Tuesday, June 27, 2006
Present: Mark Mitter, Chairman, Jane Ohlmansiek, Tarry Feiss, Nick Held, Mike Hall, Jeff Hughes, and Dennis Kraus, Jr.
Absent: Patrick deMaynadier and Robert Laws
Also Present: Arnie McGill, Attorney, and Mark McCormack, Planning Director, and Kate Rademacher, Enforcement Officer.
Approximately 20 people were present.
Zone Change from Ag to Residential for a maximum of 65 homes on 127.172 acres in Miller Township on SR1, Salt Fork, and Cambridge was given a unanimous FAVORABLE recommendation to the commissioners with several stipulations that the applicant had proposed. Owner- Wayne Ferguson.
Public speaking in opposition ( Lonnie Mitchell, Bob Billups (sp?), Scott Warning, George Steffan, Mike Cain, Mike Henson (current owner of Wingate property), Cynthia Fox, Robert Craig, Fifi Biehle, Gary Reeves, Dave Fragel) cited runoff concerns, wildlife habitat degradation, traffic safety with SR1 and the nearby dangerous intersections at Georgetown and Salt Fork, steep slope being denuded to get a view of PNS and Tanner Valley, Cambridge Rd being a “16’ buggy path with questionable ROW- possible 28 ft., possible problems obtaining sewers in near future, school overcrowding at Sunman Dearborn district, line of sight issues with trees, guardrail removal and fill required for turn lanes, creek issues and topography at entrance with adjoining neighbor.
Rick Pope spoke in favor of the plan, but asked why boulevard had to be the entire access length. Thought this would be high end and fiscally responsible at $300,000 homes and up with $80,000 for 1.5 acre lots. Not too many kids added to schools, because people with kids can’t afford these homes.
Board questioned Tom Kent on various points for about an hour and obtained suitable answers. The bulk of the board was adamant that turn lanes be required. [NOTE: This is a good idea- by contrast, the state has not gotten turn lanes on any of their intersections onto SR1 nor have they corrected them to perpendicular access. Work on the bridge at Greendale is in process, while Salt Fork Bridge and that dangerous intersection are still on hold. Tarry Feiss questioned highway workers on that and they were reportedly surprised when they saw which bridge was being done first. This may be because of the ranking for road projects on the 2030 plan. Plan Commission may want to look at that plan again if they think there is a problem with development and the rankings of projects.]
Feiss motioned with the stipulations as above and Hall 2nd. All ayes Favorable recommendation with the following stipulations per applicant’s proposal:
1. Certification of land use restricted to 65 lots max, 2. Sewage provided, 3. Both L and R turn lanes be provided on SR 1, 4. Future connectivity to Cambridge Road be set aside and gated at this time, 5. No grading on land of 20% slope or greater, and 6. Entrance on SR 1 be boulevard style for the entire length of the access and design approved by county engineer.
Discussion on whether or not commissioners can send a zone change back to the PC to be reconsidered. Indiana Code mentioned and probability of having to start over with request. Lawsuit mentioned from when Schmidt redevelopment on White’s Hill had commissioners do stipulations, which they are not allowed to do by state law. Hughes was questioning possibilities.
McCormack informed board that the code changes weren’t advertised and so would have to be moved to July meeting.
Rules on major and minor site plans were passed out for the PC to review for July.
Non-commercial signage changes in ordinance were given out- as prepared by Ewbank for the commissioners following the Dorothy White lawsuit pertaining to first amendment rights. Changes to section 2015 and article 27 definitions were included. Dorothy White was in attendance for this. These will be advertised for July meeting also.
July meeting is split between July 24 and July 31 because of too many large cases.
Kate Rademacher was introduced to the board as the new enforcement officer.
McCormack is trying to set up a meeting with school boards and superintendents similar to the sewer company meetings a couple years ago. Hoping for August time frame.
Budget will be completed by Friday.
Meeting with St. Leon’s attorney and also W. Harrison – probably going to share the cost for ½ a planner and the county will help manage their planning issues. This will be discussed at budget hearings.
Talking to DCEDI to see if they want to partner on fiscal impact study for the county.
Sugar Ridge coming in for another waiver of buffer between condos and golf course. Apparently Sugar Ridge has had numerous changes and splits. Board discussed fees escalating when more than one replat is sought. No decision.
Meeting adjourned 10:40 PM
Christine Brauer Mueller
Thursday, June 22, 2006
At the 21 June 2006 County Council meeting 2.5 hours of discussion resulted in a negotiated deal to get money for DCRSD to “get into the game.” Cost to the taxpayers could be $4.5 million. DCRSD plans to use the $4.5 million to leverage more money at the Lawrenceburg bond bank. Council thinks the set-aside account would show good faith for DCRSD to negotiate with SDRSD and St. Leon Sewer Board.
The vote was 4 to 2. Fehrman, as chair, wasn’t required to vote, though he was clearly supportive. Fehrman left the room and talked to various supporters in the hall and around the room as the discussion was going on. Nay votes came from Cheek and Lansing due to unresolved issues with Greendale. There was also a desire to wait till August to see the sewer Study master plan.
The bulk of the discussion centered on membership in SDRSD, which is threatened by a nay vote from Greendale should DCRSD not agree to Greendale’s agreement to be able to serve 4 subdivisions that they’d planned on serving and to allow Greendale to keep HVL, a current customer. This resulted from DCRSD taking over “all areas not currently served.”
Economic development issues were also discussed. Jim West, Bill Ritzman, John Rahe, Richard Butler, and Mike Rozow represented DCEDI, the Redevelopment Commission, and the Chamber of Commerce. Mike Hankins, Brett Fehrman, and Rodney Dennerline represented DCRSD.
Hankins referred to SDRSD’s governance as being “antiquated” more than once in his presentation, because it requires a unanimous vote for a member to join. From the outside that may appear to be the case. Inside the SDRSD, it protects their initial investments, customer rates, and expansion from members unable to carry their share of the load.
DCRSD is a relative neophyte in the sewer business. They have yet to build a firm foundation. They elected to hurry up and take over all areas not currently served by sewers in November 2005. This occurred at a Commissioners meeting without being on the agenda. The wording for the commissioners to use was provided by DCRSD’s attorney, Lisa Lehner. At a recent meeting of commissioners, Lehner submitted an amendment to the minutes of the November meeting to show discussion on the issue to reflect it being done for health and safety of the residents.
