The White County Commission on an unspecified date rejected a resolution to surplus about 20 acres the county previously purchased for transfer to the state, then approved a package of five budget-related resolutions and two committee appointments.

Chairman T.K. Austin introduced Resolution 84-10-20-25, describing it as "a resolution to surplus 20 acres that the county bought, with anticipation of selling to the state, which the state is ready to take ownership at this time," and asked for a motion. Commissioner roll call produced seven votes in favor and one opposed; the chair then declared the resolution failed.

The dispute over the 20 acres drew public comment. Resident Doug Curtis asked the commission for guidance on "what they wanna do with the land" and said he was "curious to that" and that the county's arrangement had been to let the land pass through the county so the county might benefit from future tourism development. Curtis questioned whether the county would receive financial benefit from the transfer and criticized low attendance by other commissioners during the meeting.

In subsequent business, the commission considered five budget and grant-related resolutions — numbered in the meeting materials as 85-10-20-25 through 89-10-20-25 — in a single package. Kyle Goff, chairman of the budget committee, summarized the package as including appropriations for a convenience-center grant and waste-reduction grants; a success-fee payment from a waste-management contract described in the meeting as an amount expressed in the motion; capital-project appropriations for fiscal 2025–26; funds for an "innovative school model" grant and paid parental leave cleanup for the school system; and multiple grants including a U.S. Department of Justice jail reentry grant, corrections to extension-service salaries, a mental-health transport grant, sheriff's hiring/training/recruitment grants, an SRO (school resource officer) grant for an alternative school, library technology grants from the Secretary of State, and appropriations from statewide opioid abatement funds. Goff described these components in sequence and asked the commission to approve resolutions 85–89 as a package. The roll call for that package was unanimous among commissioners present, and the chair announced the motion carried.

The commission also approved two nominating-committee resolutions (90 and 91) appointing members to the budget committee and the audit committee; the motion carried by unanimous roll call among those present. The commission approved a slate of notaries and adopted the consent calendar including spread-of-minutes approval earlier in the meeting.

Votes at a glance

- Resolution 84-10-20-25 (surplus of ~20 acres): Motion introduced; roll-call results read as seven yes, one no. The chair subsequently stated, "Resolution fails." Mover/second not specified in the record. Vote record (as read aloud): Kyle Goff — Yes; Kane Rogers — Yes; Chris Brewington — No; Lanny Selby — Yes; Dakota White — Yes; Robert McCormick — Yes; Derek Hutchings — Yes; T.K. Austin — Yes. Outcome as declared by the chair: failed.

- Resolutions 85–89 (budget/grant appropriations package): Motion to approve the five resolutions as a single package; roll call read as eight yes, six absent. Outcome: approved. Mover/second not specified in the record.

- Resolutions 90–91 (nominating committee appointments for budget and audit committees): Motion to approve; roll call read as eight yes, six absent. Outcome: approved. The appointed members (as announced) were Chris Brewington, Dakota White, Robert McCormick, and Derek Hutchings on the committees.

- Notaries: Motion to approve list of notaries (Kimberly Fifield; Wendy Humes; Wendy Hunt; Daphne Jacob; Patricia Morgan; Jennifer Scott; Tamara Swindle); motion carried.

Discussion, clarifications and context

Chairman Austin and budget committee chair Kyle Goff provided the majority of recorded explanations for the items. When asked to explain the surplus request for the 20 acres, a staff member identified only as "Staff member" stated the county had purchased the property (referred to in the record as the Rock House property) and was proposing to surplus it back to the state "for the same price that we purchased it for." The public commenter, Doug Curtis, said he had been told the state would buy the land back for the same amount the county paid and that he was concerned the county would not receive a direct financial gain.

The budget resolutions include multiple grant and reimbursement sources mentioned in the meeting: a convenience-center grant and waste-reduction grants; a success-fee payment from a waste management contract; capital project appropriations for 2025–26; an innovative school-model grant and paid parental-leave reconciliation for the school system; U.S. Department of Justice jail reentry grant funds; a mental-health transport grant; sheriff's department hiring/training/recruitment grants; a school resource officer (SRO) grant; library technology grants from the Secretary of State, and statewide opioid abatement funds. Specific dollar amounts were not consistently stated in the record (one amount was read aloud in the meeting with uncertain transcription), so the meeting record should be consulted for precise budget figures.

What remains unresolved

The record shows the roll-call counts and the chair's statements but does not provide a written mover or seconder for the motions, nor does it explain why a motion that read as seven yes/one no was declared to have failed. The transcript does not state any statutory threshold or legal reason for the chair's declaration. The county's stated plan for the 20-acre parcel was described as returning the property to the state at the same price the county paid; no sale price or transfer completion date was recorded in the minutes.

The commission adjourned following a motion and second at the end of the meeting.