And the chair sees the quorum will call the meeting to order. The first thing we’ll do is have members and the staff introduce themselves. Rob, if you want to go ahead, please, and go around and follow the circle. Thank you. I’m Randhir Jha, chief economist with the legislative services Agency. Thank you. Lisa Ackelbert, deputy budget Director I’m Ed Delaney from House District 86. Liza Sherman, fiscal analyst for the House Republican caucus. Bob Cherry, state representative, District 53, Greenfield and Pendleton. Chris Garden, state senator for Senate District 45, all of Clark county and portions of Floyd. Rachel McCarty, Senate Republican, fiscal analyst good morning. Fabia Kadura, senator for District 30, north side of Indianapolis. Good morning. Hope Tribal I’m director of fiscal policy for the Senate Democratic Caucus. Good morning. David Nysgotsky, Senate district ten, from South Bend and portions of St. Joseph County. Chris Tiricci, senior fiscal analyst for the Senate Republican caucus. Ryan Micheler, Senate, District nine, north central Indiana Jeff Thompson, House, District 28 Ben Tooley, fiscal analyst for the House Republicans. Joe Haywig, acting Budget Director Greg Porter, House District 96, Indianapolis Eric Gonzalez, House Democrat, fiscal analyst thank you. We have distributed the minutes from the previous meeting. Are there any additions or corrections to those minutes hearing? None. I would entertain a motion to approve the amendments as presented. Take a motion. Is there a second? I’ll second that. Any discussion? All in favor signify by saying aye. All opposed and passes. Unanimous. At this time, we have an agenda that has been presented, and I would like to have that agenda placed on the table at this point. Are there any amendments to the proposed agenda? Seeing none, the agenda is placed on the table for discussion and we’ll start then with the projects. And I believe we have first family and social services Administration. I believe you have two, if I recall. Come forward, please, and present, sir. Good morning, mister Chairman and members of the state budget committee again, I’m Jeff Wedding, the director of operations for Indiana State Psychiatric Hospital Network operating under the Family and Social Services Administration’s Division of Mental Health and Addiction. I’m here today to discuss two appropriated projects needed for our state hospitals. The first project that I am seeking today is for Logansport State Hospital to pursue their security camera project. This hospital requests funding for security camera system upgrades and installation of cameras in patient care areas, administrative areas, and external locations across the campus. LSH’s existing system, originally installed in 2004, is deteriorating and no longer under warranty and therefore needs upgraded. The scope of the work will replace the current operating system with a new one which will be integrated within the statewide network which includes wiring, installation, programming, and the replacement of cameras. The new system will increase picture quality, increase system wide reliability, and reduce safety concerns across their 160 acre campus. We’re seeking the release of a million dollars appropriated for this project with Logansport state hospital staff prepared to begin as soon as possible. Happy to answer any questions. Any questions on the first project, representative porter. Thank you, mister chairman. In regards you said Logan’s port staff ready to start to work. So is this being done in house? No, sir. There will be. It’ll go out through the bid process for contractors. Okay. You look at local. Local contractors or across the state? Across the state, state approved vendors. So is there a percentages for Mbewe in there? Yes, sir. All those will be taken. Have you guys ever met those. Those goals when you did this work? I am not aware that we track that at the state hospital level. Okay, thank you. Further questions? Continue on then, please. Okay. The second project involves FSSA working in conjunction with the Department of Administration to proceed with the demolition of building 302 at Richmond State Hospital. Building 302 was constructed in 1896 for patient assemblies and dining. At the time, it was abandoned in 2005 due to the state of disrepair, lack of structural integrity, and no longer meeting life safety codes. The newer building was constructed to meet current needs, and these funds will go towards all phases of demolition, including any necessary design work, abatement, utility work, demolition, removal of building materials, and finally site work to complete the demolition by converting these areas to green space. We are seeking the release of a million dollars appropriated for this project for IDOA to ensure that this work can successfully proceed. The team at Richmond is ready to begin working with the Department of Public Works as soon as possible upon release of these funds. Also happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Any questions? Thank you for presenting. Thank you. Next on the agenda, we have professional licensing agency. Come forward, please. Floor is yours, sir. Capital funding for the agency’s remodel. Specifically, PLA is requesting $1.175 million to remodel its office space for its 114 employees. PLA believes this request is appropriate for three reasons. First, it will improve public access. Two, it will facilitate better public service, and three, it will improve staff safety and retention on the public access piece. PLA currently interacts with customers at two points within the Indiana government center. One is its hearing room. The other is its front lobby. The address for both is in the government center south. The hearing room is firmly within the footprint of the government center south, but our lobby is located in the tunnel between the south and north buildings. So for customers to find us, they both have to know they’re not going to our hearing office or our hearing room. And they have to walk past not one, but two separate signs telling that they are leaving the government center south. So to eliminate some public confusion, to help us direct staff or direct customers where they need to go, we want to move our lobby right next to our hearing room, which will place it firmly within the footprint of the government center south vehicle. Easier for us to find two. It will facilitate better public service. PLA handles a ton of walk in customers at its front lobby. Right now, staff have to walk from all over the agency to meet with people in the front lobby. If they need to go back for any sort of like copies, talk to a supervisor. It creates a lot of dead time, both for the customers and for, for our staff members. So the remodel will put our staff members that deal with the public most directly right next to our front lobby, eliminate a lot of that walking and dead time. Also, it will create a small conference room right next to PLA’s hearing room that will give us opportunity to have more breakout sessions for our large public meetings, give us some additional seating for folks when they come in, and we don’t have room for them in the hearing room itself. And we’ll also provide a space for practitioners and their attorneys to have private one on one conversations. Third, the agency needs a little bit of a facelift. PLA was formed in 2005. It has never had a major upgrade to its cubes or workspaces. In fact, the carpet is original to the building and most of the cubes date back to the mid nineties, early two thousands and in large part are actually not supported by the manufacturer anymore. If we need replacement parts or anything. Also, we have had a few security incidents at our front desk that creates obviously a safety issue for staff. We don’t currently have a physical barrier for our front office staff to between them and the public, and this will create a safety barrier between the public. So all in all, the remodel will refresh plas outdated workspaces provide security for our staff members and allow us to more effectively utilize our footprint within the building. So with that, if you have any questions. Thank you. Any questions representing Porter? Thank you, mister chairman. Just a couple questions just for my edification. Probably others on the state budget committee. Also, my question is this. You get this, a multi million dollars go to professionals for you guys every year and there’s no bonding. What does it. So I’m looking, okay, I’m already focused on another item, so I yield it’s my question, which you know is coming. Thank you for the easy question, Senator Garten. Thank you, mister chair. When you mentioned better public service, better customer service, walk me through that. I mean, your mission is to license residents who have to get a professional license. You know, I’ve been the landing spot for, you know, a number of years now for pretty strict scrutiny of your agency in terms of being able to efficiency license people. Talk to me, talk me through that. What’s your, what’s your backlog right now? Are your good staffing levels? How is this going to help you do a better job at that? Because at the end of the day, you know, when we give you these, these, who’s your taxpayer dollars? I want to know what who’s your taxpayers are getting in return from your agency? Yeah, understood. So I think the big return on that is one for our walk in customers. You know, there is a lot of dead time that staff spends kind of walking back and forth to their desk trying to facilitate the service of the front desk. This will eliminate a lot of that and allow them to spend more time processing licenses and getting those licenses out the door. Two, given our current kind of outlay within the office, a lot of our teams are kind of spread out to different areas of the office. For example, our it team is on both ends of the office, could not be, you know, possibly further apart. So it’ll allow us to put all the teams together in a more layout that makes more sense, facilitate some additional communications. And two, I think the biggest issue for PLA has always been staff retention. It takes a lot for us to train somebody up, especially in the individual license types, and we have over 200 different license types. And to train somebody to be efficient in processing those licenses, it takes probably a better part of a year to get them really where they need to be. So if they don’t have, you know, a good workspace to go in, it creates an issue for us in terms of, so what’s your current staff levels now, and is it sufficient for the mission that you been tasked with? I think in the next budget session, we’ll probably ask for a couple of positions on the licensing front. We’ve also made some changes in the way we handle our post licensure, so there’ll be some staff requests around that, I imagine. But we’re much better than we were. And in terms of backlog, we are. I think we’ve reduced it by about 85% in terms of the timing for licensure from where we were two years ago. Okay. And the reason I bring this up, and, mister chairman, I appreciate your giving me an opportunity here. You know, we had a situation in southern Indiana where we’ve got folks who have to be licensed in Indiana, but they work in the state of Kentucky as well. So they have dual license because we have that reciprocity. Now in the nursing space in particular, we had a number of nurses, I think north of two or three dozen that were within 24, 48 hours of losing their license because they couldn’t get it processed at your agency. And I had to get involved. And oddly enough, when a legislator called, it got done, which tells me somebody just wasn’t doing their job. And so I’m pretty hypersensitive to that because in my neck of the woods, that licensure is their livelihood and not just in my neck of the woods across the state. And so, you know, I’ve got to know from a mission standpoint that you guys can do the mission that you were tasked with. And I don’t have confidence in your agency right now. I think you may be referencing something that happened before Doug and Lindsey and I got involved, because we have done. Yeah. This isn’t targeted to you personally. This is about the agency and the mission is tasked with. Yeah. And I think the agency has made incredible strides in terms of turning that around to make sure that we’re providing better customer service. The times for phone calls are down from an hour down, a matter of minutes to seconds, depending on the week. And then as far as licenses go, I mean, we’re processing things generally within seven days of the time they come in. And most of those renewals, those are automatic, and they’re happening without any human interaction. They’re instantly just on the nursing front. I can give you an example of my cousin. She passed the NCLex on a Saturday, and we licensed her on Monday. So that’s our turnaround time right now. Well, I appreciate that, and I certainly appreciate and acknowledge the improvements. I just hope that we continue to strive in that direction. So I appreciate you being here. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Representative Delaney? Yeah. Just for clarification, has the number of types of license that you issue increased in the last five or ten years? We haven’t seen many increases in the types of licenses that we issue in terms of, like, adding new professions. What we have seen is an increase in the pathways to those licenses. So, you know, the traditional, I’m going to go take the exam and get a license versus, I’m going to come in from another state and have some reciprocity. And we’ve been enacting the compact. So in our system, those are kind of like separate licenses, but from the public standpoint, no. And I take it this means that you have more workload than you had five or ten years ago because of these changes, which we generally pass. Okay. Would it help you if you had more funds for personnel in addition to more adequate space? More adequate space, of course, is what we’re here for today. Yes, I think that would be tremendously helpful. We’re currently looking at staffing, trying to get our budget together. I really don’t want to speak out of turn about staffing levels. Well, I would encourage you that if you need more people, that you come to us and ask to hire them so that Senator Garten doesn’t have to bother with this anymore. Thank you, Senator Mitcheller. Thank you, Mister chairman. Based on what Senator Garten kind of said, I’ve had a license for 30 years and I was never audited in 30 years. Finally, last year, I was finally audited on my continuing education hours. So I would say that you are starting to improve your process. So thank you. Further questions. Thank you for your presentation. Thank you. Next on the agenda, we have department of Administration. Thank you, Mister chairman. Morning, members of the committee. Matt Kent, the department administration. I have four projects for you this morning. The first is the annual appropriation for the reserve and replacement payments on several facilities that are managed through the IFA. These facilities were originally bonded through the IFA and a portion of those original bonds payments was for those long term capital planning for those buildings. Now that those bonds have been to fees, we continue to make the r and R payments to fulfill the short and long term capital needs of those buildings and facilities. Facilities listed on the agenda. We’ve got six buildings here on the government center campus, five correctional facilities, and then three state hospitals. Thank you. Any questions, Representative Porter? Yeah, Matt. Thank you, Mister chairman. Matt. So in regards to the $22 million. Right, is that. Is that like every biennium? I mean, is that continuously asked for those rehab and replaced? Yes. So we, these funds go into a fund over at IFA to basically help they build up balances over there so that when we do need to do a large capital project at one of these facilities, that we don’t have to put that into a budget. For instance, like if we’re doing a roof at the government center north, we wouldn’t come and ask for $5 million to do that roof. We would already have those capital dollars built up at Ifa okay, so those dollars, mister chair, those dollars are escrowed? Yes, they’re escrow. And so is there a community committed to balance of those dollars that are there? Yeah. Over at Ifa, correct? Yeah, we don’t hold them in ID way. We get these funds and then we immediately transfer them over to you know what the balance is? Not offhand, I do not. We can get those for you, though, through IfA, if they would go to chairman. Yes. So give them chairman, because I’ve asked for a lot of things that I still haven’t gotten from, not just from you, but from anywhere, anyone else for months. So I don’t, I think they think we just move on to something else. But. Well, if there’s anything else you need, you can reach out to me. Reverend port, I’m not going to intersect. Please send them to our office and we’ll distribute them. I’m sorry, go ahead. Yeah, because it more often than not. Thank you. That was my question in regards to your reserve and replacement. Thank you, Representative Cherry. Thank you, mister Chairman. How much money is in your funds that you’re transferring that these funds do now? So zero. I mean, the funds come into IDOA and we immediately transfer them out. So, I mean, they’re an idyl’s fund for maybe a week or two, and then we send them over to Ifa. So there’s zero in our balances. Okay. Thank you, Senator Mitchell. Thank you, mister chairman. So the fund at IFA, there’s a balance in that fund? Correct? I’m kind of going off what represent Porter was asking. So in that fund, though, is the money used for the specified projects that the money was set aside for, or do you shift it around? So they shift it around. So every year IFA does a review on the balances they have and then they’ve got basically a capital forecast. They do that. It’s one of the things we’re trying to get some of the other state agencies to go towards that approach of forecasting what’s going to be needed and when. And so ifa, they give us these numbers that we request because they say, hey, here’s what’s coming up at each one of these facilities, and we might need more in the next five years or less in the next five years. So there’s projects they have in mind, or there’s projects they have that they know are coming up that these dollars will help fund, but they do adjust and pivot to basically what the needs are of the buildings. So the first one says 2.6 million to Indiana government center north. That doesn’t necessarily mean you’re going to use all 2.6 million. You could shift it down to another project. Correct. But they also might spend $10 million this year on government center north based on what the needs are. So these numbers are estimates, not necessarily what the money’s used for? Yeah, these numbers are estimates for basically building up a capital fund. So they keep budgets. We try and keep the budgets flat. Right. As opposed to just asking for $20 million for government center north this year. We ask for $2 million this year and every year. So that when we do have these big capital needs, we’ve already got the money there to pay for them. So it’s based on like a percentage. So you’re saying a long term plan for government center north, if we put 2.6 million, it’s going to grow to where when we need it, there may be 10 million. Correct. Okay, gotcha. Whatever. That number. Whatever. I don’t want to say that 10 million is what we have. Have. I don’t know what the number is offhand. It’s like a reserve replacement fund. Yes. And you’re guesstimated on. Each facility could be shipped. You have a major problem. Another facility could be shifted over, but they put in the money based on estimates for each facility. We could, but we try and keep these government center North’s bucket of money as government center North’s. We try not to say, like, okay, that money can be shipped. I mean, if there was something catastrophic, I think that might be in the conversation. If something would happen at one of the correctional facilities. Facility or something, some of the larger amounts could be moved there, but that’s never happened. We try and keep each one of the buckets into the. That’s what it’s trying to get at. So you’re not just throwing money into a bucket and using whatever, but if there’s a major problem, you could shift it. Correct. But you try to keep it where you set the money aside. And that’s up to IfA, though. I mean, we literally just the pass through for them. Thank you. Further questions. Thank you, sir. Next on the agenda, we have the Indiana Warren Memorial Commission. Come forward, please. I’ll be presenting for. Okay, go ahead as well. Thank you. On behalf of the war memorial, I’m requesting additional $1 million to fund the work in the shrine plaster repair project. This will bring the total project cost to $2.2 million. The shrine room sustained damage to its plaster ceiling and walls due to the roof leaks sustained over several years now, the leaks have been remediated from that roof leak. We’re ready to plaster and restore the shrine room to its original original state. The cost of this project is escalated due to the extent of the damage and intricate nature of the room. We’re hoping to begin the work for this right after Veterans Day, with the entire room being scaffolded so the work can be completed. Thank you. Any questions? Continue on, please. My next request is again on behalf of warm oil, requesting $600,000 due to cost overruns at the waterproofing project that soldiered in Sailors Monument. This will bring the total project cost there to 9.975 million. As our contractor continues to work towards the south end of the monument, they’re finding more of the granolithic and limestone flooring of the plaza needs full replacement. As the sections are pulled away, some of the underlying stone has deteriorated so badly that patching is no longer a viable option, which we had hoped to do originally. Once these sections have been sealed, the new stone and ground flooring will help with a barrier to keep warm water from infiltrating into the basement and ground levels of the soldier and sailors monument. Once that is completed, we will begin the H Vac work inside of the basement museum space to ensure proper airflow and conditioning of the space. Thank you. Any questions? Can you please. Final request is for the war Memorial Plaza waterproofing funding phase two. This is just a funding phase two. There’s not. This isn’t a work phase two. This is just funding request. This will bring the total project of this amount to $15.1 million. And this is for the War