In their hurry DCRSD failed to consult the local cities and towns to see what their utility plans were. Greendale, for example, had a plan because developers had requested service. They laid pipes for a gravity system along SR1 also. Gravity systems are expensive to lay out, but are cheaper to maintain. DCRSD should have consulted them before essentially negating their investment.
What about expansion of the cities themselves? How can they annex areas served by the county? Has anyone thought about who owns the pipes and who gets to bill the customers then?
The DCRSD letter to Council notes: “At present, County residents outside municipal jurisdictions are serviced by a municipal service provider, often at a higher cost than local residents pay. We would attempt to reduce that inequity.” DCRSD surely has noticed that taxes paid by residents in the local cities are higher than those in the county outside. The city residents get a reduced rate partially due to their taxes and the economies of scale along with their high density of living. DCRSD will find that providing sewer service and maintaining lines is costly. Someone has to pay. It may truly be more efficient and less expensive to add on to the cities rather than duplicate services.
If you look at the county as a whole, there are very few areas that couldn’t be served by EXISTING sewer providers in Aurora, Dillsboro, Lawrenceburg, Greendale, LMH, Moore’s Hill, and St. Leon. Most areas remaining are rural or farms. DCRSD needs to widen the circle around the towns to allow them some breathing space and potential expansion room.
Greendale has made DCRSD an offer that sounds beneficial to both. It lets Greendale recoup their investment in lines that will serve 4 subdivisions and retain existing customer- VRUC. It lets DCRSD get capacity from Greendale for free and possibly tack on a surcharge to the new development customers to help pay for county uses beyond this area or help Aurora so the county can pass through them, or fix High Ridge Estates, or buy capacity at St. Leon for the county’s TIF.
Goals of the DCRSD are 1. to maintain health and safety of residents, 2. to serve economic development areas, and 3 to serve residential growth – in that order. Yet we see the biggest hassle being over eastern residential growth and Greendale serving it.
DCRSD had no problem with allowing LMH to serve Maxwell’s proposed subdivision on Sneakville Road. What is the difference between that and Greendale serving the subdivisions they had planned to serve?
Hankins noted they were getting variances with IDEM to allow more inflow to Aurora even though Aurora is in violation with IDEM. He asked: What’s the difference if HighRidge Estates overflows there or in Aurora? Could the difference be that AURORA PAYS PENALTIES when this occurs?
Why is the little town of Guilford a big issue? Is it because of what’s above Guilford?
Similarly, why are we concerned with New Alsace at this point?
It seems that economics is the driver and no one is paying attention to how the county can biologically and scientifically devise a plan that will take us into the future- responsibly.
DCRSD states in their letter to Council that:”Since its establishment, the board of DCRSD has spent its initial period getting its arms around the sewer issue in Dearborn County.” We need to be sure those arms don’t strangle our neighbors in the cities and towns.
Christine Brauer Mueller
Wednesday, June 21, 2006
Present: Hughes, Chairman, Fox, and Benning
Also present: Pickens, Auditor, Messmore, Administrator, and Ewbank, Attorney
A uniformed county police officer was present.
Register Publications also covered the meeting.
The meeting room was full- approximately 60 people present.
[NOTE: Both candidates for D-3 County Commissioner were present, cordial, and seated next to each other: Ralph Thompson-Republican and the new candidate put up by the Democrat Caucus last week – Frank Linkmeyer.]
1. Chris McHenry for Dearborn County Historical Society – requested consideration for $10,ooo in the 2007 budget, as usual.
2. County Farm- Mike Heffelmire- was told to get a survey to mark off the shooting range for the Boy Scouts on the farm so as to keep other park uses away from that area. Lease was OK’d for Scouts and 4H with that provision. Heffelmire also told commissioners that the Boy Scouts had a $10,000 grant from the Dearborn Foundation. They used all but $157 and RETURNED THAT TO THE FOUNDATION. Stated this to show this was the only time the foundation had money back and attested to their honesty.
Later at 7PM Steve Doll- Forester- opened 3 bids for county timber on 278 trees (93 of them white ash as they are trying to harvest ahead of the white ash bore.) Ray Benham was $21,000, E&H Logging for $24,000, and John Cooley (couldn’t hear and spelling?) $18,500. Tabled for 1 month to look over, as the income seemed low to the commissioners.
3. SEIMAC (Media Arts Council with Leroy McCluskey and Dave Abner)- requested $7500 in startup money and equipment money to be funneled through HHH (Historic Hoosier Hills) as their status as a non-profit apparently works better that way. Lengthy presentation on audio and visual options they will try to put out for county residents to use. OK’s to go to Council for 2007 budget consideration or one time grant.
[NOTE: This may be hard for Council to justify, as we are short on funds for basics like roads and sewers, etc.]
4. Weights and Measures- Jeff Smith- gave annual report and 2007 budget. Requesting a truck AGAIN. His own has 230,000 miles on it. Mentioned he may be able to go full time. Questions on who insures him and his truck. Seems that the county currently treats him as an outside contractor.
5. Transportation and Engineering- Todd Listerman-
Freightliner approved for 2 chassis for $113,252
Kaffenberger only bidder- approved for dump beds, spreader boxes, and plows for $60,370 for two.
6. PUBLIC HEARING FOR SUN VALLEY ACRES ZONE CHANGE opened at 7:15 PM
Mark McCormack- Planning Director- gave the overview of the county Plan Commission meeting and the 4 motions that failed. He also explained the options open to the commissioners to approve, deny, or let sit for 90 days at which point it would be effectively denied if they didn’t act. The decision was certified on May 31, 2006- so the 90 days starts from that point in time.
He noted there was no concept development plan submitted with the final presentation in May and that Kent stated he would make it moderate density at about 1.07 lots per acre average. [NOTE: This is actually on the borderline of being high density at less than an acre per lot]
The plan went from 265 to 180 units. They want to cluster.
The commissioners have to consider the worst-case scenario of highest density if they rezone without a concept development plan.
Sewers will be provided by a partnership of DCRSD, SDRSD, and Lawrenceburg. A R turn lane is recommended.
The 5 criteria for a zone change were posted at the end of the PowerPoint.
