I recently acquired a membership fee rate schedule for the Aurora Community Center’s fitness program. It appeared odd to me that the Aurora taxpayers, who own the center, are being charged double the price of membership of the mayor, city council and city employees? The Aurora taxpayers are already paying these peoples salaries and benefits. Why should they have to take on the additional financial hardship of subsidizing a fitness club membership for them and their families in these trying economic times?
In a February 24, 2011 article by Chandra Mattingly in the Dearborn County Register, she records the approval of these fees by The City of Aurora City Council; “Aurora OK’s community center membership fees.”
The article reports that the proposed fee schedule was presented to the council by the Community Center Director, Danny Jefferson with the statement “I wanted to make it affordable for everyone”. If Jefferson was the actual author of the proposed rates, he then evidently believes the Aurora taxpayers (who own and paid for the facility) can “affordably” pay twice as much as those officials who are, coincidentally, responsible for his employment. This fee disparity is not trivial as the normal Aurora taxpayer will shell out $240 more a year for a family of four than the mayor, city councilmen et.al.
A courtesy discount for senior citizens and active duty military personnel, as well as a reasonable premium for those who don’t reside in Aurora and pay Aurora taxes is understandable. Somewhat of an argument can be made for reducing the city’s medical liability by promoting a healthier lifestyle for its employees, but there also has to be the consideration that a little taxpayer funded political patronage to the city employee base in an election year doesn’t harm the reelection chances.
But, how do the mayor and city councilmen justify this dip into the taxpayer’s pockets for their personal benefit? Councilman Mike Crider is reported as stating “I don’t see where elected officials need a cut” and Councilman John Borgman is mentioned as agreeing. Neither Mayor Donnie Hastings nor Councilman Fred Lester are quoted on the issue. Councilman Brett Fehrman stated he was “comfortable either way with their (elected officials) fees” and motioned for approval. Councilman Rick Orcutt seconded.*** Evidently everyone resolved any personal reservations and made peace with their conscience as the motion passed unanimously.
If you are an Aurora taxpayer you may want to consider if you’re as “comfortable” with this fee disparity as your mayor and city councilmen or deserve an explanation as to why they appear to consider themselves twice as deserving of the city’s privileges? You may want to consider demanding not only “affordable” but “equitable” fees for you and your family to utilize YOUR Aurora Community Center..
Chet Wolgamot
Manchester Township
*** Since initial publication, I have been informed by councilman Rick Orcutt that it was Fred Lester who offered the second to the motion and not him. My apologies for the error.
Saturday, April 30, 2011
Thursday, April 28, 2011
AGENDA - DEARBORN COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING
AGENDA
DEARBORN COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING
May 4, 2011
WEDNESDAY
6:00 p.m., Commissioners Room
County Administration Building
215 B West High Street, Lawrenceburg, Indiana
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
III. OLD BUSINESS
1. Real Property Endorsement Fee
IV. NEW BUSINESS
1. Dearborn County Hospital - Reappointment
2. Animal Control / PAWS contract
3. DCRSD - Steve Renihan
Request to go to Council
V. HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT- Todd Listerman
Updates
VI. AUDITOR – Gayle Pennington
1. Claims/Minutes
VII. ATTORNEY - Andy Baudendistel
VIII. COUNTY COORDINATOR – Bill Ewbank
1. Trending & New Construction
2. Community Corrections grant acceptance
IX. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
X. LATE ARRIVAL INFORMATION
XI. PUBLIC COMMENT
XII. ADJOURN
DEARBORN COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING
May 4, 2011
WEDNESDAY
6:00 p.m., Commissioners Room
County Administration Building
215 B West High Street, Lawrenceburg, Indiana
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
III. OLD BUSINESS
1. Real Property Endorsement Fee
IV. NEW BUSINESS
1. Dearborn County Hospital - Reappointment
2. Animal Control / PAWS contract
3. DCRSD - Steve Renihan
Request to go to Council
V. HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT- Todd Listerman
Updates
VI. AUDITOR – Gayle Pennington
1. Claims/Minutes
VII. ATTORNEY - Andy Baudendistel
VIII. COUNTY COORDINATOR – Bill Ewbank
1. Trending & New Construction
2. Community Corrections grant acceptance
IX. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
X. LATE ARRIVAL INFORMATION
XI. PUBLIC COMMENT
XII. ADJOURN
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
25 April 2011 Dearborn County Plan Commission Meeting Notes
25 April 2011 Dearborn County Plan Commission Meeting Notes
Present: Mike Hall, Chairman, Dennis Kraus Jr., Russell Beiersdorfer, Mark Lehman, Mike Hornbach, Jeff Hughes, Jake Hoog,and Dan Lansing.
ABSENT: Ken Nelson
Also Present: Mark McCormack, Plan Director, and Arnie McGill, Attorney.
OLD BUSINESS TO REMAIN TABLED
1. Request: Vacate a portion of Happy Hollow Road. Applicant: Rob Seig / Owner: David Lykins
Site Location: Happy Hollow Road
Township: Jackson & York Size: 5.169 Acres Zoning: Agricultural (A)
NEW BUSINESS
1. Request: Primary Approval with Waivers for a 15-lot re-plat of Whitewater Point Subdivision.
Applicant: JDJ Surveying & Engineering (Jeff Stenger) /Owner: Whitewater Point, LLC and Jeff & Beth Viel
Site Location: Chappelow Ridge Road Township: Logan Size: 127.629 Acres Zoning: Agricultural (A)
Mark McCormack presented the initial case:
1) The Whitewater Point Subdivision located within Logan Township, Township 7, Range 1, Sections 8 & 9 is situated within an Agricultural (A) District. This subdivision is located
between Barber Road and Chappelow Ridge Road.
2) The Primary Plat for this subdivision which consists of 8 “buildable” tracts was approved by the Plan Commission in September of 2008. Please refer to the enclosed meeting minute summary from the September 29th, 2008 Plan Commission public hearing.
3) The Applicants are seeking to re-plat the Whitewater Point Subdivision in accordance with Article 2, Section 288 of the Dearborn County Subdivision Control Ordinance so that the resulting development consists of a total of 15 “buildable tracts.” number, or location of individual lots, streets, or utilities. These changes are recognized as a typical part of the development process. In general, the Improvement Plan, and Secondary Plat should be the same in design and layout as the approved Primary Plat.
Any changes that are made to the approved Primary Plat shall be submitted to and reviewed by
the Planning Director or his designee to determine if these changes are major or minor in
scope. Major changes will require a new public hearing as identified in Section 208…”
5) The Applicants intend to construct a private street to serve as the primary form of ingress /egress into the subdivision. The private street, as presently designed, requires several waivers with respect to:
1. The length of the proposed the proposed dead-end private street—which exceeds the
1200-foot ordinance requirement by 1215 feet (see Article 3, Section 305N of the
Subdivision Control Ordinance)
2. The width of the proposed private street—which is 4 feet less than the 20-foot
ordinance requirement (see Article 3,Table 3.1 and Sections 305F and 305P of the
Subdivision Control Ordinance)
3. The size of the cul-de-sac—which is 10 feet less in both pavement diameter and right of way radius than the ordinance requirement (see Article 3, Section 305N and Appendix C of the Subdivision Control Ordinance)
4. The number of lots permitted on a private street—which exceeds the ordinance
requirement by 7 lots (see Article 3, Section 305P of the Subdivision Control
Ordinance)
5. The percentage of panhandle tracts allowed in a subdivision—which is 12% higher than
the ordinance requirement for a Major Subdivision (see Article 3, Section 315 of the
Subdivision Control Ordinance)
6) Additionally, the Applicants are seeking to have the ordinance requirement regarding the
submittal of Preliminary Report(s) from the Dearborn County Health Department (that
demonstrates approval for Individual Sewage Disposal Systems for each lot) waived or
deferred until such time that the re-plat concepts are acceptable to the Plan Commission, if
applicable. (See Article 2, Section 216, Item 11 of the Subdivision Control Ordinance)
7) Please refer to Article 1, Section 165 of the Dearborn County Subdivision Control
Ordinance regarding Appeals and Waivers.
SECTION 165 – Appeals and Waivers
“…Upon written request to the Commission, an applicant can seek a waiver of any of the
Subdivision regulations in this Ordinance. The individual request shall be reviewed and
granted only under unusual or extreme circumstances or if an equal or better alternative can
be provided that is not in agreement with this Ordinance. The Planning Director or his
designee shall review the request and provide a recommendation to the Commission regarding
the merits of the request. The Commission shall approve or deny the waiver request.”
8) Please refer to the Technical Review Committee Report from March 21st, 2011. Please
note that the following item in this report remains in question:
Restrictions regarding access to the proposed subdivision from Barber Road via River View Lane
9) Please refer to the Applicants’ statements and enclosures.
12 letters sent to adjoiners. Land use plan would look at this area for low density development. Topography and flood plain are factors. Road layout is substantially the same- except it is no longer a driveway serving 6-8 homes- now it’s a private street proposed. Developer plans to pave river View Lane this year possibly if approved. McCormack showed numerous pictures of the roadways and topography.
