Thursday, August 30, 2007


This is what is blossoming in neighborhoods in Indianapolis.

Image sent courtesy of Alan Freemond Sr. of Jackson Township

Monday, August 27, 2007

27 August 2007 Dearborn County Plan Commission Meeting Notes

27 August 2007 Dearborn County Plan Commission Meeting Notes

Present: Patrick DeMaynadier, Acting Chairman, , Ken Nelson, Tom Cheek (replacing Mark Mitter as Council member) Ralph Thompson, Dennis Kraus, Jr., Nick Held, and Tarry Feiss arrived at 8 PM half way through the meeting.

ABSENT: Mike Hall- (back injury) and Bob Laws.

Also present: Mark McCormack, Planning Director, Mike Ionna, Ass’t Planner, and Arnie McGill, Attorney.

1.DeMaynadier rearranged the agenda items to facilitate the attendees. Tucker requested tabling his item on White Farm Development rezone till October 22nd when there would be 9 members present. PC agreed to allow this. The roomful of people then left.

2.Zone Map amendment from Ag to B-1 for a business park at Steele Road and North Dearborn on 4 acres in Logan Township. Owner Jake Bamberger was represented by Jeff Stenger of JDJ Surveying. They were asked if they wished to Table- and said they were confident and wanted to present tonight.

Concerns were addressed in an hour-long discussion and McGill told the board to be sure to have findings of fact and address in detail all 5 criteria for the zone change. The applicant is looking at about 2 years to begin construction- they plan to move Bambinos Restaurant there as well as a doctor office so far. The building will be 15,000 sq ft max. They are considering combining driveways with Lonnie Steele and also looking at shared retention ponds with Maxwell’s adjoining development. They may also send sanitary sewer to Morgan Ridge’s lift station. Trip generators may cause a traffic study to be required once they get to the building phase. There was discussion of the closeness of intersections on North Dearborn and Steel Road. Steel Road will be upgraded by the developer to the North Dearborn intersection per Listerman. Steele is part chip seal and part gravel. All plan commission members were basically in agreement that the idea was suitable for the area. Nelson listed many items he wanted to see- including the above ideas plus the sidewalks and upgrade and fixing the Steel intersection angle. He also wanted lighting addressed.

NO PUBLIC wanted to speak.

Thompson Motioned and Nelson seconded to give a favorable recommendation to the commissioners with the following conditions:
Limiting the uses to those that are allowed except for the ones listed in the applicants proposal.
A 50 ft ROW on Steele Rd for R and L turn lanes as needed.
The entry on North Dearborn should be moved as far east as possible for the increased distance between entry points.
Orientation of the building should basically be as is.
Provisions for future connectivity to the East- shared or by easement.
Sidewalks at least along North Dearborn Road.
Appropriate lighting with due consideration to light trespass on south and east neighbors.
Thompson’s motion stated that the favorable recommendation was because the proposal meets the requirements of Section 540 specifically: it was responsible growth suitable to the area in line with the comprehensive plan and was not detrimental to current conditions as there was retail to the west, a church to the north and N Dearborn has good access. It is a more desirable use in consideration of a town development concept. He doesn’t think it will impact property values and it provides responsible development.
All ayes . Passed.

3. Article 4 on proposed ordinance changes was tabled till Sept after McCormack said he’d talked to Ewbank and a local insurer on bonds. He wants to further investigate.

Article 16 Section 1640 was passed to go to commissioners with a favorable recommendation. Nelson Motioned and Cheek second- all ayes.


Public hearing for master plan is set for Sept meeting- though they may be missing a couple members.

Travis Miller- former director was pretty pleased with it also. 6-8 Adv members have commented so far. Some changes were made in the tables and numbers to correct and clarify. De Maynadier noted that changes shouldn’t be made just because someone was louder in their criticism.

St. Leon will have a town meeting on Sept 12 for their comp plan.

Dillsboro is also talking about the 2-mile buffer zone areas like St. Leon was. [NOTE: Some of these towns are barely 2 miles across themselves! That’s a BIG buffer by contrast.]

Purdue’s Planning with Power team was here, met with Held, Thompson, Chamber rep, John Roeder, and wants the county to be a pilot county. Bob McCormack is the Purdue person in charge. PC members will get a pass code to access the site and give recommendations.

There was discussion about partnering with OKI on fiscal impact study to increase the effect of our $50K for this study. OKI may have to come see PC to get this. Nelson and others thought there may be too many tax entities in the OKI study and it wouldn’t work for us.

Workshop with OKI in Sept on Site Planning.

2 articles in packets on hillside development issues and another coming on retention ponds from front page Enquirer. Hough has done a hillside map and Margaret has used it as GIS layer for the county per Thompson.
McCormack noted that hillsides are considered for view sheds, stability, and slippage issues. Feiss wondered which study we should believe.
Thompson noted major road slip issues in the county and cutting the toes of the hill destabilizes the whole hill.

McCormack said bonds have not come in yet on Sugar Ridge.

Meeting adjourned at 9 PM

Christine Brauer Mueller
Lawrenceburg Township



But “we need development to lower our taxes.” Oh hell yes.
Scattered around Indianapolis in some pretty good neighborhoods (and also some not such great neighborhoods) forests of red lettered signs are cropping up like mushrooms in your barnyard after a rain. They say:


This is the result of a judicial decision, about which of course our politicians are blowing smoke, perhaps smoke from Dearborn County’s cash crop, as to what they will do to relieve this disgusting problem. The state is taxing Americans out of their homes; homes that represent their desire for the American Dream, homes in which they wish to raise their children, homes that represent perhaps the largest asset among the assets the owner. We should put ourselves in those folks’ shoes. This is a statewide problem; we’ll see it here. I know a widow with a home and a couple of acres who has seen her taxes grow from 8 thousand dollars a year in 2003 to currently over 25 thousand dollars a year.

Now along comes the pro develop anything anywhere crowd such as the Chamber of Commerce, the DCEDI and all of their sycophants, even those who can’t/won’t pay the 5000 dollar admission fee to the DCEDI.

They claim that development will lower our property taxes. Well let’s take a look again at Indianapolis.

Indianapolis has a city county government so the taxes are all the same - done by the same taxing authority. Indianapolis and its Marion County are loaded with commercial business. There are restaurants galore, hotels, two sports stadiums, the Eli Lilly Company, many insurance companies and the Allison Engine company just to describe a few. It’s not exactly Dearborn County and yet with all of this development, including subdivisions and a few mammoth shopping malls, their home taxes are shooting up, as will ours with or without development.

So the argument that development will lower our taxes is specious. It always has been.

Every year new tax calculations will determine what one’s property is valued at according to sale prices of property in the area, the area so far not well defined. Think of this: someone comes along and purchases that land along I-74 near the St. Leon exit. The price of that land is quoted at 55 thousand dollars an acre. What will the assessments of neighboring land become? Will the owners be able to stay on their land? With this new taxing system, will a developer who can’t believe his good luck, come along and take the re assessed land “off the hands” of the owner who can’t pay the tax?

This tax will be a wonderful way to help those who covet the North West Quadrant. Look, the development increase the land’s value, the taxes of the neighbors go up, the developer buys the neighbor’s land at a good price to save the neighbor from a sheriff’s sale. They will not even need good old Vieste. They can do this again and again.

This scenario is the closest we will ever get to perpetual motion!

Yes, here in the USA they are taxing people out of their homes!

Do the politicians really care about this? I doubt it. Our elected unemployables (oops, I mean State Rep and Senator) instead might be more interested in trying to find another Honda for Dearborn County’s North West Quadrant.

Alan Stanley Freemond, Sr.
Tanners Creek Farm
Jackson Township

Tuesday, August 21, 2007

21 August 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.

1. Harrison Fire/EMS contract tabled again at Hughes request as he is still working on it.

2. EMA- Bill Black received signatures on the $150,000 exercise grant from Homeland Security for exercises to be done at Muscatatuck on Oct 27th for Homeland Security. This is in addition to the $450-500,000 they already have in Homeland Security grants.