Residents speaking in opposition: (At this meeting there were none speaking publicly to support the proposal except for Tom Kent, the developer)
Dennis Sparks- Concerned with education at South Dearborn and especially the potential doubling of enrollment at Manchester Elementary. The 500 petitioners represent practically everyone on 48 up to Negangard’s Corner. Read the Comp Plan and doesn’t think that they fit with #2. These are not MODERATE density- many homes are on large acres- like 8 acres. Section 520 of the code states you have to view this as worst-case scenario – condos even. You should not do this without a VISUAL plan- this will affect our property values. Sent an email to the 3 commissioners and apologized for his tone- but THIS IS MY HOME! The infrastructure is not there YET.
Irwin Diehl- reminded them that there is not a formal commitment from Kent on the actual density. By removing the detailed site map in May- Kent removed the commitment. We will have a serene rural residential area succumbing to high density. He is using the highest end of moderate density across the board. Kent is the front person for the PERFECT PLAN– and if this goes through and they want to make more profit- they will take it over from him.
People’s single biggest investment is their home. They borrow against it to finance college and other things for their family. There is a real and a subjective value to this “nest egg” that we call home. When you choose rural living that is the quality of life you desire.
Sheriff Lusby campaigned saying that increased density leads to increased crime and increased traffic and accidents.
When you put rats in a cage and it becomes crowded they either become depressed and withdrawn or get aggressive. There are 22 adjoiners who oppose this and 4-5 who want it. There are 387 acres opposed and 174 acres who want it.
Please consider and apply the criteria in the zoning code and comp plan to deny this. We are generally not anti development- we support reasonable- low-density plans that would not burden the community.
Johnny Schott- Has loved DC for 50 years and moved home and two businesses here. I set out to buy an EXISTING home so as not to contribute to urbanization here. People do NOT come here for density- they have that in Ohio. Money is not the only value we have- peace, quiet, and tranquility are also valued. Dearborn County desperately needs to correct the oversight and create levels of residential zoning. Deny this until we get that commitment or those levels in place.
Eric Watkins- moved here a year ago- to be a long term resident. Treat this as worst-case scenario. His relocation company even noted that they couldn’t approve his home unless it was among similar homes because of the value issues. This does not meet the burden of proof needed for the zone change.
Brian Groh – Noted again the large number of residents opposed. (the room was full)Citizens took time to come and have their voices heard and to obtain 500 petitions. They are angry because this is grossly out of character. There are issues with SR48 and US 50 traffic that are not resolved yet. Many people do not agree that you should be able to do anything you want with your property. Try to find a reasonable solution for both sides. MANY PEOPLE FEEL THAT THE MAJORITY OF YOU ARE SO PRO-DEVELOPMENT THAT YOU WILL ALLOW THIS ANYWAY. In their eyes the only way to fix this is to vote you out. Those of us here hope you can fix this and we can say you did it right.
Chet Wolgamot – gave a clear depiction using the county plat map books of the 6 square miles surrounding the development. He showed no ¼ or ½ acre lots. He showed a small amount of 1-3 acre lots. He showed how some small lots were combined to one owner to make a large lot site. Using county records at the assessor’s office he showed that virtually all the 6 square miles is greater than 3-acre home sites.
“We are all agonizingly familiar with section 540 of the code.” He went on to address each criterion for a zone change in that section.
This is the worst cost to benefit rate of any land use.
The stark contrast between rural and suburban uses cannot be overstated.
How can you transition to 99% low density?
There is nothing fair is deciding to put an urban subdivision here.
The county has a SURPLUS of homes in the 150-200K range as referenced in the comp plan.
There is NO community need- this price range is pursued by developers because it is of max. profit to them- not to the community.
There are as of yesterday- 170 residential properties on the market in the county. Of these 39 are in L-bg, 60 in South Dearborn, and 70 in Sunman Dearborn.
The Plan Commission member in May said this was out of character with the current conditions. Judicial review would show that this is in violation of this regulation- we believe.
The most desirable use would be with the existing community. To conserve property values you cannot go with the worst-case scenario- even PC agreed.
How can trading on existing owners’ rights be responsible growth?
This should not be based on the developer’s profitability. Be responsible- the 500 supporters are real people.
Kent has minimal risk- tell him no- he will come back again with a better plan- both beneficial and compatible with the community. We do not want the land to lay fallow- but to be beneficial- 50-80 homes would be our plan.
Jerry Watts – What is the growth potential for this? We lost the 2nd largest employer- Seagrams…
TOM KENT- responded to issues. This will be moderate density, SD schools wants students- per Tom Book. I didn’t show property lines because it is not required.
Kent put up tax maps showing tax lots. He said the comp plan promotes safe and affordable housing. He wants 3 products in this development in ranges from $150 -$230K.
Development should occur where infrastructure is- and this is 2400 ft from a sewer. [NOTE: That sewer line is not big enough to serve this- they will have to lay another one and go much further back into Lawrenceburg to the larger main.]
We are on 2 state highways.
Wish we had a land use map telling us where to develop. There was some consensus at fall master plan land use workshop that this are should be R. I live out here not every house here is a $400,000 house.
500 petitioners vs. 48,000 county residents as represented by the comp plan.
FOX asked Kent to go on the record:
No condos?- Kent agreed – none.
1-3 acres?- Kent said yes- but he will cluster.
Buffers?- Kent plans on it.
Lowest price home?- Kent- $150,000.
Chet Wolgamot: rebutted as he said he was accused of lying. Kent can exaggerate as in saying he has 48,000 people and somehow none of them are here. Kent feels the plan will pass on merit alone. He’s using the Herman Goering approach- if you lie long enough people will believe.
Is a buffer one tree or 20 ft?
When PC requested moderate diversity- he did not meet the bare minimum. He plays you people and this gets old.
Wolgamot was stopped at this point to address the board.
He went on: We have to defend ourselves. He put up the density slide again- this is the key to the whole thing.
Chris Mueller- reminded the board that the price of the home is not always the issue. The same as the size is not. Small homes can have good quality- but most people have a picture of a $150,000 home in mind. Also asked if the price included the lot. This was not answered.
At 8:50 PM the Public comment was closed, though Benning had tried to close it earlier.
There was a legal opinion from McGill on 36-7-4-6.15 that questioned the ability of the COMMISSIONERS to obtain written commitments for a zone change.
Benning was in a hurry to make a motion for a favorable approval and READ but did NOT state how the 5 criteria were met for a zone change.
THERE WAS NO 2nd to that motion.
There was no other motion- Fox nodded no when asked if he had another one.
[NOTE: Tonight I was reminded of a discussion I had with Rick Fox just hours before he was elected two years ago. He talked about his philosophy of development. Tonight it seemed that he was staying true to his previously stated, personally held, ideals.]
