Friday, February 26, 2016

AGENDA March 1st 8:30 AM Commissioners Meeting

March 1, 2016
8:30 a.m., Commissioners Room
County Administration Building
215 B West High Street, Lawrenceburg, Indiana

I.          CALL TO ORDER

            Title VI Nondiscrimination Plan & Policy

            1.  Children’s Advocacy Center Subrecipient Semi-Annual Report – Sarah Brichto

            2.  Health Department – Mary Calhoun
                        1.  Fee Increase Update
                        2.  Grant Application
            3.  EMPG Salary Reimbursement Grant – EMA Director, Jason Sullivan

            4.  Resolution for Statewide Court Case Mgmt System – Clerk of Courts, Rick Probst
            5.  Agreement w/DCH & DC Regarding PulsePoint Services

V.        ADMINISTRATOR – Terri Randall
VI.        AUDITOR – Gayle Pennington
            1.  Claims/Minutes



XI.        ADJOURN

Tuesday, February 23, 2016

23 February 2016 Dearborn County Council Meeting Notes

  23 February 2016 Dearborn County Council Meeting Notes

Present: Liz Morris, President, Dennis Kraus. Sr., Dan Lansing, Charlie Keyes, Ryan Brandt, Alan Goodman, and Bill Ullrich. 

Also present: Gayle Pennington, Auditor and Teresa Randall, County Administrator

Liz Morris - said that she wants to have all questions or comments at the microphone as a policy from here on. 

PROSECUTOR – Aaron Negangard - Corrisoft Software - wants to be part of a few counties in the state to be part of a pilot project for child support. This company is very good at employing people even those with felony offenses. He wants to use this program to have people owing child support get jobs to pay the support. Dearborn, Vanderburg, Boone Counties have been asked to be part of this pilot project. He thinks this can be done in lieu of jail for non payment of support. Incentive money goes to the clerk, the prosecutor, and the county. Now that money can only be used for child support. there is $90,000 in that fund and he wants $50,000 of that to use for this project for one year. If our collections increase, so does our incentive money. He will serve about 25 people with this $50,000. The tracking software will ferret out if someone is working under the table. They get contacted 2-3 times a day thru the tracking system. There shouldn't be an excuse as to why they can’t get to their job. Disability payments can be used to support the children in some cases depending on which type of disability payment they have. They are looking for people who is able bodied and unemployed for this program. Ullrich motion and Lansing 2nded. Passed.  

REDEVELOPMENT – Jim Deaton -  2nd reading The verbatim reading is not required at this meeting as they read it at the January meeting. Tom Pippin from Barnes and Thornburg is present to explain the ordinances he authored. The county would have no liability on the bonds. The DCRC would. The series A ones for Skally’s who  would produce  a TIF stream. If they don't do the activity that produces the money, then etc county does not owe them a dime. Max of $800,000 principle and can only be paid off with 65% of the TIF taxes. The other 35% goes to the TIF funds for DCRC. After 10 years this is paid and then 15 more years of TIF money goes to the DCRC TIF funds. 
The 2nd on is $3million paid from the real property tax TIF stream. the incentive is provided to West Harrison LLC. It has access to chunks of the incentive as it brings projects to the DCRC and they get approved by the DCRC. In a sense it is a conditional relationship. There were economies to the county. The developer is not entitled to the incentive unless approved by DCRC. The access to the funding kicks in only when a project is assessed and approved. Kraus asked if the construction would be taxable property. Yes. 
Kraus 8 business locations with buildings available now- Why are we wanting to build now? 
Randall- not aware of any locations. 
Council - in the county or the cities?
Goodman said- that every project has to be approved by DCRC. Yes. 
Lansing said- he would like to see term limits for jobs and staying there. Not talking about Skally’s they have irons in the fire. I;m talking about the other building project. I want to make sure the is in place before we go any further 
Kraus- if we approve this tonite we will have $12,200,000 worth of incentives out there. The incentives are 10 years but the revenues are 25 years before the other taxing entities benefit. 
Goodman- hoping more COIT and other taxes and jobs. And more house being built. Then the schools will have to open as more students come in. 

Goodman motioned and Ullrich 2nd, All ayes except for KRAUS NAY.