Memorial Plaza building. This is the main building on the war memorial campus. It serves as the offices for war memorial operations, houses, the museum, the auditorium, and the shrine room. The plaza level of the Indiana War Memorial actually serves as the roof over many of these sections of the building, including the museum, which holds many priceless relics of Indiana’s military history. The work will focus on extensive waterproofing repairs on the plaza promenade level, as well as the north and south stairs. Much of the work that you’ll see done over there is similar to what we’ve done at the state library and here at the state house, with basically removing stairs and then re putting them back down with sealant. We’ll also be pulling up the limestone on the promenade level and repairing the damaged stone and lay down a waterproof membrane. Coupled with the shrine room plaster repair project, this will complete the waterproofing projects at the war memorial, which started with the roof repair in 2017. Thank you. Any questions? Thank you for presenting. Thank you. Next on the agenda, we have Department of Corrections. Floor is yours, sir. Thank you. Mister chairman, members of the committee, I’m Kevin Orman, the executive director of the Construction Services division for the Indiana Department of Correction. The three projects that I have for your consideration today are all located. Are all centered on the Putnamville Correctional Facility, a medium security facility located in Putnam county. The first project is a joint project between the Department of Correction, the Indiana Department of Administration to demolish two buildings. A total of about 50,000 buildings are former industries building constructed in the 1920s. The buildings were wood frame construction with laid up block. They’ve degraded over the years to the point that repairing them is just not economically feasible. The layouts of the buildings, they’re not ADA compliant. They are not compliant to. Not conducive to any kind of modern delivery of services. The buildings have outlived their usefulness. In 2019, we made the decision with our industries division to construct a new industries building adjacent to them. It has been completed and occupied and we’re ready to demolish these buildings. Thank you. Any questions? Representative Porter? Thank you, mister chairman. This is not. It’s directed towards you, but probably directed toward a lot of demolitions that we have within the state of Indiana. For example, when you demolish a building, 1943 or wherever, all the copper and all the items that in there, that. What happens to all that? Does it go? Does the people keep it? Or because there’s. I mean, there’s a lot of money in regards to that. So I’m just trying to figure out environmentally, or do we get that money back in regards to that? So the fixtures and elements, you know where I’m going with that. So, so. And I can’t speak to the other state agencies, sir, but in ours it’s a unique process. The first thing we can do is go through and we harvest anything of historical value in these buildings. There was nothing. Then we will go through and do a environmental remediation. We’ll have contractors come in, do testing, looking for asbestos and a bunch of other things you don’t want to know about that exist in buildings of this era. We go through, we do the environmental testing, then we come in, do the environmental remediation, and then in our world we actually go in and do generally do depending on the. On what kind of condition the structure is in. We go through and we do all the removal of all the recyclables. We come in with our own crews. That reduces our construction costs reduces the contractors, the successful contractors time on target. And it’s just good. It’s just good business. And we do that with the labor force where we can, when we can. So it’s a phase process that leads up to the shell of a building ready for demolition. Thank you. Thank you, mister chairman. Thank you for the questions. Continue on, please, sir. The second project is also once again at the Putnamville Correctional Facility. Puttonville Correctional is one of the facilities where the thermal energy, hot water cooking, hot water generation for all personal hygiene and everything is generated from a central powerhouse, then delivered through lines, both steam high pressure steam lines, then low pressure condensate lines that returned the condensate back to the powerhouse in a circulating loop. These lines were put into the 1970s. Just the continual heat and pumping, the environmental cycling takes a wear and tear on these. It’s time for the phased replacement of these steam and condensate lines that provide thermal energy to the north part of the campus. The project is one point is right at $2 million and right at 9200 linear feet of both high pressure steam line and condensate line as part of the project. Thank you. Any questions? Can you please, sir, my last question, or my last project once again, is at the Putnamville Correctional Facility. I just described the process where thermal energy is generated and transmitted around the facility. This is a new roof for the powerhouse where the boilers are located that generate that thermal energy. Pretty small roof, 13,400 sqft. It’s been there since the 1970s. Nothing out of the ordinary, just a typical roof replacement project. Sir. Thank you. Any questions? Thank you for presenting. Thank you, sir. Next on the agenda, we have the Indiana State Police. Come forward, please, officers. Good morning. My name is Jerry Williams. I’m the superintendent Carter’s assistant chief of staff, logistics. I am accompanied this morning by my assistant commander, Captain Mike Wiley. If you’ll please allow us as we start as an agency to transition a little bit to make sure that the next generation of ISP is prepared for these types of functions. I’m going to allow him to do the presentation. Good morning, everybody. We have two requests that we are making. The first one is to upgrade our current fire alarm system to replace what we currently have. The average lifespan of that system is 20 years. The system that we have in place range anywhere from 23 to 35 years old. So it’s just time to replace those and protect our state’s investments and assets. But we’re going wanting to replace eight different systems throughout the state. Thank you. Any questions? Continue on, please. Thank you. Our second item is we’re wanting to upgrade our fuel system. That is a cost of $3.1 million. We’re wanting to remove twelve underground storage tanks or fuel tanks, because it’s just a matter of when that there may be a leak or an issue. So what we want to do is be proactive, thinking green, or thinking down the road into the future. We want to remove those from underground and have above ground fuel tanks is what we’re wanting to do. Thank you. Any questions? Thank you, officers. Thank you, sir. Next on the agenda, we have the Indiana Law Enforcement Academy. Forward, please. Floor is yours, sir. Good morning, sir. My name is Tim Horty. I serve as the executive director at the Indiana Law Enforcement Academy in Plainfield, Indiana. It’s where the good majority of our state’s law enforcement officers are trained. As you likely know, our academy campus is under major renovation. We are building new dormitories, new emergency vehicle operations. Track. Law enforcement officers in the state of Indiana are killed more in traffic related accidents than anyplace else. So we feel like Evo track is a big part of what we need to be doing. We’re building scenario villages and new classrooms. We are asking for $5 million in ff and e furniture, fixtures and equipment to outfit just those facilities. We need 400 mattresses. We need 800 sets of sheets. We need desks, chairs, lighting, and the it equipment that goes inside of those, as well as the classrooms and our scenario village, where we will be furnishing that with, with realistic looking training facilities so that our officers can go back to their communities and be the best that they can be. Thank you. Any questions for the gentleman? Representative Porter? Yes, sir. Thank you. Thank you very much. So are these replacement of 400 mattresses, etcetera. They will be replacements because the ones that we have now, we order an extra large. Our officers are bigger these days, so we need a six inch larger mattress and a bed frame to accommodate them. And then it sounds trivial, but we need the mattresses and the bedding to go along with it. So what happens to the others? That we are looking into the options, but I don’t know what kind of recycle options we have for used mattresses. You got other stuff in there, too? We do. We have credenzas. We have desks that are built in. So we would likely send those to surplus or anyplace else that folks might think is a good place to recycle them. I think that’s something that you should look into, not putting a surplus of. See what other nonprofits or someone we can put somewhere within the state somewhere instead of just sticking in our surplus and, you know, taking up space. I think. I think you, you guys should really look into. Yes, sir. How to get that out to. To the community, because taxpayers did. You have my word. We will look into what those options. Thank you very much. Thank you for other questions. Continue on, please. Then, secondly, we are asking for $302,500 for renovation of our firearms range. The berm, that is the earthen berm behind the firearms range, captures rounds that go into it. Our best estimate in the last ten years, there are 8 million rounds that have gone into that. So the idea is to reclaim that dirt, recycle it, take care of the lead that’s there, repack it, and hopefully, the idea is to make the range as safe as we possibly can for future generations of law enforcement training. Thank you. Any questions for the gentleman? Thank you for presenting. Lastly, I would invite any of you to come out to see our facility. It is still under construction, but this fall, we would welcome any and all of you to come out and take a look. It’s a world class facility, and I think you would be proud of the money that you are investing in that facility. Facility. Thank you. Thank you, sir. I believe next on the agenda, we have the state budget agency, orthoworks. Close yours, sir. Good morning, Chairman Thompson and fellow committee members. My name is Bob Vito. I serve as the president and CEO of Orthoworks, a nonprofit organization for. Formed in 2009 in support of the orthopedic industry that’s prominently based in northern Indiana. I’m here today to request the release of the $30 million appropriated for the orthopedic industry retention initiative to be managed and deployed by orthoworks. Orthoworks will use the funds to support efforts to attract talent and retain and expand the orthopedic device industry in Indiana. Projects to be supported will include workforce housing, northern Indiana community amenities, and an orthopedic innovation research center. Thank you. Any questions? Yes. Yes. Senator Mitchell, first of all, I want to say thanks to Bob, and I want to commend Representative Snow, who’s not on this committee. But you go to every single one of these meetings, and for all the work you. You did on this, you spoke to me on a regular basis. And this right here is probably one of the best, the best projection pages I’ve ever seen. It’s the easiest to read, and I appreciate you putting this together for us. So thank you for that. So that’s kind of a hint how we like things done. Is that what that is? Yeah. Thank you, Representative Porter. Thank you. Thank you. It’s hard to follow that, but I am going to follow it. It’s a great handout. There’s really no dollar amounts in here, so I’d like to see that potentially. But my question is, you talked about retention, so where would that retention be located for those employees? Are you just all in Warsaw? Are you other places also? Well, the orthopedic capital of the world is located in Warsaw. I understand that. Greater Kosciuszko. So we anticipate that that is the epicenter that more companies will desire to come into, and that’s also where we seek to attract our next generation of talent and the future workforce. So in regards to the workforce, housing, unpack that for me. So you tell me how you’re going to do that. Are you building more housing to attract more people? These dollars will go toward housing. That will be some of the money that is used to support that workforce. Housing. And yes, sir, the next generation workforce has a different expectation as it relates to housing, and we’re also tapped out with the supply of housing in our area. But those three developments that are in the handout that Senator Micheler talked about are in the Casiosco downtown surrounding area. Yeah. So I see that. And just got this morning, really for me. Okay. I still have some clarification. I have no apprehension. I just wanted more transparency in regards to $30 million going up to Kosciusko county. What other investments, first time investments, would come because of these dollars? Are there other dollars coming in because of the 30 million? Well, I think the mantra that we have used has been very consistent, and that is that this 30 million is meant to be turned into a multiple of that 30 million. So we have the orthopedic industry at the table in a manner that I’ve been in the community for going on 30 years in a way that I’ve never seen. This is a $60 billion industry on a global basis annually, of which a third to a half of that $60 billion has its base in Kosciuszko county. Thank you. Thank you, Bob, for your comments and the presentation. Representative Delaney? Yes, thank you. I think this is the most interesting project and kind of unique because you’re focused on a particular industry and on a particular community. So I’m interested in seeing whether we want to do this again somewhere else. Okay. That’s why I’m asking these questions. The research center, who will own the intellectual property, if any, that’s created through this effort. It’ll be a multistage process. We have the local city officials that are involved in this. We also have the good fortune of Grace College. That’s in the community. And then our local for public schools are also intended to be a part of this research center, not to mention the orthopedic industry at large. But who would own any creations if there are such? We would anticipate that there will be the city involved, and then there would likely be a transfer to Grace college, potentially, as the owner operator of that facility, when it’s all said and done, so they’ll own the facility. That would be the end. All right. And the housing workforce housing program, is the money going to be used to subsidize the housing? And if so, how? Yeah, it will be seed money. And again, these are projects that have been on the horizon and in the know of the need that we need to have for the community. And so, yes, the, the monies will be utilized to subsidize the developers in a manner to bring that workforce housing in at a cost that, again, this next generation will be able to afford to get into. So the ultimate beneficiary would be the person who buys a home for less than what normal market value would be. That’s exactly right. So you subsidize their down payment or their mortgage, or how are you going to do this? We would anticipate that this workforce housing is going to be multifamily style. So it’ll be a monthly rent, and so it will subsidize those monthly amounts in a manner that they’re more affordable to this workforce generation. So you’ll subsidize the rent of people who work? Do they have to work in this industry or they just have to live in the community? We anticipate the predominance of them will work in the industry, but. But we have not determined that that is a requirement to be. And I honestly don’t know whether we could stipulate that. Well, I’m just fascinated by this, and I think it is an unusual, and hopefully it’ll become a model. But you’ve helped me already by explaining the rental subsidy and the ownership of the college, so thank you. I value what’s going on up there. We’re deeply grateful. This is a 130 year industry that we’ve been fortunate to have in our state and in our community, and we seek to have it here for generations to come. Thank you. Thank you for the questions. Senator Naskoski. Thanks, mister chair. I just wanted to say thank you for all that you do. And it’s just totally remarkable. Remarkable that Warsaw is the orthopedic capital of the world. I would like to come out and see part of this development and just what the type of things that are out there. I’m certain I can verify that’s where my knees came from. I don’t have my cards on me, but anyway, thank you. Yeah, thank you. Thank you. Yes. Yeah, I just wanted to say thank you, Mister Vito. Thank you, Representative know, for being very communicative with our office and getting us prepared for this. And the handout is excellent. So thank you very much. Thank you. Further questions represent Porter. Thank you. Thank you very much. Just to follow up, in regards to the workforce, housing and it being subsidized. Mister Bob, the average wage for this industry up there is whatever it may be, so is it, is it, is it not livable wages up, you know, in Kosciusko county that it has to be subsidized? And how much will it be subsidized, the housing? To me, I understand the concept. I still have questions in regards to how are we getting from point a to point z when it comes to this $30 million and 100 plus years being up there. Yeah, I think just to clarify, when I say subsidized, it’ll go into the pot for the development of these three projects. And so the way that I anticipate that coming into existence is through the monthly rentals that will occur into perpetuity. Your point is well made with regard to the wage that the average orthopedic employee makes. But what we are attempting to do is, again, seed the development in the community that will attract the talent. Not every person that resides in these housing units will actually serve the orthopedic market. We also have a heavy predominance of manufacturing in and around our county, as well as the ag community. But what we’re really after, as much as anything, is to attract talent into the community that’s blessed with the natural resources that we have. We have over 100 lakes in our community, and so we need to build out some of the other things that will continue to attract this next generation. Thank you. Thank you for the questions. Thank you for your presentation. Thank you. Next on the agenda, we have the Maumee river basin. Please, sir, floor is yours. Good morning, Chairman Thompson and members of the budget committee. My name is Rodney Reinkenberger. I’m the executive director of the Maumee River Basin Commission. Consists of six northeast Indiana counties. Adams, Allen, DeKalb, Noble, Steuben and Wells counties. Today, I’m here requesting the release of $519,250 alerts to leverage $1.875 million in matching dollars from various sources from for three specific projects. The project details are as follows and they will be for agenda items 1617 and 18. So agenda item 16 is a Cedar Creek project Maumee River Basin Commission requests a release of $100,000 to secure $209,836 in matching funds to construct a two stage ditch in Cedar Creek to address undercut creek banks, stream bank erosion, flooding and nutrient laden sediment degrading the water quality. The undercut stream banks pose a safety hazard and environmental concerns. As the stream banks become unstable, the nutrient laden sediment eroding and it’s being transported downstream to the St. Joseph river, which serves as the drinking water source for the city of Fort Wayne. The scope also includes the removal of trees, constructing a secondary bench on both sides of the channel and gently sloping the banks for the secondary bench to the ground. This project will help maintain water quality and visitor safety in Auburn’s Eckert park and reduce the peak flows during flooding. The project cost is $309,836 and the project is funded as follows. We secured a lake and river enhancement grant for $100,000, a clean water Indiana grant for $100,000, DeKalb County $4,918, the city of Auburn, $4,918 and the $100,000 we’re requesting to be released. Questions the second project is the Fort Wayne Flood acquisition project agenda item number 17. The Maumee River Basin Commission requests a release of $219,250 to secure $1.534 million in matching funds to acquire and demolish forest structures that have previously been flooded and damaged. The city of Fort Wayne has experienced record flooding over the last 20 years and our role and our mission is to mitigate those flood damages. This project is part of AfIMA and MRBC’s goal of mitigating flood damages in northeast Indiana, and each property will be returned to open greenspan space with a permanent federal deed restriction to ensure that they are maintained as open green space in perpetuity and never developed. The acquired land will provide additional storage for future floodwaters and protect downstream properties as well as improve water quality. Fort Wayne’s property management department will maintain the acquired properties post project. The project cost is $1.754 million and is funded as follows. The FEMA grant will fund $1.315 million, the city of Fort Wayne $219,250 and the Maumee River Basin Commission request of $219,250 thank you. Any questions? Can you please. Okay. Agenda item number 18 is Allen County Stream Studies project. The Maumee River Basin Commission requests a release of $200,000 to secure $131,000 in matching funds to perform detailed hydrologic and hydraulic modeling to modify the current floodplain maps on seven streams in eastern Allen county. Once the detailed studies are completed and the flood maps updated, they will be submitted to FEMA for approval and they will be published as official floodplain or flood insurance rate maps. The detailed flood maps will provide businesses with an accurate risk assessment for planned housing developments and allow residents of Allen county to make informed decisions about any appreciable upgrades to their properties and the land values will where the floodplain designation is removed will be appreciated. The project cost is $331,000. The Allen county surveyor has contributed $28,000, Maumee River Basin Commission in kind match of 103,000 and the state request of $200,000. Thank you. Any questions? Thank you for presenting. Any closing? I would, if I may, miss, of course. I just wanted to share with you. As of 2018, Palmier River Basin commission has been granted $1.5 million from the state budget agency. We’ve