If there is no further action by the end of 90 days from May 31st this zone change will be denied.
[NOTE: After the meeting I questioned Ewbank, the attorney, as to what a failed motion meant. He said it is still alive for 90 days from May 31st. They could act on it, though he didn’t think they would. I asked if they would announce it- he said he’d hoped they would and that it had to be part of the official agenda to be considered. Official agendas are often not available till the day of or day before the meeting though.]
Claims and minutes were approved.
Contract as before with DCEDI for professional services for economic development was signed.
There was no report from Lobbyist John Frick & Associates.
Sonya Henry was appointed to SIEOC board to fill a vacancy.
Benning brought up the groundbreaking ceremony at the library expansion on Tues at 4PM per Sally Stenger. Wondered what they would do with their parking lot now. (County leases this to handle overflow parking) Ewbank thought lease might be a 30 day termination type though he hasn’t seen one yet. Messmore to investigate.
[NOTE: County will be in trouble without that lot- there are times when there is no parking available on Mary or High Street even now. County courthouse may need to build a parking area or utilize the I&M lot.
Ewbank noted in addition to survey work on county farm they are locating the pauper graves and marking the area. He also noted same suits as last meeting still in process.
Meeting adjourned around 9:30 PM
Christine Brauer Mueller
Monday, June 19, 2006
BY: KATHY SCOTT
PAT HOLLAND, DAVE ENZWEILLER, MIKE HANKINS, JOHN MAXWELL (LATE), BARRY PRUSS, RODNEY DENNERLINE, BRET FEHRMAN (ABSENT)
ALSO PRESENT: L.EHNER ATTY, DOUG BAER, TOM QUINN
MINUTES APPROVED FOR MAY 4TH AND MAY 18TH
TREASURER’S REPORT APPROVED, (COULD NOT HEAR MOST OF IT).
ADDRESSED THE BOARD WITH INFORMATION CONCERNING JOINING A PILOT PROGRAM WITH THE STATE, TO EVALUATE PRIVATE SEPTIC SYSTEMS AND ANY OTHER TYPE OF
SYSTEM, NOT ON A, MAJOR SEWER SYSTEM. HE BROUGHT UP THE PROBLEMS WITH ALLEN COUNTY AND FORT WAYNE. ALL DUE TO
THE LEGISLATIVE ACT OF 2004.
ANDRES STATED THE GUIDELINES BEING SET UP BY INDIANA BOARD OF HEALTH AND IDEM. DEARBORN COUNTY WOULD USE THE ALLEN COUNTY GUIDELINES, PAYING ATTENTION TO 9 SPECIFIC ITEMS. (I THINK THESE CAN BE FOUND ON IDEM’S WEB SITE).
ANDRES ASKING IF THE BOARD WOULD WANT TO BE A PILOT SEWER
DISTRICT. THERE APPARENTLY IS A FEE TO THE BOARD OR COUNTY.
ALSO THERE WOULD BE A FEE TO THE INDIVIDUAL HAVING THEIR SYSTEM INSPECTED.
LOOKING TO UNINCORPORATED AREAS ONLY.
QUESTION: HOW DO YOU GET PERMISSION TO GO ONTO SOMEONE ELSE’S PROPERTY, TO INSPECT THEIR WASTE SYSTEM? COULD NOT
STATE DEPT. OF HEALTH TO HAVE GUIDELINES WORKED OUT IN 2 – 3
PETER ELLIS: UPDATE ON CHATEAU POMIJE
DOUG BAER WANTED TO KNOW IF THE WINERY WOULD HAVE A SYSTEM ON SITE VS A FORCE MAIN.
ELLIS: “ST. LEON NOT ON BOARD YET. ST. LEON WANTS TO WORK OUT AN AGREEMENT”.
DOUG BAER, WANTS POMIJE TO SET ASIDE MONEY IN ESCROW
ELLIS: “LOOKING FOR POSSIBLE BOND MONIES, RESUBMITTING PLANS FOR ONSITE SYSTEM”.
BAER: “END OF MONTH IS RUN OUT TIME FOR WINERY. ESCROW ACCOUNT MAY DO IT”
ELLIS, WILL WORK WITH BAER
ESCROW ACCOUNT WITH AGREEMENT (MONIES FOR WASTE SYSTEM ONLY) WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE UNTIL FURTHER DECISION ON “IN LINE SEWER OR ON SITE SYSTEM”.
TUCKER: SUBDIVISION DEVELOPMENT, NORTH DEARBORN RD.
ST. LEON, WILLING TO SERVICE PROJECT.
SEWER LINE ON N. DEARBORN AND SHULLER
DOUG FARROW SAID, READY, WILLING AND ABLE TO TRANSPORT SEWAGE.
TUCKER WILL DO WHATEVER ST. LEON SAYS.
BOARD MEMBER, “WHY BRING THIS UP HERE” .NOT ANSWERED.
QUESTION ABOUT NEED FOR A NEW LINE. TUCKER WOULD BE SURPRISED IF A NEW LINE WOULD BE REQUIRED.
MAXWELL: A POSSIBLE UPGRADE OF EXISTING LINE
(A LOT OF TALKING GOING ON, NOT ABLE TO HERE)
BOARD: PASSED WITH A VOTE, BOARD TO SEND CORRESPONDENCE TO ST. LEON, THAT TUCKER WAS APPROVED.
(WHAT HAS THIS GOT TO DO WITH THIS BOARD?)
BETH O’LEARY: SEWER EXTENSION, SERENITY RIDGE
SUMMARIZED: O’LEARY TO FIND OUT HOW MANY VACANT LOT OWNERS WOULD WANT TO HOOK ONTO SEWER SYSTEM. DCRSD /ENGINEER TO DRAW UP NUMBERS FOR COST. OTHER OWNERS MAY BE COMPELLED TO HOOK ON, (THIS WAS SOMEONE’S QUESTION).
HANKINS: “ NO PRACTICE OF THIS BOARD TO FORCE HOOKUPS”
ANOTHER BOARD MEMBER ( I DO NOT REMEMBER WHO ) STATED:
“IN THE MINUTES – POLICY – EVERYONE TO HOOK ON”
MARK MCCORMICK, PLANNING OFFICE.