Ullrich motioned saying try their bagels at Meijers and Goodman 2nd. All ayes. 

HEALTH DEPT – Dr. Scudder/Mary Calhoun
New Ordinances - Mary Scudder contacted 6-7 other public health depts. We were out of line and now the health board approved the new fee schedule. Money generated goes to the health fund. This will help with the recent shortfall in the health fund. ( in answer to Ryan Brandt’s question) Goodman abstained from discussion or voting as he sits on this board. Kraus motioned and Lansing 2nd . All ayes. Goodman abstained.

Heath Dept wants to pursue a grant for rural health care. This company contacted them regarding what they pay for broadband and phone service. They will pay for 50% of what the county pays. It’s federal money- but NO match. It runs July 1- June 30. This company does all the paperwork. Ullrich motioned and Kraus 2nd. All ayes with Goodman abstaining. 

FUNDING - Source for the annex building. ($10,925,000) In the August meeting they ( Council) approved the funding. $275,000 was approved also at that time. Brandt wants to see it funded with cash or savings- no bonds. Brandt motioned to fund it out of infrastructure fund 49.4. Keyes says he is for it- but we really need to start determining our future. Out RR is going down over $3million since he’s been on Council. Down about $900,000 a year. This is the worst budget wise that our county has ever looked. I’ve heard from our senators and reps that they will not be able to protect our riverboat funds. I don’t think anyone realized how bad this is or what these numbers were. We will only have $2million left after this.
Lansing half of what we spend is RR. And now we are draining it.
 Brandt says this is something that should have been acted on sooner than we have been acting on it. Would you rather spend $10 million on a building or $50million for a lawsuit? 
Lansing- we always hear about these lawsuits… 
Kraus - the insurance pays for the lawsuits. 
Ullrich- hoping we have other entities helping to get funds.
Kraus- we are paying a Construction manager ( Maxwell) who recommended 21,000 sq ft and now it is 36,000 sq ft. building. 
Morris said Maxwell is a CM and is a man of integrity and I feel comfortable with him managing this. He does good work. 
Terri Randall- I don’t have the numbers so I am not prepared to discuss that. But we did do all this discussion before. This board voted to do this and we agreed to disagree on some of this. This board can meet with the architect next week. If you want to go over the square footage.{Note: Pointless.] The motion was not to exceed the $10,925.000. That is not the budget- it was $11,200,000. We used $275,000 of this. We will give updates periodically. 
Brandt motioned and Ullrich 2nd to fund out of infrastructure fund 49.4 Votes were 4 ayes and two nays Lansing and Kraus. 

BUDGET - Transfers to repair 2016 budget cuts- Morris went on at length about the approved budget falling to this low level. The cuts were made for the $1.9 million last month Now we need to restore the amounts from other funds. Pennington said we cut the funds from General Fund and the items we cut are still needed. Tires, gas, etc. Keyes- We thought we were getting $9 million and we only got $7 million. Pennington- we will get event center taxes now that Lawrenceburg doesn’t own it. But we lose I & M per Lansing. Kraus says we need to take it of riverboat  growth and development funds and rainy day funds. 

Kevin Lynch- taxpayer- we need to either raise funds or cut costs. I challenge Council to identify areas where potential cuts can be made. I think we need to take a really strong look at areas where cost savings can be made. [NOTE: OK- now explain to me how the commissioners just asked for all this money to spend on the annex and redevelopment and now he calls himself a taxpayer and says this!??]

COMMISSIONERS – Terri Randall - Annex Project- $500,000 needed as a draw down. Since it is already funded tonight. I am to work with the auditor and put these draw downs into the commissioners budget to start paying bills. The investment rate on this is really small- but we should still try to not transfer money until needed. She wants to know how they want her to work this. 
Pennington said there is a difference between approving a NTE ( Not To Exceed) and an appropriation. The approval is in the line item of riverboat revenue. Not commissioners budget.
Randall asked for the $500,000 appropriation and she will work with the construction manager ( maxwell) to work on a timeline to get them advertised for Council meetings as needed. 
Kraus asked if the Council will get monthly statements on annex budget. 
Randall said she can have the spreadsheet sent to you monthly. If you want to see more detail then we can tweak that. The next May meeting is OK with Randall for the next appropriation. 
Keyes asked for the final costs on jail to be sent to all of them. Goodman motioned and Brandt 2nd for the $500,000. All ayes with Kraus and Lansing Nayes, 