been able to leverage $1.2 million with those funds. Thank you. Thank you. Next on the agenda, we have Department of Natural Resources, floor is yours. Thank you Mister Chairman and good morning members of the committee. I’m Kirsten Haney, CFO for Indiana Department of Natural Resources and we have two projects for you today. So we’re requesting funding to install electric wiring at the Salamone Horseman camp, which is located in Andrews, Indiana of Huntington county. Private donations have already paid for the burial, buried electrical lines and installation of a service panel. This final stage would bring electricity to 25 campsites within loop B, which allows for improved customer service and increased property revenue. Thank you. Any questions? Can you on plead? And our next request is funding to complete 60 small rehabilitation projects that we deem high priority within the agency across multiple properties and divisions. These represent the most pressing health and safety, repair and rehab projects that can be managed locally with our existing staff and knowledge or through property managed delegated contracts. The projects will help to modernize the facilities for code issues, efficiency and promote a clean and safe environment for guests and staff of DNR. Thank you. Any questions? Thank you for presenting. Thanks so much. Next we have Department of Environmental Management. The floor is yours. Thank you Mister chair. Members of the committee, my name is Parvane Stover and I’m Idem’s chief of staff. Idem is here today to request funding to advance the implementation of our agency’s information management system. We currently use hundreds of different systems and applications across the agency, and this is the start of a multi year effort to consolidate each of those into one centralized enterprise system called Tempo. We already use tempo in some parts of the agency, so this project is just to move towards full agency wide implementation. Our big picture goal here is to reduce our technical debt, or in other words, to reduce our reliance on aging systems that are no longer supported, like Microsoft access or homemade data collection services built by employees that are no longer with the agency. Much of our data and information is held in old systems that aren’t easy to fix, so we spend a huge amount of time putting band aids on the cracks and hoping that nothing will break. This project will improve the quality of our data collection and reporting and ultimately reduce double or even triple data entry by our staff. So we’ll free up our staff time so they can devote more attention to our core functions, permitting, compliance, and enforcement. We appreciate your support of this project, and I’m happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Any questions for the lady? Yes, Senator Garten. Thank you, Mister Chairman. Thanks for your testimony. Just real quick, how many phases total are there to the project, and what’s the overall total cost? We’re still. Just so I can understand the scope. Yeah. We’re still working on the overall mapping of this, but we’re envisioning probably three phases that will take about six or seven years. We don’t have the total cost mapped out yet, so I don’t want to present a number two. That’s premature. Okay. I would prefer to have a total cost of a project. Okay. Just to understand and lay it out, but just to better understand the scope, I think it’s important for the physical body. Absolutely. If it’s okay with you, senator, as soon as we’re done working through some of those roadmap conversations, I’d be happy. Before the next budget. That’d be great. That you privately. That’d be great. Thanks, Berloni. Thank you. Further questions? Yes, represent any report. I just caught the end. She will meet with him privately. This is a budget committee. Shouldn’t we all know what is going on in regards to that mapping? I would agree she might be privately. So I just want to clarify that. Yeah, you can pass on the information to all of us. That’d be fine. I’m happy to bring that to the entire committee. My apologies. Thank you. Further questions? Thank you for presenting. Next we have on the agenda the Indiana Veterans home. The floor is yours. I am Amy Gibson. I’m the superintendent at the Indiana Veterans Home and I’ve got Mark freel here with me. He is our facility maintenance director. All right, thank you mister chairman and committee members. The Indiana Veterans Home is requesting funding for various capital improvements on the veterans home campus. So these projects are primarily with the intent of improving safety overall for our great residents and veterans at our facility. They include refurbishment and modernization of three elevator mechanical systems as well as upgrading the interior cars in our main resident hall. Additionally, a resident safety system will be expanded to exterior doors and communal spaces to reduce the resident elopement risk. And then lastly, the funds will be utilized to install a card reader, access controls and delayed egress system to 17 exterior doors on the property. This last will be installed by an IDOA approved vendor that will also be compatible with other state agency systems here in our state. These funds are being requested to allow IVH to participate in the federal Department of Veteran affairs state Home Construction grant program. And should the agency not be awarded a federal grant, a reduced scope of work will be pursued focusing on the resident safety systems. So that concludes our brief here too, Mister chairman. Too barn. Any questions? Thank you. Any questions? Thank you for presenting. Next on the agenda, we have department of Transportation, we have like several projects so the floor is yours. Good morning. Thank you for the allowing us to get time on your agenda to talk about our rest area modernization program. My name is Joe Guston, I’m CFO of ENDOT and with me here is Steve McAvoy, our statewide facilities director. This is the first time that ENDOT has appeared before this committee to discuss rest areas and welcome centers. Due to our previous utilization and plans to use 100% federal funding for these projects. After consultation with the state budget agency, we concluded it would be beneficial and good idea to present our program to you for a couple of reasons. First, just to give a high level picture of some of the transformational changes we’re making to rest areas, which for travelers are the first impressions to who’s your hospitality? And then secondly to inform you of some necessary changes in our funding allocation. We have a total of 27 rest areas, welcome centers and truck parking facilities in Indiana. As these facilities have aged and parking needs for heavy trucks have increased, Endoc created a program to update, close or replace some of these facilities. This program will replace 16 of these aging rest areas with modern traveler focused welcome centers. We will construct two new welcome center facilities on the new I 69 core corridor in southern Indiana and will increase truck parking capacity by adding almost 1200 additional parking spots. Our program spans 13 years, with construction estimated to cost $600 million. In the past, we’ve used all federal funds to construct these new facilities. But recently we discovered instances in public works contracts where certain provisions controlling the use of title 23 federal funding were missing. The solution to that is for us to exchange up to $255.9 million in federal funds with an equal amount of dedicated state highway revenue revenue by just simply reallocating these funding types within our capital program over the course of a fiscal year. It’s not uncommon for us to balance our capital program by adjusting the mix of funding sources on individual projects. So this federal state exchange is very manageable for us. I want to emphasize that this will not increase the cost of these projects projects. It will not impact our capacity to provide necessary state match for federal apportionments and it will have no impact to our bottom line. And so you also should know that we’ve identified specifically what changes must be made to these public works contracts going forward. And we will work with our sister agency to provide the necessary coordination and control on these contracts so that this situation doesn’t arise again. Thank you. Any questions? Yes, Senator Garten. Thank you, mister chair. Thanks for your testimony. I just want to make sure that I understand the scope of this particular project. If I’m reading the synopsis right, there’s six projects, it’s a 255.9 are going towards. Is that correct? And are those, it talks about new or reconstructed? Are those six brand new with teardowns or these? These are. I think all of these are, Steve, these are all replacements and new facilities. Okay, so that’s 42.6 million per facility, if what you just told me is correct. Well, if you want to do an average, yeah, it comes out about that. I mean, some are more, some are less. Sure. No, I understand that seems like a lot for a welcome center. It is a lot. But I would encourage you, for example, when you’re traveling 65 north, a stop at the Kankakee center, these centers are constructed around themes for Indiana. Kankakee’s theme was to highlight Indiana’s wind power generation industry. We’ll have one that highlights who’s your basketball? One to focus on Indiana motorsports. So we’re using these funds to highlight some of the really important things that are happening in Indiana and make sure that our travelers can see those and understand what we’re doing. I’m not suggesting that these don’t need to be updated or even reconstructed. That’s not my suggestion at all. $42 million a piece, on average, is a heck of a welcome center. You can build a world class facility for $42 million. Correct. So help me understand. Walk me through some of this. Get me there. The majority of the dollars spent is in paved. Right. So when we, when we have a new welcome center that’s the size of Kankakee, you know, we, we add, we construct 150 truck spots. Each truck spots $45,000. Okay. Right. So it’s 14 inches of concrete. So give me an idea. Just again, we’re talking very general terms. So if we’re saying an average is 45 million, is half that pavement costs, not half, but I would say a third to two thirds, you know, to almost a half. I would say the buildings are about eleven to 12 million. Okay. In that $42 to $44 million. And then there’s a lot of site amenities that we. That we have as well. Sure. Right. Because we are trying to turn these into destinations, as Joe kind of alluded to. I’m just trying to understand the scope of the project because a lot of times your most expensive cost would be type of land acquisition. We don’t have that here. So again, I’m trying to understand. I know there’s a tear down cost and removal cost of all that, which is expensive. I get it. I just want to make sure that I understand again, on an average, how these dollars are being spent. That’s a lot of money per welcome center. Most of it’s in pavement. Yeah. Okay. Thank you, Senator Naskanski. Yes, thank you. So I guess I’m trying to get just a little bit of understanding and the way you mentioned regarding the federal funds. So you have a number of other projects within the state of Indiana that with a manner that you’re able to do. So the federal funds really aren’t going away. They will be able to be applied in a different manner. So these funds here are being supplemented and it’s not really taken away. You’re just redesignating in a way that you can use them. That’s exactly right. Right. And then one further. You know, I don’t know how Costco, we all know costs are going up, but I do remember a number of years ago, I was pretty involved in wanting to lobby to try to get the welcome and Senate welcoming centers on a toll road. You know, there were many times I would travel the toll road from Indiana to Ohio to Pennsylvania and then on to New York. And each stop I would make each new state, the welcome centers improved in some cases, I guess you can understand, because with much greater opportunity for dollars. But still, Indiana, it really wasn’t unfortunate to see the shape they had gotten into. I don’t know if that’s the case for some of these welcoming centers, but I can tell you I feel a lot better when I go down the toll road and see what other people are seeing now with what they see in our state. So I can certainly see how the need is there. Yeah, thank you. I appreciate that observation. Some of the centers that we are replacing are very much aged and really not serving the travelers very well. So, yeah, as we upgrade these, we’re hearing from some of our travelers that they really like what we’re doing. We are getting accolades from federal motor carrier Safety Administration for the work we’re doing. Adding all of these heavy duty truck parking spaces. I mean, anyone that can travel the interstates at night or early in the morning will see all of these semis lined up on the ramps. And adding 1200 additional will help alleviate that safety situation. Not just for trucking, just for car traffic. There are times that if you’re passing one of these places and you don’t want to take your, if you’re traveling with family and you don’t want to take your children to stop there, but you need someplace else to stop to get refreshed, that’s unfortunate. So I mean, it is something that we’re doing and we’re doing it correctly. Yes. Thank you. Thank you for the questions. Representative Porter. Thank you, mister chairman. Thank you for your presentation. We focus a lot with the Kenke Key welcome center. My question is that it’s going southbound past it visited, but now we try to put more truck parking there. That’s correct. So it’s just open. Why did we not look at that at that time? Well, if I understand your comment correctly, yes. On Kankakee, the main welcome center is on southbound Lane and a lot of additional heavy truck parking there. But also on the northbound side, we’ve constructed additional heavy truck parking as well. Okay, so my other question is that as it was alluded to by Senate Garden, a lot of dollars being spent. Have we ever several years ago try to work on a weigh station situation, you know, trucks coming in. Have we, have you considered talking about addressing the way station issue weighing trucks because they turn up our roads? I mean, losing, I started working about ten years ago. I know it’s losing about $70 million a year for that and we could generate dollars. So where are we with that because we’re not flesh with money anymore. Yeah, we work with our ISP partner on all way scale improvement projects and every biennium. We do have a number of projects that we use that we do with Mettler Toledo to upgrade systems for them to bring, you know, safety to it. You know, like we had a way scale out on the east side where a semi came in and basically hit the building that they would have been in and if anyone would had been in it, they would have been killed. So we renovated that and moved, you know, the facility back into the inspection barn to make it safer. So we’re constantly looking at what, you know, what we can do to make these facilities more efficient and safer. So we may not build anymore because the facilities are still fairly decent and definitely sized appropriately. But we work with ISP to determine those needs. So determine those needs. So ISP and not trying to capture dollars from way stations that would. As far as the, as far as, you know, the enforcement goes, I mean that would be an ISP question as far as recovering dollars through enforcement. Is that what your question is? Yeah, yeah, I can’t answer that. It would have to be a question for the state police for that. Thank you very much, Representative Cherry. Yes, thank you Mister chairman. I really do appreciate, I get have a lot of complaints coming from constituents about lack of arrest, parks or welcome centers on the interstate. So it’s really needed that people are traveling and they say they travel so many miles and there’s none available and it’s a concern and I’m glad we’re on top of that and getting these rebuilt and expanding and the increase in truck parking place is very, very important. Thank you very much. Thank you Senator Kodara. Thank you Mister chair. Thank you for your presentation. What’s the return on investment for that quarter billion dollars? I think you have to define how to calculate return. Some of the returns are not hard financial dollars. I mean you can’t. It’s hard to place a value on a return when the traveling public has facility that meets their needs versus one that is not. As someone who works in the financial industry, I can calculate how I can return investments on this. I teach my students for every dollar you invest in bucket a is a strategic decision to take dollars from Bucket B. So if we can’t calculate the direct return on investment for this specific project, we can calculate the money taken from a different project that have solid numbers on it. For example, if we’re taking a quarter billion dollars away by shuffling federal dollars and state highway funds, my question to Inda would be. Where did we, what other priority projects for $255 million that we could have invested in improving highways or projects across the state aside from welcome centers? Well, that $255 million of federal that we’re releasing is not wasted. That goes right back to our capital program, and we will redeploy it to projects that we have ongoing or new projects. I’m just very surprised. I think when we normally ask indot for flexibility on projects, it’s difficult. We always hear that those are federal daughters, have been committed, have been programmed for years to come, and I’m extremely surprised how easy it was to say, we will reallocate these federal dollars to different programs, and now this time we’ll be able to move state highway funds for this one. I think there are so many priorities. I’m not, I don’t have the transparency into InDOT to understand the list of highest priority projects. I’m not discrediting the need for reconstructing or updating welcome centers. But at a time when we are having serious discussions on other committees, such as the first committee about the future of transportation funding in the state of Indiana, and we’re spending a quarter billion dollars on upgrading welcome centers, I just question the priority of where these dollars should have been invested. Unfortunately, I don’t have the visibility into your list of priorities, but I know that Inda presented to us that by 2040 we’ll be in crisis if we don’t reshuffle the way that we do business as far as revenues generated and all that. So I appreciate you, again, this is not directed at the staff. This is not directed at you. I just question quarter billion dollars worth of investments in welcome centers at a time when I know for a fact that there are higher priority projects across the state. Appreciate it. Thank you. Representative Delaney. Yeah. First let’s follow up on Representative, Senator Niskoski’s question. Are any of the 16 facilities being replaced on I 90? No. No, sir. Those are 16 on various interstates around the state. Has there been a decision made to, shall we say, underserved I 90 compared to some other highways? Because I have been there once. I’m not from northern Indiana, but I was kind of saddened by what I saw. So is there some economic thing or some structure with the authority for that road that we’re not doing something there? Because that’s probably one of the most heavily traveled roads in all of America. So what’s going on there? Yeah, honestly, I’m not sure I can answer that question. I don’t know about the priorities. I mean, we’ve focused, except for two new ones that we were going to build on 69 south. All of the other efforts have just been focused on taking care of the ones that we have, and I don’t believe we have any scheduled for I 90 at least during the span of this program. Okay, next, on the positive side, I have observed these long lines of trucks parked on the berm, and I think you’re trying to address that problem, I take it. Yes. So much of this money is safety money or convenience for truckers. Has there been a dramatic increase in the truck traffic on our interstate highways in the last 510 years? I don’t know that there’s been an increase, but I can tell you that where a lot of these rest areas are located, I 65, those are two of the three most heavily traveled interstates in the state, and they’re very much high density trucks. Yeah, absolutely. So you need that. Well, I appreciate that. Did I hear correctly, did someone, one of you suggest that you wanted to make these rest areas, quote, destinations? Did I hear that? I need to hear more about that. Other than the physical necessity for destination, what kind of a destination capacity or issue are you talking about here? Well, you know, back when this discussion came about probably six years ago with the commissioner, Mike Smith, you know, he asked me, you know, he said, obviously we have a need, right. Because these rest areas that are, that are existing are date back to the mid sixties. Right. And they were sized appropriately for the traffic flow at the time. Right. So it was clearly time that we needed to do something about it. And he said, you know, if we’re going to spend the dollars, we want to, we want to try to attract visitors to the state. He said, so these need to become destinations in Indiana. And he said, go anywhere you want to go to figure out what that means. So I went to Texas because they have unlimited lane miles there with very little population surrounding some of these. And I, and that’s how I learned what, you know, that a destination is probably the right term to use for endot, right. If you, if you build it and you provide amenities for, you know, children to play and relax or adults to have some type of passive recreation, you provide, you know, small restroom facilities in the truck parking lot for the truck driver who’s tired and doesn’t want to walk all, all the way back to the main building. It then attracts more people to the, to the location. And instead of parking on the ramps, they’re going to fill up the parking lot. Right. We have interactive exhibits in the building that, you know, that, you know, discuss the history of Indiana or the region. I do believe they’re destinations, right. From just what we’ve seen at Kankakee, you know, with the sheer amount of traffic that comes there now and the comments, we get very positive. The only rest area I’ve ever been to in this country that I would call a destination is in. I believe it’s West Virginia. It’s called Tamarack. Why don’t we have