WOULD LIKE TO PARTNER WITH DCRSD (PER MEMORANDUM SENT TO DCRSD BOARD) TO CLARIFY CAPACITY ISSUES OF SEWER SYSTEMS. THE LETTERS REQUIRED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF SEWER COMPANIES ARE VERY VAGUE. THERE IS A LOT OF FOLLOWUP NEEDED WITH PRIMARY PLATT ISSUES WHEN IT COMES TO APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL. THIS IS NEEDED BECAUSE OF THE LG. NUMBER OF PLATT ISSUES IN THE FALL.
BOARD WILL REVIEW MEMORANDUM.
CONSTRUCTION BID MEETING AND OUTCOME – TOM QUINN
STEWART RD. AND COLE LE.,
IN AGREEMENT; 1.HOMEOWNER, WOULD HAVE ELECTRICIAN TO RUN ELECTRIC TO 30AMP BREAKER ON OUTSIDE OF HOUSE. 2. 80 PVC PIPE ACCEPTED 3. TRENCHING TOOL ACCEPTED, 6 INCH WIDE TRENCH
SINCE SOME OF THE SPEC’S CHANGED, LEHNER STATED “ JOB WOULD HAVE TO BE REBID “. BOARD AGREED TO PUT OUT FOR REBID, WOULD ALSO NEED TO ADVERTISE IT AGAIN.
QUESTION RAISED, WOULD, HOME OWNER HAVE OPTION TO MAINTAIN OR WOULD SEWER CO. MAINTAIN?
ALL EASEMENTS ATTAINED, NO ROAD CUTS NEEDED
(DO ANY OF THE BOARD MEMBERS OWN PROPERTY ON COLE LE.?)
AURORA AGREEMENT – BRETT FEHRMAN (ABSENT)
LEHNER STATED SHE MET WITH RICHARD BUTLER, AND BUTLER VOLUNTEERED INFORMATION, RICHARD SUBMITTED PAPERS TO LEHNER.
(WHAT PAPERS? ARE THERE 13 PAGES?)
DENNERLEIN TO LEHNER, “WHO’S PAYING FOR THIS?”
DENNERLEIN, UNHAPPY WITH HVL, DOES NOT WANT HVL TO BUILD SEWER PLANT.
DENNERLEIN ASKED LEHNER IF SHE WAS REPRESENTING ANYONE IN HVL, IF SHE HAS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
LEHNER STATED “I DON’T REPRESENT ANYONE IN HVL”.
LEHNER OFFERED HER FEE AS $150.00 PER HOUR.
THEN MUCH DISCUSSION ON AGREEMENT, (VRUC, AURORA, GREENDALE)
LEHNER, STATED SHE MET WITH, PARVIN PRICE ABOUT VALLEY RURAL
POSITION. (13 PAGES AGAIN) AND HE WOULD NOT GIVE AN OPINION.
MULTIPLE FAULTS WITH 13 PAGES.
(IS THE 13 PAGES THE GREENDALE AGREEMENT?)
ALL OF THE LATER DISCUSSION CONCERNED THE GREENDALE AGREEMENT.
SO THE BOARD SET ASIDE THEIR NEXT MEETING FOR THE DISCUSSION ONLY OF THE GREENDALE AGREEMENT.
THERE IS A LOT AFFECTING THIS AGREEMENT:
TERRITORIES, IDEM TERRITORIES
POSSIBILITY OF LAW SUITS
WAIVER OF RIGHT TO REMONSTRATION (REGARDING ANNEXATION)
GREENDALE ADDING CAPACITY
TAP IN FEES, SURCHARGES
COST OF SERVICE STUDIES
WHO PAYS? “ SEWER CUSTOMERS, CO. TAXPAYERS, DEARBORN CO.”
OWNERSHIP OF LINES, LEASE BACK OF LINES
WHO BILLS CUSTOMERS
WHO WILL EXTEND LINES IF NEEDED AND BEAR COST
TRANSPORT OF SEWAGE
THIS IS A VERY IMPORTANT MEETING SINCE IT INVOLVES A LARGE SECTION OF THE COUNTY AND POSSIBLE FUTURE WITH THE BORDERING INCORPORATED AREAS AND NON INCORPORATED AREAS
WITH THEIR OWN SEWER COMPANIES.
NEXT MEETING IN 2 WEEKS, (I BELIEVE THE BOARD MEANT AT THEIR, REGULAR SCHEDULED MEETING, JULY 6TH AT 7PM)
COUNTY COUNCIL MEETING: MIKE HANKINS
WORKING ON PRESENTATION TO COUNTY COUNCIL FOR REQUEST OF 4.2 MILLION DOLLAR, APPROPRIATION
COUNTY COUNCIL MEETS JUNE 21ST AT 5PM, ADMINISTRATION BLDG.
NEW BUSINESS: *VOTED YES TO PAY CLAIMS
*DOUG BAER, REQUESTING EQUIPMENT TO CREATE A
SECURE ENVIRONMENT FOR HIS DEPARTMENT. WILL
BRING COST TO NEXT MEETING
LEHNER ASKED, WHAT HER PRIORITIES ARE NOW. MANY PHONE CALLS, PEOPLE STOPPING IN WITH QUESTIONS, TUCKER, EWBANKS, WOLPERT, RICHARD BUTLER ETC..
BOARD CANNOT AFFORD THIS, BOARD DOES NOT HAVE PRIORITIES SET UP.
DECISION: PEOPLE NEED TO BRING TO BOARD FIRST THEN THEY (BOARD) WILL BRING IN LEHNER.
VERA BENNING OFFERED TO BE SECRETARY PER DENNERLINE, NO MOVEMENT ON THIS.
(V.BENNING, WAS PRESENT TAKING NOTES)
A BOARD MEMBER ASKED LEHNER, WHY SHE CONTACTED PARVIN PRICE- VRUC’S ATTORNEY.
LEHNER: I THOUGHT IT WOULD BRING, VRUC TO THE NEGOTIATING TABLE.
LEHNER ASKED WHAT VRUC ‘S POSITION WAS ON GREENDALE AGREEMENT
LEHNER STATED SHE SENT CONTRACT OF GREENDALE AGREEMENT TO PARVIN PRICE.
(OBVIOUS THAT BOARD MEMBER (DENNERLINE) NOT HAPPY.)
DENNERLINE, “VRUC MAY SUE, IF DCRSD ENTERS INTO AGREEMENT WITH GREENDALE.
LEHNER, SAID, “TO KNOW VRUC’S POSITION WILL FORCE GREENDALE’S HAND.”