PARK BOARD – Jim Red Elk
Repair/Maint. Bldg. & Grounds $6,000 requested. Kraus motioned for $4000 and if need more, come back. Ullrich 2nd. All ayes with Lansing Nay.
BM Park Improvements- Lansing motioned and Ullrich 2nd to approved them all below for $10,300.  All ayes. 
GR Park Improve
CF Air Compressor
Guilford Improve

PLANNING AND ZONING – Mark McCormack- not present. Discussion on Dillsboro Interlocal- Lansing said they got a computer given to them by 911 and they will get $7200 up front and they will do the final $2800 if needed for the total $10,000. 80% is for part time help of the $7200. 
Kraus said- there may be some strings attached to that computer from 911. 
Lansing said that the project for 911 has to be done by June or July. Pennington said that 911 gave them a computer so they can get an intern in there. Goodman motioned. Only 2 counties in the state without centerline data. This goes back to Cary Pickens days. The company hired did not get it done. Big mess. Andrea is looking into using the perpetuation fund to contract this out. Schneider does a lot of work like this for other counties. That will take care of the 911 work maybe.
Goodman motioned and Ullrich 2nd. all ayes to approve the interlocal agreement. 

AUDITOR – Gayle Pennington

Discuss alternate on the PAC committee- Morris wants an alternate for her or Kraus to be Brandt in case she or he is unavailable. Approved. 

Minutes from January 26, 2016- approved

Create line item in PUF budget for Superior Court. to fund a salary from probation user fees for JCAP. Ullrich motioned and Goodman 2nd . All ayes. 

Amendment to the salary ordinance- Humphrey takes $25,000 out of his budget for guardian ad litem. GAL line in Circuit Court budget – Beth Blair $5,762.00 increase to $6,762.00 This was approved- but one employee is getting a $1,000 raise. Still within budgeted $25,000. Goodman motioned and Kraus 2nd All ayes. Ohio County helps fund this per Pennington. There are two GALs running the dept. the actual GALS are volunteers.

Morris said Safe Passage thanked Council for $5,000 in budget

Meeting adjourned at 8:22 PM
Christine Brauer Mueller

Lawrenceburg Township Meeting

Friday, February 19, 2016

AGENDA - February 22 Plan Commission

AGENDA - February 22 Plan Commission

AGENDA February 23 Council Meeting

Tuesday, February 23, 2016
6:30 p.m., Commissioners Room
County Administration Building
215 B West High Street, Lawrenceburg, Indiana


PROSECUTOR – Aaron Negangard
Corrisoft Software

REDEVELOPMENT – Jim Deaton 2nd reading 
HEALTH DEPT – Dr. Scudder/Mary Calhoun
New Ordinances

FUNDING - Source for the annex building. ($10,925,000) 

BUDGET - Transfers to repair 2016 budget cuts

Annex Project

PARK BOARD – Jim Red Elk
Repair/Maint. Bldg. & Grounds
BM Park Improvements
GR Park Improve
CF Air Compressor
Guilford Improve

Discussion on Dillsboro Interlocal

AUDITOR – Gayle Pennington
Discuss alternate on the PAC committee
Minutes from January 26, 2016
Create line item in PUF budget for Superior Ct.
Amendment to the salary ordinance
GAL line in Circuit Court budget – Beth Blair $5,762.00 increase to $6,762.00


Thursday, February 18, 2016

Indiana Law Blog - recap of IN Supreme Court judge interviews

Dearborn County's two candidates for the state supreme court are interviewed today February 18. Professor Joel Schumm has recapped each interview so far on the Indiana Law Blog.

Scroll down on that page to see the daily recaps.