Randy Maxwell- said that when he’d told Jeff Stenger what they wanted to do, he had no idea it would get this complicated. They intend it to be a gated community. It’s a temporary gate now- and the first one had been demolished. The new one will be a nice looking punch pad controlled one. Chapellow Ridge is a mile and a half dead end road. We installed a cul de sac up there as part of the original design. They are getting rid of the panhandles at the bottom- no need for them now. He’d love to debate the private drive standards. The owners know what they are getting when they buy. 20 ft is too much for the private drive width. These lots are all over 5 acres- low density lots. If this were not private it would invite Chappelow Ridge residents to use this because it is considerably shorter. Panhandles are needed because of the way it is laid out.
Mike Hall asked about lot layout for old Lot 3 and also traffic allowed. Maxwell said there will be a height bar to restrict big trucks. Maxwell plans to put in 3 inches of asphalt in answer to Hall’s question. They are restricting the cul de sac size as he feels a 60 ft one is not necessary for the limited access and traffic here. The motion was limited the development to 8 lots. Stenger said that’s why we’re requesting the replat. Hall stressed that this was only to be 8 lots per the motion that was approved in 2008.
Jake Hoog asked about lot 22 and 28 – Maxwell only accessed from the top- not Riverview. Maxwell also answered that the school bus will not go onto a private lane. Kids have to go to Chappelow Ridge or Barber Rd. Maxell also said the gates are designed to be emergency breakaway.
PUBLIC:
Helen Kremer- noted there were a lot of waivers. She said the road shouldn’t be there. For over 2 years many studies were done on the issue of this road. The county made the decision not to allow the road- too expensive to maintain. In 2008 the 8 lots were approved as a replat with restrictions on access and maintenance and gating as private. She said if there is an accident on this road- considering the topography- who is liable?
She added that Eric Russo of the Hillside trust also said that it’s more than just steep roads and hills- it’s also about the stability of the road.
There is more information about the Whitewater River erosion and it calls into question the maintenance of Barber Road when the river erodes to it. We live on Barber road and there are several old farmhouses built before the Civil War. We maintain the area as it was- beautiful and pristine. Kremer went on to say she just wanted to point out that Barber Rd. is fragile. Kremer passed out pictures of the river in 2008 and also last week.
She also doesn’t know if it is reasonable to have 15 families maintain 8 football field lengths of roads. She answered Hall that she would be OK with the development if the road from Barber to the top were eliminated.
Kathy Scott- is concerned with the ordinances. Understands why the Maxwells want to increase lots to make this more affordable. She doesn’t like the road to Barber Road. She thinks the cul de sac is too small at 30 ft for adequate turnaround. She also is worried about this eventually becoming a county road in the future. The vandalism on the gate is a worry as this roadway in the woods will invite more. PC pointed out that the cul de sac has a 35 foot RADIUS- so it will be 70 ft across.
Public discussion closed.
Stenger answered some of the concerns. He said the old road was deemed unfeasible. There will be no liability for the county as this is a private road. The road that they built there is not new except the first few hundred feet by Barber Road. It has been improved by the developer with drainage structures etc. It was an old field road. His dad used to use it with cattle there.
Jeff Bier asked if it would be in writing for the road to be paved if approved. Hall said that is what is proposed by the developer.
Hughes said that if the road is meant to be private- we need to make it limited access. Who will own it. The physical road property is owned by two properties, but there is a 50 ft easement owned by all property owners. 150 trips per day depending on what visitors get access. Stenger answered. Hughes noted that Travis Miller – the former Planning Director- promoted interconnectivity.
Lansing asked if emergency vehicles would use this. That was questionable a sit would not be adequate- especially in certain types of weather.
Maxwell answered another question that only the gate at Chappelow Ridge would exist. There would be a 7 ft 6 beam across the area where the lower temp gate is now. Maxwell said a first responder vehicle may get up there- but can’t see other emergency vehicles on it due to liability. Maxwell said that they are not completely opposed to eliminating that lower road- it’s just a convenience for the homeowners there. They don’t want a 20 ft road- more affordable smaller and they have passing blisters on it. It also disturbs more land if you make it bigger.
Hughes said he voted against 20 ft road when proposed in ordinance. But if others get it then these people should too. Maxwell asked what you do to get that law changed. Hughes said- elect better people.
There are a couple lots that need a private lane name for their driveways.
Kraus Jr. asked if they have to address each waiver individually. McGill said yes.
Hall said they can eliminate the access to Barber by closing those two lots off. He said Fox Road got closed too – even though ATVs etc could make it. Hall said it would be better to not have a road up on that hillside. It would be a lot less intrusive to the neighbors to the south. That access road is 2000 ft. It would help preserve Barber.
Maxwell said one lot is sold up there and the husband and wife were counting on quick access to Barber Road. They chose not to attend tonight.
Hughes would waive panhandles and 1200 ft length, but keep the 20 ft width. He’s having trouble with Riverview Lane.
Hoog said that if they pave that road they’ll all go down it.
Hughes motioned to waive the 1215 ft, deny the private street one, no waiver on the width of the road, denied the cul de sac, approve the waiver for 7 more lots, approve the extra12 percentage panhandles, and allow the health dept inspections to be done later on septic systems until approved. The private drive Whitewater Pointe Drive also will be paved. Riverview Lane will never be publicly accepted. Beiersdorfer 2nded. 2 ayes- Hughes and Beiersdorfer- rest nayes. Motion failed.
Kraus Jr. motioned to waive the cul de sac, the reduction in width of street, the smaller cul de sac, the number of lots, the panhandles, and the septic inspection delay. The road must be paved. He’s not mentioning Riverview Lane. Beiersdorfer 2nd.
Lansing asked what happens to Riverview Lane. McCormack said the county controls the driveway permits. They need to get the permit from the highway dept. It’s not fair to say there is NO regulation on driveways. If it’s a public safety issue – you need to address that.
Kraus Jr. amended the motion to not allow Riverview Lane for ingress or egress because it is not safe. Beiersdorfer 2nded. All ayes.
Passed.
F. ADMINISTRATIVE
1. The Happy Hollow item that is still tabled has a 90 day time period. They have all visited the site and are awaiting the next survey.
2. There is a link on the county’s website on the 208 water quality plan. This plan is tied to the sewage plans. St. Leon and LMH and DCRSD were not here in the 1970’s when the original water plan was done. This map is proposed to be changed. The next meeting is in a couple weeks- May 8 or 11. The draft will be discussed. At the 2nd meeting after that there will be a formal adoption. Amendments to this plan occur by petition in the future once adopted.
3. Financial guarantee report will be forwarded later- there is only one subdivision coming up- and he will send the letter out to get their financial guarantee updated.
4. Zoning committee meets again Wed May 18th. There may be no PC meeting in May unless the Happy Hollow is ready by then.
5. Purdue professor will be discussing the landscape and bufferyard section of the ordinance with him this week. He’ll send out revised text this week for the committee. He’ll get a series of people to discuss this- the biggest problem is the medium to low stock with complaints from developers on the difficulty of keeping them alive. Issues also exist with parking lot islands and stock that won’t affect pavement.
6. Hughes proposal on an ordinance on Private Real Property Rights Preservation Ordinance was passed out. [NOTE: A copy of his proposed ordinance was posted on the blog last week.] He highlighted some sections to see if they are legally defensible. He thought it would be worthwhile to discuss it with the PC and Zoning committee on the 18th of May. Hughes said it’s not pro or anti development. He liked the handout that McCormack gave them on a reference on Planning Law. Hughes said he had talked to many people in 2008. He had talked to Alan Freemond who discussed a blast furnace that incinerated garbage. Hughes said- he doesn’t want a dump in Dearborn county. So he’s thinking that if the citizens need or want something then we should compensate people for their loss. McCormack showed there were only 4 categories for “takings.” There are 3 pages in the handout that cover this. An attorney with Indiana plan association would be needed for this also. It was decided to get the commissioners and PC discuss this on May 23, if the Commissioners can make that.
7. We got STP funding to get State Street done in West Harrison.
Meeting adjourned at 9:35 PM
Christine Brauer Mueller
Lawrenceburg Township
Present: Mike Hall, Chairman, Dennis Kraus Jr., Russell Beiersdorfer, Mark Lehman, Mike Hornbach, Jeff Hughes, Jake Hoog,and Dan Lansing.
ABSENT: Ken Nelson
Also Present: Mark McCormack, Plan Director, and Arnie McGill, Attorney.
OLD BUSINESS TO REMAIN TABLED
1. Request: Vacate a portion of Happy Hollow Road. Applicant: Rob Seig / Owner: David Lykins
Site Location: Happy Hollow Road
Township: Jackson & York Size: 5.169 Acres Zoning: Agricultural (A)
NEW BUSINESS
1. Request: Primary Approval with Waivers for a 15-lot re-plat of Whitewater Point Subdivision.
Applicant: JDJ Surveying & Engineering (Jeff Stenger) /Owner: Whitewater Point, LLC and Jeff & Beth Viel
Site Location: Chappelow Ridge Road Township: Logan Size: 127.629 Acres Zoning: Agricultural (A)
Mark McCormack presented the initial case:
1) The Whitewater Point Subdivision located within Logan Township, Township 7, Range 1, Sections 8 & 9 is situated within an Agricultural (A) District. This subdivision is located
between Barber Road and Chappelow Ridge Road.