(MORE CONVERSATION, COULD NOT HEAR)
LEHNER WILL WORK ON GREENDALE ISSUE
ADJORNED 9:40 PM
Wednesday, June 14, 2006
ATTORNEYS TAKE ISSUE WITH BZA PROCEDURES ON TWO ITEMS
Present: Jim Deaton, Chairman, Mike Hall, and Jane Ohlmansiek
Also Present: Mark McCormack, Planning Director, and Arnie McGill, Att’y
Absent: Jake Hoog and Pat Baker
In approving the minutes from the March and May meetings the attorneys for the cell tower asked to have them further revised and possibly reopen the case. The attorney for the opponents (Lehner) objected, complaining that this was not on the agenda [NOTE: Not being on the agenda doesn’t seem to be an issue with Lehner at other times with other boards] and the appeal period had passed. [NOTE:There seemed to be some issue with filing appeals when minutes were unavailable.] Following arguments on both sides the board, with the BZA attorney’s advice, approved the minutes and informed the cell tower attorney and clients that they could appeal the decision or reapply.
1. The dimensional variance for 150 ft of road frontage for owner Anthony Hon on 20 acres of Ag land in Kelso Township on Werner Lane off Bittner Road was approved. Neighbors were generally OK with the idea as long as the easement did not take any of their land. The approval hinged on providing a 50 ft easement all the way back and a maintenance agreement being drawn up for Werner Lane with all the users of the lane.
Ohlmansiek motioned, Hall 2nd. Passed.
2. Tom Blondell of Woods Lamping and Lehner withdrew the application for Tim Kramer and owners for a conditional use of a private recreational facility for Jacobs Conservation Group, LLC on Jacobs Road in Kelso Township.
Deaton noted they couldn’t consider the application if a violation existed and Mark Mitter, Becky Mitter, Jackie Kraus, Chris McCann, and myself all gave testimony that the group is in violation and has been for a number of months.
Blondell objected to the public being able to give information to the BZA without notice. Deaton explained that the BZA routinely receives complaints like that and they then investigate. No decision is rendered without notice to the property owners. The rest of this discussion was actually covered under Administrative at the end of the meeting:
Jacobs Conservation application noted they have 10 members- but the pictures from the site show at least 20 ATVs at times. Large parties, 4 campers, bonfires close to a neighboring home, noise, dust, late night ATV activities, trespass and property damage, and generally an inability to peacefully co-exist with the adjoining neighbors seem to be the issues.
Blondell at one point got up and turned off the Planning Dept. computer screen. (Mitter had returned to the slide that focused on the definition of recreational use in answer to Blondell’s question regarding that definition.) The Planning Director had to turn it back on and informed him that it belonged to the county. There appeared to be an interchange going on between them as the meeting proceeded.
Blondell tried to make a case for pre-existing grandfathered use and Kramer stated there were only two large parties- graduation and Memorial Day. This was refuted as pictures of the 20 ATVs were circulated to news people several weeks prior to grad and Memorial Day times.
Blondell questioned the road quality opinions. Mitter reminded the board that he was a county councilman, who reviews road budgets and plans, served on the comp plan, and also was chairman of the Plan Commission. He said he was qualified to address road matters in the county.
Blondell and Kramer noted they have 60 petitions supporting their activities. Mitter countered with the statement that having 60 petitions is like getting a DUI and having your buddies stand before the judge saying you’re a good guy. It’s not relevant.
The board asked McCormack to investigate further- as they are already about 2 months into enforcement proceedings.
Mitter wanted action to be taken more quickly. It was noted that to cure the violation is simple- nothing needs to be unbuilt – they just have to stop the activity.
McCormack and the enforcement officer will proceed with enforcement, per the BZA’s request.
3. Archie Crouch of The Survey Co- representing The Dearborn Realty Company (The Country Club) received approval for a conditional use for 6 duplexes (cabins for weekly rental to members and their families) on 114 acres of Ag land in Lawrenceburg Township. The adjoining property owners were OK with this as long as it is for weekly rentals and no expansions unless they come back to the BZA. Hall motioned and Ohlmansiek 2nd. Approved.
The Jacobs Conservation, LLC enforcement issues - See notes above under #2.
The new county enforcement officer is also a planner- she starts Monday. Mark McCormack gave her high marks for organization and experience as well. Her name is Catherine Rademacher.
McCormack also updated the board on the US 50 studies and preliminary work on the 2007 budget.
Meeting adjourned at 10 PM.
[NOTE: BZA meetings are usually a matter of thoughtfully hearing opposing viewpoints and sifting through citizen’s issues to fairly resolve conflicting land use problems. At tonight’s meeting it was more like a three ring circus at times. Three lawyers were present (in addition to the BZA attorney.) Watching them spar with each other and the board and argue points in a manner more appropriate for a courtroom, reminded me that negotiating and working things out with neighbors is better handled by the “civilians” on the board. Well- placed questions and truthful answers usually point to an equitable solution for the parties involved. At one point I found myself wishing the board could swear people (and their lawyers) in before hearing them.
I had to smile as I listened to a certain lawyer argue for public notice, as this same lawyer has clearly circumvented that process on numerous occasions.
It is apparent that as the county grows and more people LIVE here, we will have to curb rude behavior more often. It is also apparent that certain uses are by their nature a nuisance. Going to someone else’s back yard to recreate with ATVs does not make it less of a problem- it only transfers it from your neighborhood to someone else’s. We need to be more conscious of - and courteous to - our neighbors.]
Christine Brauer Mueller
Saturday, June 10, 2006
South Dearborn Community School Corporation has an opportunity to overcome transportation challenges and improve student services with the new bus contracts. But that can only happen if the administration and the board are willing to try new things.
Whether the school owns the buses or contractors own the buses, someone in this community will be dishing out a lot of dough just to pay for those buses. Contractor’s, as well as the corporation, will also need to have spare buses on hand and people to maintain those buses.
Forty six buses at a cost of 75 grand a piece works out to 3.45 million dollars. The federal government allows buses to be depreciated over a period of five or nine years. Buses over nine years old really should not be transporting our children. A straight average gives you an annual cost of 690 thousand dollars a year for five years or 383.34 thousand dollars a year for nine years.
The current bus contract pays drivers 53 dollars per day. This works out to a total of 362.5 thousand per year. This figure does not include the payroll taxes contractors must pay. Payroll taxes include social security, unemployment, and worker’s compensation.
With costs this high, why would we put each of these buses on the road for little more than three hours per day?
South Dearborn has a number of problems that are directly linked to shortfalls in transportation.