Wednesday, February 17, 2016

Bright 74 Connector Website and Online Survey- Meeting TONIGHT Feb 17

Bright 74 Connector Website and Online Survey

First of 3 Public Meetings is Tonight - Feb 17-  at East Central HS in the Performing Arts Center as an Open House from 4-7PM

Bright 74 Connector Website and online survey for Phase 1

December 18, 2015 minutes from Bright 74 Advisory Group Meeting

Tuesday, February 16, 2016

2016 Dearborn County Commissioners Meeting Notes

2016 Dearborn County Commissioners Meeting Notes

Present: Shane McHenry, President, Art Little, and Kevin Lynch

Also present: Gayle Pennington, Auditor, Andy Baudendistel, Attorney, and Terri Randall, Administrator

911 Board appointment- Jared Teaney said the board had recommended someone from Bright and one from Manchester to replace Glen Brandt who retired. Jason Eckhoff from Bright was approved as that area needed representation on the board. 
To fix the overabundance of 3 reps from Aurora- they removed Josh Dogherty( sp?) from there an put in police chief Combs from Lawrenceburg. They also approved overlapping terms on the board. 

National Day of Prayer May 5- Connie Riegel- requested the Courthouse Lawn to pray for the nation at noon. Approved. She invited them to join the prayer group. 

Child Support Pilot Project- Aaron Negangard- there is an accumulation of $90,000 in this fund that can only be spent for child support. He wants to use $50,000 of this to enter into this pilot project. There is a company that is successful in getting felons employed. They are successful in keeping them monitored by GPS. They think if this is  successful project then they can seek additional money thru the state to fund this. This is to get non- payers in the child support into paying. A representative of the company then spoke about the fact that they only had one criminal arrest out of the 250 they monitor. They work together to get a business model that qualifies for funds. They are starting in Vanderburgh and Boone counties soon. They are working with noncustodial parents in a TITLE IV D case with young children. The goal is to get them to pay current support and pay the arrears also. There is a bit of crossover with the criminal population. They are experience with that population also. They have a network of employers here that work with them on employment. Approved the $50,000 and the contract. Shane McHenry abstained form any discussion or voting to avoid conflict of interest.

CASA Update and Grant approvals- Donna Thacker- went over the programs they have done through the year for citizens against substance abuse. They did a skateboard camp to reach kids who don’t participate in other sports and were averaging 75 a night. The more the adults hung out with the youth, the more the bad elements reduced. They now have program to be more present there. They are also doing survey on recovering people in another program. they get money for countermeasure programs- these programs have less money to give so she is asking for the county to try to contribute. McHenry suggested she approach Liz Morris and he will meet too to see what they might be able to do. He will help coordinate with Liz. All 92 counties get money based on countermeasures they do. She said this would be precedent setting. Pennington verified fro McvHenry that the county cut almost 1 million before budget and had to cut another $1.9million as required by the state. The commissioners all appreciated CASA’s results, but…they would see what they can do. Thacker talked on about recovery programs- but how are you going to get them there? You have to acknowledge that a program doesn’t fix it- you have to work on it for the rest of your life. Approved the grant as received.

Surveyor Dennis Kraus, Jr. - Storm Water Discussion and approval to approach Council- This storm water has been worked on and it is pretty general. Eric Lang thinks they (Eric, himself, and Amy) can do the ordinance in-house ( he’s the new Plan Commission member) They need mechanism to inspect drainage systems set up in developments. There is no interval or policy to inspect yet. He also wants to approach Council for money to hire an outside firm to review some of these plans. About $5,000-10,000 to only be used as needed.) Baudendistel said they had done some things before with Drainage Board. He was OK with getting together with them to set this up. Commissioners approved him seeking money form Council and trying to set up this mechanism. Kraus said it was a matter of time and expertise in his office. Lynch asked if he was a licensed surveyor. He also asked if he was working to get that license. Kraus said he stays up to date with seminars though they do not help toward credits to get licensed. Kraus has a local surveyor who always dedicates his time for this. Lynch pushed Kraus to consider getting licensed. 
Kraus also asked to discuss a new county map soon- the last one is 2003.

Zoning Administrator Nicole Daily- Update on Blight Elimination Program and Invitation to Media 
Day for Demolition in Aurora- this will be on 536 Green Blvd- US 50 in Aurora near the Road Dog Gas Station. They wanted to use one thetis very visible. They have 4 more to go in the 1st round. They have about 6 homes in the 2nd round. 