2) The Primary Plat for this subdivision which consists of 8 “buildable” tracts was approved by the Plan Commission in September of 2008. Please refer to the enclosed meeting minute summary from the September 29th, 2008 Plan Commission public hearing.
3) The Applicants are seeking to re-plat the Whitewater Point Subdivision in accordance with Article 2, Section 288 of the Dearborn County Subdivision Control Ordinance so that the resulting development consists of a total of 15 “buildable tracts.” number, or location of individual lots, streets, or utilities. These changes are recognized as a typical part of the development process. In general, the Improvement Plan, and Secondary Plat should be the same in design and layout as the approved Primary Plat.
Any changes that are made to the approved Primary Plat shall be submitted to and reviewed by
the Planning Director or his designee to determine if these changes are major or minor in
scope. Major changes will require a new public hearing as identified in Section 208…”
5) The Applicants intend to construct a private street to serve as the primary form of ingress /egress into the subdivision. The private street, as presently designed, requires several waivers with respect to:
1. The length of the proposed the proposed dead-end private street—which exceeds the
1200-foot ordinance requirement by 1215 feet (see Article 3, Section 305N of the
Subdivision Control Ordinance)
2. The width of the proposed private street—which is 4 feet less than the 20-foot
ordinance requirement (see Article 3,Table 3.1 and Sections 305F and 305P of the
Subdivision Control Ordinance)
3. The size of the cul-de-sac—which is 10 feet less in both pavement diameter and right of way radius than the ordinance requirement (see Article 3, Section 305N and Appendix C of the Subdivision Control Ordinance)
4. The number of lots permitted on a private street—which exceeds the ordinance
requirement by 7 lots (see Article 3, Section 305P of the Subdivision Control
Ordinance)
5. The percentage of panhandle tracts allowed in a subdivision—which is 12% higher than
the ordinance requirement for a Major Subdivision (see Article 3, Section 315 of the
Subdivision Control Ordinance)
6) Additionally, the Applicants are seeking to have the ordinance requirement regarding the
submittal of Preliminary Report(s) from the Dearborn County Health Department (that
demonstrates approval for Individual Sewage Disposal Systems for each lot) waived or
deferred until such time that the re-plat concepts are acceptable to the Plan Commission, if
applicable. (See Article 2, Section 216, Item 11 of the Subdivision Control Ordinance)
7) Please refer to Article 1, Section 165 of the Dearborn County Subdivision Control
Ordinance regarding Appeals and Waivers.
SECTION 165 – Appeals and Waivers
“…Upon written request to the Commission, an applicant can seek a waiver of any of the
Subdivision regulations in this Ordinance. The individual request shall be reviewed and
granted only under unusual or extreme circumstances or if an equal or better alternative can
be provided that is not in agreement with this Ordinance. The Planning Director or his
designee shall review the request and provide a recommendation to the Commission regarding
the merits of the request. The Commission shall approve or deny the waiver request.”
8) Please refer to the Technical Review Committee Report from March 21st, 2011. Please
note that the following item in this report remains in question:
Restrictions regarding access to the proposed subdivision from Barber Road via River View Lane
9) Please refer to the Applicants’ statements and enclosures.
12 letters sent to adjoiners. Land use plan would look at this area for low density development. Topography and flood plain are factors. Road layout is substantially the same- except it is no longer a driveway serving 6-8 homes- now it’s a private street proposed. Developer plans to pave river View Lane this year possibly if approved. McCormack showed numerous pictures of the roadways and topography.
Randy Maxwell- said that when he’d told Jeff Stenger what they wanted to do, he had no idea it would get this complicated. They intend it to be a gated community. It’s a temporary gate now- and the first one had been demolished. The new one will be a nice looking punch pad controlled one. Chapellow Ridge is a mile and a half dead end road. We installed a cul de sac up there as part of the original design. They are getting rid of the panhandles at the bottom- no need for them now. He’d love to debate the private drive standards. The owners know what they are getting when they buy. 20 ft is too much for the private drive width. These lots are all over 5 acres- low density lots. If this were not private it would invite Chappelow Ridge residents to use this because it is considerably shorter. Panhandles are needed because of the way it is laid out.
Mike Hall asked about lot layout for old Lot 3 and also traffic allowed. Maxwell said there will be a height bar to restrict big trucks. Maxwell plans to put in 3 inches of asphalt in answer to Hall’s question. They are restricting the cul de sac size as he feels a 60 ft one is not necessary for the limited access and traffic here. The motion was limited the development to 8 lots. Stenger said that’s why we’re requesting the replat. Hall stressed that this was only to be 8 lots per the motion that was approved in 2008.
Jake Hoog asked about lot 22 and 28 – Maxwell only accessed from the top- not Riverview. Maxwell also answered that the school bus will not go onto a private lane. Kids have to go to Chappelow Ridge or Barber Rd. Maxell also said the gates are designed to be emergency breakaway.
PUBLIC:
Helen Kremer- noted there were a lot of waivers. She said the road shouldn’t be there. For over 2 years many studies were done on the issue of this road. The county made the decision not to allow the road- too expensive to maintain. In 2008 the 8 lots were approved as a replat with restrictions on access and maintenance and gating as private. She said if there is an accident on this road- considering the topography- who is liable?
She added that Eric Russo of the Hillside trust also said that it’s more than just steep roads and hills- it’s also about the stability of the road.
There is more information about the Whitewater River erosion and it calls into question the maintenance of Barber Road when the river erodes to it. We live on Barber road and there are several old farmhouses built before the Civil War. We maintain the area as it was- beautiful and pristine. Kremer went on to say she just wanted to point out that Barber Rd. is fragile. Kremer passed out pictures of the river in 2008 and also last week.
She also doesn’t know if it is reasonable to have 15 families maintain 8 football field lengths of roads. She answered Hall that she would be OK with the development if the road from Barber to the top were eliminated.
Kathy Scott- is concerned with the ordinances. Understands why the Maxwells want to increase lots to make this more affordable. She doesn’t like the road to Barber Road. She thinks the cul de sac is too small at 30 ft for adequate turnaround. She also is worried about this eventually becoming a county road in the future. The vandalism on the gate is a worry as this roadway in the woods will invite more. PC pointed out that the cul de sac has a 35 foot RADIUS- so it will be 70 ft across.
Public discussion closed.
Stenger answered some of the concerns. He said the old road was deemed unfeasible. There will be no liability for the county as this is a private road. The road that they built there is not new except the first few hundred feet by Barber Road. It has been improved by the developer with drainage structures etc. It was an old field road. His dad used to use it with cattle there.
Jeff Bier asked if it would be in writing for the road to be paved if approved. Hall said that is what is proposed by the developer.
Hughes said that if the road is meant to be private- we need to make it limited access. Who will own it. The physical road property is owned by two properties, but there is a 50 ft easement owned by all property owners. 150 trips per day depending on what visitors get access. Stenger answered. Hughes noted that Travis Miller – the former Planning Director- promoted interconnectivity.
Lansing asked if emergency vehicles would use this. That was questionable a sit would not be adequate- especially in certain types of weather.
Maxwell answered another question that only the gate at Chappelow Ridge would exist. There would be a 7 ft 6 beam across the area where the lower temp gate is now. Maxwell said a first responder vehicle may get up there- but can’t see other emergency vehicles on it due to liability. Maxwell said that they are not completely opposed to eliminating that lower road- it’s just a convenience for the homeowners there. They don’t want a 20 ft road- more affordable smaller and they have passing blisters on it. It also disturbs more land if you make it bigger.
Hughes said he voted against 20 ft road when proposed in ordinance. But if others get it then these people should too. Maxwell asked what you do to get that law changed. Hughes said- elect better people.
There are a couple lots that need a private lane name for their driveways.
Kraus Jr. asked if they have to address each waiver individually. McGill said yes.
Hall said they can eliminate the access to Barber by closing those two lots off. He said Fox Road got closed too – even though ATVs etc could make it. Hall said it would be better to not have a road up on that hillside. It would be a lot less intrusive to the neighbors to the south. That access road is 2000 ft. It would help preserve Barber.
Maxwell said one lot is sold up there and the husband and wife were counting on quick access to Barber Road. They chose not to attend tonight.
Hughes would waive panhandles and 1200 ft length, but keep the 20 ft width. He’s having trouble with Riverview Lane.
Hoog said that if they pave that road they’ll all go down it.
Hughes motioned to waive the 1215 ft, deny the private street one, no waiver on the width of the road, denied the cul de sac, approve the waiver for 7 more lots, approve the extra12 percentage panhandles, and allow the health dept inspections to be done later on septic systems until approved. The private drive Whitewater Pointe Drive also will be paved. Riverview Lane will never be publicly accepted. Beiersdorfer 2nded. 2 ayes- Hughes and Beiersdorfer- rest nayes. Motion failed.