3. Jeff Smith- Weights and Measures- Thompson updated him on the discussion from Budget hearings this week. Pickens also worked on this issue. It was presented as putting Weights and Measures under the Building Inspector and hiring Smith as part time weights and measures and part time building inspector (at starting salary) to replace a retiring employee. Smith will be trained and certified for building inspections. This puts it all under the county. There will be a 2nd employee in the building dept. trained to do Smith’s work also- so they can cover each other.
Smith noted that equipment has all been moved to EMA building and it will be taken to Indy for recertification in Sept. He also has complaints on gas pumps (due to price increases) and has put a complaint form online as well as his 800 number for people to use.

4. GIS- Margaret Minzner introduced her intern John Huang from Washington Univ in St. Louis. He gave the presentation on the Historic Structures update (previously done in 1983) The County has 76 outstanding historic structures and 232 notable ones. This work was performed under a grant from Indiana Humanities Council. The structures were digitally photographed and logged in with GPS. Huang ended his presentation noting that updates should be done more frequently than every 24 years.

5. PAWS- Sandy Carly and Becky Foster gave presentation of their current financial status and had an outside CPA go over their financials to present to commissioners at Ewbank’s suggestion. Ewbank noted that this was the best report he’s seen and he’s seen several over his many years as attorney for government entities. PAWS needs $1.6 million. They have $800,000 from L-bg, $135,000 from individual; they’ve raised $247,000 and need another $418,000. Their architect is working with Hrezo Engineering on the plans. Mayor Cunningham was present and noted that perhaps Lawrenceburg should put their funding into an interest bearing account so that interest could be added to the funding.

6. Todd Listerman- Transportation- shaved several minutes from his usual reporting time. ( 15 minutes total :-))

a. Whippoorwill Drive from Wood’s Edge Sub’n was accepted into inventory by Commissioners. Fox asked if it was core- sampled. Listerman said they were on-site inspecting as it was paved and so that was not necessary. Its 909 ft long= 0.172 miles.

b. Wilson Creek is fixed except for the guardrail and fence repair.

c. The slip on Wilson Creek by US 50 – he is working with OKI to get fed funding on this.

d. Collier Ridge report is in on his desk- he will review and check with Sherzinger Drilling on costs if caissons are chosen as method to repair. Fox wants him to also check locally for other options and to see about costs of relocating the road.

e. Stateline and Stephens intersection work is complete and Listerman will get STOP bars painted when US 50 stripes are done. He was approved for $8,648.12 in additional on this work also. This still is under the $309,000 estimated costs. Hughes asked Listerman to give reasoning on 3:1 slope at that site to Mr. Keller – the HVL manager to post on their board for residents to understand the safety issues and why this was allowable.

f. Moreton Salt was awarded the contract for winter salt supplier at $47.06 to D-2, $45.88 to D-1, and 45.88 to D-3. The losing bid was Cargill at $51/ton to all 3 districts.

7. Pickens noted the PSEG issue was resolved finally. Claims and minutes signed.

8. Messmore- Sept 18th commissioners meeting there will have a half hour presentation from Office of Community and World Affairs Hometown Competitiveness Program for RISE 2020.

9. Ewbank- Commissioners signed a subordination for property at 27 Brown St. Greendale- this was part of a loan for rehabilitation and will be forgiven in 2008 if the owners remain there completing their 10 year residency after rehab granted.

Sheriff Work Release Fund was created officially by ordinance as requested from SBOA. This is money collected from inmates on work release. They pay to work by day and return to jail at night. Approved.

Ewbank is also working on ordinances to create funds for fees on the annual sex and violent offender’s lists, foreclosure fees for sheriff sales, and charging inmates when they break things in jail.

Meeting adjourned 7:30 PM

Christine Brauer Mueller
Lawrenceburg Township

Greendale and VRUC Contract

Greendale meeting scheduled for Wednesday (tomorrow) at 7PM - topic- Accepting the VRUC Contract.
VRUC signed the contract on Saturday morning and hand delivered it to Greendale.

Monday, August 20, 2007


At 8:30 mass this Sunday morning at St. Joseph Church, St. Leon, an announcement was made that there would be an election for the St. Leon Board tomorrow (8/20). Unsure about the time - thought it would be 7-9 p.m.--residents should check to see if that is correct.
Only St. Leon residents within the town boundaries, who are registered voters may vote.
Check to see who the candidates are and how they were chosen.
Inform any residents of St. Leon- so they can check with their town officials and vote.

Friday, August 10, 2007



August 8, 2007

Frank G. Kramer
Ewbank & Kramer
114 West High Street
Lawrenceburg, IN 47025-1905 VIA FACSIMILE
Re: Dearborn County Regional Sewer District July 20, 2007 correspondence to South Dearborn Regional Sewer District
Dear Frank:

The City of Greendale was provided with a copy of your letter dated July 20, 2007 addressed to Matthew P. Zerbe. Given the misinformation that seems to be circulating regarding Greendale’s position with respect to certain sewer issues, Greendale asked me to relate to you it’s position with respect to the allegations made in your letter.

At the outset, however, I want to reiterate Greendale’s position with respect to sewers in Dearborn County in general. Greendale agrees with the goal of the Dearborn County Regional Sewer District (“DCRSD”) – to sewer Dearborn County. However, Greendale believes we should sewer Dearborn County in the most efficient and economical way possible. In addition, Greendale believes the burden to sewer Dearborn County should, as much as possible, be borne by those in need of sewer (e.g., real estate developers, new home builders and buyers, redevelopment commissions wanting to invest in sewer infrastructure to attract business development) rather than the good citizens of Dearborn County. This has always been Greendale’s position. Any position Greendale has taken on a sewer issue has been the result of the consistent application of these philosophical policy beliefs. Neither the Mayor nor any other elected or appointed official in Greendale harbors any “ill will” toward the DCRSD (or Aurora or anyone else for that matter) as Mr. Hankins, Chairman of the DCRSD, is reported in the Dearborn County, IN – Public Forum blog to have stated at the DCRSD’s August 2, 2007 meeting.

It is entirely appropriate that Greendale should concern itself with what Dearborn County and the DCRSD is trying to do with respect to sewers. The citizens of Greendale are citizens of Dearborn County and are, therefore, regularly affected by what Dearborn County does. For example, if Dearborn County increases real estate taxes, the citizens of Greendale pay higher real estate taxes. Likewise, Greendale has an obligation to keep a watchful eye on how Dearborn County spends its citizens’ money, including money it spends for sewers.

With respect to the allegations in your letter, I disagree with your opinion that the South Dearborn Regional Sewer District (“SDRSD”) cannot legally serve outside the corporate boundaries of Aurora, Greendale and Lawrenceburg. This statement is demonstrably incorrect. While it is true that the original order forming SDRSD defines its geographic boundaries as the corporate limits of those municipalities, SDRSD’s statutory authority extends beyond those boundaries. Specifically, Ind. Code § 13-26-1-1[1] provides that a district may be organized for the purpose “to provide for the collection, treatment and disposal of sewage inside and outside the district.” (Emphasis added). Furthermore, a district such as SDRSD may “[c]onstruct, acquire by purchase or otherwise, operate, lease, preserve and maintain works considered necessary to accomplish the purposes of the district’s establishment within or outside the district,” and it may “[h]old, encumber, control, acquire by donation, purchase or condemnation, construct, own, lease as lessee or lessor, use and sell interests in real and personal property or franchises within or outside the district.” Ind. Code § 13-26-5-2(12) and (13) (emphasis added). These various authorizations make clear that a district such as SDRSD may own and operate facilities and collect and treat wastewater outside the district boundaries, and Ind. Code § 13-26-5-2(7) then authorizes a district to “[f]ix, alter, charge and collect reasonable rates and other charges in the area served by the district’s facilities.”