a tamarack to show off our wares, our customs, our culture? I mean, that is an amazing facility, and we do. It is an attraction. In fact, we pick the highway that it’s on when we go to the east. Well, I can’t speak for that one. Cause I haven’t seen it, you know, but as Joe mentioned earlier, you know, we took a big picture look at each location, right. And we wanted to try to highlight some industry in that region. Clear creek on I 70 is. The Tony Holman family is from there, you know. So we’re partnering with Indianapolis Motor Speedway to help on that project. I get the idea. It’s just the scale is quite different, and it’s a revenue source, I assume, for West Virginia. They better be getting revenue off that private business. The last question I have is because the safety focus is really a good thing. Yeah, it’s really a good thing that you’re doing. And the trucks are an obvious example. But the second example is the cell phone issue. Some other states have but what amounts to pull offs along the highways that are for cell purpose. And they say that. And no truck can go on there. They’re small. There may be a picnic table, maybe not even that. They’re just a place where you can go off and take care of your ten cell calls that you got during a long trip. Have we looked into doing that? That’s a form of rest area, but there’s no products, no merchandising. We haven’t really done it. Studied that, you know, as far as pull offs go, you know, I’m not aware of any. I mean, I haven’t seen. Well, we have. We have people dying because they’re on the cell phones. Yeah, for sure. I’m just saying that this is something I’ve seen. I’ve used them and they helped build my recall, my mental fortitude to say, put the darn phone down and pay attention to this highway. So I would suggest you look at that. Thank you. Thank you. Further questions. Continue on, please. EnDot has two other projects on the agenda. The first one that I have here is Cloverdale waterline extension project. It has a cost of $301,561.12. So we have a facility on I 74 Cloverdale subdistrict. It was built in 1992. We recently constructed a new salt building there in 2023. At the time, we connected to the two inch water line that was on the site, but due to the proximity of the water tower, we could not get enough pressure to operate the high volume brine system or our stage one pre wash pit. So the brine system does have the capability of storage of 60,000 gallons of brine. In order to keep up with the operations during winter ops, we need to go back and connect to their eight inch and extend a six inch over, and we’ll tie that into the building. That will give us enough volume. Thank you. Any questions? Continue then, please. Last project we have is Indianapolis sub district utility extension project. This is about $1.1 million. On the east side of Indianapolis on Brookville Road. We have our Indianapolis sub district. We have the south side of the property there, quite a distance from the main building. We are planning to build a new central office fleet maintenance building there that will primarily take care of central office fleet vehicles, Hoosier helper vans. But in order to do so, we need to get utilities back to that location. So we need to extend city water, sewer, and three phase power back to this, back to that site in order to do so. Thank you. Any questions? Thank you for presenting. Thank you. Next on the agenda, we have the adjusted out there general’s office, and I believe you have several projects, sir. So, yes, sir, the floor is yours. Good morning, Mister chairman, committee members and staff. I’m Colonel Chris Mabus, the Army chief of staff representing Major General R. Dale Lyles for the Indiana National Guard and the Adjutant General’s office. I have director of state facilities, Mister Jim Mayhearn, here with me today as my backup. So your Indiana National Guard continues to be busy in 2024. Right now, we currently have over 500 soldiers deployed supporting missions here in the United States, as well as Europe, Africa, the Pacific and Southwest Asia. We also currently, right now, have the 38th Infantry Division headquarters that is training at Camp Atterbury ahead of their upcoming mobilization that will take 600 Hoosier guards, men and women, to Operation Spartan Shield in Kuwait. I’m here today to ask for the release of funding for 7th fiscal year 2025 capital projects. The first two projects both concern the Laporte Readiness center. The first is a request for approval of $821,210 for youth utility extension. We are asking for the release of $739,629 in state dollars and for the transfer of those dollars to the Indiana Finance Authority for funding to extend utilities to the Laporte Armory. IFA will work with the municipal utility to design and extend both water and sewer to our facility. The current well there is 67 years old and does not have consistent quality or pressure in as cause deterioration of other assets like boilers, water heaters, etcetera. The current well will be abandoned and capped and the septic system will be closed once the armory is supplied with water and wastewater by the municipal utility source. Construction is planned for the spring and summer of 2025. This project will be supported by $82,181 in federal dollars. The federal match for this project will be utilized for the connection of the armory to the utilities once they are in place. The second request for Laporte is the approval of $6.186 million for the La Porte Readiness center modernization. The adjutant general’s office is requesting state funding of approximately 2.4 million to match the 3.8 million in federal funding for an approximate 6000 square foot addition and renovation of the existing 13,000 sqft Laporte Readiness center. The funding split represents 60% federal and 40% state funding. The current facility is 67 years old and needs upgrades to meet modernization demands. The building does not meet various state and federal code requirements while also lacking adequate administrative training supply, armed storage, restroom and vehicle spaces. Completion of this project will allow the agony to divest of the Michigan City Readiness center and save on backlog maintenance repairs at this location. Not investing in the La Porte Readiness center will continue increased maintenance costs, recruiting difficulties and failing to meet state and federal requirements. Are there any questions on the first two projects concerning Laporte? Sir, any questions? Can you please? Thank you. The next request is for approval of 6.7 645 million for the Vincennes Readiness center modernization. The adjutant general’s office is requesting state funding of approximately 2.6 million to match the 4 million in federal funding for an approximate 6000 square foot addition and renovation to the existing 14,000 square foot Vincennes Readiness center. The current facility is 54 years old and needs upgrades to meet modern demands. The building does not meet various state and federal code requirements while also lacking the same as La Porte administrative training supply, armed storage, restroom and vehicle spaces. Not investing in the Vincennes Readiness center will continue increased maintenance costs, recruiting difficulties and failing to meet state and federal requirements. Sir, are there any questions on this project? Questions? Can you please? Thank you sir. The next project is for approval of the Hammond Armory Latrine renovation we are asking for approval of $1,680,448 for a project that will assist in the transformation of the army workforce in this area of the state. We request funding for renovations to male latrines and the addition and modernization of the female latrines at the Hammond Armory. The project is funded 5050 state to federal funding for $840,224 from each entity. The nearly 17,000 square foot Hammond armory was constructed in 1957 and was not originally built to accommodate female soldiers. This project will allow the facility to fully integrate all personnel assigned to the armory and build unit cohesion. The project will include demolition of existing spaces, installation of new fixtures, plumbing, h vac and electrical equipment. Construction is expected to take place in the spring and summer of 2025. Do you have any questions, sir? Questions? Continue please. Thank you. Next, we have a request for $2.143 million for approval for stout field building. Nine latrine renovations. The AGO requests funding for renovations to all latrines and expansion of the female latrines at Stoutfield building number nine. The nearly 60,000 square foot building was constructed in 1941 and formerly served as a hangar and was not originally built to accommodate female soldiers. This project will allow the facility to fully integrate all personnel, including 14 different units and over 1000 personnel assigned to the Stoutfield location. The project will include demolition of existing spaces, installation of new fixtures, plumbing, h vac and electrical equipment. Building number nine also contains a large physical fitness area open to all Indiana National Guard soldiers and government personnel at Stout Field. The project will also create adequate space for personal hygiene for the physical fitness area. Construction is expected to take place in the spring and summer of 2025. The project is funded 70% federal and we are asking for $643,104 in state dollars to match the 1.5 million in federal funding. Are there any questions on this project? Questions? Can you please? Thank you, sir. Our next project for consideration is 456,144 for Warsaw Armory utility extension. We are requesting funding to extend the water utility for the Warsaw armory. The current well is 54 years old and does not have consistent quality or pressure and has caused deterioration of our other assets. The current well will be demolished to instead have the armory water supplied by the closest utility. The existing septic system will remain in place. Construction is planned for the spring and summer of 2025. The adjutant general’s office will work directly with the closest private water supplier to accomplish this project. Are there any questions on this project? Questions? Continue please. All right, thank you. Finally, our last one. The adjutant general is requesting approval of an additional $2,225,500 in state funding to match an additional 2,642,925 in federal funding to cover cost increases to support the Columbus Readiness center addition and alteration project. This will bring the total projected cost to 16,401,000, including the previously approved amount. This project will be funded at a 50% investment rate for state and federal funding. The project was previously approved by this committee in August of 2020 2023. We are requesting additional funding for the previously approved project, which includes 29,000 additional space and renovation of the 20,000 existing space of the Columbus Readiness center. The current facility is 45 years old and is in poor condition. The current facility lacks the appropriate training space for parachute rigging, administration supplies, arms vault, kitchen equipment, toilet, showers, physical fitness, locker rooms, privately owned vehicle parking, military vehicle parking, and unheated storage required for its mission. The renovations will create sufficient space for the unit to train and operate in accordance with the doctrine of its structure. The need for additional funding comes from issues discovered during the design phase of the project. The facility requires additional ADA compliance for restrooms, additional secure storage, and additional training and classroom space. The land is long term lease from Columbus Airport Authority, and project adjustments are required to have parachute drying tower changes and aesthetic upgrades to its exterior to match surrounding buildings. So that is our last project pending your questions. Thank you. Any questions? Thank you for presenting. Thank you, sir. Next on the agenda, I believe the last in terms of the projects would be the Indiana Economic Development Corporation. They’d come forward, please. If you have four different projects, if I recall, floor is yours. Good morning, mister chairman, members of the committee. My name is Mark Woski. I’m senior vice president with the IDC, joined by two colleagues, Brock and Kurt, also senior vice president with the organization. The first project on your agenda for review is a request for $5 million in a cash performance grant for M Tech, a battery component manufacturer committed to investing $1.5 billion in a new state of the art facility in Vigo county while simultaneously creating nearly 650 new high wage jobs over the coming years. Our commitment and distribution of the company will be made over a five year period and based on wage investment and job creation metrics that will be outlined in our final contract with the company. With that, happy to answer any questions? Thank you. Any questions? Yes, Representative Glenny? Yes, I want to understand the deal closing fund is sort of a general fund from which you can draw money for any particular transaction, is that correct? That’s correct. So those deals are not identified to the legislature during the ways and Means committee, for example, the specific deals were not. So the concept is. Okay, and I’m jumping ahead a hair, but can money go from the deal closing fund into the LEAP project that is not dedicated to the LEAP project? We have used it that way in the past, yes. Say that again. We have used it. You’ve used it in the past? Yes. So you can supplement the overall amount for the LEAp project by taking money under the heading of. Of deal closing and transfer it over there. Okay, so the site strategies fund, which was also appropriated, was available for land acquisition, not specifically for LEap, even though that has been the primary location for that activity. So it’s the same situation. You could take money from the overall site strategies fund and direct it to leap or to this project here in the Terre Haute area, is that right? If it involved land acquisition, yes, if it did. Okay. It says here at the very last of this item 33 that the terms, apparently for job creation and wages, will be included in the final agreement. Is there an interim agreement in place? We have a signed acceptance of our offer from the company, which outlines the general terms of what they have committed to and what our incentive structure would be. And then the more fine details are included in that contract that we would have with the company. They will be. There’s another contract coming along, I take it, a more detailed contract. Is there a commitment from this particular company that they will be doing this? Yes. And they’ve already started site work and construction. The reason that there is not a final contract yet is actually a timing function. We’re not able to execute a final contract until we both receive board approval as well as release of funds from the state budget committee. So we have worked with the company to draft the final agreement, but we have not executed yet because we’re not able to, to meet our part of that commitment. Have they executed it? They have not signed yet, but it is ready to be executed upon release of the funds. Thank you for the questions. Senator Kadora. Thank you. I have one quick question on the $5 million. It’s a five year commitment, correct? The 5 million is over a five year performance term, correct? Performance. So do you encumber and reserve the 5 million from existing funds, or let’s say, if you’re giving them a million dollars a year, do you only give them a million now and wait for the next budget cycle to get the appropriation for future dollars? We encumber and reserve. So the 5 million will be encumbered and reserved. Great. Thank you. Appreciate it. Thank you. Mister Chair thank you. Further questions continue on, please. Thank you, Mister Chairman. The second request from the IADC on the agenda is to repurpose a portion of the $100 million that this committee had previously reviewed for Project Nora. And we would ask that $59 million of that $100 million approval be repurposed to allow the IADC to acquire additional property, make deposits and enter into option contracts for approximately 2500 acres of land in Boone county. To support three major projects currently considering the Leap district. For their investment. The companies involved are engaged in advanced computing, information technology, component manufacturing and biopharmaceutical manufacturing, which we anticipate to result in tens of billions of dollars in capital investment over the coming years. The landlords acquired will be sold to the subject companies. With the proceeds of these land sales being returned to the general fund. And available for additional land acquisition and cash performance grants through this fund. So with that, happy to answer any questions? Any questions, Representative Delaney? Yes, I have several. Because of the enormity of this project. Project, what is the total anticipated cost of the LEAP project? All in whether it comes from the deal closing fund, the site strategies fund or any other fund. What is your estimate is the total cost to the taxpayer of that project? So that’s a very good question, Representative Delaney. And one that we are tracking will get you those numbers. I will just say that as projects approach us and either decide to move forward, change the scope of their proposed investment, or may decide to not invest within the LEED district, those numbers could change based off of the needs for infrastructure and other investments. I have to use the term open ended. I feel compelled to use that. It seems to me that we have an open ended investment here. Is that a fair characterization? I would not describe it as fair. I think we are closing in on clarity around all costs around infrastructure that may be needed for leap. There is roughly 9000 acres now that the IDC has under control. And so land acquisition costs are known, which would be sold back. I think the unknown, and to your point, you know, what we don’t know is the incentive commitment. And that is a function of the scale and timing at which a company may invest. You know, ultimately, incentives are new tax dollars that the company has to pay. That would be rebated and credited back. And so that is where I think the open endedness of what the state’s contribution to a project is unclear. But in those cases, it is a portion of new revenue created. Whereas the overall land acquisition infrastructure costs are becoming more clear. As things like the central Indiana water study and land prices are finalized, so we’re closing in on clarity. Okay. And we don’t have a total number they’re willing to put in. Are you doing, in this analysis, that part of what you’re doing is estimating the tax revenue to the state if a particular project goes forward? Absolutely. And are you deducting that from the cost to the state? Yes, we are. Properly accounting for cash flow is maybe the better way to phrase it. So as we look at costs that the state may or must incur, maybe initially upfront for capital projects, that plays a direct factor into incentives that may be offered direct to company in terms of how much, because value to a project can come in infrastructure and site acquisition, as well as long term incentives. And then also with the eye of, we will not give away or provide performance based incentives of the full amount of increment. Leaving. Say that again. We will not what? We will not provide incentives for the full amount of increments. So we’re never going to give 100% of an incentive back, saving money for both the state and the locals to reinvest back into infrastructure, things like that, and potentially recoup expenses that were made up front. I hear you suggesting, at least to me, and I’m no accountant, that to fully understand this particular transaction, we’d have to have some pretty solid information as to the tax revenues that would come in both to the state through presumably income tax and to the local governments through property tax. And of course, we don’t have that. We don’t know. Until you have the projects and you sign the incentive agreements and the tax abatements and so forth, we have no way to know in advance. Let’s call it the revenue side, the coming back to the state side, right? We don’t know that. We do know that on the Lilly projects, and we have anticipated estimates on capital investment, in hiring schedules that companies have given us that are planning to make commitments or considering making commitments. But the Lilly project is the only one that’s undergone in process, isn’t it? I would not say in process. It’s the only one that is public and finalized at this point. Public finalized. And they’re actually digging the ground, right? That’s correct. On the rest of this 9000 acre project, there is no such comparable arrangement, is there? I would say, representative Delaney, that we have strong confidence in the ongoing discussions that we are having with companies and, you know, feel that, you know, hopefully some decisions should be made within the coming months. Within the coming months, did you say? Do we have, did we have strong confidence in the Nora project that came through this commission in December of last year, we approved that, did we not? And it’s gone, right? It’s disappeared, right? It has not disappeared. Due to company and industry changes. They have delayed a decision. And we were very candid and clear with that company that at an expiration date, should the project not proceed, that the funds would be de obligated and potentially repurposed, which is what we’re here today. Is the proposal before us not, in effect, a de obligation, to use your word, the obligation of the commitment on that project. We’re taking the money away and buying more ground with it. Is the, whoever’s on the other side of Project Nora happy to have us do that? They were very aware of the timing and process. And we continue to have a strong relationship with the company and continue dialogue on that project. But is that a de obligation, again, using your word, to take the money and buy land with it, rather than put it into the so called Nora project? It is, isn’t it? Yeah, it’s a repurposed. Okay, if I were them, I would say the state is showing less confidence in me, whoever I am. Right? No, I would say that the state was very clear about when an expiration date of that offer would occur. And we were, we stuck to our word and we let it expire while not burning a relationship with the company. And to add to that as well, it was a product. And we’ve had questions from the committee before. Some representative Delaney asked today