AJ Colley, Shelbyville News Staff Writer

Shelby County Council will devote 80 percent of its racino revenues to economic development, the council decided as part of a resolution Tuesday night.

The council approved in a 6-1 vote the resolution, which would also direct 15 percent of its slot-machine wagering-fee revenues to the county’s general fund and 5 percent to the Blue River Community Foundation. Council member Margaret Brunk voted against the motion. The council also approved a portion of racino funds for a Blue River Career Center program.

Council President Terry Smith, who drafted the resolution, said he was happy the council took the first step in deciding how the money is spent.
Smith explained to council members before the resolution was approved that the next steps would include creating more specific budgets that correspond to the percentages. He also said the council would need to create and pass a resolution detailing what types of projects it would want the Blue River Community Foundation money to cover. Smith said the resolution could include putting county council members on the board voting on the projects.

Council members and members of the Shelby County Development Corp. spoke Tuesday night to clear up confusion that the 80 percent would be given to SCDC.

“Economic development is a very large term,” said Dan Theobald, executive director of SCDC.

Theobald told council members he was pleased with the resolution and said other counties in Indiana would like to be doing something similar.

Chris King, SCDC president, said the resolution makes a clear statement that Shelby County is serious about economic development.

But not everyone supported the resolution Tuesday night.

Resident Joseph Guy said it worried him that the council was devoting 80 percent to economic development. He said local entities keep putting money toward economic development, but nothing changes. Instead, he said money should go toward immediate needs, like giving current companies incentives to hire more employees.

Resident Craig Larkey urged the council to get more public input. He also said the council was moving too quickly on the resolution. Smith explained the resolution originally came up in December and was discussed at last month’s council meeting.

Another resident stood up to say it blew his mind that council members weren’t willing to help local schools, as they struggle financially and cut teachers.

Brunk, who voted against the resolution, said one of her concerns is the 5 percent directed to the Blue River Community Foundation. The money would be used as an investment. Blue River would keep the principle investment, and interest earned on it would be dispersed to community organizations.

Brunk said the county is capable of managing and investing the money on its own, and she worried about not having control over the principle investment given to the foundation.

Council member Tony Titus said he initially had concerns about the resolution but learned more about it and ended up supporting it. Initially, he worried the 80 percent would be directed to SCDC. Then, he realized that wasn’t the case.

“You could cover a lot of area with that economic development,” Titus said.

Titus also said he was put at ease when he realized a committee could be formed to help direct the community foundation on how to spend the money, and he said the council could cap the racino contributions given to the foundation.

Council Vice President Linda Sanders said she supported the resolution.

“It’s really hard to get your hands around it, but we’re doing our best and we have to start somewhere,” she said.

After debate over how much education is tied to economic development, the council approved giving $160,000 to Blue River Career Center for an advanced manufacturing course. Representatives from the career center said the money would be used to purchase equipment, and the school would pay for teachers. The original presentation about the program was given at the council’s January meeting. The allocation of money was approved in a 5-2 vote. Sanders and Smith voted against it.