I also disagree with your opinion that the area outside the corporate boundaries of the three municipalities is served by DCRSD. This statement is untrue both as a matter of fact and of law. First, DCRSD’s territorial boundaries only extend to “unincorporated areas currently unserved by municipal providers.” Minutes of Dearborn County Commissioners (Nov. 15, 2005). Second, DCRSD does not own a sewage treatment plant, and it has no means of treating any sewage. DCRSD owns no sewage facilities whatsoever and so it serves nowhere. Significantly, Ind. Code § 13-26-5-7 (which you cited elsewhere in your letter) actually forbids DCRSD from exercising any powers under Ind. Code Art. 13-26 until it first contracts for the treatment of its sewage. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, Ind. Code § 13-26-5-2(22) authorizes SDRSD to exercise its powers “without obtaining the consent of other eligible entities.” The definition of eligible entity includes a “county, city, town, township, conservancy district, or other municipal corporation.” Ind. Code § 13-11-2-62. Indiana Code § 13-26-2-10(a) confirms that a regional district is a “municipal corporation.” The sum of these provisions is that a regional district unquestionably has the authority to provide service outside its boundaries and it may do so even within the boundaries of another regional district without that other regional district’s consent.[2]

Lastly, I disagree with your opinion that Ind. Code § 13-26-5-7 (“Section 7”) prohibits DCRSD from entering into the contract for sewage treatment that Greendale offered DCRSD last summer.[3] As noted previously, the import of Section 7 has apparently escaped DCRSD because, without such a contract, DCRSD is legally powerless to do anything with respect to sewage collection within it boundaries. Nevertheless, Section 7 does not require that the contract be with an entity that owns a treatment plant. The contract must be with an entity that owns and operates “facilities for . . . sewage . . . disposal, recovery or treatment.” (Emphasis added). Greendale owns facilities consisting of a collection system and it has secured contractual rights for treatment. It therefore owns facilities for sewage disposal, recovery or treatment, and DCRSD would have been authorized under Section 7 to avail itself of the contract offered by Greendale. Had DCRSD done so, it would not be in its present situation, which is without authority to exercise any of its statutory powers.

Although Greendale’s position with respect to various sewer issues may be different from those of DCRSD, such differences are exclusively the result of apparently differing philosophical policy beliefs, not any perceived “ill will.” Again, we agree that sewering Dearborn County is the right thing to do but think it should be done in the most efficient and economical way possible. If Greendale’s policy choices are wrong or if Greendale’s position with respect to any sewer issue is inconsistent with its policy choices, we invite and welcome you, DCRSD or anyone else for that matter to show us why. This is not a challenge; rather, it is an invitation to engage in a respectful debate of philosophical policy issues and the practical implementation of policy. We allow that we are not infallible and are quite willing to recognize a better way. We simply want what is best for the citizens of Greendale and Dearborn County and are happy to do anything we can, consistent with our fiduciary duty to the citizens of Greendale, to help sewer Dearborn County.

Very truly yours,

Richard A. Butler

[1] SDRSD was formed under prior law. Pursuant to Ind. Code § 13-26-3-1, SDRSD is still “considered to be a district under this article,” and “acts of the board of directors are valid if permitted by this article.” Ind. Code § 13-26-3-1.
[2] SDRSD’s authority to provide service within the DCRSD territory is not affected by the decision of the Indiana Supreme Court in City of North Vernon v. Jennings Northwest Reg. Utils, 829 N.E.2d (Ind. 2005). That case arises under the Home Rule Act and holds that an entity which is subject to the Home Rule Act (a unit) may be limited in its authority to extend service within a district boundary after the district has been formed. Even if DCRSD was not denied the authority to proceed with its powers since it has no treatment capacity, a regional district is not a “unit” and is therefore not subject to the Home Rule Act and the holding of this decision.
[3] It appears this contention may be moot, as DCRSD rejected Greendale’s offer.

Thursday, August 09, 2007

Greendale Council Approved Proposed Contract with VRUC


This Agreement is executed by the City of Greendale (“Greendale”) and the Valley Rural Utility Company (“VRUC”) in order to facilitate the provision of wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal service for unincorporated Dearborn County and in order to provide water service for VRUC’s customers. This Agreement is premised on the following recitals:

A. Greendale is a municipality in the State of Indiana. Greendale provides sewer collection and treatment service and water treatment and distribution service in and around its corporate limits.

B. Wastewater collected by Greendale is treated at the South Dearborn Regional Sewer District (‘South Dearborn”) plant. Pursuant to a contract among South Dearborn, Greendale, the Cities of Lawrenceburg (“Lawrenceburg”) and Aurora (“Aurora”), and Pernod Ricard USA (Seagrams), the contracting parties Greendale, Lawrenceburg, Aurora and Seagrams each own defined capacity in the South Dearborn treatment plant. A copy of that contract is attached hereto as Exhibit A (the “South Dearborn Contract”).

C. VRUC is a public utility and a sewage disposal company pursuant to I.C. 8-1-2-89, possessing certificates of territorial authority (“CTAs”) to provide sewage disposal service in certain unincorporated areas of Dearborn County issued by the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (“IURC”). VRUC is also a water utility.

D. VRUC’s most recent sewer CTA was issued pursuant to an order of the IURC issued July 6, 2005 in Cause No. 42673 (the “Expansion Territory”). The Expansion Territory is shown in yellow on the map attached hereto as Exhibit B. Greendale is presently providing sewage utility service to the Sugar Ridge Development in the Expansion Territory, but the balance of the Expansion Territory is presently unserved. Unless Greendale provides the treatment capacity, VRUC is incapable of providing sewer service to the Expansion Territory. Greendale has sewer facilities in the immediate vicinity of the unserved portions of the Expansion Territory, and the Expansion Territory lies within the area to which Greendale is lawfully authorized to provide sewer service.

E. For the most part VRUC’s sewer service consists of service to the platted subdivision known as Hidden Valley Lake (“HVL”). Except for a few customers who are already connected and being served as of the date of this Agreement, VRUC’s existing service area (the “Existing Service Area”) is shown in green on the map attached as Exhibit B. The Existing Service Area does not include the area shown in pink on Exhibit B except to the extent of customers who are already connected and being served as of the date of this Agreement. Treatment for wastewater collected by VRUC is provided through Greendale at the South Dearborn treatment plant. At one time this service was provided pursuant to an agreement with Greendale, the term of which has since expired. Since the expiration of the term of that agreement, such wastewater treatment service has been provided by Greendale to VRUC pursuant to Greendale’s schedule of sewer rates established by ordinance.

F. Greendale and VRUC desire to enter a new agreement specifying the terms under which Greendale will provide for wastewater treatment service to VRUC and providing for the provision of sewer service to the Expansion Territory.

G. VRUC also provides water service to its members in HVL and a few existing customers located outside HVL, and Greendale provides water service to VRUC for a limited time pursuant to a Settlement Agreement dated October 31, 2005, between the parties. The parties desire to extend the duration and further define the terms for such water service.

NOW THEREFORE the parties agree as follows:

1. For a period of thirty (30) years commencing from the date of this Agreement, Greendale shall provide sewer service to VRUC for all wastewater collected by VRUC in the Existing Service Area (the Existing Service Area shown in green on Exhibit B plus other customers who are already connected and being served as of the date of this Agreement) pursuant to the following terms:

(a) For the entire 30-year period, VRUC will deliver to Greendale at the current point of interconnection all wastewater collected by VRUC in the Existing Service Area.

(b) Greendale shall charge VRUC for all wastewater delivered a rate of $2.18 per 1,000 gallons, which rate may be changed from time to time by ordinance subject to the following limitation: any changes to the rate will be made at the same time Greendale changes all of its sewer rates based upon volumetric water usage and must be made in the same percentage as Greendale changes such rates generally applicable within the corporate limits of Greendale.