about what is the status of the offer, and has it been accepted? And we did learn from this experience that we don’t want to come and ask for funding from the budget committee until we have that acceptance. So that was a mistake. I’d say that it was something that the company made clear that they needed to have the confidence and having all of the approvals taken care of before they would make a final decision. But as who’s the day in that sentence? Are they you or the company or this company is the company. They didn’t have the confidence they should have had last December. They were looking for all of the approvals to be received by the appropriate parties, the IEDC, and at the local level. And we’re not going to make a public announcement until that was taken care of. And then, as Brock had mentioned, some other external forces within their industry caused them to decide to press pause on the project until some of those issues were smoothed out. Well, it sounds to me like you’re pressing pause, too. But the reason I ask some of these questions is this is an ongoing project. I don’t know if there’s any estimate how many years the LEAP project will last, but I want to learn from this mistake. It’s obviously a mistake. I want to learn from that so that we don’t do that again. That’s why I’m asking that question now. So we’re going to take money that we de obligated from this project and we’re going to put it into buying how many acres of land it is to gain control over purchase? Approximately 2500 acres with the 59 million, about 58 and a half of that is for acquisition and 500,000 is for, I take it, gain control over land means that we’re going to get options, purchase options, and then later maybe close. What’s our escrow policy? What’s our penalty if we don’t close? If we do not close the. It depends, I think, on the specific agreements we have with the landowners, but many of them would have those option payments be captured by the landowner. But if we do close, they are applied against the purchase price. So we’re making option payments as we go along. If we close, that’s a credit against the cost. But if we don’t close, they keep the revenue. What’s the total cost of that? Now that we’re paying for options, let’s start with what’s existing. Then we’ll talk about this. $59 million. What are we paying right now for options? With this request, it would be about $500,000 for landowners, covering a large portion of that, 25. For what period? That would also depend on the terms of the contract that we would negotiate with landowners. But correct me, it’s typically around two years. Two years? Correct. And what’s the rate, what percentage of the price that they get per year? Again, that would depend on the specific terms of the contract. That’ll vary. Okay, back to this project. Nora, what had we spent on that project, which is now being de obligated in some form of suspense? We had spent nothing other than your administrative time, right? Correct. Okay, so we’re going to take $59 million from that. What are the new 2500 acres for? That’s different from the 9000 acres you already have. This is where I may ask Curt to supplement the 2500 is part of or inclusive of the 9000. And so this would be to close on property that we currently have been paying option payments on and then to take options that 500,000 that mark mentioned on additional acreage. Okay, so the 59 million, how much is going to close on pending options, 58 and a half million. And the 500,000 is just to get options on how many brand new acres that you’ve not had owned or, or had under contract before. Now it’s about 1414 hundred more acres. So the 1400 acres is a more accurate number. Okay. In terms of adding addition, if you’re talking about additional, additional acres. Okay. I think I did ask you, we don’t know the total state cost on this project, so that, that’s, that’s fine. How does money flow back to the state on this project other than from taxes? So it would flow, I guess, primarily through taxes, but also, you know, we anticipate selling the property to the prospective company when they commit to us with those dollars being sent by the IDC back to the budget agency for the general fund. It goes to the general fund though, doesn’t it? So we’ll reduce the overall cost. So to some extent we’re advancing money and then we’ll get that money back. Okay. And if there’s a gain on our sale to the land buyer, the company, that will go back to the general fund, is that right? That’s correct. Okay. Is this transaction that we’re going to do here with the 1500 or 1800 more acres? And so is that going to affect the deal closing fund or is that coming out of the site strategies? It would be from the deal closing closing fund. Okay. Is there some place we could look here as to an overview of these two funds and where they sit at the moment? Yes. So currently within the deal closing fund there I have to do math. But once we, you know, cover all of the projects today, there would be about 8 million left in the deal closing fund, specifically, with an additional 19 and a quarter specifically designated for projects within rural communities. So. Quick math. 23 and a quarter is what remains in that fund and about $300,000 currently within the site acquisition fund. Are they available to places other than the LEAP project? Yes. Okay. So to some extent, the LEAP project competes with other opportunities around the state. I wouldn’t say that it competes with other opportunities. It’s part of a very specific strategy that we have to try and bring truly transformative projects to the state of Indiana and as it gets developed. And our expectation would be that as those properties are sold, we would then be able to utilize the sale proceeds to continue this activity throughout the state. As to the new acres, the twelve or 1500 new acres, there’s some specific purpose for that land? There is, yes. Much of it is needed for a number of the projects that we are currently discussing with businesses. So the 9000 acres was not enough. This would all be part of the envision 9000 acres. Well, but you’re adding twelve or 1500 acres. I thought I figured that out. So why that? Why are we adding those acres? There is some that are within the site. Proposed site. You have holes in this that we are working to with the landowners. Are you trying to close that off where there’s. Where you don’t have ownership within the outer boundaries in order to make the investments work? They wouldn’t be able to have other landowners within the site footprint. Yes. What’s the average price you’re going to pay for this new twelve or 1500 acres? The totally new ones? I will have to get out a calculator, Representative Delaney. But it’s over $100,000. I don’t have any information yet. It’s over $100,000 an acre, isn’t it? Is that right? I believe this is in that range or. Well, somebody here must know what you’re paying on average. I mean, every homeowner knows what they’re paying for their quarter acre. We can get you an average. Admittedly, Representative Delaney, this does put us in a disadvantage. From a negotiating position or negotiating psas. We’re happy to share land purchase price. Average price. Well, if you. If you buy a place, you have to record that, don’t you? In the county? Yes. So what have you been paying on the deeds you’ve been recording? It’s an average of around $80,000. Okay. And that’s going to go up for the in holdings, isn’t it? Because they’ve got you in a good position, don’t they? That’s economics, right? I mean, we have seen land values in the surrounding area go up significantly. Outside Leap project. Yes. How about inside Leap project? That’s what I’m asking about. Because we have been in conversations and discussions with these landowners for quite some time, we have not seen a significant increase in the overall value of the property. And a lot of it, when you look at the average, depends on whether it is farmland or whether it has somebody’s home or business on it. But we are seeing, on average, about 80,000 an acre, with discussions with companies around sale value to them, at minimum getting at that point. I’m trying to understand this because I’m on this body and why was it so hard to tell me this 80,000 acre. You guys know that? Come on, help us. All right. You didn’t need to have me ask you six or eight questions to know that. So let’s try to cooperate on that. Let’s talk about the local government impact. If all these acres come off local properties, is the state compensating local government while this land sits essentially idle or maybe raising grain? But we’ve paid 80,000 an acre, are they going to lose revenue in the, as this thing moves forward? We are monitoring that impact, working closely with folks at TLGF as well as the local community to make sure that any impact, if any, is minimized to every extent. Do we have a deal as to what we’re going to give Boone county, for example, or the school districts that are affected? We have an arrangement. If there is a IDD or an innovation development district utilized, a portion of the local property taxes are automatically directed to the local school district and to the city or county where the project is located. Outside of, any incentives that we would coordinate with our local partners through that tool would be reserved and directed into other investments within the community in accordance with an agreement that we would have with the state. Do we have that agreement with the city of Lebanon or Boone county? We are in the process of drafting it. We have sent our statutorily required notice to the community, and they are in the process of formally designating it. Now, am I right that there’s supposed to be some exhaustive study of water needs for the LeEP project that’s supposed to report, as I read it, was supposed to report in spring or the summer. Has that report been issued yet? That would, I guess, best be a question directed to IFA. Well, it hasn’t been, has it? I mean, timing even. I would have. I believe that it is. Please stop this. Mark. You’re a good, good witness, and you’ve been very cooperative in the past. Why are you holding back? The answer is that study hasn’t been done, right? Oh, yes. Okay. It’s a simple answer. Yes. All right. And so what is the impact of this additional acquisition of ground and the ongoing negotiations on various opportunities, maybe even Project Nora will come back to life. What’s the impact on water needs with the investments from Eli Lilly? The city is in need of additional water supply and capacity. Are you saying that that project alone will require more water than had been planned on? Yes. We have had two tracks of discussions around this. A phase one because of the Lilly commitment that essentially brought the capacity of Lebanon utilities to its fullest. Right. So the Lilly plant, before the latest enhancement or increase, was going to consume the surplus Lebanon water that the city utility had. Okay. And now there’ll be need for more, is that right? There will be, yes. Okay. And that’s a side. That’s all on one side of the highway. That’s all on the east side of 65, right. That project, that is all on the east side of the highway, yes. So what’s happening to your estimate as to increase water needs on all the rest of the land? That’s not within the 600 acres that Lily has out of nine or 11,000 acres. What’s. What’s going on over that part for water needs? Yeah. So we’ve been discussing with water users, utilities, about what capacity they could bring to the area, and it is arranged somewhere between ten to 25 million gallons a day from existing water resources. And then projecting out with the discussions that we are having with other businesses, they would utilize that and require additional capacity, which is part of the reason for the broader study about how we can address that, but also other water challenges around the state. To make sure I can understand this, the estimate is, under current discussions, we’ll need ten to 25 million gallons more per day of water than is currently available. Is that right, between the projects and city needs? Yes. Right. Okay. But there are other potentials for water needs, depending on other projects that do come along or that are in process of conversation right now, right? Yes. So what’s the maximum need that you see potentially the increase over current water? I think in total, if we look at current and prospective companies that we’re discussing, 55 to 60 million gallons per day, much of that would be non contact. It would be processing and cooling. There would be water reuse, but that would be at maximum peak in 18 to 20 years when the full footprint was built out. So that’s not an immediate need. That’s a stepped up ramp to about 55 to 60 million gallons. With the cost of dealing with that need be considered to be part of the LEAP project. The cost of financing, the cost of getting the water there, however you want to call it. I mean, largely, I would say that it would be part of a cost that would be attributed to leap. I think this is where the broader central Indiana water solution and study, if that identifies additional reuse opportunities, closer sources, it may add impact, ultimately, what is needed, how much and from where? Yeah, I’m just trying to get a sense of the scale of this project, and I’m rather stunned. I remember when the bill passed that got this all started. I think you’re in a zone that I don’t think we expected to change the utility question, and I would not have asked this a few years ago. But is there a concern about our capacity to provide electrical service. At the adequate quantities to this project. Because some of these are battery related or high consumers of electricity? Do we have an electric problem looming that’s not quite as visible as the water problem? You know, again, we would defer to the experts, the utility providers, in terms of their level of confidence to deliver large loads. What I would say, based on our conversations with them, them, and admittedly being in conversations between the companies and the utility providers. There does not seem to be a concern about the ability to generate and deliver the level of power that would be needed. I think it comes down to a timing consideration of how fast can you build new generation and install poles. But from a can we do this prudently and smartly. Not negatively impact our existing customer base, not jeopardize potential brownouts or blackouts? Right now, we do not anticipate that being a problem. Also, I would say, similar to water, those significant ramp needs are over 15 to 20 years. It’s not all right away. So there is opportunity to take almost a wait and see approach. And work with the companies to not prospectively build and expend capital. Until it’s absolutely known that it may be needed. Well, that’s their decision as to whether they wait and see, isn’t it? It’s not the state’s decision, Mike. Well, no, it’s not the state’s decision. That’s why our incentives are conditional and performance based. And what I can say, too, in the utility service agreements, many times when phases occur, there is, you know, timing at which they must give notice to the utility companies saying, we are going to commit to that. So there is that, I would say coverage ability. And that’s similar to how we would track our incentives, too. Are you looking at giving incentives either to the water suppliers or the electrical suppliers. To meet these potential needs? I would not classify it as an incentive. Representative Delaney. There is the need for some support through IFA, through the revolving loan fund. And covering some of the debt service until users and covering whose debt service. So it would be a loan taken out through IFA by the utilities. So it’s until the ramp up occurs and they have those ratepayers help cover the cost of that debt. The IADC has been discussing options to be able to help alleviate some of those costs in the near term. So we would lend money to the utilities to cover the cost of preparing lines that are not fully used at this point. Or capacity that’s not fully used. Is that a fair assessment for the first couple of years, which is my understanding. Well, this is a complex transaction, obviously, and that’s. So I’ll end with this remark directed to the chairman. I don’t think this proposal is ready. I think the number of open ended questions, the kinds of dollar amounts, the uncertainties, the lack of the report on the water study alone, I don’t think this is a matter that this body should act on today. I think it should be taken from the agenda. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Kador. Thank you, mister chair. Thank you, Mark and team, for your presentation. Just have a few questions. Can you walk me through one more time, the balance of the site strategies fund? So this specific $59 million ask repurposes a portion of the 100 million. Is it, is it only the 59 million that is repurposed? Meaning is the remaining 41 million, is it reverting back to the site strategies fund, or has it been committed for something else? So those dollars never left the general fund. So they remain in the general fund today. So if I look at the balance of the site strategies, I should include the 41 million in debt balance. Correct. We are asking that this 59 million be repurposed from a commitment made out of the cash performance or deal closing fund. To be repurposed from the deal closing fund. Correct. So what is in April? I have communication, I think, with your office. And the fund balance was $300,000 for the. Just to be accurate. For the site strategies. For the site strategies. And it was $33 million for the deal closing fund. So what is the balance? Because I think you did some math, and I just want to be sure that I record the accurate numbers on my side. So what is the current balance? For both funds? I would have to add the five. We’ve got balances reflected, assuming that today’s request may be approved. And so that’s why Mark is trying to do some math. I mean, if, assuming it’s approved, just like you give me that number, the balance would be 23,250,000 in the deal closing fund. Yes. And what about the site strategies fund? It would remain at 300,000. It wouldn’t be a threat. Great. My next question. In the synopsis of this project that you’re trying to repurpose for today, you referenced that there will be tens of billions of dollars in capital investments and nearly 10,000 jobs created. Can you, and tying this with a previous comment, you said that you changed approach, so you try to come to us with deals that have been accepted. Do you have solid tens of billions? Is too broad and 10,000 jobs is too optimistic. Do you have solid contracts, acceptance letters, confirmations? How many tens of billions are we speaking about? And how many jobs specifically are we talking about? So this is where I would make a distinction between the request of the use of funds. This is for land acquisition and closing. And so in those cases, we do have agreed upon deals with landowners. We’re not using that fund to provide incentive to a company. And so to directly answer your question, we do not have an accepted commitment from potential users for admittedly, north of $60 billion of potential capital investments and truly around 10,000 full time potential jobs. So it’s more of a description of what potentially could happen rather than an actual commitment. So while the focus is on the site strategy or the site acquisition, you’re hopeful that if the site acquisition deal moves forward and there will be subsequent negotiations and finalizing the deal, then potentially there could be 10,000 jobs plus north of $60 billion of capital investments? That’s correct. We’re in the process of final stages of site selection, negotiating potential incentives. And I appreciate that. I know that you’re focused on the site acquisition piece, but if you put yourself in our shoes, we’re not just approving the site equity, in a way, in our minds. Okay, so there’s site acquisition for a potential deal. So my next question, to build on that, assuming all of these ifs happen, meaning the committee approves, you sign deals, 10,000 jobs plus 60 billion plus what is the full package of incentives that you envision for that project and what is the return on investment to us as a state? The full package is hard for us to estimate because there would be a local component on some of those deals which we’re not directly privy to. You know, I would maybe ask to share this behind closed doors a little bit because some of these are active negotiations. But, you know, it will be a combination of long term, all performance based, you know, tax avoidance or rebates, potentially some training grants, performance based, you know, deal closing fund grants. In terms of return for the state, they are all positive. As we’ve discussed before, we look at a deal score, a cost benefit analysis, and an internal rate of return. These all meet all of those investment parameters that we have. And as I mentioned, do have positive rates of return for the state. You know, because these are large projects. You know, we have a target of all projects of our internal rates of return. And so these are more potentially on the aggressive side, but they do fit well within our investment parameters. I appreciate that. And that’s not directed at any of you. But I think, again, if you put yourselves in our shoes, I understand the nature of your operations and the level of discretion you need to maintain to be able to negotiate these deals. The challenge that the design of this process of the budget review, the budget committee review process that we have to meet behind closed doors to learn some of these numbers. And we are unable to communicate that to the citizens of the state who are the taxpayers. So that’s a challenge in the design of the process, not directed at you. But I continue to struggle with this because we are being asked to approve a project with too many ifs. And then if, assuming all of these ifs happen, the public will never know about this until the public announcement date. The next question that I have. You are in the process of drafting agreements with the locals. When I was at the city of Indianapolis and we worked with IEDC, there was a level of communication of what was expected from this city to offer so that a deal might move forward. So I struggle with the thought that we don’t know what the local package is or what the local offer is. Because normally the locals would actually rely on IADC for guidance and advice of how much should we put in to be sure that we can secure this deal. So while I may be more sympathetic to your cause to say, to allow you not to present that information to