Kraus Jr. motioned to waive the cul de sac, the reduction in width of street, the smaller cul de sac, the number of lots, the panhandles, and the septic inspection delay. The road must be paved. He’s not mentioning Riverview Lane. Beiersdorfer 2nd.
Lansing asked what happens to Riverview Lane. McCormack said the county controls the driveway permits. They need to get the permit from the highway dept. It’s not fair to say there is NO regulation on driveways. If it’s a public safety issue – you need to address that.
Kraus Jr. amended the motion to not allow Riverview Lane for ingress or egress because it is not safe. Beiersdorfer 2nded. All ayes.
Passed.
F. ADMINISTRATIVE
1. The Happy Hollow item that is still tabled has a 90 day time period. They have all visited the site and are awaiting the next survey.
2. There is a link on the county’s website on the 208 water quality plan. This plan is tied to the sewage plans. St. Leon and LMH and DCRSD were not here in the 1970’s when the original water plan was done. This map is proposed to be changed. The next meeting is in a couple weeks- May 8 or 11. The draft will be discussed. At the 2nd meeting after that there will be a formal adoption. Amendments to this plan occur by petition in the future once adopted.
3. Financial guarantee report will be forwarded later- there is only one subdivision coming up- and he will send the letter out to get their financial guarantee updated.
4. Zoning committee meets again Wed May 18th. There may be no PC meeting in May unless the Happy Hollow is ready by then.
5. Purdue professor will be discussing the landscape and bufferyard section of the ordinance with him this week. He’ll send out revised text this week for the committee. He’ll get a series of people to discuss this- the biggest problem is the medium to low stock with complaints from developers on the difficulty of keeping them alive. Issues also exist with parking lot islands and stock that won’t affect pavement.
6. Hughes proposal on an ordinance on Private Real Property Rights Preservation Ordinance was passed out. [NOTE: A copy of his proposed ordinance was posted on the blog last week.] He highlighted some sections to see if they are legally defensible. He thought it would be worthwhile to discuss it with the PC and Zoning committee on the 18th of May. Hughes said it’s not pro or anti development. He liked the handout that McCormack gave them on a reference on Planning Law. Hughes said he had talked to many people in 2008. He had talked to Alan Freemond who discussed a blast furnace that incinerated garbage. Hughes said- he doesn’t want a dump in Dearborn county. So he’s thinking that if the citizens need or want something then we should compensate people for their loss. McCormack showed there were only 4 categories for “takings.” There are 3 pages in the handout that cover this. An attorney with Indiana plan association would be needed for this also. It was decided to get the commissioners and PC discuss this on May 23, if the Commissioners can make that.
7. We got STP funding to get State Street done in West Harrison.
Meeting adjourned at 9:35 PM
Christine Brauer Mueller
Lawrenceburg Township
Thursday, April 21, 2011
Submitted by Commissioner Jeff Hughes at the April 19th Commissioners meeting for discussion.
PRIVATE REAL PROPERTY RIGHTS PRESERVATION ORDINANCE
If a county enacts or enforces a new land regulation or enforces a land use regulation enacted prior to the effective date of this ordinance that restricts the use of private real property or any interest therein and has the effect of reducing the fair market value of the property, or any interest therein, then the owner of the property shall be paid just compensation.
Just compensation shall be equal to the reduction in the fair market value of the affected property interest resulting from enactment or enforcement of the land use regulation as of the date the owner makes written demands for compensation under this act.
Exceptions of this ordinance shall not apply to land use regulations:
1) Restricting or prohibiting activities commonly and historically recognized as pubic (correction added- public) nuisances.
2) Restricting or prohibiting activities for the protection of public health and safety, such as fire and building codes, health and sanitation regulations, solid or hazardous waste regulations, water drainage regulation, and pollution control regulations.
3) Enacted prior to the date of acquisition of the property by the owner upon the subject property.
4) Pertaining to any state or federal regulations.
Just compensation under this ordinance shall be due the owner of the property if the land use regulation continues to be enforced against the property 180 days after the owner of the property makes written demand for compensation to the county entity enacting or enforcing the land use regulation.
In substitute of just compensation under this ordinance, the governing body responsible for enacting the regulation may modify, remove or not enforce the regulation.
This ordinance is in no manner intended to nullify or be subject to any federal or state regulations.
[NOTE: At the April 19th Commissioner's meeting Mr. Hughes wanted the public to be able to comment on this idea.]
PRIVATE REAL PROPERTY RIGHTS PRESERVATION ORDINANCE
If a county enacts or enforces a new land regulation or enforces a land use regulation enacted prior to the effective date of this ordinance that restricts the use of private real property or any interest therein and has the effect of reducing the fair market value of the property, or any interest therein, then the owner of the property shall be paid just compensation.
Just compensation shall be equal to the reduction in the fair market value of the affected property interest resulting from enactment or enforcement of the land use regulation as of the date the owner makes written demands for compensation under this act.
Exceptions of this ordinance shall not apply to land use regulations:
1) Restricting or prohibiting activities commonly and historically recognized as pubic (correction added- public) nuisances.
2) Restricting or prohibiting activities for the protection of public health and safety, such as fire and building codes, health and sanitation regulations, solid or hazardous waste regulations, water drainage regulation, and pollution control regulations.
3) Enacted prior to the date of acquisition of the property by the owner upon the subject property.
4) Pertaining to any state or federal regulations.
Just compensation under this ordinance shall be due the owner of the property if the land use regulation continues to be enforced against the property 180 days after the owner of the property makes written demand for compensation to the county entity enacting or enforcing the land use regulation.
In substitute of just compensation under this ordinance, the governing body responsible for enacting the regulation may modify, remove or not enforce the regulation.
This ordinance is in no manner intended to nullify or be subject to any federal or state regulations.
[NOTE: At the April 19th Commissioner's meeting Mr. Hughes wanted the public to be able to comment on this idea.]
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
County’s Checks and Balances Failed
The following guest column was published in the April 14th Dearborn County Register
County’s Checks and Balances Failed
I cannot decide if I’m disappointed in, embarrassed for, or ashamed of our County Council.
County government is set up to work as a check and balance system. Unfortunately our system seems to be failing, in part because of the large imbalance of political party power and in part because of the unwillingness of Council and Commissioners to publicly question certain officeholders.
As an example, at the December 14, 2010 meeting, Council approved a transfer of $25,000 for Prosecutor Aaron Negangard from an intern account to a professional (witness) fees account.
In the verbatim transcript Negangard stated: “ Umm, this is not uhh, an additional appropriation, as it turns out it is a transfer. There was additional monies left in- appropriated monies left, in uh- we had some additional money from the grant – some of the grants monies had been received for salaries and we were using some of this money for intern, but we’ll have about $30,000 left over- and we need to get $25,000 transferred to pay some – uh- attorney’s fees.”
Maynard Barrett questioned using grant money for legal defense but Negangard said this was not grant money, it was money appropriated but not having to be spent because of a grant.
Liz Morris said it was “just a transfer” and motioned to approve. Bill Ullrich seconded.
Before the vote, Tom Cheek asked what it was for again. Negangard said “attorney fees” for a “disciplinary grievance.” Cheek asked if that was “by a county employee” and Negangard answered, “yes.”
Some council members thought that this was for an employee issue, because a disciplinary grievance by a county employee usually means that an employee has been disciplined and filed a grievance against the county for it. Dennis Kraus, Sr, Bryan Messmore, Liz Morris, Bill Ullrich, Maynard Barrett, and Dan Lansing voted Aye. Tom Cheek was the lone Nay.
The final step in the checks and balances (or lack thereof) occurred when Commissioners Orschell and Hughes approved the claims at their final 2010 meeting -no questions were asked publicly.
The Prosecutor’s claim form in the Auditor’s office only shows page 4 of the bill paid to Indy law firm Bose, McKinney, and Evans, LLC for $23,828.53. And the minutes only show the vote and account numbers and titles for the transfer. There is no discussion or purpose noted. Though this is a legal way to do minutes, it is inadequate, when questions arise.
I emailed Aaron Negangard January 27-28 requesting the purpose of this transfer. In the third email he states that it was for a disciplinary grievance against him. Disciplinary grievances are filed with the Disciplinary Commission- an arm of the State Supreme Court, which is unrelated to the State Bar Association. Grievances are filed for alleged violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct for Attorneys. County Attorney Baudendistel later stated that this was for a complaint filed by the former County Attorney, G. Michael Witte. However, at the time Negangard requested the payment of attorney fees for his defense, grievances against him had been filed by three different people.
Because the prosecutor is a state employee it seemed like he should be covered by state laws, which indicate that the state does not pay for disciplinary actions against prosecutors or judges. I questioned the county taxpayers paying for this at the February 15, 2011 Commissioners meeting. Commissioners directed County Attorney Baudendistel to research it. One month later he produced an opinion that essentially said the county could invoke “Home Rule” to cover their actions noting, if it is not specifically forbidden, then it is at the complete discretion of the Council.
This brings us back to County Council. Council often asks detailed questions on expenditures for agencies, officeholders, highway engineer, etc. Why were they shy about the prosecutor’s requests? When questioned at the February 15th Commissioners meeting, they looked down at their feet and appeared unwilling, or perhaps unable, to defend their actions.
No one should get special treatment. The prosecutor may seem intimidating, but his requests still require scrutiny- like all others. The discussion should be open and honest so the public understands. Council members should state their reasons for approval or denial of requests to demonstrate accountability to the taxpayer.
When so many people are struggling to make ends meet, officials should also be displaying economic responsibility. Council members are the financial conscience of the county. When they decide to open the taxpayer’s coffers to cover ANY expense, they should be asking who, what, where, when and most importantly, why are they approving that expense.
Christine Brauer Mueller
County’s Checks and Balances Failed
I cannot decide if I’m disappointed in, embarrassed for, or ashamed of our County Council.
County government is set up to work as a check and balance system. Unfortunately our system seems to be failing, in part because of the large imbalance of political party power and in part because of the unwillingness of Council and Commissioners to publicly question certain officeholders.
As an example, at the December 14, 2010 meeting, Council approved a transfer of $25,000 for Prosecutor Aaron Negangard from an intern account to a professional (witness) fees account.
In the verbatim transcript Negangard stated: “ Umm, this is not uhh, an additional appropriation, as it turns out it is a transfer. There was additional monies left in- appropriated monies left, in uh- we had some additional money from the grant – some of the grants monies had been received for salaries and we were using some of this money for intern, but we’ll have about $30,000 left over- and we need to get $25,000 transferred to pay some – uh- attorney’s fees.”
Maynard Barrett questioned using grant money for legal defense but Negangard said this was not grant money, it was money appropriated but not having to be spent because of a grant.
Liz Morris said it was “just a transfer” and motioned to approve. Bill Ullrich seconded.
Before the vote, Tom Cheek asked what it was for again. Negangard said “attorney fees” for a “disciplinary grievance.” Cheek asked if that was “by a county employee” and Negangard answered, “yes.”
Some council members thought that this was for an employee issue, because a disciplinary grievance by a county employee usually means that an employee has been disciplined and filed a grievance against the county for it. Dennis Kraus, Sr, Bryan Messmore, Liz Morris, Bill Ullrich, Maynard Barrett, and Dan Lansing voted Aye. Tom Cheek was the lone Nay.
The final step in the checks and balances (or lack thereof) occurred when Commissioners Orschell and Hughes approved the claims at their final 2010 meeting -no questions were asked publicly.
The Prosecutor’s claim form in the Auditor’s office only shows page 4 of the bill paid to Indy law firm Bose, McKinney, and Evans, LLC for $23,828.53. And the minutes only show the vote and account numbers and titles for the transfer. There is no discussion or purpose noted. Though this is a legal way to do minutes, it is inadequate, when questions arise.
I emailed Aaron Negangard January 27-28 requesting the purpose of this transfer. In the third email he states that it was for a disciplinary grievance against him. Disciplinary grievances are filed with the Disciplinary Commission- an arm of the State Supreme Court, which is unrelated to the State Bar Association. Grievances are filed for alleged violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct for Attorneys. County Attorney Baudendistel later stated that this was for a complaint filed by the former County Attorney, G. Michael Witte. However, at the time Negangard requested the payment of attorney fees for his defense, grievances against him had been filed by three different people.
Because the prosecutor is a state employee it seemed like he should be covered by state laws, which indicate that the state does not pay for disciplinary actions against prosecutors or judges. I questioned the county taxpayers paying for this at the February 15, 2011 Commissioners meeting. Commissioners directed County Attorney Baudendistel to research it. One month later he produced an opinion that essentially said the county could invoke “Home Rule” to cover their actions noting, if it is not specifically forbidden, then it is at the complete discretion of the Council.
This brings us back to County Council. Council often asks detailed questions on expenditures for agencies, officeholders, highway engineer, etc. Why were they shy about the prosecutor’s requests? When questioned at the February 15th Commissioners meeting, they looked down at their feet and appeared unwilling, or perhaps unable, to defend their actions.
No one should get special treatment. The prosecutor may seem intimidating, but his requests still require scrutiny- like all others. The discussion should be open and honest so the public understands. Council members should state their reasons for approval or denial of requests to demonstrate accountability to the taxpayer.
When so many people are struggling to make ends meet, officials should also be displaying economic responsibility. Council members are the financial conscience of the county. When they decide to open the taxpayer’s coffers to cover ANY expense, they should be asking who, what, where, when and most importantly, why are they approving that expense.
Christine Brauer Mueller
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
19 April 2011 Dearborn County Commissioners Meeting Notes
19 April 2011 Dearborn County Commissioners Meeting Notes
Present: Jeff Hughes, President, Tom Orschell, and Shane McHenry
Also present: Gayle Pennington, Auditor, Bill Ewbank, County Coordinator, and, Andy Baudendistel, Attorney.
Executive session preceding this meeting regarding a Med Ben claim. Commissioners decided to deny the claim at the main meeting.
OLD BUSINESS
1. Purchasing Agent Ordinance- After revisions requested by commissioners and review by county attorney, Baudendistel read the ordinance into the record. Can’t bind commissioners for more than one year or more than $25,000. Lost one county court and added an additional superior court was also reflected in this. Commissioners approved. Twelve additional purchasing agents approved on a yearly basis to these approved by code- Elected officials, county engineer, circuit and superior judge, county highway supervisor. This was approved and will go into effect in 30 days.
2. Dennis Kraus, Jr.- County Surveyor presenting as a private surveyor: Nolte Road- said there was not a whole lot of information on this. He did bring an aerial to show this. County maintains to the end of Gilbert Nolte’s niece’s property. The last several feet are not paved. He has been approached as a private surveyor regarding this. They are looking for something from the commissioners to say they believe this is an apparent ROW. He briefly researched county records in the 1980s. They went back to the 1920s. then the roads were not mentioned by name but by petitioner. By walking it you can tell it was the access to the property. There is also evidence where it went down to the creek, where Roberts Road connected to it from SR 62. There are cabins that are using Nolte for access. Roberts Road runs along the creek and would take equipment to access. There are gates with multiple locks on the gates. Nolte has not been vacated since the 1920’s. He’s not sure if it’s an old trustee road. Those old trustee roads were given to the county for maintenance.
Baudendistel thought it would be prudent to have a survey completed for the apparent ROW before signing off on this. The county will not pay for this – the owner of the properties will pay for this. Kraus, Jr. will research this more with county records. He will present survey to the board and have a written request from his client.
Gayle Pennington asked Kraus, Jr. to come in a fill out a conflict of interest form as he is assuming two roles for this request. He agreed to do that.
NEW BUSINESS
1. Investment Policy Resolution - Baudendistel presented this resolution. Primary objectives will be 1st- safety, 2nd -liquidity, and 3rd- yield and return. Investments shall be made with judgment and care – using the prudence rule. He then listed 8 different funds. They shall only use approved institutions. They will use the bidding process as outlined. At maturity or liquidation – monies will only be invested as stated by this policy. Commissioners approved.
COMMISSIONERS RECESSED BRIEFLY-FOR McHENRY TO HANDLE A PERSONAL FAMILY EMERGENCY.
2. Barb Kaffenberger- Treasurer- Personal Property collections- Thanked commissioners for their investment policies. She went on to state there was over $1-2 million going back 10 years owed to the county. Noel Williams was introduced of American Financial Credit Services. In business since 1993. They have worked with treasurers in the state since 2001. This occurs at no charge to the county. There is a 27% collection fee that the taxpayer who owes the money pays. They are looking to take on just the last few years before looking back 10 whole years. They may also work for the demand notices. They are set up so they can see a complete audit of how they handle the county accounts. The state statute says this rate has to be deemed reasonable- and it has been. Their history of collections has been good and they handle it well. They have never been sued and have collected $40 million on 60 accounts in the state. Occasionally they reduce their fee based on the taxpayer’s ability to pay.
Hughes asked if the sheriff is supposed to collect taxes. They can issue a demand and if not paid in 30 days the assessor has the right to seize the property. Our assessor refuses to do that. Noel Williams said usually the county hopes to NOT get into that process. They prefer to use this method instead. They do this with the medical accounts that they service as well. Baudendistel read the agreement and has no problems. He says there is an adequate termination process.
Tammy White SBOA certifies their demand thru certified judgment process. They also have a fair debt lawyer on staff. Commissioners approved using this company – American Financial Credit Services. Hughes abstained with no reason given for abstention.
3. Compensation Ordinance- Hughes said he’d researched this some time ago- and he gave Shane a copy. He thinks we have lost track of what property rights are here. He cited a property decision of ours made in Jennings County and the manufacturing use of Ag land. He quoted Jefferson and Madison. He talked about Kelo vs. New London.
He said a former commissioner told him the county couldn’t afford to pay this difference.
Both McHenry and Orschell said they needed more time to look at it and it will be costly.
The commissioners tabled this for further review.