(c) For all new connections or new construction or remodeling of existing construction producing additional wastewater flow in the Existing Service Area, VRUC shall pay the Greendale system development charge per equivalent dwelling unit pursuant to Greendale Municipal Code § 53.15(B).

(d) The service provided pursuant to this paragraph shall be construed as a requirements contract. During the thirty (30) year period, VRUC shall not displace the wastewater treatment service provided by Greendale under this paragraph by building its own sewage treatment capacity or contracting with any other person or entity for wastewater treatment service to the Existing Service Area.

(e) VRUC shall not deliver to Greendale quantities of wastewater in excess of Greendale’s capacity to accept, treat, and transport such wastewater.

2. VRUC agrees that VRUC and all VRUC customers shall be subject to such sewer use ordinances that Greendale may adopt on a nondiscriminatory basis and which are consistent with the definition of “Sewer Usage Ordinance” in Sec. 1.35 of the South Dearborn Contract and with the requirements of Section 4 of the South Dearborn Contract.

3. For a period of the longer of (a) twelve years from the date of this Agreement or (b) with respect to each Subdivision (as defined herein), when that Subdivision has been annexed into Greendale, VRUC shall be the wastewater treatment provider for the Expansion Territory exclusive of Sugar Ridge Development (the “Subdivisions”) pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. Each “Subdivision” within the “Subdivisions” shall refer to each particular platted subdivision development within the Subdivisions. VRUC shall provide such service only pursuant to the terms of this Agreement and shall not serve the Subdivisions through any other means. Developers of the Subdivisions shall construct sewer lines, pumps, valves, appurtenances, and such other sewer facilities necessary to serve the respective developments and connect them to Greendale’s existing sewer lines. To the extent recoupment and/or reimbursement may be owed to other customers and/or developers related to the facilities to which such sewer facilities will connect, the Developers must agree to pay such recoupment and/or reimbursement. The design and construction of these sewer facilities shall be subject to Greendale’s reasonable approvals. Upon completion of construction, the ownership of the sewer mains, pumps, valves, appurtenances, and other sewer facilities to serve the respective developments will be dedicated by the developer(s) to Greendale, subject to a lease of such facilities to VRUC for a period of the longer of (a) twelve (12) years from the date of this Agreement or (b) with respect to each Subdivision, when that Subdivision has been annexed into Greendale. Upon such dedication and acceptance, Greendale shall commence serving these customers directly as the agent of VRUC. No rent will be owed by VRUC or otherwise for such lease, but VRUC will hold such leasehold interest pursuant to this Agreement throughout the period of the lease as set forth in this paragraph. Upon the termination of the lease, these customers shall become direct customers of Greendale and VRUC shall no longer have the right to serve them.

4. Greendale’s sewer service to these customers in the Subdivisions will be commensurate with the service and level of service Greendale provides its own customers. Greendale shall be responsible for all aspects of service, including maintenance, repairs, capital improvements (as necessary), customer service, billing, and collecting of payments. The treatment capacity to serve the Subdivisions will be provided from Greendale’s capacity in the South Dearborn treatment plant. The wastewater flow from the Subdivisions shall not be subject to the volumetric rate provided in Paragraph 1.(b) of this Agreement.

5. Throughout the term of this Agreement, VRUC’s generally applicable schedule of rates as approved by the IURC shall apply to service provided to the Subdivisions. Greendale shall bill and collect from customers in the Subdivisions VRUC’s rates and charges so approved for VRUC.

6. For all new connections or new construction or remodeling of existing construction producing additional flow in the Subdivisions, VRUC shall pay the Greendale system development charge per equivalent dwelling unit pursuant to Greendale Municipal Code § 53.15(B).

7. As compensation for operating and maintaining the system and providing service on a contract basis to the Subdivisions as provided herein, Greendale shall receive the portion of the receipts from customers in the Subdivisions which is equivalent to the rates and charges that would have applied and been collected as if the customers were direct customers of Greendale. On a daily basis, Greendale will deposit all funds collected from customers in the Subdivisions into an account in VRUC’s name with a financial institution in Greendale or Lawrenceburg. On a monthly basis, Greendale shall provide a report showing all funds collected, the portion of the funds collected which represents Greendale’s compensation hereunder, and the remainder which is VRUC’s portion. Within five (5) days of receipt of such report, the VRUC shall transfer to Greendale the portion which represents Greendale’s compensation hereunder as shown on such report. If VRUC fails to pay the amount shown, Greendale may provide thirty (30) days notice to terminate the lease provided in Paragraph 3 of this Agreement. If VRUC has not paid in full by the conclusion of such thirty (30) day period, the lease shall be terminated immediately, the customers in the Subdivisions will become the direct customers of Greendale, and VRUC shall no longer have the right to serve customers in the Subdivisions. In addition to authority to terminate the lease for nonpayment by VRUC, Greendale may offset the amounts due and owing by VRUC against the daily deposits of funds collected from customers in the Subdivisions pursuant to this Paragraph.

8. Pursuant to Ind. Code § 36-9-22-2, Greendale’s contract with the developers of the Subdivisions for the construction of the needed sewer main extensions shall include on behalf of the developer and the developer’s successors in title the waiver of the right to remonstrate in a future annexation by Greendale. The contract will be recorded by Greendale before the sale of lots by the developer. Before being permitted to connect, any customer served by these mains must also waive the right to remonstrate in a future annexation by Greendale.

9. For so long as Greendale is providing sewer service to VRUC, VRUC agrees not to seek to provide sewer service to areas outside the Existing Service Area (shown in green on Exhibit B together with existing customers who were already connected and receiving service as of the date of this Agreement) and outside the Subdivisions as provided herein and not to seek additional or expanded CTAs from the IURC without Greendale’s consent. Greendale will consent to the provision of such service in the area shown in pink on Exhibit B but only pursuant to the same terms set forth in Paragraph 3-8 herein as apply to the Subdivisions. This term shall survive the expiration of the thirty-year period set forth in Paragraph 1 herein and shall continue thereafter for so long as Greendale provides service to VRUC at the conclusion of such period.

10. For a period of thirty (30) years from the date of this Agreement, Greendale shall supply and VRUC shall purchase all of VRUC’s requirements for water to be supplied to VRUC’s existing customers and VRUC’s future customers within HVL. Such service shall be provided at a rate of $1.08 per thousand gallons through October 31, 2007. The rate will change to $1.11 per thousand gallons effective November 1, 2007, and again to $1.15 per thousand gallons effective November 1, 2008. After October 31, 2009, the rate shall be the lowest volumetric rate in Greendale’s rate schedule as established by ordinance. Thereafter, such rate may be changed at such time as Greendale changes all of its volumetric rates for water service and in the same percentage as Greendale changes its volumetric rates for water service generally applicable within the corporate limits of Greendale. Greendale shall not have an obligation to deliver quantities of water in excess of its capability to deliver water to VRUC. In the event of a shortage of water supply, supply may be limited to VRUC on the same terms as such supply is limited to all Greendale customers. VRUC shall be responsible to maintain its own system to maintain minimum pressures and fire flows which VRUC considers to be necessary and adequate. Greendale shall only be obligated to provide water to serve VRUC’s existing customers and VRUC’s future customers within HVL and shall have no obligation to provide VRUC water to serve customers in any other location. VRUC shall not extend its water lines within HVL to serve areas outside HVL. The service provided pursuant to this paragraph shall be construed as a requirements contract. VRUC shall not displace the water service provided by Greendale hereunder by constructing its own source of supply or contracting with any other person or entity for water supply. VRUC may, however, make provision for a redundant source of supply for emergencies or water shortages and shall be permitted to utilize that redundant source of supply as necessary in order to flush lines connecting to said supply.

11. Greendale shall not be liable for an interruption in water or sewer utility service occurring due to circumstances that are outside Greendale’s reasonable control or occurring absent gross negligence on the part of Greendale.

