Wednesday, May 16, 2007

15 May 2007 Dearborn County Commissioner Meeting Notes

15 May 2007 Dearborn County Commissioner Meeting Notes


Present: Hughes, Chairman, Fox, and Thompson.
Also present: Pickens, Auditor, Ewbank, Attorney, and Messmore, Administrator.

A uniformed police officer was present. Gary Morris, Republican Party Chairman, was also present throughout most of the meeting.

Meeting started 10 minutes late. Executive session preceded this meeting regarding litigation potential for PSEG tax abatement issues. The meeting was to be continued later for further consideration- no decision.

1. Margaret Minzner- GIS- presented another possible vendor for GIS services. Andrew Harrison of Schneider Corporation gave a 15- minute overview of their services and client comments on their company. He noted that people have a desire to get info after courthouse hours and from their homes- so GIS tools are valuable. They also cut down on employee counter time with citizens. They have 300 staff with 8 certified and 25 senior level GIS. Schneider has been in business since the early 1960s.
Thompson asked questions regarding proprietary software- (which didn’t get a direct answer)- Harrison said it had an open architecture and was on the EIS platform. He said they’d use county info in answer to the question about rectifying parcel discrepancies and the cost estimate was about $12-16 per parcel – depending on what’s involved. He did say this was NOT SURVEY GRADE software and that it was a combination of vector and RAST (sp?) No decision- commissioners just heard this presentation. Minzner will be back for more discussion to decide the way to proceed next.

2. Animal Control Ordinance- per Fox- it’s to be discussed further at May 21st meeting.

3. Bryan Messmore- Administrator- read a prepared statement stating that he’d spoken with Dick Robertson and Mike Comparato of Vieste and they mutually agreed that the comprehensive capital program be put on hold indefinitely

The team thinks more work needs to be done to get public support.

Vieste has submitted a termination agreement, which is currently in Ewbank’s hands. Messmore wants all outstanding claims for the June 5th meeting. Messmore said he personally looks forward to working with them sometime in the future.

Thompson asked if the county would get the deliverables to date. Messmore said yes. The agreement per Ewbank relieves both Vieste and the county with the dollar amount to be inserted by June 5th when the outstanding claims are in. Thompson motioned and Fox 2nd to affirm this pending approval of the final dollar amounts on June 5th. Passed.
Messmore left after this.

[NOTE: There has been over $200,000 paid to date on this Vieste plan. It would be interesting to see what “deliverables” or work has actually been accomplished for the bulk of that money. With the plan tied to the NW Quadrant as its cash cow to pay for the other county building projects, particularly the expanded jail, there will need to be major revisions with public input before a plan will succeed. The county needs to remember that at the core of any plan- the desires of the people come first. Plans are about the people and for the people. Sustainable plans balance THREE factors- economics, environmental, and social. Making it all about the first and neglecting the other two factors will NOT provide a successful venture. Let’s hope we’ve learned something for our $200,000 mistake.]

New Business:

4.David Tinsley- Huffman Road Extension- Art Wenzel from surveyor office looked into this. Listerman noted it was on the county maintenance list clear back to Wilson property. (.73 miles) This goes through an easement on Tinsley’s property to Wilson’s. There is a declared 30 ft ROW and the county is going to handle this like they did Vogelsang Road per Fox. Listerman will research and get the deeds done. Fox motioned and Thompson 2nd to allow the county engineer to maintain the road as currently listed on the road inventory.

5.John Wright- Langley Heights – York Avenue- (an old ROW that is a grassy path to Wright’s and other properties.) Wright wants the ROW opened up and the encroachments off the ROW. He and a neighbor had surveys done to verify status for the county. Art Wenzel from County surveyor’s office said this was part of an 1891 plat with 110 plats and 4 houses. The ROW is 30-ft on all streets with a few fences put up- some are 2-3 ft inside with gates. Archie Crouch has done a lot of surveying here. Listerman will speak with tenants and owners and draw up a letter to show that it’s county ROW. The sheriff will be able to enforce then- and keep cars, gates, and playhouses, etc. from blocking free passage through the ROW. They are not asking for a road- just free access through the county ROW that exists. Passed.

6.Gus Grote- Noise ordinance- gave info on noise readings at his establishment in Bright. He has an outdoor band playing at night and facing the building. Grote says the noise level is fine- thinks it would be OK to 100 db at night and neighbors ¼ mile away can just close their windows. He has been cited twice and wants the law changed to avoid further citation. [NOTE: It would seem that the neighbors also have a right to quiet enjoyment of their property. Why force increased energy consumption with A/C use if windows have to be closed on warm nights? Perhaps the band should move INDOORS after 9 or 10 PM]
They discussed Lawrenceburg’s laws, county law 93.01, and planning ordinance 2532 and decided that the sheriff will report to commissioners on a reasonable level to consider. Passed.