A member of the audience also brought up the land use plan recently enacted. Commissioners wanted to get this published and get comments and they will get a PC member involved as well.
4. Planning Commission Regulations Discussion (Classifications)- Mark McCormack. Planning Director- talked about the new districts added- Ag Residential, Single family Residential, and Multifamily residential. They propose to eliminate highway interchange as a separate district. Hughes wants the minimum district sizes to take away. Zoning committee will meet again in mid May ( 18th) to discuss this further. Indiana is changing planning code procedures. We will have to change to be compatible with this. Hughes brought up off site sign rules as hampering business. McCormack said more research is needed on this. Mike Hall PC Chairman said that we have to look at the district size- because we are not getting big Honda businesses here. We can fit these smaller ones in and have the infrastructure in place. There are larger land areas- but they have no infrastructure in place. Hughes said that he wants to see where commissioners stand on this. He said with this economic climate we need to promote jobs. McCormack asked for a copy for PC members. He cited legalities like the Nolan or Dolan cases. He said we need to be sure any ordinance is legally defensible. Hughes said he wants to be sure a person can use his land to benefit the community or himself. McCormack said it still has to be legally defensible at the state and federal levels also. No reason to enact a law that isn’t.
HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT- Todd Listerman gave the following report:
Drew Barth of Howard Barth and Associates- was introduced to talk about replacing the small structure on lower Dillsboro Road. It requires a DNR permit and it lies within wetlands that are forested. They revised project boundaries to stay within existing roadway corridor to avoid problems. DNR responded with environmental concerns still on the revised plan. DNR will not allow riprap on slopes to control erosion. They want a concrete spillway or a flat way to allow animals to cross under the bridge. These will increase the cost of the project thru additional ROW acquisitions, etc. They will ask to hold a meeting with DNR that commissioners can attend. They want to see if they can work through these issues. This would be his advice to them before paying all the costs. Orschell said- well at least they didn’t ask for a wheelchair ramp.They may have to lobby representatives if this doesn’t work. Drew Barth noted- we are not going through virgin territory here- and so this doesn’t seem to be necessary. McHenry thinks these requirements are ridiculous. Listerman will lobby both reps and our senator on this. Orschell and Hughes will try to go. This is holding up the project. They will have to advertise if 2 or more commissioners go.
Listerman opened bids for new salt building that are over budget and will require a new wage rate hearing . He wants to reject all bids and modify the building and rebid. Commissioners rejected bids.
Still trying to meet with last property owner on North Dearborn Road. They hope to have it shelf ready by the end of the year for 2012-13 construction.
Need approval for offer letters for temporary property use of Irwin property to get it for the Shortridge Bridge construction. Approved.
Council meeting May 24th- he would like permission to approach them for line striping for roads for 1000 vpd or more again. Many are fairly faded. He will get a cost estimate to present to come out of account 172 RR account.
They are looking for tandem axel trucks (3) and tractors(3) to be replaced at one per year each for the next 3 years.
Listerman is contacting the hiring board of Council Barrett, Hughes, and Kraus, Sr. for temp intern help in the summer for sign inventory and 2 seasonal mowing helpers. These are $11.50 positions with no benefits. Grieve added that he was going to try to not hire for maintenance- and try to muddle through.
AUDITOR- Gayle Pennington- Commissioners approved claims and March 22nd joint Council Commissioners meeting minutes.
Pennington opened discussion on the Sidwell GIS software claim. It was for $12,779 and this was to be held until the work was finished. Pennington negotiated with her all along. They have complied with everything and training is scheduled with 2nd meeting in May. They will set up a portable classroom for a couple days. Penningon is satisfied that they will meet their obligations. Commissioners want her to hold this till training is completed.
COUNTY ATTORNEY- Andy Baudendistel- The Auditor can collect $5 fee for each real property endorsement. They enacted an ordinance to allow this and the fees will go to a plat book maintenance ordinance. This will go on agenda for next meeting. They can sign it at the next meeting.
COUNTY COORDINATOR- Bill Ewbank- has a request to amend the minutes where you adopted a change to the county’s maps. These reflect the details of why they are digitizing them as well. Approved.
Two more special meetings today- 11 AM and 2 PM at Happy Hollow Road. Ewbank will take minutes at the Happy Hollow site as Pennington did not bring waders. (It is raining heavily today)
PUBLIC COMMENT- Mike Hall – asked for clarification on deed fee’s just approved. Descriptions of easements do not get this fee. People may want to consolidate legal descriptions to get lower fees. Though he said $5 is not very much. Pennington said this also affects sheriff’s sales.
Meeting adjourned at 11:00 AM
Christine Brauer Mueller
Lawrenceburg Township
Present: Jeff Hughes, President, Tom Orschell, and Shane McHenry
Also present: Gayle Pennington, Auditor, Bill Ewbank, County Coordinator, and, Andy Baudendistel, Attorney.
Executive session preceding this meeting regarding a Med Ben claim. Commissioners decided to deny the claim at the main meeting.
OLD BUSINESS
1. Purchasing Agent Ordinance- After revisions requested by commissioners and review by county attorney, Baudendistel read the ordinance into the record. Can’t bind commissioners for more than one year or more than $25,000. Lost one county court and added an additional superior court was also reflected in this. Commissioners approved. Twelve additional purchasing agents approved on a yearly basis to these approved by code- Elected officials, county engineer, circuit and superior judge, county highway supervisor. This was approved and will go into effect in 30 days.
2. Dennis Kraus, Jr.- County Surveyor presenting as a private surveyor: Nolte Road- said there was not a whole lot of information on this. He did bring an aerial to show this. County maintains to the end of Gilbert Nolte’s niece’s property. The last several feet are not paved. He has been approached as a private surveyor regarding this. They are looking for something from the commissioners to say they believe this is an apparent ROW. He briefly researched county records in the 1980s. They went back to the 1920s. then the roads were not mentioned by name but by petitioner. By walking it you can tell it was the access to the property. There is also evidence where it went down to the creek, where Roberts Road connected to it from SR 62. There are cabins that are using Nolte for access. Roberts Road runs along the creek and would take equipment to access. There are gates with multiple locks on the gates. Nolte has not been vacated since the 1920’s. He’s not sure if it’s an old trustee road. Those old trustee roads were given to the county for maintenance.
Baudendistel thought it would be prudent to have a survey completed for the apparent ROW before signing off on this. The county will not pay for this – the owner of the properties will pay for this. Kraus, Jr. will research this more with county records. He will present survey to the board and have a written request from his client.
Gayle Pennington asked Kraus, Jr. to come in a fill out a conflict of interest form as he is assuming two roles for this request. He agreed to do that.
NEW BUSINESS
1. Investment Policy Resolution - Baudendistel presented this resolution. Primary objectives will be 1st- safety, 2nd -liquidity, and 3rd- yield and return. Investments shall be made with judgment and care – using the prudence rule. He then listed 8 different funds. They shall only use approved institutions. They will use the bidding process as outlined. At maturity or liquidation – monies will only be invested as stated by this policy. Commissioners approved.
COMMISSIONERS RECESSED BRIEFLY-FOR McHENRY TO HANDLE A PERSONAL FAMILY EMERGENCY.
2. Barb Kaffenberger- Treasurer- Personal Property collections- Thanked commissioners for their investment policies. She went on to state there was over $1-2 million going back 10 years owed to the county. Noel Williams was introduced of American Financial Credit Services. In business since 1993. They have worked with treasurers in the state since 2001. This occurs at no charge to the county. There is a 27% collection fee that the taxpayer who owes the money pays. They are looking to take on just the last few years before looking back 10 whole years. They may also work for the demand notices. They are set up so they can see a complete audit of how they handle the county accounts. The state statute says this rate has to be deemed reasonable- and it has been. Their history of collections has been good and they handle it well. They have never been sued and have collected $40 million on 60 accounts in the state. Occasionally they reduce their fee based on the taxpayer’s ability to pay.
Hughes asked if the sheriff is supposed to collect taxes. They can issue a demand and if not paid in 30 days the assessor has the right to seize the property. Our assessor refuses to do that. Noel Williams said usually the county hopes to NOT get into that process. They prefer to use this method instead. They do this with the medical accounts that they service as well. Baudendistel read the agreement and has no problems. He says there is an adequate termination process.
Tammy White SBOA certifies their demand thru certified judgment process. They also have a fair debt lawyer on staff. Commissioners approved using this company – American Financial Credit Services. Hughes abstained with no reason given for abstention.
3. Compensation Ordinance- Hughes said he’d researched this some time ago- and he gave Shane a copy. He thinks we have lost track of what property rights are here. He cited a property decision of ours made in Jennings County and the manufacturing use of Ag land. He quoted Jefferson and Madison. He talked about Kelo vs. New London.
He said a former commissioner told him the county couldn’t afford to pay this difference.
Both McHenry and Orschell said they needed more time to look at it and it will be costly.
The commissioners tabled this for further review.
A member of the audience also brought up the land use plan recently enacted. Commissioners wanted to get this published and get comments and they will get a PC member involved as well.