12. Greendale shall be the owner of the water and sewer meters that measure the water and wastewater flow for purposes of the volumetric rates provided in Paragraphs 1 and 10 of this Agreement. Greendale shall have the right and the duty to test, repair and replace such meters in its discretion. Not any more often than once every 12 months, VRUC may request that Greendale test either or both meters. When a meter is found to be inaccurate by greater than 2%, the meter shall be repaired or replaced by Greendale as necessary. Bills for service to VRUC shall be corrected for the period of the inaccuracy, but not for more than one year, by using flows measured from a comparable period.

13. At the conclusion of the thirty (30) year periods provided in Paragraphs 1 and 10, the parties may negotiate new agreements pursuant to terms that are mutually acceptable. In the event new agreements are not negotiated for water and/or sewer service, VRUC may continue to receive water and/or sewer service pursuant to rates and charges duly adopted by ordinance by Greendale for all customers of VRUC who are connected and receiving service as of the conclusion of such thirty (30) year periods. Greendale shall have no obligation to supply water to or to receive wastewater from customers of VRUC who were not connected as of the conclusion of such thirty (30) year periods.

14. Neither party shall have right to assign its interests under this Agreement without the consent of the other party.

15. Each of the undersigned represents that he is duly authorized to execute this Agreement on behalf of the respective party.

Valley Rural Utility Company

By: ______________________________________

City of Greendale

By: ________________________________________

INDS01 NKK 879446v1

Wednesday, August 08, 2007

7 August 2007 Dearborn County Commissioner Meeting Notes

7 August 2007 Dearborn County Commissioner Meeting Notes

Present: Hughes, Chairman, and Thompson

Also Present: Pickens, Auditor, Ewbank, Attorney, and Messmore, Administrator.

A uniformed police officer was present.

1. Commissioners denied the Med Ben Appeal from their executive session.

2. Mark McCormack- Planning Director presented two Zoning Ordinance Changes.
Article 3 Sect 315 on Conditional Use Requirements was approved including the change of wording from worse case scenario to maximum allowable use.

Article 5 Section 520 on zone map amendment requirements was approved.

McCormack will return with more ordinance changes at the Sept 4 meeting.

Comp Plan Advisory Committee is reviewing the draft of the future land use segment with comments due by August 27th so the PC can review them. Public hearing will probably be in September. McCormack encouraged commissioners to submit their comments.

3. OKI Contract- Hughes will bring up the dollar amount as being about $1000 more due to increased population estimates. The contract price is based on population. $15,000 was in the budget- they need a little more than $16,000.

4. Mike Fogle of the Sheriff’s Dept- presented grant application request to seek money again from the Criminal Justice Institute for their traffic safety partnership with cities and towns in the county. Of the $41,000 last year they used $20,000 for dui enforcement and $21,000 for seat belt patrol. They issued 1000 warnings and 1500 citations this year so far. 903 crashes were in county response records last year and they hope to reduce that this year. Commissioners approved grant to be requested. Last year money was spent on digital cameras at $5700 each and intoxilyzers at $900 each.

5. Jeff Smith- Weights and Measures- gave a report and asked for money to be in the budget for a new(er) truck. (His is 1997 with 247,000 miles on it and unreliable) He said he inspects 577 devices annually and did 656 this year- actually thinks 1300 need to be done. He listed a bunch of devices he thinks should be tested to “protect the public” including weight equipment at the high schools, and grocery scanners to see if they are scanning the correct prices etc. He said it takes about 15 minutes per device plus adm. time. He puts in 7-9 hours per week now.

Pickens and Thompson questioned the hourly rates and costs. Pickens had figures from Hamilton County where they pay $28/hour ($30-43,000 per year range) Smith said he’s part time- his pay translates to $38.hour. Smith pays his own insurance and his own home office (he lives in Bright) and truck. Smith said he couldn’t afford to keep working at this rate. Pickens asked if that was his resignation. Smith said NO. Thompson suggested using part of the EMA Building for his office- if they get rid of junk stored there.
[NOTE: Smith overplayed his hand here. If Smith is an independent contractor and we are outsourcing- then they just need to put the job out for bid. If they put him on the county payroll- and he has office space here- he’ll have to drive here to get his truck etc. Smith is apparently trying to get the county to buy the truck and pay for a home office and/or insurance or whatever. All were mentioned as part of his presentation. By contrast- the Council gets insurance, benefits, and the commissioners do also- and they are part time. Is there a “rule” on this?]
TABLED until Commissioners and Smith can review. Smith wanted to be paid for his review time. That was not approved. Messmore to help research.

6. Emergency Management- Bill Black- updated commissioners on SOSINK (Southern OH, SE IND, and Northern KY), NIMS training (Thompson to get his also) , Homeland Security purchases with grants, and stated he was trying to get rid of old junk.
He doesn’t agree with Thompson that he should move to Randall Ave if the HWY Dept takes on the big building out there. Black said he’d have to move radios etc. Thompson was concerned about pouring more money into the EMA Building.
They decided to put a “band aid” on it and approved the wider garage door for $8,000 for the Mobile Command Unit to arrive soon. Black will look at the DLZ study as will Thompson to see what upgrades to the building might cost.

Old cars metal, military vehicles, computer monitors etc are going to salvage or trash. None has been bought at any sales. [NOTE: Some of this could perhaps go through solid waste at their hazardous waste pick up (Computer parts) or to scrap metal dealers.]

7. Todd Listerman- Transportation Director gave a 20-minute report.
Commissioners signed off on the Cook Road cul de sac to have ROW recorded.

Commissioners approved Haag Ford‘s bid for three ¾ ton p/u trucks at $71,814.39.

Commissioners approved Kaffenberger’s bid for salt spreaders, dup beds, and plows at $47,340.

Paving for 2007 will be finished in a week or so with Dutch Hollow, Stewart, Hill, Kuebel and Bonnell. (Some are just sections)
Berming will be continued.

Listerman will request Council to transfer $50,000 from striping fund (bid came in lower than budget) to be used for equipment for other dump trucks (spreaders) and plate compactor for small jobs.

Listerman is looking for a pick-up truck for his ass’t hwy supervisor who is currently driving a ’97 Taurus and it doesn’t have 4-wheel drive.

Morgans Ridge- Maxwell’s sub’n on Mt Pleasant is repairing the hump in the road per their agreement.

Listerman is getting appraisals for Randall Ave Building.
[NOTE: Solid Waste may have looked at this building several years ago- and they may have appraisals. If so those could perhaps be upgraded- to save tax dollars.]

Commissioners approved starting the process for getting interlocal agreements with L-bg and Aurora to do small county sections of a few roads next to their jurisdiction. (Elizabeth Tower, David Dr, Gnawbone, Stony Lonesome were mentioned)

Listerman announced that he is an official county resident- moved into his new home.

8. Pickens- Claims and minutes

9. Messmore- Ok’d Aurora/Lawrenceburg libraries to use Courthouse Memorial Site for Sept 13 1 PM kick off reading program.

10. Ewbank- Attorney- explained the reason the county is losing out on the Anchor Glass personal property tax payments- the gist of which has something to do with bankruptcy laws that differ from state to state, Fed law pre-empting state law, and the unintentional violation of a stay that a judge ordered (County apparently certified and sent tax bill and this was viewed as a violation of the stay.) We get $8,000 in real estate tax and $27,000 in personal property tax, which is only 8% of the total bill.
[NOTE:So much for getting industry in to pay taxes- First PSEG and now this!]

11. Hughes presented budget itemization from 36-2-5-7-which Ewbank says is an old law on the books still. Apparently there are several forms Messmore has to fill out and get finished in the next 2 days. These show where money in the budget actually goes.