7.Todd Listerman- Transportation gave a 5-minute report and then answered commissioner’s questions for another 5 minutes.
Everyone was invited to Seymour District INDOT meeting 2:30-4 and 5:30-7 on Tues May 22 to go over county plans and new funding issues to see what we will get done.

Stateline and Stephens on target for June 1st completion. The annual report will be ready for signatures soon.

Wilson Creek will proceed when the 2nd owner signs the right of entry forms.

Collier Ridge has HC Nutting doing geotech plans for $10,500 and the county working in-house. Fox asked Listerman to be sure flashing lights were on the signs there- as it’s a “death trap.”

Owners can pay for Private drive signs and and pay to have county install them. Todd will write up a policy on this for commissioners to review.

Advertising for 2007 paving and striping was done and snowplow ads soon to follow.

8. Pickens had claims and service agreements signed for Cummings and the assessor. He also reported more savings on the NACO drug plans.

PSA Dewberry Claim was released as they finally produced details of work and costs. Fox noted to Thompson that he thought they got the message.

Hughes said it was unfortunate that they had to sever the contract with Vieste.

Fox said that since they were not moving forward he didn’t want to get any more bills.

Meeting adjourned 8:45 PM

Christine Brauer Mueller
Lawrenceburg Township


Anonymous said...

"Hughes said it was unfortunate that they had to sever the contract with Vieste."
WHY??????? I repeat WHY???? He ought to answer this unless he doesn't understand the word WHY. Then we can help the boy.

"Fox said that since they were not moving forward he didn’t want to get any more bills."

Is the Honorable Commish Mr. Rick Fox starting to read the writing on the wall??

Now the big question is:

Is Camparato et al going to want their campaign contributions returned, after all it's not working out for them is it?

Alan S.Freemond, Sr.

Anonymous said...

Seriously. How? Who? and Why? was this decision made to sever the contract with Vieste?

Did someone actually admit that paying $200,000 and quite possibly more for Vieste was wrong in the very beginning?

It almost sounds like the co-worker who starts doing his job right before the annual review. Or, the baseball player who's stats improve right before his contract is going to expire.

Does anyone know the "real" reason the contract will be severed?

Anonymous said...

"Seriously. How? Who? and Why? was this decision made to sever the contract with Vieste?
Does anyone know the "real" reason the contract will be severed?"

Does it REALLY matter now? Isn't this what the public wanted. Now here's opportunity to "start all over".

Anonymous said...

Start WHAT all over?

Anonymous said...

"Does it REALLY matter now?"

Yes it matters, someone should be beaten. The County lined some pockets and those people should have to answer some questions.

Anonymous said...

Let this be a lesson for all.

Public matters, concerning public monies and public plans, need to be discussed in public settings and not in closed door meetings consisting almost entirely of realtors/developers/bankers.

All issues need to be hashed out in the very beginning of these deals...not after hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars have been squandered.

The heady days of government ruled by the few, for the benefit of the few...are long gone!

The taxpayers, thanks to this blog, have awoken!

Anonymous said...

"Start WHAT all over? "

A good "start" would be to define more broadly the term: "Public Good", to include members of the public who are not realtors and developers.

The taxpaying-citizen does not exist solely to support the business prospects of a very narrow group of interested and politically connected individuals.

Anonymous said...

Seems like public good is only defined in financial terms any more.
Just how good can a person be when all they think about is money money money...

Anonymous said...

"The taxpaying-citizen does not exist solely to support the business prospects of a very narrow group..."

As long as a handful of "movers and shakers" realize a profit, it does not matter that the rest of us have to contend with even more congested roads, more crowded school classrooms, higher property taxes, outrageous sewer hook-up and maintenance costs, a debasement of our country landscape and a host of other concurrent evils.

As long as a few profit, it matters not the losses debited to the majority, non-movers and shakers, of this county.

Anonymous said...

"As long as a few profit, it matters not the losses debited to the majority, non-movers and shakers, of this county."

Didn't some yokel elected or appointed official claim that his proposed subdivision would "help" pay for the new jail?

When if fact, said subdivision would produce a negative tax effect?

Who was that? Is he or she still around? Is he or she that devious or that stupid to lay that claim?