4. Planning Commission Regulations Discussion (Classifications)- Mark McCormack. Planning Director- talked about the new districts added- Ag Residential, Single family Residential, and Multifamily residential. They propose to eliminate highway interchange as a separate district. Hughes wants the minimum district sizes to take away. Zoning committee will meet again in mid May ( 18th) to discuss this further. Indiana is changing planning code procedures. We will have to change to be compatible with this. Hughes brought up off site sign rules as hampering business. McCormack said more research is needed on this. Mike Hall PC Chairman said that we have to look at the district size- because we are not getting big Honda businesses here. We can fit these smaller ones in and have the infrastructure in place. There are larger land areas- but they have no infrastructure in place. Hughes said that he wants to see where commissioners stand on this. He said with this economic climate we need to promote jobs. McCormack asked for a copy for PC members. He cited legalities like the Nolan or Dolan cases. He said we need to be sure any ordinance is legally defensible. Hughes said he wants to be sure a person can use his land to benefit the community or himself. McCormack said it still has to be legally defensible at the state and federal levels also. No reason to enact a law that isn’t.
HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT- Todd Listerman gave the following report:
Drew Barth of Howard Barth and Associates- was introduced to talk about replacing the small structure on lower Dillsboro Road. It requires a DNR permit and it lies within wetlands that are forested. They revised project boundaries to stay within existing roadway corridor to avoid problems. DNR responded with environmental concerns still on the revised plan. DNR will not allow riprap on slopes to control erosion. They want a concrete spillway or a flat way to allow animals to cross under the bridge. These will increase the cost of the project thru additional ROW acquisitions, etc. They will ask to hold a meeting with DNR that commissioners can attend. They want to see if they can work through these issues. This would be his advice to them before paying all the costs. Orschell said- well at least they didn’t ask for a wheelchair ramp.
Listerman opened bids for new salt building that are over budget and will require a new wage rate hearing . He wants to reject all bids and modify the building and rebid. Commissioners rejected bids.
Still trying to meet with last property owner on North Dearborn Road. They hope to have it shelf ready by the end of the year for 2012-13 construction.
Need approval for offer letters for temporary property use of Irwin property to get it for the Shortridge Bridge construction. Approved.
Council meeting May 24th- he would like permission to approach them for line striping for roads for 1000 vpd or more again. Many are fairly faded. He will get a cost estimate to present to come out of account 172 RR account.
They are looking for tandem axel trucks (3) and tractors(3) to be replaced at one per year each for the next 3 years.
Listerman is contacting the hiring board of Council Barrett, Hughes, and Kraus, Sr. for temp intern help in the summer for sign inventory and 2 seasonal mowing helpers. These are $11.50 positions with no benefits. Grieve added that he was going to try to not hire for maintenance- and try to muddle through.
AUDITOR- Gayle Pennington- Commissioners approved claims and March 22nd joint Council Commissioners meeting minutes.
Pennington opened discussion on the Sidwell GIS software claim. It was for $12,779 and this was to be held until the work was finished. Pennington negotiated with her all along. They have complied with everything and training is scheduled with 2nd meeting in May. They will set up a portable classroom for a couple days. Penningon is satisfied that they will meet their obligations. Commissioners want her to hold this till training is completed.
COUNTY ATTORNEY- Andy Baudendistel- The Auditor can collect $5 fee for each real property endorsement. They enacted an ordinance to allow this and the fees will go to a plat book maintenance ordinance. This will go on agenda for next meeting. They can sign it at the next meeting.
COUNTY COORDINATOR- Bill Ewbank- has a request to amend the minutes where you adopted a change to the county’s maps. These reflect the details of why they are digitizing them as well. Approved.
Two more special meetings today- 11 AM and 2 PM at Happy Hollow Road. Ewbank will take minutes at the Happy Hollow site as Pennington did not bring waders. (It is raining heavily today)
PUBLIC COMMENT- Mike Hall – asked for clarification on deed fee’s just approved. Descriptions of easements do not get this fee. People may want to consolidate legal descriptions to get lower fees. Though he said $5 is not very much. Pennington said this also affects sheriff’s sales.
Meeting adjourned at 11:00 AM
Christine Brauer Mueller
Lawrenceburg Township
Sunday, April 17, 2011
St. Leon Public Meeting
The St. Leon Plan & Zone Commission will hold a public meeting to review a DRAFT update of the St. Leon Zoning Map on Wednesday, May 4th, 2011 at the Post 464 American Legion. The Plan Commission public hearing is set to begin at 7:30pm; however, the DRAFT zoning map is not scheduled to be reviewed and discussed with the public until decisions have been rendered for all other case-sensitive items that are on the agenda.
The Plan Commission, staff, and consultant will review the DRAFT zoning map proposal and will field and address questions, comments, concerns and recommendations from the community. All interested parties may obtain an agenda or staff report for this meeting by visiting the Dearborn County Department of Planning & Zoning office—located on the third floor of the Administration building—or by accessing these items online at the following website: www.stleon.us
Background
For the past 4 years, the St. Leon Plan & Zone Commission and Town Council have been working with staff and consultant Joe Rathz to prepare updates to the Town’s zoning and subdivision control ordinances and the community’s zoning map. The previous ordinances and map were originally adopted in 1993. In November of 2010, the St. Leon Town Council adopted updated to the zoning and subdivision control ordinances—following 3 years of work and public hearings administered by the Plan Commission. In the past 6 months, the St. Leon Plan Commission has moved forward with the final portion of the zoning update process, allowing for the creation of a map to be discussed with the public for input and feedback prior to any formal review and action by the affected Town boards.
Public Review & Comment
Hard copies of the draft Zoning Map and the current Zoning Map will be on display for public review at the Dearborn County Department of Planning & Zoning as well as the Town of St. Leon offices. Digital copies of the both documents may also be obtained online at www.stleon.us. Public comment forms are also available—both online and at the Dearborn County Planning & Zoning Office—for those who would like to forward written comments or for individuals who may not be able to attend the May 4th meeting.
FOR: IMMEDIATE RELEASE
April 13, 2011
CONTACT:
Mark McCormack, Director of Planning & Zoning
Dearborn County Plan Commission
(812) 537-8821
mmccormack@dearborncounty.in.gov
The Plan Commission, staff, and consultant will review the DRAFT zoning map proposal and will field and address questions, comments, concerns and recommendations from the community. All interested parties may obtain an agenda or staff report for this meeting by visiting the Dearborn County Department of Planning & Zoning office—located on the third floor of the Administration building—or by accessing these items online at the following website: www.stleon.us
Background
For the past 4 years, the St. Leon Plan & Zone Commission and Town Council have been working with staff and consultant Joe Rathz to prepare updates to the Town’s zoning and subdivision control ordinances and the community’s zoning map. The previous ordinances and map were originally adopted in 1993. In November of 2010, the St. Leon Town Council adopted updated to the zoning and subdivision control ordinances—following 3 years of work and public hearings administered by the Plan Commission. In the past 6 months, the St. Leon Plan Commission has moved forward with the final portion of the zoning update process, allowing for the creation of a map to be discussed with the public for input and feedback prior to any formal review and action by the affected Town boards.
Public Review & Comment
Hard copies of the draft Zoning Map and the current Zoning Map will be on display for public review at the Dearborn County Department of Planning & Zoning as well as the Town of St. Leon offices. Digital copies of the both documents may also be obtained online at www.stleon.us. Public comment forms are also available—both online and at the Dearborn County Planning & Zoning Office—for those who would like to forward written comments or for individuals who may not be able to attend the May 4th meeting.
FOR: IMMEDIATE RELEASE
April 13, 2011
CONTACT:
Mark McCormack, Director of Planning & Zoning
Dearborn County Plan Commission
(812) 537-8821
mmccormack@dearborncounty.in.gov
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Agenda for April 19th Commissioners Meeting
AGENDA DEARBORN COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING
April 19, 2011 9:00 a.m.
City of Lawrenceburg Administration Building
230 Walnut Street,
Lawrenceburg, Indiana
NOTE: There are two more special meetings at 11 and 2 to discuss Langley Heights and Happy Hollow
EXECUTIVE SESSION 8:30 - Med Ben Appeal
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
III. OLD BUSINESS
1. Purchasing Agent Ordinance
2. Dennis Kraus, Jr. - Surveyor : Nolte Road
IV. NEW BUSINESS
1. Investment Policy
2. Barb Kaffenberger - Personal Property Collections
3. Compensation Ordinance 4. Planning Commission Regulations Discussion (Classifications)
V. HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT- Todd Listerman Updates
VI. AUDITOR – Gayle Pennington
1. Claims/Minutes
VII. ATTORNEY - Andy Baudendistel
VIII. COUNTY COORDINATOR – Bill Ewbank
IX. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
X. LATE ARRIVAL INFORMATION
XI. PUBLIC COMMENT
XII. ADJOURN
April 19, 2011 9:00 a.m.