Meeting adjourned at 8:20 PM

Christine Brauer Mueller
Lawrenceburg Township


Mitchell E. Daniels, Jr.,
100 N Senate Avenue I
Indianapolis, Indiana 46204-2251
(800) 451-6027(317) 232-8603

Thomas W Easterly

Via Certified Mail #:

To: Jerry Hacker, President
Valley Rural Utility Company
19435 Alpine Drive
Lawrenceburg, IN 47025

To: L. Parvin Price, Esq., Registered Agent
for Valley Rural Utility Company
Bose McKinney & Evans, LLP
135 N. Pennsylvania Street
Suite 2700
Indianapolis, IN 46204

Case No. 2006-15965-W

Based on an investigation conducted by the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (“IDEM”), there is reason to believe that Valley Rural Utility Company (“Respondent”) has violated environmental rules, statutes, and its Operational Permit. The violations are based on the following:

1. The Respondent owns and operates a private 100% sanitary sewer collection system, including numerous lift stations and manholes, and flow equalization basin, which serves the Hidden Valley Lakes Subdivision, located at 19435 Alpine Drive, in Lawrenceburg, Dearborn County, Indiana (the “Site”).

2. The Respondent is authorized by its Operational Permit Number INU043168 (the “Permit”) to manage and operate its wastewater collection system for all domestic wastewater from the Valley Rural Utility Company Service Area (approximately 1,700 single-family homes at the Site). Wastewater is pumped via lift stations to the City of Greendale Utility Collection System, to the South Dearborn Regional Sewer District’s wastewater treatment plant (“WWTP”) for treatment, which is then discharged to the Ohio River. The Permit expressly prohibits the discharge of wastewater from the Respondent’s collection system.

3. Pursuant to 327 Indiana Administrative Code (“IAC”) 5-2-8(1), and Part II.A.1 of the permit, the Respondent is required to comply with all terms and conditions of the permit. Any permit noncompliance constitutes a violation of the Clean Water Act and Indiana Code (“IC”) 13, and is grounds for enforcement action or permit termination, revocation and re-issuance, modification, or denial of a permit renewal application.

4. Pursuant to 327 IAC 5-2-2, any discharge of pollutants into waters of the state as a point source discharge, except for exclusions made in 327 IAC 5-2-4, is prohibited unless in conformity with a valid National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) permit obtained prior to the discharge.
5. From the effective date of the Permit on December 1, 1997, until it expired on October 31, 2002, the Respondent was authorized to operate its sanitary sewer system at the Site. After the Permit expired, the Respondent continued to comply with the Permit’s monthly reporting requirements but has discharged its waste from the Site to Double Lick Creek and/or Hidden Valley Lake, which are waters of the state, without a valid Permit, and failed to timely renew the Permit, and therefore remains in violation of 327 IAC 5-2-2.

6. Pursuant to Part I.A.1 of the Permit, the Respondent is required to monitor and report all discharges from the six (6) overflow points identified by the Permit that are present in the Respondent’s sanitary sewer system that are expressly prohibited from discharging at any time and comply with monitoring and reporting requirements contained in Part I.A.1 of the Permit.

7. Pursuant to Part I.A.2 of the Permit and 327 IAC 2-1-6(a)(1), all waters at all times and at all places, including the mixing zone, shall meet the minimum conditions of being free from substances, materials, floating debris, oil or scum attributable to municipal, industrial, agricultural, and other land use practices, or other discharges:

(A) that will settle to form putrescent or otherwise objectionable deposits;
(B) that are in amounts sufficient to be unsightly or deleterious;
(C) that produce color, visible oil sheen, odor, or other conditions in such degree as to create a nuisance;
(D) which are in amounts sufficient to be acutely toxic to, or to otherwise severely injure or kill aquatic life, other animals, plants, or humans; and
(E) which are in concentrations or combinations that will cause or contribute to the growth of aquatic plants or algae to such degree as to create a nuisance, be unsightly or other wise impair the designated uses.

8. Pursuant to IC 13-30-2-1(1), a person may not discharge, emit, cause, allow or threaten to discharge, emit, cause, or allow any contaminant or waste, including any noxious odor, either alone or in combination with contaminants from other sources, into the environment.

9. Pursuant to IC 13-18-4-5, it is unlawful for any person to throw, run, drain, or otherwise dispose into any of the streams or waters of Indiana; or cause, permit, or suffer to be thrown, run, drained, allowed to seep, or otherwise disposed into any waters; any organic or inorganic matter that causes or contributes to a polluted condition of any waters, as determined by a rule of the board adopted under sections 1 and 3 of this chapter.

10. During IDEM’s record review for the period from January 2004 to March 2007, the Respondent reported twenty-eight (28) separate overflows and/or bypasses of treatment from its sanitary sewer system to Double Lick Creek and/or Hidden Valley Lake, which are waters of the state, in violation of Part I.A.1 and Part I.A.2 of the Permit and 327 IAC 2-1-6(a)(1), and thus violating IC 13-30-2-1(1) and IC 13-18-4-5.

11. Pursuant to Part II. A.5 of the Permit and 327 IAC 2-1.5-8, the Respondent is required, at all times, to maintain all facilities, in good working order and operate all facilities as efficiently as possible and in a manner which will minimize upsets and discharges of excessive pollutants.
12. The Respondent failed to maintain compliance with the Permit and therefore remains in violation of Part II. A.5 of the Permit and 327 IAC 2, IC 13-30, IC 13-18, and 327 IAC 5.

13. Pursuant to Part II. A.7 of the Permit and 327 IAC 2-1.5-8, any diversion or overflow from the wastewater collection system is prohibited, except where unavoidable to prevent loss of life, personal injury, severe property damage, or there is not feasible alternative to the overflow event.

14. The Respondent reported twenty-eight (28) separate overflows and/or bypasses of treatment from its sanitary sewer collection system, to Double Lick Creek and/or Hidden Valley Lake, which are waters of the state. The Respondent’s reported overflows from the wastewater collection system are prohibited and do not meet the exceptions set forth in Part II.A.7 of the Permit or the exclusions listed in 327 IAC 5-2-4. Therefore, the Respondent remains in violation of Part II. A.7 of the Permit and 327 IAC 2-1.5-8.

In accordance with IC 13-30-3-3, the Commissioner herein provides notice that violations may exist and offers an opportunity to enter into an Agreed Order providing for the action required to correct the violations and for the payment of a civil penalty. The Commissioner is not required to extend this offer for more than 60 days.

As provided in IC 13-30-3-3, an alleged violator may enter into an Agreed Order without admitting that the violations occurred. IDEM encourages settlement by Agreed Order, thereby resulting in quicker correction of the environmental violations and avoidance of extensive litigation. Timely settlement by Agreed Order may result in a reduced civil penalty. Also, settlement discussions will allow the opportunity to present any mitigating factors that may be relevant to the violations.

If an Agreed Order is not entered into within sixty (60) days of receipt of this Notice of Violation, the Commissioner may issue a Notice and Order under IC 13-30-3-4 containing the actions that must be taken to correct the violations and requiring the payment of an appropriate civil penalty. Pursuant to IC 13-30-4-1, the Commissioner may assess penalties of up to $25,000 per day for each violation.

Please contact Aletha Lenahan at (317) 232-8407, within fifteen (15) days after receipt of this Notice to discuss resolution of this matter.

For the Commissioner:

Date: April 3, 2007 Signed by: Lori Kyle Endris
Lori Kyle Endris
Office of Enforcement



July 26, 2007

Frank Kramer
Ewbank, Kramer & Dornette
114 W. High St.
P. O. Box 4200
Lawrenceburg, IN 47025-4200


Dear Frank:

Please be advised that the SDRSD stands by my letter of July 18, 2007. In your March 21, 2007 letter to me you stated that “ it would also be necessary for us to enter into Interlocal Agreements with Aurora, Greendale and Lawrenceburg for transport fees across their lines in lieu of building our own lines to the plant….”. In your July 20, 2007 letter to me you then state that Greendale does not own a treatment plant and therefore is not authorized to enter into such a contract.

I will defer to Greendale to respond to the issue of their extra territorial authority. It is my understanding that such authority is derived from Title 8 which would govern municipally owned utilities. If you have any questions, please feel free to call.


Matthew P. Zerbe

Tuesday, August 07, 2007

Hello - I am Sammy Gutzwiller

Hello I am Sammy Gutzwiller.