the public today, I still, it is missing part of our full analysis as a committee to see the local component. Because without the local component of how much you’re abating taxes, property taxes. And I’m not suggesting that you’re wrong or right. All what I’m saying. Absent that analysis, I don’t know how much local income tax will be collected from these jobs. Jobs. I don’t know if the tax, property tax abatement for the next 1015, 2030 years on $60 billion worth of capital investments. So it becomes extremely difficult for all of us here to really say that positive return on investment is so strong that we should double down on this commitment and move forward. Mister chair, I don’t know what the answer to that question. That’s, I think, more of a strategic discussion for the committee to really redesign this process so that we have. Whether it’s. You know, I prefer public discussions on this, but I understand that the discretion piece, but without knowing the local piece, how much the locals are giving in light of other committees that we’re meeting talking about property taxes and state income tax. It’s extremely important to have that information. So do you have any indication that you can share with us of how much that local package is on a high level with respect to the IDd that we’re considering? So the lily deal and potentially others, we do have direct clarity into what the overall structure is because, as you know, IDd does capture some of that. This is not to be cagey, but we are in the process of amending and revising the original contract. And so I would say, say in the next couple weeks we should have more information, be able to share what the full Lily deal looks like in terms of some of the other deals. The reason we don’t have true clarity yet. On one hand, they are more structured, they’re traditional abatement. And so what we see are percentage schedules, and also they include things that may be community impact payments, and they are negotiations directly with the local communities. And so while we do have generally size and scope, sometimes we aren’t necessarily privy to dollar amounts. And so it’s not us trying to be caterpie. It’s kind of things I think on the surface. If you tell me for $59 million we’re going to get 10,000 jobs and $60 billion worth of capital investments, I’ll double down and say this is a great deal. But absent all that additional information, it becomes difficult to say that. The last couple of quick questions, I think Representative Delaney touched on the water in issue. I’m very concerned about this. I continue to hear from residents of different communities who are not even in my district. As of last night, I received several phone calls at my office from people asking me to oppose this project because of the water concerns and other things who do not live in my district. So I think that continues to be a concern. We raised that concern before, and looking at other announcements, I think the data center in Terre Haute and other places, I’m not sure about the whole water strategy for the state. That continues to be a concern for me. The final question that I have is on the Lilly project as it relates to this specific discussion. We heard about the expansion of the Lilly project, which I’m grateful that they are expanding in Indiana. Are we pulling any additional dollars from the deal closing fund or, or the site strategies fund to support that expansion? So the next project on the agenda portion of the infrastructure support request would be used to support their initial investment as well as their expansion. The $29 million? Yes. And is that 20 million, assuming that the fund balance that you shared with me just to minute ago does not include that $29 million. So assuming that will be approved. That will further deplete that. Correct. So the fund balance would include, you know, would assume that this was approved? Yes. Okay. Thank you, mister chair. Thank you, Representative Porter. Thank you, mister chairman. We’ve had long discussion in regards to this for many a months, and very cognizant. But I do have several questions, and the questions will probably be before you present again, but just want to get it off the table. In regards to Representative Delaney, what he said earlier, we were talking about the average cost of acreage. I like to see the data disaggregate from the point of high cost of acreage down to the lowest. And because the average is the average, you don’t get a real picture. You hide between that. So I think what we pay more for acreage is one part is important versus what they pay for another part, which may be lower for that said acreage. What is meant by high wage job? I mean, what is your meaning of a highways job? Is it highways job for Boone county or that community? Or is it the numbers for the whole state? It is. I would say we look at three different, I would say thresholds. We look at county average wage, we look at state average wage, and we look at national average wage. We update those annually based on bureau labor statistics. And so when we say high wage, we’re generally referring to at or above state average wage. And thus national or state average wage and or national average wage. So if you’re above national average wage, you’re obviously above state average wage. So high wage in our definition, is at or above the state average wage. And to briefly add to that, Representative Porter, over the last couple years, we’ve been very intentional about the types of projects that we are investing in. And that national average wage is something that we pay very close attention to wanting to help move the needle and the state catch up to the national average. Thank you. So, other question I have. Thank you, mister chairman, for indulging me, is when you talk about creating jobs over the coming years, what does that mean? Is there a firm documentation? I worked in commerce years ago, and I know commerce has changed, but it’s changed that much where the expectations are when it comes to jobs over the coming years. Years and over the jobs, you know, particularly under age edge, for example, does that mean that edge will deals have been used to be. You know, they use it for public disclosure, so help me to understand what that means. Yes. So you are correct that all of our incentives are performance based, and we structure our offer and the incentive package based off of data that the companies supply to us about their anticipated capital investment timeline and their anticipated hiring schedule. So typically over the first one to five years of the project is where they ramp up and then maintain that employment that they committed to through the term of our contract. And to add a finer point to that too, at the time of contracting. So prior to their first year of performance, as you mentioned, edge, there’s generally ten years, that is when we would contract with them and the agreement that gets posted on what those annual performance thresholds are. And so they are committing by contract at the start of the project to hit those thresholds. And in the event that they don’t, they don’t earn the full credit. So it’s not an annual adjustment of what their goals are. We set that based on what they had committed to at the outside of the project and then certify performance annually based on that. The final agreement, when will we understand? When will we see what the quote unquote final agreements are in regards to the jobs, wages, investment timing, you know, anything, callbacks agreements, you know, all that. So when will we get to see those in regards to these projects? With respect to the Lilly project, that was the expansion that was recently announced. The phase one contracts were already executed and publicly posted on our transparency portal. Due to the nature of the IDD, it will be an amendment and a revision of the IDD incentive. And so we’re working through that right now with the company and then it’ll have to go through state budget agency signature. So I can’t give you an exact timing on that, but it will be this summer for the revised Lilly IDD and then the additional incentives for the phase ii, more traditional ones. Those are also currently being redlined. So I would anticipate in the next month or two, assuming that our processes and red lines go smoothly, that we would have those new Lilly agreements finalized, signed and posted on the transparency portal. Thank you. Also, I’d like to specifically not generally talk about the dollars that were put into a deal closing. You know, you talk in generalities, but I like to understand what specifically in regards to that, if it’s upfront companies for working in regards to deal closing fund, is it permit calls, is it utility calls? And kind of touched on that a little bit earlier. You know, what are the specifics? Not the general dump, but specifics, a deal closing? Yes. So the dollars that we commit to a company using resources from the deal closing fund are made available to the company and only paid after we verify that. Again, the performance metrics around capital investment job creation wage are hit for that year, and then a percentage of the overall award would be provided to the company. And then once they receive it, it is up to the company about how those dollars are ultimately utilized. Are there, are there any callbacks in regards to the deal closing fund? Yes, there are. As Mark mentioned, they first have to perform and earn those amounts. But during then the active term of the agreement, not only the payment period, but what we call a post term reporting period, they do have to maintain compliance. And so subject to audit. And if we find out that it may have been overpaid, there’s a callback opportunity. And then certainly in the event of closure, relocation, moving out of the state, and then even there are provisions in our contracts that should they be out of compliance with other state agencies, you know, if there’s an environmental issue, you know, there’s even opportunity for the IEDC to withhold or request dollars back through our contracts. And when they’re, when they’re posted, will there be any redactions there? When they, when you post that, the only item that gets redacted from our agreements typically is the anticipated wage that, the hourly wage that the company will pay the employees. And that is because that is a company proprietary piece of information. You know, competitors could see what Eli Lilly for example, is paying and pay employees, you know, dollar two higher per hour. So largely that is the only piece of redacted information, potentially a company representative contact information. You know, there’s a primary point of contact and you don’t necessarily want to put a general counsel’s email out there for everyone, but otherwise the contracts are basically posted in full. Thank you. Last question, mister chairman. I wanted to talk about a little bit about what is meant by your performance based grant. I know what it is, but could you enlighten us and go a little more detail in regards to that, because these are funded differently than other programs that we have. And I just want to know what the performance based grant program is function, if it’s similar to edge, or where the money goes in the first place, and if the investment is not there. And again, you did talk about the callbacks. Yes. So with respect to the deal closing fund, as Mark mentioned, we’ll designate an amount of the award and it’ll be over a term of years. So I’ll say ten years for right now, simply. And we’ll put an annual cap on how much the company can pull down of that total award. So for simplicity, we’ll call it 10% per year. In that given year, the company will have committed to certain hiring levels, capital investment levels, and payroll or wage levels. And so what we’ll then do in that annual year, we’ll see what their performance is in those three buckets, and we’ll provide or perform a weighted average calculation to see, you know, with respect to each of those three key benchmarks, how close did they hit to performing at 100% over below? And then we’ll do a weighted average between those three performance categories. And in the event that they, quote, overperformed, that’s where that annual 10% cap would come into play. You can only draw down x amount, but in the event that there was underperformance, which I don’t like that term, because there still is performance, but let’s say it’s 80% of the overall investment, they would only be able to draw down 80% of that for the performance in that given year. And then, as you mentioned, the callback provisions, the audit opportunities are all still there. Nora Niskoski. Thanks, mister, mister chair. Just a couple questions. I don’t want to veer very far from our subject matter of this particular item that we’re working on right now, but it helped me a little bit more with discussion. So, in steering away, just for a moment, away from central Indiana investment for the deal closing funds, approximately how many areas in the state have deal closing funds gone to assist bring these major developments? It’s fairly broad, ranging from projects up in north central Indiana, Fort Wayne, Kokomo Terre in southern Indiana. So I guess they have been fairly equally proportioned in which direction. So Indiana is just looking to capitalize on the greatest economic development that it can. So when a large investor chooses that, while they seem that they’re bound, they’ve chosen location. There has the IEDC through the deal closing fund, or the deal a side acquisition fund, has made an investment. Once that economic development project has announced and they have begun construction at that time, or maybe even be just part of that, you can let people know what that investment was in that area. That’s absolutely correct. And I would use the Star plus Energy investments, the joint venture between Samsung and Stellantis in Kokomo. That was one of the original projects that we had requested use of the deal closing fund, and then actually also used some land acquisition funds to work with the locals to secure land for both phase one and phase two. And in a similar fashion, we did have to be a bit cagey, but eventually were able to discuss very publicly not only what the deal closing deal looked like, but then also the land that we were purchasing. And maybe just for clarity too, we have already sold some of that land back to the JV for that phase two. So that’s a great example, I think, of how it works. So I would like to talk more as we go on. I’m gaining a much greater understanding as I go along. But for the GM Samsung EV plant, approximately what was the amount of dollars that the IADC used with a deal closing dollars to secure that investor? 135 million total. I thought that was the proximity of that. I appreciate that very much. Thank you. Senator Cordura, one final thought. Thank you mister chair. As you. Since you mentioned, in the next couple of weeks you’ll be working for this specific project. On the local drafting of local agreements. I urge you to look into an internal control that is a little bit tricky. But there are instances in the history of Indiana where companies received incentives on a local level and then they turned around and hired or used their internal house lawyers to appeal property taxes on hundreds of of millions of dollars of parcels. That is a real life scenario that happened before. So on $60 billion of projected investments, capital investments in the future. I just urge you. I know that you cannot deny due process or the legal ability for a company to appeal property taxes. But if parcels were part of a deal, whether an attempt TIF or IED or anything like that, it’s extremely important that the whole deal on a local level was based on the idea that the increment or the collections of taxes in that area should support the projects in some shape, way or form. So you want to be sure that normally after a deal is done, everybody moves forward. The locals do not have an army of lawyers and assessors offices across the state. We dealt with with it in different scenarios from big box sales or dark sales to large companies that have an office with 50 lawyers, tax lawyers who are specialized in appealing taxes. So I just urge you to think creatively within the legal boundaries of what is allowed within Indiana state law to have that internal control that once we give deals on a local level, that they don’t turn around and then appeal these parcels if an increment was part of that deal. Thank you. Thank you mister chair. Thank you. Any other questions on this project? Continue on. Then with number 35. Then the next project on the agenda is a request for 29 million of repurposed deal closing fund dollars to support ongoing infrastructure investment and improvements within the Leap district in support of five currently known and anticipated projects. In particular, these would include infrastructure support for the recently announced projects from Eli Lilly and their new $9 billion in new operations in Boone county. The projects will involve local road improvements, engineering and design for interchange improvements and road realignment, utility improvements and relocation and other site prep and planning efforts for infrastructure and sites within the Leap district. With that, I’m happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Any questions? Continue the next one, please, then. So the final funding request is for $5,750,000 in funding out of the deal closing funds, specifically the 25 million that was earmarked for projects in communities with less than 50,000 people. The three projects include Project Next Gen, which is Toyota manufacturing in Princeton. With the company committed to investing $632 million and creating 340 new jobs over the next couple years. The commitment that the state has offered to this project is a performance based grant of $1 million for the expansion of that automotive manufacturing facility. Next is Project copilot, which is nucor in in Montgomery county, excuse me. Who has committed to investing $115 million in new capital to accommodate its growth while also creating 200 new high wage jobs. The final project is Project Trail, an electronic component waste recycler that has been offered a performance based grant of $1 million in support of its commitment to establish its first us based manufacturing operation, investing $500 million of capital and creating 180 jobs to address their market demand. As with all of these, these will be performance based and distributed over a period of years based off of the company’s compliance with the performance metrics in our agreements. Happy to answer any questions? Thank you. Any questions? Representative Porter? Thank you. Just one quick question in regards to the repurposed dollars that you talked about when this project first started. Talking to interchange was going to be addressed by ENDOT, that they were going to use those dollars to do it. Now it’s not going to happen because EnDOT said that we were told that ENDOT was going to tackle that. So these dollars, as it relates to any interchange, is really just to accelerate the planning and engineering to be able to meet the timelines needed under our agreements with Eli Lilly. But the funding for the road infrastructure, I believe, still is expected to be provided by INDOT. Thank you. Any further questions? Well, that concludes, I believe, all of the projects and we’re now ready for review items. And I believe first up is the IDC again. So if you want to go ahead with that, please. Awesome. So the project for your review is a retention project in southern Indiana. Project canteen. The company has committed to retaining a full time workforce of approximately 360 full time employees for the next ten years, while also committing to invest a little over $60 million in facility improvements to accommodate their continued operations. So with that, happy to answer any questions. Any questions? Go ahead. Thank you. Was this company really going anywhere? Were they? Were they. You know. You know, I think we use the edge for retention tool in a number of different ways without disclosing information because this isn’t public yet. The type of operation that this company does is very unique. It’s one of three facilities in the entire country that has the capability to do this. It does have direct, you know, I would say, critical industry components or materials that are coming out of it. And so the facility itself was in need of upgrades, improvements, and without state support and other support that they were pursuing, that facility, which is one of three, was at jeopardy of closing. And so relocating. Going someplace else may not be the right term, but jeopardy of potentially closing, very much so. Thank you. Other questions? Okay, thank you for your presentation. Next we have family and social services administration, state plan amendment. Come forward, please, and present that. Thank you. Mister Chairman, members of the committee, I am Paul Boland, the CFO for the Family and Social Service Administration. Today we bring for you two state plan amendments. The first state plan amendment is for our child mental health wraparound waiver. This amendment will amend the language and the. The current waiver to remove the 2% annual rate index that was included previously in accordance with the agency’s rate matrix model. The removal of this index is part of the changes that were announced in January 2024 to ensure sustainability of our Medicaid program. This change will align this waiver rate methodology with our other home and community based services. This change will go into effect December 1 of 2024 with a savings of approximately 190,000. Thank you. Any questions? Yes. Senator Cordura. Good to see you, Paul. So basically, you’re. If I understood you correctly, you’re removing. You’re asking to remove the 2%? Is that what it is? That’s correct. So that you can recognize some of these savings to help sustain the Medicaid program? That’s correct. Thank you. Thank you, mister chair. Thank you. Other questions? Can you please. The second state Plan Amendment is a technical correction to our ongoing initiative to equalize our Medicaid rates across all managed care programs. Currently, there are certain services that the reimbursement is adjusted based on the type of provider performing the service or location where the service is provided under the historical reimbursement methodology. These service were adjusted based on the specific schedule to Medicaid with the change in HEA 1001 in 2023 around rate equalization these services are now being reimbursed at a rate equal to Medicare. This change will align the reimbursement rate adjustment to the Medicare rate adjustment schedule rather than the current Medicaid rate adjustment. Without these changes, these services would be reimbursed at an amount higher than the current Medicare rates. This change would be effective April 1 of 2024 with an estimated annual savings of approximately 36.6 million. Thank you. Any questions? Senator Cordura? Thank you. I see the, I’m looking at the numbers below and I see the savings, and I appreciate that. What is the impact for both state plan amendments on services to the populations that are intended? So, for example, for the first state plan amendment, which deals with the child mental health wraparound services, is there a risk that any of these employers or these service providers might stop providing services, or is there any impact, that negative impact that we should anticipate as we do these changes? There is no impact that we’re aware of on providers, like certain providers would not be able to continue services. We have not heard that from that standpoint. So we expect that would continue forward as is today. So as of today, based on what you know, you don’t think there will be impact to services or providers in this, in that space, correct? Yes. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, mister chair. Thank you, Senator Porter. Representative Porter, I’m sorry, Porter, I apologize. You’re fine. You’re still my friend. Okay. Thank you. Thank you for being here. Now that you’re here, I know there July 1 is coming up real quick, and there are several things that are out there. I think there’s a deadline this week for attendant care families. I think it’s July 15. And if you do your reconnaissance, I’m very involved with that, trying to figure out what to happen in regards to the attendant care families and their selection. Do you know if you’re going to meet that deadline? July 15, in regards to attending care, June 15. And then of that 1600 families, how many have finalized those plans? Because my understanding that they have not, a lot of them have not. Are you familiar with that? I am not, but if you’d like doctor arsenic to address that question, I mean, he’s happy to kind of address that if you’d like him to. I would thoroughly in that. So if that’s okay. Yes, doctor guests, go ahead, please. Thanks. Representative border. The question, as I understand it, was where are we on the path for families having to have made a decision as to whether they were moving into attendant care or from attendant care to structured family care? So all of the tier work. So the first part of that was what tier is the child, if it’s a parent of a minor child in all of those adjustments have been done and are in the system. We’re working really closely right now and actually doing outreach to families as well. So right now we are on target to hit that June 15 deadline. Okay. All right. So you are going to hit that target for all those families moving from attendance to structured care by Saturday. Right now we believe we’re going to have that. We’ll have that completed by then. Okay. In regards to the AAA’s and MCE in July 1, are all the triple A’s still going to be involved with the mces? Because I understand there are some that are opting out of participating because of the low rates that they cannot do the work and if they, because they have to lay off people. So I think what you’re referring to, and correct me if I’m wrong, is that as part of the pathways program, the managed care entities have the opportunity to contract with AAA’s to provide service coordination. It’s a function that currently they provide. And so in those negotiations, some of the AAA’s have partnered with the managed care entities. I think roughly eight, the last count, had partnered with one of the managed care entities to continue that work, which means that if there’s 15, seven had not. So I think some of them will continue on to service coordination. Some will get out of the service coordination, but all of them will still have a role in that. They still do level of care assessments for the population. Many of them are also service providers. They might do home delivery and meals like that. So to the best of our knowledge, all of them will continue to have a role in the population, but not all of them will be service providers contracting with a managed care entity. Do we know in regards to anthem and Unitedhealthcare how much their contracts are the agreements are? I mean, have they been signed yet? I don’t know the answer to either of those questions. So this is July 1 and there’s no signed agreements. I’m just asking questions. I don’t know. In terms of the managed care entities had certain deadlines that they had to meet for readiness, and they’ve met all the readiness reviews. But as to what their contracts are individually, as entities, I don’t know what those are. Okay, thank you. And also last but not least, also July 1, the hip situation in regards to cost sharing is that ready to up and go. And those individuals that are not familiar with or understand cost sharing, will they be relegated down to a lower level of. Of care or acceptance to care or what? I mean. Cause I also understand that’s. I mean, July 1 is gonna be. It’s gonna be all right. The date’s not gonna get turned back, refuse to turn it back. So we’re gonna have some real issues July 1. And like I told her, Cora, I hope you proved me wrong, but I think I’m gonna be right. So, in terms of cost sharing, as is currently in state law, yes. The way that is designed is that individuals who are on the premium accounts, if they don’t make payments and they’re below 100% of federal poverty level, they’re moved down to the basic hip program. Okay. I just want to keep that out there because it’s about healthcare for poor people, people that cannot afford the traditional ways. And for our seniors, regarding pathways and our most vulnerable children, that life expectancy is not super long, but I think the quality of life is important. And I just hope that we don’t continue, which my hope is not being fulfilled, that all these people are our residents will be kind of essentially just kicked to the side or just hopefully just fade off and be forgotten. And I’m just very. I’m very concerned about that. Appreciate that. And not only me, but other individuals, period. Because I don’t think we should be trying to build something on the back of the most vulnerable in our community. And I believe that’s what the premise is. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Kadora. Thank you, mister chair. Just want to take the opportunity that Doctor Razniak is over here. I know that he’s expecting some questions. It is in relation, in a way, to the state plan amendments. I think your goal is to save money to help address the Medicaid issue, the Medicaid funding issue. So, a couple of questions. The first, I think, recently I read in the media, and after some financial reports also were shared with the General assembly, that in addition to that $1 billion shortfall, I think as of March, it was expected that Medicaid would have. The expenditures of Medicaid grew almost close to $500 million above budget. Can you give us, what is the latest number that you’re aware of as far as Medicaid expenditures compared to budget? Sure, Paul? So, fair question. So now that we are reporting these monthly financials and posting them, I think one of the things we’re cognizant of is you’re going to see fluctuations in this number. Obviously, in March, you saw that death deficit, their expected deficit to increase a lot of that is we’re doing real time data, we’re giving you as we get funding, as that real time data comes in. So there’s some timing differences there. So we think everything you’re seeing in March is a timing difference. When you see the April financials come out, which we have started reviewing currently, you’ll see that number go back down within that range that we’ve been talking about, or maybe even slightly below that. So I think we’re, we are going to have fluctuations month to month that you’re going to have to. We’ll help you understand why you’re seeing those. But no, we still think we’re going to be somewhere in that range like we’ve been projecting. So makes sense timing, issue of claims, when they are processed, when they’re paid and all that. So look forward to seeing the April report. My second question in relation to, again to the Medicaid finances. Representative Porter asked great questions about the structured family care that will take place in July 1. I serve on the Medicaid advisory committee and I’ve asked a couple of questions as it relates to the pathways program and transitioning those who are under the aged and disabled waiver. I received emails from constituents who were depleting some of their funds so that they can meet the Medicaid requirement to be on the pathways program. But they discovered that there’s a waitlist. And I understand that CMS controls the slots on the wait list. I’ve asked two questions. What is the approved number of slots that we have and what is the demand? How many people do we have and what is the solution for those on the waitlist who have been waiting maybe for months or a year or more? I think the number that I’ve heard in the Medicaid advisory committee, I think that CMS approved, approved north of or maybe up to 55,000 slots, something in that neighborhood. But I never got an answer to how many people are in the waitlist and how long will it take to help those individuals. That’s a great question. I don’t know the exact slot number, but that number that you put out sounds like 55. I think that’s what I’ve heard. 64 sounds like what I heard. I don’t know the exact number of folks in the wait list either. I do. To try to get to your question, I think there are two things to consider. One is that folks coming on the waitlist that are on the waitlist, not all of them will end up on the waiver. So if they start the process. They get on the wait list, but there’s still a Medicaid eligibility part to it. So the number that is on it won’t like the number of folks that will go come off the waitlist will likely be smaller because not everyone will be eligible. In terms of what’s the process? We’re working on that now. We’ll, I think, be able to share some of that fairly soon, which is based on the number of folks and the number of slots, because in July in the fiscal year, there’s both opening up of people who are no longer on the waiver. And so those slots open back up plus the approved amount of slots. And so getting those numbers, then it’ll be based on folks coming in. How many do we anticipate that we can roll off every month? So I think, I know the teams are working on that. There will be a movement of people getting directed into different programs and services, people leaving, people get in. When is the soonest that we or you anticipate that that data will be available? Is that like I’m thinking about the next budget cycle and then think about your work with CMS and what we need to do to help you? Yeah, I think it’s a great question. I think when we, I think certainly we would anticipate that by the time we’re getting into that budget cycle, we should have a pretty good idea as to, because keep in mind the waiver is going to be broken into two waivers. So you’re going to have folks who are 60 and under on the health and wellness waiver and that will have a number of slots and a waitlist. And then how many do rolls off that and then we’ll have the 60 and older population, which will become part of pathways. I think once that’s, once we hit July, once we split them, once we start rolling it out, I think we’ll have a better idea as to how many folks are coming into each every month, how many are coming off the waiver each month. And as part of that should be able to have a better idea as terms of projections. When do we think we would either hit a waitlist again and if so, then what would the budgetary need be if we were going to expand the number of slides? No, I appreciate that. I look forward to, to whenever the data is available. If you can share with us my final question. I know that you and us, normally we cannot comment on pending litigation, but in the world of finance litigation, that’s my answer. Yeah, but litigation has a financial cost and if the decision is adverse to the state of Indiana, there will be an additional cost. So I’m not asking you to comment on the litigation itself, but I think the premise of the litigation is that there’s a violation of the federal Disability, Disability act. Looking at the structured family care and looking at these families who need help and support, I think there has been, seems to be both parties, FSSA and the families, getting to, I wouldn’t say a middle ground understanding. I think the families are understanding that the program needs to be sustained. So there needs to be a change. But the change proposed by FSS say, is not what they were hoping for. Where we are with the July 1 deadline for the structured family care, as far as working with these families and being sure that their needs are being addressed. So in terms of families right now who are being paid to provide attendant care for the Medicaid member and hired through a company. So that is a lot of the work that, that we’ve been really doing over the last several months, particularly for parents of minor children, because that is a new service that was just approved through our waivers to CMS. Keep in mind, prior to this, under structured family care, a parent of a minor child was not able to receive that service. So that is that roughly 2000 where we have gone in and re tiered all of those children we are having every other week webinars now with families directly so that we can make sure there’s not, you know, confusion, so they can hear it from us. Because sometimes it’s the game of telephone when they’re talking to their case manager and AAA manager who maybe didn’t quite understand it. So we’re working directly with them. We are going in and looking in the systems and making sure that if families have not made a change in there, that we do outreach. So we have two, one, one that is actually now doing direct outreach to families as well. So we’re on target, target to hit to that July 1 timeline. I appreciate you. I’ll conclude with the comment. It’s been great. Always working with Gus. I’ll give him a shout out over here as a former colleague in FSSA, and he’s been very helpful. But he worked with me, I think in the 2023 session, when the governor signed a law that we passed almost unanimously, that I drafted Senate Bill 438, I think it was for home health services. And specifically, I had the opportunity to meet with these families. Some of them are constituents in my district. Many of these children, as you know your physician, are non mobile, nonverbal. Many of them feed off of feeding tubes. As recent as in the last maybe three days. I got a call from a constituent. Her daughter’s four years old. She has down syndrome. She was born when she was a few weeks old old. She had a hole in her heart and they had to perform surgeries, and it was expensive, and her private insurance picked that up. So I hear frequently about real life stories in my district and across the state. And because we helped pass that law, we had the opportunity to meet with these families and these children. So my comment to you, you’re a physician. FSSA employees are dedicated to serving our state, and I appreciate them, but I cannot emphasize to you that we cannot lose sight that these are not numbers or statistics. These are people. Some of these families, the parents had, one parent had to leave the job or to quit and stay at home to take care of these children, and another parent is the breadwinner. So they lost income. And our strategy was to resolve the workforce issue is by allowing some of these parents to get reimbursed for, for taking care of their kids, because we don’t have pediatric nurses and home health agencies to serve them. So I urge you to continue to exercise the utmost flexibility of working with these families, to continue to double down on enhancing communication with them, and to be sure that if, you know, I know that I’m over consuming my time over here, but we were talking about different projects with different revenue streams that do not apply, apply to Medicaid. But the public doesn’t understand that today we will be approving a quarter billion dollars for rest stops in Indiana when we can’t have, we have to cut some funding for Medicaid or services. Even though there are two different types of funding in their mind, many would see that we’re spending money on things that are not related to these types of things. So I urge you to enhance the communication, to double down on that, to exercise, has utmost flexibility in serving these families and their kids. Appreciate both of you. Thank you. Thank you, senator chair. Thank you. Any other questions, representative? Senator? Yes, thanks, mister chair. And it’s not really a question. It’s just, I guess, a comment. And I’m not absolutely certain that patience is the right word, but I do believe that there has been an extreme amount of patience that people have given towards this process. You know, for me in particular, I mean, there is disappointment in northern Indiana with, you know, our triple a having to let go of a number of employees. I think the next several months are going to be extremely important to have as much transparency as possible so that you can truly see that those in need are going to continue, continue to receive the services they’ve been provided. And this is something that is not going to require a longer period of time for a transition. Because again, I think there is a lot, let’s just use the word patience. There’s a lot of patience that is being extended, but there are a great many people that are very, very direly concerned. So let’s hope that this really, this thing works. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Diskoski, other questions. Thank you for your presentation. Next on the agenda, we have invested. Come forward, please. Floor is yours, sir. Good afternoon, Chairman Thompson, members of the budget committee. My name is PJ McGrew. I am the vice president of external engagement at invested here today for you all to review a grant that our board approved last year for $750,000 to the center for Leadership Development to help with their expansion efforts. I believe you all received a one pager on this. So happy to answer any questions. I do have Dennis Bland with me, the president of CLD. If you guys have any questions that you’d like to direct to him as well, any questions represent Porter. Thank you, Mister Chairman. CLD has been around for a while in this community. What exactly is that seven to 50,000 going toward for staff or scholarships or what, Dennis? Thank you, attorney Dennis Bland. Thank you, Representative Porter, for the question. We’re actually setting up satellite locations in some of our city’s highest crime, lowest income areas. So where there have been transportation challenges, where families can’t get to the center, we said we want to take our program into those communities. And so we set up partnerships with Cafe on the Far east side. We’ll have programming at Christomore House. We’re actually partnering with Eastern Star Church in their community based program. We’re going to set up CLD programming there. So in addition to those satellite experience, we’re actually, yes, funding ongoing operations as we try to go from serving 3000 students and parents a year to 7000 students and parents a year. So thank you, Dennis. So all those three, expansion of cafe in Christmas House and where else did you say cafe? Christamore House and the rooted school. The rooted school, yes, sir. Okay. And so you’re expanding your programming will be during the day or after? Right after school. And they’ll say a program. It’s very familiar to program, as you well know. But I just wanted to know the access is important and I’m just trying to figure out will they still have to do Saturday classes and after school. School or what? Yeah. Thank you. Actually, a very insightful question. Because our expansion program actually operates on two levels. We’re doing satellite experiences, and these satellites are then partnerships that are where we’re grouping with community organizations in those zip codes. And we’re offering programs in the evenings and on Saturdays. We’re also then doing programming in school experiences. We’re offering programs during the day. And so the combination of programs during the day, they will be offered during school, during the school day, where we have a captive audience. And then we will also be providing those programs in those satellite programs during the evenings and on Saturday. So then those programs are available to every young person in those respective zip codes. Thank you. Thank you, Mister chairman. Thank you, Dennis. Thank you. Thank you. Any further questions? Thank you for presenting. Thank you. Next, we have the Indiana Finance Authority. Come forward, please. Floor is yours, sir. Good morning. Thank you, mister chairman, members of the committee and staff, I’m Andy Seyward. I’m the general counsel of the United Finance Authority. We are. Dan Hugi is at an out of state conference. He sends his regrets and regards. We are here to review the gans, just to refresh. The rail projects consist of two projects. The double tracking from South Bend to Gary adding track, and then the spur line from Hammond to Dyer. The double track. As you may know, some of you were there, had a ribbon cutting May 13 and is at the punch list stage. And West Lake is 70% construction complete. This committee reviewed the comprehensive financing plan for these projects in July of 2019. Included in that financing plan was the gans, the grant anticipation notes. We knew we would need them at some point. We thought it appropriate to come before you now because we’re at that stage where we need to. To get those in place. They’re necessary because the federal grant is reimbursement based, payments are irregular, and as you might expect, invoices arrive on a more regular basis. So we need to make a cash flow projection. The IFA board authorized the GANs procurement in its May meeting was also. Corresponding resolutions were adopted by the project partners, the Northern Indiana Consumer Commuter Transportation District, NICTy, and the Northwest Indiana Regional Development Authority. Representatives of Michael Noland is here for nchte. David Reynolds is here as a consultant for the NWRDA. If you have any questions of those, gentlemen. The resolution has a not to exceed of $175 million and procurement is