First, kindergarten children only have transportation one way. This hurts attendance and keeps some of the children who need kindergarten the most out of the classroom.
Second, the school day for seventh through twelfth grade students is too short. This has led to the five period trimester block schedule, which has reduced the quality and quantity of instruction available to SD students in core subjects. Even when the class periods are longer, thirty six weeks of material simply cannot be covered in twenty four weeks. The school day has been shortened because three of the elementary schools are at least 10 miles from the main campus and our buses transport k-12.
Third, because k-12 are on the same bus, some parents are not comfortable allowing their children to ride the bus. This leads to more traffic problems.
Fourth, the distance of the main campus to the homes of many students creates a financial hardship for families who’s children participate in after school programs. This hardship sometimes prevents participation in these programs.
Fifth, with 70% of Dearborn County Residents working outside of the county, picking children up at 5:00 pm is impossible for any parent who gets off work at 4:30 or later and must travel US 50.
Sixth, beginning in January more than two thousand students will be beginning and ending the school day at the same time on the main campus. This will make a bad traffic situation worse.
Other school districts have over come these problems with a staggered school schedule and South Dearborn could do the same. Yes, the buses will have to travel more miles and will use more fuel, but in the long run the improved transportation service will save families time and money. It will also improve the outcomes for many children.
Twelve buses could transport all Junior High Students and High School Extracurricular Students in the morning to classes and practices beginning at 8:00 am. Buses arrive at 7:45 for breakfast.
Twenty-two buses transport the corporation’s elementary school students for classes beginning at 9:00 am. Buses arrive at 8:45 for breakfast.
Eight buses transport High School Students, primarily freshmen and sophomores, to school for classes that begin at 10:00 am. Buses arrive at 9:45 for breakfast.
At noon eight buses transport Kindergarten and preschool children home and eight buses transport Kindergarten and preschool children to school for afternoon classes.
At 3:10 eight buses transport Junior High students not participating in after school activities home.
At 4:10 twenty two buses transport elementary students home.
At 5:10 twelve buses transport High School and Junior High Students participating in after school programs home.
What are the advantages?
First, you only need 27 buses and five of those are spares. This saves 1.425 million dollars up front or 158 grand to 285 grand per year. You also save insurance premiums.
Second, you only need 22 drivers. Paying each of these drivers $11.00 per hour eight hours per day, you save $14,000 a year. This would almost pay for an instructional assistant. But you don’t need 22 drivers eight hours per day. You need eight drivers full time, four drivers 5 ½ hours, four drivers 4 hours and six drivers 3 hours. At $11.00 per hour the total wages would be $237,600. This saves over $124 thousand per year. This is nearly enough to pay three full time teachers.
Third, every child will have transportation to and from kindergarten.
Fourth, children seventh grade through twelfth grade can participate in extracurricular activities even if their parents work out of town or the family doesn’t have a car.
Fifth, a later start to the school day will improve attendance and achievement for Elementary and High School students.
Sixth, Junior and Senior High School students can again have a full year of instruction in core subjects.
Seventh, the hours home after school without adult supervision will be significantly reduced for most students.
Eighth, the traffic problems before and after school at the main campus will be greatly reduced.
Fuel will cost the corporation more with staggered schedules, but in the long run this change would save money for the community at large and improve outcomes for South Dearborn’s children.
Friday, June 09, 2006
DCRSD Budget Major Expenses from 2003 through April 2006
94,837.46 Lisa Lehner, (Wood, Lamping, and Lehner, Attorneys)
67,500.30 GRW Engineering Consultants
28,549.42 Woolpert Engineering Consultants
22,594.51 Quinn Engineering
6,532.00 Seitz Insurance-liability and bonding
5,500.00 St. Leon TIF Sewer Study
3,024.49 DuWel Office Furniture and supply
2,329.30 Mailing and postage
2,055.05 Wullenwebber transcription services
1,632.87 Mike Hankins, Chairman (includes mileage cost of $82.87)
900.00 Atlas Appraisal services
725.00 Hall rentals and refreshments
646.25 Rainbow Printing
493.60 Pat Holland, board member (includes mileage cost of $93.60)
400.00 Rodney Dennerline, board member
400.00 Barry Pruss, board member
400.00 Brett Fehrman, board member
400.00 Dave Enzweiler, board member
355.00 Indicom phones
340.00 Wendelman Sound System
224.23 Register Publications public notices
228.03 Walmart supplies
200.00 John Maxwell, new board member
160.00 Memberships and meeting fees
50.00 Greg Vollmer, former board member
INCOME since 2003:
125,000.00 Seed Money 5/1/03
357,000.00 County Council Interlocal agreement “loan”
100,000.00 Grant money 11/22/04 transferred $74,000 to interest bearing acc’t
200,000.00 Project Funds 1/24/06
883.44 Interest Income from savings
Balances in accounts: (some is already “spoken for”)
21,907.28 Savings acc’t
352,169.68 Seed money
177.87 Grant acc’t
167,499.16 Project Funds
Information taken from Excel speadshhets of accounts provided by Doug Baer for DCRSD
Christine Brauer Mueller
Wednesday, June 07, 2006
Present: Hughes, President, and Fox
Also present: Pickens, Auditor, Ewbank, Attorney, and Messmore, Administrator.
There was no county police officer present at this meeting.
Register Publications also covered this meeting.
1. OKI- Mr. Policinski gave an overview of all OKI services provided to the county, primarily in hiring our original plan director, the Aurora-G-dale bike trail, basic transportation info, SR1 truck issues, Stateline traffic, Soil and Water District management of Tanners Creek, Traffic Studies and Transportation data, US 50 Gateway Study with ME to tie land uses to the corridor, and the new MPO- Metropolitan Planning Organization. Paperwork show that we have accumulated $790,000 in transportation funding that is now available to us through the MPO for certain types of projects. Bob Koehler will be our rep with OKI as he has been attending the MPO meetings in INDY for nearly a year now. OKI wants to help us with our growth. – NOT BE A BIG BROTHER.
Todd Listerman asked several pointed questions at this point regarding the “pots” of money and their potential types of uses. Rick Fox asked about a timeline on US 50 issues. OKI and Bill Miller replied that they could “dance around the issue” in public if they wanted. Implication is that no one knows when US 50 will be done.
2. Todd Listerman- Highway funds update.
Listerman received approval to request an exception to the Bells Branch project to just do the bridge and not the access points.
Contract for tracking software was signed by commissioners.