Yes the one so often mentioned in the blog site.

Let me set a few things straight. First of all I have been a resident of Dearborn County for over 60 years and a resident of HVL for 30 years; served 6 years on the HVLPOA Board and 11 years on the VRUC Board. Yes I am a Realtor and have been for 37 years. When I opened a Real Estate Co. in 1985 to purchase a house in HVL needed about a 40-60% downpayment because lenders considered HVL a terrible risk. With the help of a couple others we have turned it in to what it is today. A great place to live and play and by the way our lake is tested monthly by an outside source and the lake is in great condition contrary to the malicious rumors of some. Yes I represent developers and when I felt that I might be in a conflicting situation I resigned of my own accord. Dave & I have built over 400 houses in HVL which has only raised property values up. Myself and Gene McCann (former Register owner) started the first Dearborn County Chamber of Commerce. I served as Secretary for the Architectural Committee for about 12 years (twice a month) and currently serve as a member. I volunteer for many local activities and I also do tumor counseling after have suffered with a brain tumor. Enough about me.

VRUC had an opportunity to expand their service territory, bring in additional income from hookups and signup fees thus enabling additional and speedier repairs to the I&I (Inflow & Infiltration). We filed with the State and received our CTA (Certificate of Territorial Authority) which went from Stevens Road north to Georgetown Road and down to golf course entrance. During this time we had a Contract with Greendale Utilities which stated that Greendale would not service our CTA but yet they saw fit to violate the Contract and install sewers in Sugar Ridge and thus the law suits and attorney fees started. To Developers, Greendale claims they have all the capacity they need but to VRUC/HVL they claim they have none.

I have no regrets about any decisions I made while serving on the VRUC Board. One person requesting meeting me and go over some of the information. I am in the phone book and happy to meet you.

Just remember YOUR property values are at stake with a blog site like this. You may have to sell and if someone reads this FORGET it. It is only blog when the responders do not sign his/her name. Get the facts - bullshit is easy to find in any pasture.


Monday, August 06, 2007

2 August 2007 DCRSD Meeting Notes

Submitted by Ralph Thompson
Commissioner District 3:

The following notes are provided in an effort to record the transactions of the meeting without editorial comment, except clarification of events. Copies of documents presented in meeting and the claims were requested in writing from Secretary, Benning, so they could be attached. She indicated she did not have authorization to release them and request was forwarded to Hankins with no response thus far. Note: Benning is a former Commissioner and should know that public documents are available to any Citizen upon request.

2 August 2007
DCRSD Meeting Notes

Present: Chairman, Hankins, Pruss, Dennerline, Maxwell and Fehrman Adams and Enzweiler were not present.
Also Present: Doug Baer, Executive Secretary; Quinn, Quinn Engineering; Benning (VB), Secretary; Frank Kramer (FK), Board Attorney; Robert Hrezo, Hrezo Engineering; 8 others and Ralph Thompson.
Meeting started at approximately 7:00 PM in the Commissioner's Meeting Room. Meeting was not recorded.

Meeting Notes
Meeting Notes for July 17, 2007: Maxwell said had discussed an RFP process for the West Aurora project. Hankins indicated in previous meeting (where Maxwell was not present) Board decided to move forward with Quinn Engineering. Pruss moved and Dennerline seconded, approved.

Treasurer's ReportNothing new to report.

Special Requests
A Proposed Timetable for the Purchase of a Privately-Owned Utility was presented to the Board by unidentified individual (was in discussion with Hankins before meeting), to proceed with merger (for the acquisition of VRUC by DCRSD). Hankins indicated it was to be left with the Board for next meeting.

Serenity RidgeHave estimates for main line, hardware and engineering costs. Have two responses so far for service.
Baer: $77,000 should be the project cost. Will there be 11 houses or all to divide the cost? Statute says everyone gets a letter to participate to "jump start" the Health Department. All would provide a prorated amount of $4,800, with 60 days to respond.
Kramer: First have to decide whether to proceed with the project.
Baer: Then the letters go out. If 11 participate, cost is $7,000 each, if all $4,200 to $4,500. Don't know what funds.
Kramer: DCRSD cannot let contract without funds. Invite the residents to advance funds.
Baer: Then we can send letters to force people on. If one then $77,000, if 2 then $37,500, etc.
Hankins: Assume 11 or 12 Owners are willing to participate. Can collect the money and put it into an account.
Fehrman: Can lots be approved for septic?
Baer: Very expensive, $20,000 versus sewer, less than half.
Fehrman: Send letter to everyone delineating costs.
Baer: A letter has already gone out. Have not reviewed existing systems. Health Dept. (Baer) will review after. Homeowners should know projected costs. There are 19 buildable lots. Mainline costs include hardware estimates. If 11 are willing should we collect the money? Need a statement of commitment.
Kramer: Collect the money and deposit it. Then the money will be in.
Hankins: Need documented commitment to determine amount.
Baer: If you force people on later?
Kramer: Can't proceed without the money in the bank.
Hankins: How to determine amount of check with multiple people to divide. Have to craft letter for initial participation.
Several people talking at once. Tried to get as much of what was said as possible.
Resident from audience: The compel letter goes out, then the money?
Baer: No. If 11 people now and more later?
Hankins: Prorata rebate later.
Dennerline: In due time.
Hankins: No. Never done in the County before.
Resident from audience: What is check (amount)?
Hankins:Don't know.
Resident from audience: If we write the check for $11,000 and all don't participate, will need more?
Dennerline: Send out a contract to sign and notarize.
_______: Lady there says she doesn't have the money. Can we have a letter from the bank, if they are going to borrow?
Dennerline: Have Kramer write out a simple letter to commit and submit the money by a certain date. Plain old simple contract to commit.
Baer: Need deadline.
Hankins: Send out letter and require response in 14 days.
Dennerline: If only 2 or 3 it's over. Make check out to "DCRSD Serenity Ridge". Scale by commitment.
Resident from audience: With commitment can you notify people of the amount?
Hankins: Send tabular table of costs.
Kramer: After two weeks, notify of the amount.
Moved and seconded to send the letter.
Resident from audience: Then letter to compel can go as soon as money is in the bank?
Maxwell: Is $55,000 engineering estimate? LMH will charge wholesale rate. No tie-in charge.
Hankins: Have letter from LMH- not signed.
Motion approved.

West Aurora Project
At last meeting, had discussion to move forward with engineering and permitting. Didn't have funds. Council released $116,000. Can proceed with design and permits; but, don't have the money to build yet. Haven't received appraisal on property at Walston.
Quinn: Talked to State Revolving Fund for loan at 3.2%. Can cover engineering costs.

Quinn switched to Cole Lane and Stewart Road: Talked to Randy Turner. 28 have signed up. More than half. Don't know breakdown.
_______: Three did it on their own, five hired other, twenty paid.
Quinn: 19 remain.

Quinn back to West Aurora project: The application (for loan) doesn't commit. They (State Revolving Fund) will only come down during the day. Can file on whole project expense. 20 year life.
Several talking.
Hankins: Rural development is quirky. Want to see both owning and maintenance.
Quinn: No such thing as an easy easement, unless you are doing Rodney.
Dennerline: Approach about Right of Way.
Hankins: Agreeable as long as restored.
Dennerline: Did it include excavation?
Quinn: Excavation; but, not leveling ground. Hankins has to sign it. Will give it to Vera. Won't be around for next meeting, going on vacation.

Discussion on his vacation.

Claims Claim for Kramer. Dennerline moved to pay claims, Maxwell seconded. Approved.

West Aurora Project
Baer presented spreadsheet for debt service and cost for Higridge. "Will be difficult to do in a fashion affordable to everyone."


Received a response from Zerbe for SDRSD.

Benning: Looking into funding avenues, State Revolving Fund. Shelly Love wants form filled out for application. Bunker Hill example has 2.9% rate.
Person in audience: Anything we can do to help.
Dennerline: Move to adjourn.

Maxwell: What appears to be fighting with Greendale and SDRSD bothers him. Also some of the work on Cole Lane. Want to talk in executive session to discuss Greendale & SDRSD and Cole Lane. What's the procedure.

Kramer: Must have 48 hours notice. There are two pages of what can be discussed in executive session.
Hankins: Be glad to discuss. Like to move on in peace. Attempts to change way things are done have not been successful. There's ill will on the part of Mayor and SDRSD. Need to concentrate on West Aurora & Serenity Ridge. Have been pushed along path by elected officials and created ill will, when one is restrained on the part of others. It is inevitable to work toward county wide sewers. Don't see real good chances for reconciliation in the short run.
Maxwell: The idea of participation in SDRSD had understandable value. County would buy into and participate. SDRSD didn't want that to happen - Greendale.
Hankins: (Maxwell) Explained it well. When new things come to happen there's anger, then regret. The acquisition of HVL has led to inflammation. Doesn't seem to be on the table in a way to be talked about. If movement on HVL acquisition into DCRSD is not welcome. If HVL is paying $2.18 per thousand, that's great.
As all relates to Greendale & SDRSD and us, we don't know about LMH, need discussion. Need to step back from all area around perimeter temporarily, till discussion on how we can serve the County, it's highly counter productive.
Asked Stan Beeler (VRUC Board member) how things are coming.
Beeler: VRUC turned down contract 4 to 2.
Fehrman: Can you shed any light on that?
Beeler: Not sure of story. Three are in favor, four voted not to sign up - using DCRSD as white knight to come and bail them out.
Hankins: New contract for 30 years for sewer and water at rate. DCRSD could only hope to provide sewer.
Kramer: Need 48 hours, Maxwell needs to relay concerns to Hankins and if it falls into the standards it can be scheduled.
Hankins: It does fall into the standards. Need to set a date for executive session.
Maxwell: Can it be before or after the next session?
Hankins: OK. Intended to suggest since projects are limited, we don't need to meet every other week. Suggest we eliminate the third Thursday meeting till further notice.
Moved to eliminate, Fehrman, seconded Pruss. Question asked if notice needs to be given, Kramer to check. Approved.

Executive session set for third Thursday in August in lieu of regular meeting.

Dennerline asked if they could discuss St. Leon and HVL there. Hankins indicated contract could be discussed.

Dennerline: $2.18 is a fantastic rate. DCRSD would be 5 or 6 times that and no water.
Beeler: Don't feel contract would be _______. Talking at same time, missed it.
Dennerline: ________ go away from HVL. If some metro sewer district fine! Gotten thrown into this. Shouldn't be a political football. The $4.5 million is for St. Leon, not for HVL. Never understood this! Based on current understanding, recommend VRUC proceed with Greendale. Greendale has given best possible deal he can imagine with water & sewer. If DCRSD, at last three or four times, DCRSD doesn't belong there and can't handle it.
Fehrman: $2.18 is a great rate, what is the heart burn?
Maria La Rosa in audience: Had to do with a 180 day clause to get out of the contract, if DCRSD could provide, per Mr. Bittner.

Maxwell said he will get on the phone with Bittner from his own perspective.
Hankins said he will call Hensley, Spyniewski and Arbrecht
Maria Larosa indicated the contract would give a start to fix the infrastructure.

Dennerline: move to adjourn.

Hrezo: Has the construction report on Cole Lane and Stewart Road based on his inspection.
Directed to give it to Benning.

Moved to adjourn, Dennerline, seconded Pruss, adjourned.

Adjourned at approximately 9:00 PM.

The following was sublitted at the DCRSD meeting for their consideration:


Task/Activity listed first then the Primary Responsible Party
Already Done Letter of Intent/Memorandum of Understanding Client and
to transfer assets- Local Counsel

Due Diligence Phase:

Confidentiality agreement - Local Counsel

Evaluate condition and value of assets currently in place - Engineer

Outline improvements (if any) that are required - Engineer

Financial feasibility analysis - Umbaugh

Valuation analysis Engineers & Urnbaugh
Negotiate final terms with utility owners - Board, Counsel and Professionals
Execute purchase agreement - Client

File petition with IURC requesting approval - lURC Counsel

Petitioner's pre-file date- IURC Counsel,

Board and Professionals

Public (OUCC) pre-file date - N/A

Evidentiary hearing - Board and Professionals
Obtain IURC approving order* - IURC Counsel & All
Close on transaction - All

* In order to obtain Commission approval for the transfer of all assets, the IURC considers the following factors:
- whether or not the assets lie within an area in which the buyer is authorized to render services
- whether or not the buyer is prepared to render comparable sewage disposal service without loss of continuity of service
- whether or not the terms of the sale, assignment, lease, or transfer are reasonable
- whether the sale is in the public interest

However, once the commission has given its approval to such transaction and the ~ transaction itself is actually complete, the commission shall have no control over the utility service henceforth rendered by the district.
(Per IURC Annual Reports)

Operating Revenues: Calendar Year
2005 listed first and 2006 listed 2nd

Residential metered sales $494,009 $488,122
Private fire protection 17,820 17,820
Forfeited discounts 3,693 3,864
Other revenues 68,969 65,350
Total Operating Revenues 584,491 575,156

Operation and Maintenance Expenses:
Salaries and wages 83,184 87,014
Employee pensions and benefits 17,686 22,538
Purchased water 120,448 131,339
Purchased power 16,490 15,701
Materials and supplies 11,325 10,194
Contractual services:
Accounting 4,994 4,579
Legal 156,954 20,003
Other 981 117
Rental of equipment 118
Transportation 5,304 3,368
Vehicle 7,893
General liability 1,061 8,387
Workman's compensation 1,256
Bad debt 2,400 2,400
Miscellaneous 97,370 26,388
Total Operation and Maintenance Expenses 526,208 333,284
Excess/(Shortfall) of Operating Revenues
over Operation and Maintenance Expenses $58,283 $241,872


(Per lURC Annual Reports)

Operating Revenues: Calendar Year
2005 lsted first and 2006 listed 2nd

Residential revenue $815,331 $809,088
Forfeited discounts 4,873
Sale of sludge 5,055
Other revenues 39,094 36,991
Total Operating Revenues 859,298 851,134

Operation and Maintenance Expenses:
Salaries and wages 130,1 09 142,708
Employee pensions and benefits 27,664 35,250
Purchased wastewater treatment 295,384 384,495
Purchased power 30,675 37,445
Chemicals 17,179 10,583
Materials and supplies 10,664 13,040
Contractual services:
Engineering 5,307
Accounting 7,812 7,163
Legal 255,830 180,462
Other 14,680
Rental of equipment 84 323
Transportation 8,293 5,268
General liability 12,345 13,117
Workman's compensation 1,661 1,964
Bad debt 2,400 2,400
Miscellaneous 46,583 35,756
Total Operation and Maintenance Expenses 866,670 869,974
Excess/(Shortfall) of Operating Revenues
over Operation and Maintenance Expenses ($7,372) ($18,840)


(Per TIJRC Annual Report for year ended 12/31/05)

Operating Revenues:

Residential revenues $481,921
Commercial revenues 39,636
Industrial revenues 33,328

Total Operating Revenues 554,885

Operation and Maintenance Expenses:

Salaries and wages:
Employees 29,847
Officers, directors and majority shareholders 45,999
Employee pensions and benefits 15,453
Sludge removal 37,934
Purchased power 45,610
Fuel for power production 2,003
Chemicals 26,403
Materials and supplies 16.678
Contractual services:
Accounting 1,830
Legal 1,235
Other 200,816
Rental of building/real property 6,000
Transportation 649
General liability 11,856
Workman's compensation 688
Miscellaneous 1,359

Total Operation and Maintenance Expenses 444,360

Excess/(Shortfall) of Operating Revenues
over Operation and Maintenance Expenses $110,525