scheduled for later this summer. We’ll obviously defer that as the federal funding comes in to reduce interest rate risk. The Gans will be repaid from the federal reimbursement, which will extend beyond the construction period. So that’s why we need these in place. And it’s backstopped by the next generation trust fund. We hope we don’t need that, but it’s there just to provide a little lenders with additional security. Any questions? Thank you. Any questions? Yes, I’m sorry, Niskoski, I did that twice now. I’ll get right the third time. That’s okay, mister chair. And again, not a question. It’s just. I want to say thank you to everyone involved and to all the members of the budget committee, to our assembly. For what the decisions we have made, to the governor, governor’s office to invest the way they have in the West Lake corridor, in the double tracking the replacement of the catenary lines. The economic boom that we are seeing in north northern, north central and northwestern Indiana is going to be incredible. It’s going to be witness for generations to come. And jobs are going to not just going to go to the Chicago marketplace, they’re going to come back to the south marketplace. So I am extremely excited. Just even had a very small role in it. So thank you. You’re welcome. Thank you. Other questions? Thank you for presenting. Thank you. I believe next, we do have some fees, fines and penalties to review. And the first on the agenda is the commission on higher Education. They would come forward, please, and present that one, please. Floor is yours. Thank you. Mister Chairman, members of the committee, Seth Hinshaw, chief financial officer for the Commission for Higher Education. I am here just plain backup and support to Ross Miller, who I’m joined with today, who’s our director of state authorization and reciprocity. I’m not sure. You may have in your packet that Doctor Ken Sauer would be with you today. Unfortunately, he was not able to attend, so you’ll have to put up with me in his absence. But with that, I’ll turn it over to Ross. Thank you, Mister chairman and members of the committee. I have been with the state government for about 25 years now. I was originally with the commission on Proprietary Education, which existed from 1971 up until July of 2012. The legislature in 2012, during that legislative session, made changes that split COPE, the Commission on Proprietary Education, into two different agencies. The Office for Career and Technical Schools, which is the division of Workforce Development, which handles authorizes institutions which are non credit bearing, non degree grantees. And then the board for Proprietary Education, which we’re here to discuss, which handles credit bearing institutions in the state of Indiana that are private for profit and private not for profit institutions. It was brought under the Commission for Higher Education, because the commission, those are the types of institutions that the commission handles. There are two staff members, myself and Doctor Ken Sauer, who served, serves as the executive director of BPE, and also many other functions within the agency of the Commission for Higher Education. Then we have seven board members. They are government appointed, and five of them are government appointed or governor appointed. And then we have two ex officio members, one a designee of the commission commissioner, which is Doctor Ken Sauer. And then we have one from the department of education, a designation designee from the department of education. Part of the reason that the BPE was brought under the commission was originally cope had authority over what was beginning to. At the very beginning of distance education for institutions offering distance education to Indiana residents from outside the city of Indiana, it was decided it was best to streamline government, streamline that agency. So BPE was brought under the commission, and hence BPE through the commission, or the commission through BPE, now handles all of distance education institutions that are offering that to Indiana residents. So we’re here to talk about the fees, the reason that the fees were increased. I’ll give you a little bit of history. The fees came, were inherited from the previous agency, the Commission on proprietary education. Those fees were changed back in 2010. I was with the agency then. Prior to that, they were the original fees from 1971. They had not been changed since. So in 22, we went to our board and several times and went through several reiterations of possible changes to the fee schedule. The reason that we did change the fee schedule, asked for that approval from our board was so that we could have audited financials looked at by consulting for a financial consulting firm to look at our institutions, because we wanted to avoid closures such as ITT, which closed here in Indiana and also in 38 other states. We wanted pre warning of those institutions if they were to close, because we had students who were missing transcripts and we had students whose credits did not transfer. So in the interest of the consumer and protection of the student, we wanted pre warnings so that we could grab those transcripts and be aware of an institution that may close. Any questions? Yes, senator, thank you for your presentation. Just one question. Looking at the history in 2013, I think the application for initial institutional authorization in state versus out of state, I think was it was more for out of state than in state, and now I think it is normalized for both. At 2500. Is there a reason why we’re not charging more for out of state? We wanted to be even handed and one thing I neglected to mention was the commission was allowed, through the Indiana code, to join in reciprocity agreements. So there is a state authorization reciprocity agreement. All states, with the exception of the state of California, are members of the rust process agreement. The commission, through BPE, we authorize those institutions that are not members of SARA. So a lot of the fees being collected currently come from California institutions, which must be authorized if in Indiana, by Indiana and others states, if they want to offer distance education in those states. So that’s where a lot of the funding is coming from. So the reciprocity agreement is what kind of dictated to you today? You have to equalize the in state versus out of state? Yes. Yes. My final question, due to the egregious cases, such as the one that you mentioned with the ITT, do we require. Does the commission, higher ed commission require bond requirement or some form of liability fund that can be used to. Yes, we have the state student assurance fund, which is collecting from institutions one 10th of 1% of tuition collected, and that goes into a fund. The only issue with that fund is that it can only be used for students who have paid out of pocket for education not received. So if they’re receiving title IV funding, student aid, it does not refund that. So that was not a question that I intended to ask, but now that you brought it up. So if somebody received a federal loan and one of these institutions left the state of Indiana and they closed business currently under, because of the way the fund is structured, they can’t get any assistance? That is correct. However, those loans are typically discharged by the federal government. So the federal government will discharge. Yes, typically, yes. Appreciate it. Thank you, mister chair. Thank you for the questions. Thank you for presenting. Next on the agenda, we have the professional licensing agency. If they would come forward, please. Floor is yours, sir. Thank you very much. Committee members, again, I’m Evan Bartell with professional licensing agency. I have Doug Boyle, our legislative and comms director, with me. We have for you today three new rules. But I think, as you’ll see us go through, these are actually rule fee clarifications and reductions masquerading as new rules or new fees. First is our accountancy rule. Currently, if you are an accountant who does not have an active license, your options are to go into inactive status, meaning that you can, can perform some small amount of accountancy, but you have to renew that status every four years at a cost of $75. Or you can go into expired status where there is no cost for renewal or anything. But you are not allowed to do anything within the accountancy profession. So in 2023, the General assembly created a new retired status for accountants, which kind of combines elements of both being inactive and retired, and it is a one time fee to go into that status, but you are still permitted to do some level of practice. The cost that we have come up with that is a $10.01 time fee. That is the minimum that we are statutory permitted to collect for any of our fees at plaque. That fee will go exclusively into the general fund, will reduce the burden on retired practitioners, and will not materially reduce the overall revenue from the accountancy board. Any questions of that before I move on? Go ahead, please. Next, we have a fee for mobile salons. Currently, mobile salons are charged a $40 fee at the time of license issuance and renewal that is charged under a fee that is common to all salons. What we’ve done is separated out the fee for brick and mortar salons versus mobile salons, just to clarify the application of the dollar 40 fee so that will be entirely revenue neutral. Thank you. Questions continue on. All right. And then finally, we have a fee for tanning facilities. Currently, tanning facilities pay a $200 fee when applying for or renewing their licenses. Other beauty culture facilities, so salons, nail facilities, all are charged $40. What we’ve done is reduce that $200 fee down to $40 to bring it in line with the other similar situated, similarly situated facilities. Thank you. Questions? Thank you for presenting. Thank you. Next on the agenda, we have the office of the Inspector General. Floor is yours, please. Thank you and good afternoon. My name is Tiffany Mulligan. I’m the chief of staff and chief legal counsel with the Indiana office of Inspector General. Pursuant to state statute, the office of Inspector General, or OIG, is responsible for addressing fraud, waste, abuse and misconduct within executive branch state agencies. We’re also responsible for staffing the Indiana State Ethics Committee commission. So we’re here today to present the state ethics commission penalties for review. We’re not adding any new penalties, increasing any penalties, or changing the way the penalties are currently determined. For additional background, the office of Inspector General and State Ethics Commission have jurisdiction over current and former state executive branch employees, special state appointees, and certain elected state officers. The commission is the ultimate authority on interpretation of the Indiana Code of Ethics, and it applies to, again, members of the executive branch. The code of ethics covers a variety of issues such as post employment, outside employment, conflicts of interest, gifts, ghost employment, misuse of state property, and nepotism. The state Ethics commission is the only entity that has the authority to find violation of the Indiana Code of ethics. So what happens is the OIG receives a complaint involving a violation, and if we find evidence after an investigation of a violation of the code of ethics, we then bring it to the state ethics commission for consideration. When the commission finds a violation of the code of ethics, they have several penalties available to to them. Under Indiana code 420 611.5 that includes a civil penalty of up to three times the value of any benefit received for a violation. So, as an example, if we find evidence that a state employee used a state vehicle for a family vacation, a personal use, the state ethics commission would likely find a violation of the misuse of state property and could fine the individual up to three times the use of that state vehicle. Another common example that we see is when there’s a violation of the post employment rule. So someone takes a position, for example, if they signed a contract with that particular vendor, in that case, the commission might fine the individual up to three times the increase in the salary they received from taking that post employment position position. So pursuant to Indiana Code 4268, which is also part of the code of ethics, the commission also may find a member of the executive branch of state government who is required to, but fails to file a financial disclosure statement as required by the rule, or who files a deficient statement. The statute provides that the fine might may be up to $10 a day, that the statement remains delinquent or deficient up to $1,000. I will say in recent years we’ve not used this because we’ve been able to get everyone into compliance with that requirement to file a financial disclosure statement. So the Office of Inspector General currently has a policy that outlines aggravating and mitigating factors that we will consider when making a recommendation to the state Ethics Commission on either an agreed settlement, a proposed agreed settlement, which the commission must then approve before it becomes final, or a fine after a finding of a violation in a public hearing. The OIG plans to include these factors in any promulgated rule that we pursue in the future. The mitigating in factors include items such as the respondents admission to the violation, cooperation with the OIG investigation, and material hardship on the respondent or the respondent’s family. The aggravating factors include categories such as failure to cooperate with the OIG investigation, the respondents willful or intentional misconduct, the duration and frequency of the offense, and the financial harm to the state. I note that all fines assessed by the state Ethics Commission go to the general fund pursuant to our administrative code rules. The OIG believes that these fines are important to provide accountability to members of the executive branch of state government who violate the code of ethics, and we believe it helps deter other individuals from committing such violations. So I appreciate your time today, and I’m happy to answer any questions you might have. Thank you. Any questions? Thank you for your presentation. Thank you. Next on the agenda, we have the Indiana Department of Administration. We’re here, sir. Thank you, mister chairman. Matt Kent, Department of Administration. I’m here today for the approval of department Administration’s parking fees in the government center campus parking garages and flat lots. The department administration’s code, IC 420, grants us the authority to establish a fee schedule for those parking areas. Department administration conducts periodic reviews of other parking garages in the downtown Indianapolis area to ensure that our rates are competitive, but also they’re fair to the general public who are visiting our campus or attending a conference or sporting event. The revenue for the fees are deposited in a dedicated fund at IDOA, and these funds go for parking garage operating expenses, salary and benefits, and security of the garages. The funds also go towards general maintenance and near and long term capital expenses for the garages and parking lots. In FY 24. We’re anticipating roughly $3.5 million in revenue from parking, with $3.9 million in operating expenses for the parking garages and the lots. We try to maintain a modest balance in the fund to accommodate any emergency expenses or capital expenses that might come up. Questions? Thank you. Questions? Representative reporter. Thank you, mister chairman. So, Matt, you generate, like, through the coast games and other programs on all our lots downtown, right? Correct. That. And you generate, you say, about 3.5 million a year? This year? Yes, 3.5 million. It’s dipped during COVID and then it’s been coming back since then. Okay, 3.5 million. And it costs us how much to maintain those lots this year? We’re. Well, is it the lots or is the. The parking structure? It’s all of it. So it goes towards the. Some of the structure is underneath IFA. So those dollars I requested earlier, those pay for some of the long term upkeep of the parking structures. We pay for. Idyl pays for the operation of the structures, the security and the structures, and then some of the smaller maintenance items of those structures and the parking lots. Okay, so. So the individuals I see collecting those dollars are from a private company. Correct. We contract those out and we contract those out to a private company. Correct. And we have it. How long is our agreements? Are. Are they for three years, five years. It’s usually two years, and then two, two years, renewable on top of that. That. Okay. All right. Thank you. Because I’ve often wondered where those dollars were going and if those dollars were being put back into, I don’t know, the general fund or just back into the maintenance of their parking garage. Yeah, they essentially go back into the garages. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, mister Chairman. Further questions. Thank you for presenting. Thank you. And then next we have Indiana Department of Homeland Security. They come forward, please. Floor is yours, sir. Good afternoon. Justin Goodell, General Counsel, IDHS appreciate the opportunity to present today regarding fees for the building and fire safety violations issued by the Indiana Department of Homeland Security, coming here today after presenting back in November regarding our safe harbor procedure to move forward with the continue allowance of these fees until rules could be adopted by the Fire Prevention and Building Safety Commission on this subject. And so after we presented in November, we went to the fire Prevention Building Safety Commission to move forward with rulemaking on these fees. And in presenting this to the commission, they added two small parts to this presentation that I’m back here before everybody today to touch on. So what was presented in November was our general fee of issuing a $250 fine after we do an initial inspection, find a violation, issue, a notice of alleged violations, give an opportunity to correct, an opportunity to appeal to address those issues. And if we find that there’s no request for an extension of time and there was no non compliance upon a reinspection, if we find those violations aren’t remedied, then a $250 civil penalty is issued for failure to comply with that order. When the commission looked at this, they also identified two areas that they wanted to permit immediate sanctions for, and that was for intentional misconduct or fraud, or if an individual was found operating on an expired permit or without a permit. The reason these two categories were included is because these were instances where failure to immediately find would ultimately create a framework where intentional bad actors could avoid punishment and operators could choose to operate devices on hopes of not being inspected and not needing to obtain a permit. So those two small modifications were added to this process, and that’s why we’re here today. Questions? Thank you for presenting. I’m committee, this is the time where we’re ready to entertain any motions to remove any item from the proposed agenda. Are there any motions to remove any item? Seeing none, I would entertain a motion to formally adopt the agenda as presented. There’s a motion. Is there a second? A second motion and a second. Any discussion among committee members representing Porter. Thank you. Thank you, mister chairman. We have again had a lot of discussion in regards to the Indiana Economic Development Council and the transparency of that agency. Don’t want to seem like an obstructionist, but I’ve been. I believe that we, as a. As a body, as a state budget committee, I don’t get a lot of information from them. Or I get an email at 933 a day before saying, do you have any time? Which is $7 a. Basically checked the box and said they wanted to talk to me. But you know, I have a life outside of here. So I’m very concerned on the perfect things. As you heard the discussion, you’ve heard it, you lived it. And so my question is, what are we going to do about it? Are we going to continue to just let them participate and not answer the questions? Or are we, as a legislative branch of government, who helps set their budget? Who funds them? Who’s dictating the who? And I’m very concerned about that. I think it’s imperative that we as a body address it. And I know there’s probably a couple hundred more days and things are going to change. Maybe that’s a catalyst to shove things through. I don’t know. But I’m just very concerned about the lack of transparency and what happens here. And talking about they’ll get back with us or they can’t tell us and it’s taxpayer money. I’m very concerned about that. I think I reflect a lot of not only some people in this room, but across the Indiana General assembly and in the citizenry. I’m very concerned about that. Mister Chairman. Thank you. Other comments, members of committee? Representative Delaney? Yes, thank you, Representative Porter. And Mister chairman, this remark, I guess, is kind of directed to you. Because you’re apparently stuck with the job of being chairman of the Ways and Means committee. But I don’t believe that the structure of this organization, the state budget committee. Is up to dealing with something as ever changing and complex as what goes on with IEDC. And I think the public has a right to expect more from us. One way to address that concern is when preparing the budget. One is, as representative Porter mentioned, we finance the agency. But more importantly, I think some of these major projects should come before the ways and Means committee. What we’re really doing here is substituting for the fact that we don’t have a full time legislature. And that we’re not in session. So we’re not doing it here. We’re not supervising them. We’re not finding the information. We’re letting them stumble. Cancel projects that we never understood. Move the money around between various programs with fancy names. And at the end of the day, the taxpayers are paying $80 to $100,000 an acre for ground. We don’t know where this train is going. I’m going to suggest that a major part of our meetings in January and February are going to have to be on this agency and some of these projects. Thank you. Thank you. Other comments? There’s a motion on the table to approve the agenda as was originally on the table. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. Abstains. Okay. Yes. With that, any other comments or concerns be brought before the committee hearing? None. We stand adjourn. Thank you. Thank you.