Tuesday, July 11, 2006

DCRSD Discussed Greendale Agreement 6 July 2006

6 July 2006 Dearborn County Regional Sewer Board Meeting Notes

Present: Chairman Hankins, Dennerline, Enzweiler, Pruss, Holland, and Fehrman
ABSENT: John Maxwell
Also Present: Lisa Lehner, Attorney; Doug Baer, Tom Quinn--Engineer; Bryan Messmore--County Admin., Vera Benning took notes Note: Jim West of DCEDI was in the audience.

Greendale Agreement
First agenda item was the Greendale Agreement and the DCRSD concerning four subdivisions—Red Pine, State Line Rd., Ameritek, Salt Fork & St. #1. The attorney for Greendale, Richard Butler, and the Greendale City Manager, Steve Lampert, were in attendance.

Mr. Hankins asked if DCRSD should be involved with these subdivisions—it all comes down to sewage that needs to be taken care of and who can best serve the public, Greendale or DCRSD. Pat Holland asked Lisa Lehner for her input.

Lisa Lehner stated she would prefer to work out some agreement. The goals of the DCRSD were to fix things, promote economic development and create jobs. Does entering this agreement attain goals. She stated this doesn’t do anything for VRUC. Is VRUC a customer of Greendale or served buy DCRSD, or not served at all? Lehner stated there could be litigation, and questioned the right of Greendale to service these areas.

Other statements were made concerning IURC wanting VRUC to have a fair chance to service these areas . Lehner asked board how much control do you want to give up. Is this something you want to set as a precedent for other communities.

Discussions moved to relinquishing rights. Hankins asked do we assign rights or relinquish rights of services to four subdivisions, and just work on the northern part of the county, and TIF districts—did not want to get into adversarial relationship.

Lehner stated options: 1) pass on it and tell another provider to go for it—there is no precedent for this, 2) relinquish a portion of the district “carve it out”. Hankins asked if anything prohibits another provider, and Lehner replied no.

Butler, the attorney for Greendale, said they needed an assignment of rights for the four subdivisions.

Fehrman stated put a time limit on it, and have it return to DCRSD in the future.

Sammy Gutzwiller, a former board member of VRUC, stated she had concerns committing new subdivisions to Greendale—how would you prevent annexation, and who controls rates?

Hankins replied rates are controlled by the provider.

Butler stated again that they request the Board to assign rights to Greendale for four subdivisions. Greendale supports this Board belonging to SDRSD.

Dennerline motioned to assign rights to Greendale.
Lehner said the Board needs to be very specific.
Butler stated Board can hold onto rights, but Greendale wants the rights, and wants DCRSD to give right of territory.

Dennerline asked what would happen if we don’t give over rights, can we get sued? Lehner said they could not be sued. Hankins said if they are going to get sued then we should hold onto the rights.

Butler stated Lehner left out the 3rd option, you might wonder why?

A heated discussion took place between the two attorneys.

Doug Baer asked if giving up rights without compensation gives up right to an attorney if there is litigation.

Butler said Greendale will defend if DCRSD is sued.

Hankins stated Regional Sewer Districts supersedes CTAs.

Dennerline again motioned that they give the sewage rights for the four subdivisions to Greendale.

Lehner suggested they have a written document for the assignment and she will prepare the document for them to sign.

The Board decided to vote on each subdivision separately because of circumstances—one subdivision was surrounded by Greendale (Ameritek). The Board decided to combine Red Pine and State Line Rd. into one vote, and the Ameritek, and Salt Fork and St. #1 each separately.

The Board passed three motions to assign the rights of the four subdivisions to Greendale, subject to written legal description—all ayes.

Fehrman excused himself from the Ameritek vote because he is the agent for the subdivision.

Second Item—(Board started this item after break—missed beginning of presentation)

Steward Street Cole Lane-- Tom Quinn
. Discussion was concerning tap-in fees of $1,500. Concerns were discussed regarding homeowners being able to pay fee of tap-in in lump sum. Discussed ways to have the cost distributed over a longer time frame. Lehner suggested there were local lenders who could provide loans with low interest.

Update on County Council Meeting of June 21, 2006.

Hankins said his presentation went well, and he had folders which he passed out to members of the Board, which had the presentation he made to the County Council on June 21, 2006.

He proceeded to tell the Board that the Council presented the DCRSD with $4.2 million, and they are to present a plan. One of the members asked if it was a loan, or if they had to pay it back? Hankins said he didn’t know, but that it is going to be invested into 3 month and 6 month CDs, so it will amount to more than $4.2 million.

Lehner stated that Ewbanks called her and said that they would issue a promissory note.

Woolpert Draft Changes
The changes are expected to arrive around Labor Day.

Claims to be Paid
Doug Baer
reported the progress made in setting up an office for the DCRSD.

Hankins said that he had spoken to the Chamber of Commerce and the Chamber offered space in their building with a computer and phone. The Board agreed it would be better to keep the office in the Administration Building. Brian Messmore said they are looking into another location for the DCRSD, but it will take about two years.

Baer said Dell and Working Environment offered bids. Dennerline motioned to accept Working Environment’s offer at no more than $1,700. Fehrman seconded, and it passed with all ayes.

No other business, and the meeting was adjourned at 9:05 p.m.

Kathy Scott and Helen Kremer
Logan Township

No comments: