vendetta. That’s what it is. So we’re going through all of this because they hate Travis, period. …

“The cards have been laid out. It’s personal.”

Jay County Council member Cindy Bracy, a JCDC board member, said she is also frustrated that Jay County Development Corporation has been spinning its wheels. (The dispute between the organization and the county has been ongoing since October 2022.)

“Can we just progress through the end of the year without a contract and without funding?” she said. “Let’s move forward.”

She suggested a focus on projects such as updating the JCDC website and progress on the economic development front.

Ultimately, Paxson sought a motion to send the points for consideration from the commissioners to JCDC’s executive committee for review and a recommendation to the full board. That motion was quickly made and then unanimously approved. Journay asked for a timeline to be set to provide commissioners with a response. (No timeline was set.)

Towell suggested that as JCDC considers the commissioners’ proposed points, it would be a sign of good faith for commissioners to release at least a portion of the organization’s funding for 2024. Journay said he would discuss that with McGalliard and commissioners president Chad Aker.

The commissioners and JCDC were scheduled for a public meeting to discuss the contract Monday. Journay said such a meeting is not necessary until JCDC has a response to the points presented by commissioners.