Request for Level 5 engineering to get additional geotech work for $2850 on the Slab Camp Creek realignment and bridge area of N. Dearborn Road was Ok’d as long as the funding is checked with Pickens records.
Listerman detailed the results of the May County Council meeting as to what was approved. For details see that previously on the blog in the May 2006 Council notes. Fox and Hughes questioned why Council didn’t approve all the roads to be paved and wanted to know if Listerman had explained the reasoning- to be sure they didn’t degrade without topcoats. Listerman explained Council’s position on this – only wanting roads 18 ft and wider to be done. The total paving cost dropped from $900,00 plus to $679,636. Some other money was spent doing side stripes on roads as well as centerlines.
Fox agreed that the point system evaluation of roads should be used and roads should not be done because somebody knows somebody. It should be based on need and not on commissioners picking them.
Fox also asked Listerman to check on 4 problems: Collier Ridge slip, Guilford Hill slip moving again, Guardrail between New Alsace and Dover on North Dearborn, and Schantz Road ditching.
Listerman talked about getting a crew together to just do ditching and widening.
Hughes asked about Wilson Creek. Turned out INDOT REMOVED IT FROM THE SYSTEM because no design had been done for years on it. Listerman write a letter to the INDOT Commissioner petitioning them to replace it on the list as it was in the top 5 on our Long Term repair list and we have our 20% match.
Hughes suggested that Listerman get hospital to help get that back on the list also as it is access for them.
3. Doug Baer- DCRSD- Cole Lane easement signed and Lisa Lehner will get it recorded. Ewbank said it was a standard temporary easement.
4. Claims and minutes signed.
An amendment was presented that Lisa Lehner sent over for the DCRSD (County-wide sewer approval desiring a change in the county’s minutes from the Nov 15, 2005 meeting.)
Pickens noted that this can be an amendment in the June 6 minutes and he’ll cross-reference it to the Nov 15th ones. As the books are continuous it is not proper to change them- only to amend.
The text of the document prepared by Lehner and signed by commissioners is below:
[NOTE: The text changes are noted in red print]
AMENDMENT TO MINUTES OF THE DEARBORN COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING DATED NOVEMEBER 15,2005
WHEREAS, the Board of Commissioners of Dearborn County held a meeting on November 15, 2005 at which meeting a quorum was present and at which meeting the Board agreed that the expansion of the Dearborn County Regional Sewer District was necessary for the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the County and that it was feasible; and
WHEREAS, meeting minutes of such meeting were prepared and adopted by the Board of Commissioners of Dearborn County and the Board desires to describe this discussion in more detail.
NOW THEREFORE, the Board of Commissioners of Dearborn County approve and accept these amended meeting minutes such that the following language is deleted from the meeting minutes of November 15, 2005:
"REGIONAL SEWER DISTRICT Doug Baer and Mike Hankins addressed the Board to discuss the Regional Sewer District. Mr. Fox read the following: "There is a need for Dearborn County Regional Sewer District to provide county wide service in Dearborn County unincorporated areas currently unserved by municipal providers or by the current boundaries of the South Dearborn Regional Sewer District. The Board of Commissioners hereby authorizes the Dearborn County Regional Sewer District to expand the boundaries of the district to provide sewer service to Dearborn County's unincorporated areas currently unserved by a municipal provider or by the current boundaries of the South Dearborn Regional Sewer District."
Rick Fox motioned to authorize the Regional Sewer District as quoted in the previous statement. Jeff Hughes seconded. VOTE: ALL ayes, motion carried.
There was extensive discussion on the issue after the initial motion by Mr. Fox and before the second by Mr. Hughes."
And the Board of Commissioners of Dearborn County hereby approve and accept this Amendment such that the following language is added:
"REGIONAL SEWER DISTRICT Doug Baer and Brett Fehrman addressed the Board to discuss the Regional Sewer District. Mr. Fox read the following: "There is a need for Dearborn County Regional Sewer District to provide county wide service in Dearborn County unincorporated areas currently unserved by municipal providers or by the current boundaries of the South Dearborn Regional Sewer District. The Board of Commissioners hereby authorizes and requests that the Dearborn County Regional Sewer District expand the boundaries of the district to provide sewer service to Dearborn County's unincorporated areas currently unserved by a municipal provider or by the current boundaries of the South Dearborn Regional Sewer District.
The Board agreed and confirmed that the inclusion of this territory in the Regional Sewer District is necessary for the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of Dearborn County and that the inclusion of the territory will be practical and feasible
Rick Fox moved to request that the Dearborn County Regional Sewer District expand the boundaries of the district, for the reasons stated above, to provide sewer service to Dearborn County's unincorporated areas currently unserved by a municipal provider or by the current boundaries of the South Dearborn Regional Sewer District. Jeff Hughes seconded. VOTE: All ayes, motion carried."
The Board of Commissioners of Dearborn County confirm that all other statements in the meeting minutes dated November 15, 2005 shall remain unchanged.
[NOTE: Looking back on my notes from the blog on November 15, 2005 I stated that Lisa Lehner and Brett Fehrman presented the county wide sewer proposal. Nowhere in this amendment does it show Lehner’s role in the meeting, presentation, or approval of this COUNTYWIDE sewer district. They did correct the other presenter from Hankins to Fehrman. The commissioners did not say: “The Board agreed and confirmed that the inclusion of this territory in the Regional Sewer District is necessary for the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of Dearborn County and that the inclusion of the territory will be practical and feasible.”
Rick Fox’s motion was not stated as in the amendment. He stated that they approve it as worded in Lehner’s typed wording for them to use that night. It’s obvious that they need the commissioners to invoke the “health, safety, and welfare provisions. But when they didn’t say it – they can’t just make it up!
Why such a big deal for these changes? Why do the changes not reflect who really said what?
The original 15 Nov 2005 commissioners meeting did not even have this item on their agenda. It wasn’t advertised in the paper. In fact there was no notice of the county sewer board going to countywide at all. Perhaps in all the hurrying up preparations got sloppy.]
5. Messmore- County Adm- opened two sealed bids for Workers Comp. He will get back to the board with recommendations. Bids were from IPEP (IN Public Employees Plan) and Bliss McKnight.
6. Ewbank- Attorney- noted a suit filed on prisoner searches and civil rights violations and also a claim from the Juvenile center regarding Employment issues going to Judge Humphrey.
Meeting adjourned at 7:15 PM
Christine Brauer Mueller