City of Lawrenceburg Administration Building
230 Walnut Street,
Lawrenceburg, Indiana
NOTE: There are two more special meetings at 11 and 2 to discuss Langley Heights and Happy Hollow
EXECUTIVE SESSION 8:30 - Med Ben Appeal
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
III. OLD BUSINESS
1. Purchasing Agent Ordinance
2. Dennis Kraus, Jr. - Surveyor : Nolte Road
IV. NEW BUSINESS
1. Investment Policy
2. Barb Kaffenberger - Personal Property Collections
3. Compensation Ordinance 4. Planning Commission Regulations Discussion (Classifications)
V. HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT- Todd Listerman Updates
VI. AUDITOR – Gayle Pennington
1. Claims/Minutes
VII. ATTORNEY - Andy Baudendistel
VIII. COUNTY COORDINATOR – Bill Ewbank
IX. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
X. LATE ARRIVAL INFORMATION
XI. PUBLIC COMMENT
XII. ADJOURN
Tuesday, April 05, 2011
5 April 2011 Dearborn County Commissioners Meeting Notes
5 April 2011 Dearborn County Commissioners Meeting Notes Present: Jeff Hughes, President, Tom Orschell, and Shane McHenry Also present: Gayle Pennington, Auditor, Bill Ewbank, County Coordinator, and, Andy Baudendistel, Attorney. OLD BUSINESS: Purchasing agent ordinance- discussed at the last 2 commissioners meetings. What was in place is 25K for supplies and unlimited for services. . In place since 6/25/98. Also – agreements or contracts couldn’t last more than 1 year was added later. Baudendistel was directed to draft it using 25 K limit for supplies and for services. Ewbank suggested they also specify that the law specifies who is in charge when the dept.head is unavailable. He will work with Baudendistel on the draft. Tabled till next meeting. NEW BUSINESS: Discussion on private web link policy – Hughes brought this up he doesn’t want to advertize or play favorites with individuals on their sites. Orschell cited that the county websites had Perfect North Slopes, Hollywood Casino, The Lawrenceburg Speedway, the Register, The journal Press, Eagle Radio WSCH, and the Dearborn County Public Forum links on them. Other commissioners agreed. Discussion about Facebook usage during county time centered on having the dept heads control this. Baudendistel will bring a resolution to the next meeting limiting links to gov’t only ones. Discussion on return of investment for Chamber Administrative Agreement- Mike Rozow showed us all his Butler T-shirt – first in our hearts if not first in the nation and he said he was class of 1969. This is his 3rd year on Econ Development Initiative and Redevelopment Commission. One is for product development and the other to finance it. Maynard Barrett is the non- voting person from Council who sits on Redevelopment. They hired Paul Kunkel- civil engineer- from Cinti State and Ivy Tech long distance learning for his degree in Business Administration. They helped St. Leon with Jim Kinnett as their consultant working on an outline of where they want business to go. They are also in the SEI growth alliance. They have been concentrating also on the West Harrison site. Because of the sensitive nature of talking about some of these projects, they have not come to Commissioners with plans before. They have 3 companies right now- Project Fortis from Boone County ( sp?) 3 new jobs in 3 years 6.2 mil – 6200-100,000 sq ft bldg- closing on it Apr 14. Project Hirlinger- 140 new jobs (120 immediately)- 18 mil over 3 years. Project Bessle (sp?)- 75 new jobs- 500 possible- east coast from NJ- $8 mill – 8,000-100,000 sq ft. they want to move 5 other of their businesses to Dearborn County. $ 32,550,000 investment over 3 years. Fortis will be in Greendale and Bessle will be in Lawrenceburg, so no county investment. Meeting with a 4th company- on a consolidation/expansion. Not talking further about that at this point. Orschell glad the county committed to sewer the Harrison TIF. Hirlinger got a $150,000 L-bg match for the county’s money. $4million payroll a year and so $750,000 for the county coffers. It was asked how shovel ready was defined. Kinnett said there was a lot of paperwork involved. It was noted that the utilities and infrastructure need to really be there- as most want to have them already in place. Cindy Luchow asked about the types of companies that are coming in. Rozow noted that a lot of these are bringing jobs into the area- especially the Bessle project. Greg Townsend- Nolte Road ROW- has listed 177 acres in Farmers Retreat from the Larson estate. Mark Gindler representing a NC buyer and they need verification of the ROW. Nolte Road- pavement ends and gravel begins and there are two gates along this road. Other owners are from Cincinnati. He brought in 1875 atlas, assessor records etc. In some of the deeds Nolte Road is mentioned. Potential buyer won’t place a bid unless he has documentation of legal access to the property. Descendents in North Dakota told him he could cut the locks off the gates to access. Other property owner was not happy about that. Kraus Jr told him the county maintained it to the end of the pavement. Listerman email said 0.07 mile with a gate at 250 ft. past end of pavement. Wenzel talked to owner. There was no vacation of the old road. He needs to hire a surveyor and an attorney to have an official access easement recorded. Gayle Pennington told him the minutes are in auditor’s office. Orschell said he would get with Art Wenzel and get back to him (Greg Townsend) Investment Policy- Umbaugh and Associates– these resolutions were developed after the presentation to Council and Commissioners previously. The County is having trouble finding safe and decent rates for county funds due to banking rules since the economic meltdown.. Baudendistel read both resolutions into the public record and commissioners approved both. Treasurer Barb Kaffenberger was present for this. Resolution CDAR- 5-13-9-5 and 5.3 allows the county to invest public money in these CDAR funds per state laws. Resolution Hoosier Fund- allows interlocal agreement to invest public funds in additional investment options. US Bank as custodian. Treasurer also involved. Medical Reserve Corps – Resolution- determining which dept will house the MRC, i.e. MRC is under the Health Board and Ginny Daum in charge. HIGHWAY DEPT- Todd Listerman- no updates-Listerman not present. AUDITOR- Gayle Pennington- Congressional School Fund was turned over to the state in Dec 2009 and this is the last annual report to sign on this as those funds are dissolved. Commissioners approved and signed the $0 balance report. St. Leon EMS $24,000 contract signed. Claims and March 1st minutes and March 15th signed. In the maintenance dept- the assessors and GIS servers have been added to this room. Even with the exhaust fan servers go down due to heat. It will take $6-7,000 to cool this room. Pennington doesn’t think that the maintenance dept should have to foot the entire bill. She will approach Council to get funding reimbursed to Rick Hartman for that dept. Cum Courthouse might be able to be used for this. Commissioners approved this as an emergency situation. Payment voucher for lobbyist services- John Frick and Associates- Pickens signed this contract thru most of 2011 from 2009. An intern sends the laws related to us – no real personal touch per McHenry. Maynard Barrett gets some emails from them for Council. Pennington has not received the ones that used to go to Pickens. It costs $6,000 per month. They are checking into this!!! Commissioners said that we have 2 lobbysists- this one and Lewes and Kappes. Barnes and Thornburgh are no longer lobbyists. ATTORNEY- Andy Baudendistel- 2 new tort claims received. He also said he won’t be able to go to PAWS shelter this week. Orschell will relay his regrets to PAWS. COUNTY COORDINATOR- Bill Ewbank- request for Lifetime Resources to get an extension of 3 months for an owner occupied Community Development Block Grant for rehab for Dearborn County. They have some staffing issues due to some leaving for health reasons. Commissioners approved the extension. Assessor sent a message for new construction bids- CLT Tyler Tech for $46,000 which is $15,000 less than previous one. Resolution with Listerman and McCormack on the Happy Hollow ROW property differences. They will meet with Commissioners when that happens. May have it for an afternoon special meeting after a regular meeting. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS- Orschell recognized Johnnie Stegemiller, a nurse with Health dept who retired. LATE ARRIVAL INFORMATION- John Moore discussed land between him and Mr Kerns in Langley Heights. Moore says it devalues his property the way the county worked it. Roger Woodfill, surveyor, looked at it. Woodfill joked that he had forgotten to wear his Purdue T-shirt- as an aside to Rozow’s Butler Univ one earlier. Woodfill went on to say he wrote a letter Sept 10 and again in March suggesting a better way to vacate the streets in Langley Heights. He suggested full 50 ft ROWs. It was platted in 1890s in horse and buggy days. Vacating existing lots lines and redraw the entire plat and all sign off on this plat. There were no monuments, iron pins up there when he investigated. He wanted commissioners to do the plat and get it to modern day standards. Moore did note that other property and other neighbors are in court he thinks over it. Why is Kern a developer who doesn’t live here get favored over a resident who lives here? Orschell is in favor of taking a 2nd look. Hughes said he didn’t vote for the original ROW decision. They will look into it. Orschell will get with County Surveyor and Art Wenzel. He and Shane will make a site visit as well. Bill Ewbank will coordinate that. PUBLIC COMMENT Phil Darling-Guilford- asked how much we pay Lewes and Kappes lobbyists- answer was about $28,000 a year. He stressed that he was glad as a taxpayer to see that we were getting this changed. Cindy Luchow- noted there was a lot of property at the base of Pribble Road for sale. She noted how much cleaner it was now that the correctional dept cleaned it up. Ewbank said that the road crews from Community Corrections are getting out again as its spring again. Meeting adjourned at 7:45 PM Christine Brauer Mueller Lawrenceburg Township
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)