DCH Board of Trustee appointee- Robert Schroeder as recommended by Hospital Board was approved.

ADMINISTRATOR- Terri Randall: Non voting school board member for DC Redevelopment Commission- Dusty Burress had some personal circumstances that prevented him from coming to the meetings. (for two years!?)

Jamie Graf was recommended by the school board fir DCRC and commissioners approved him.

Title VI Non discrimination policy and plan- tabled as it was not ready yet per Randall.

AUDITOR- Gayle Pennington- Claims and Feb 2 minutes were approved as corrected to show Jeff Lane as being from Aurora, not Dillsboro. 

Financial annual report- been uploaded to the GATEWAY on state site for public viewing.

ATTORNEY- Andy Baudendistel- $13,260 with a $3,000 discount per year for Schneider Corp to run the Beacon site for Tax assessors. There is an early termination clause should they need it. It is in the budget. 

He has been meeting with Mark McCormack to have an ordinance for public utilities when they are constructing things that are over 60 ft tall. Insurance and bond coverage is part of this. 

Lynch- commend highway dept for road clearing this month. They did a great job. They continue to deliver. Tomorrow is the first public open house at EC in the Performing Arts center from 4-7 PM. No structured program. Can come in any time from 4-7. He was in Washington DC with OKI last week. He said our representatives were very accommodating. Friday at 8 PM for Messer to meet with people at Janet’s Diner in Dillsboro. 
Little- echoed Lynch on how much better our roads were that other counties.
McHenry- said that he called Red Plum and they were polite and talked to the carrier to have them put them at the foot of mailbox on it. He would rely on me to let him know if they improve. 


LATE ARRIVAL:Travel Advisory Level 1 declared this weekend so Jason Sullivan EMA Director asked commissioners to sign that. Approved. 

Mark McCormack- following up on interlocal agreement with Dillsboro and suggestions from Council. Computer is being given for 911 addressing project to Planning and Zoning. It ties 911 to GPS on road centerlines. It covers the computer issue for Dillsboro. That cost issue drops out then. Dillsboro agreed to $7200 up front and then will deposit the extra money into the account for use as needed near the end of the contract. This is the same process as they use with wireless telecommunications systems for their costs. This would have to be written into the interlocal agreement. He would like approval to this and then present to Council at Feb 23 meeting. Approved to go to Council and move forward- he does not need to return to Commissioners. 
He also wanted to expound on the surveyor’s request. He said that drainage is not his area of expertise either. Ultimately we will need someone employed or in- house to review these projects. They have a lot of storm water calculations. Todd Listerman is more focused on transportation though he has the best knowledge of these of all of them. McCormack says there is a need for this expertise. A big project requires a lot of homework on these models and calculations. Lynch said Jane Witke retired from OKI- but maybe they could be helpful? McCormack said he would check with them. 

Meeting Adjourned at 9:47AM

Christine Brauer Mueller

Lawrenceburg Township

Sunday, February 14, 2016

Who Is Running Dearborn County?

Who Is Running Dearborn County?

I get tired of attending county meetings when complex decisions are made with inadequate background information.

The county has been making decisions involving large amounts of taxpayer money, and the boards making those decisions appear to be rubber-stamping a decision that was made before the meeting. While developers and business people have a right to lobby county officials, county officials have a DUTY to look out for the interests of the taxpayers and not the SPECIAL INTERESTS of people needing their vote to advance their personal fortunes.

For Example:

After going to Council, the County Redevelopment Commission (DCRC) approved several resolutions for expanding and revising the West Harrison TIF district. (Yeah- my eyes glaze over every time I have to read thru those kinds of documents too, but bear with me.) These resolutions passed on Feb 4 had not been given to the DCRC board members prior to the meeting. Yet, they were summarized, voted on, and unanimously approved. They go back to Council Feb 23.  

Brief Background:

The new expansion area was given the name Skally’s Bakery TIF Area but it includes more than what it is named after. Skally’s is a promising family business from North College Hill in Cincinnati that uses agricultural products. It may fit with our recent flour mill, though the mill doesn't make the exact flour needed by Skally’s yet. Skally’s brings $40 million investment, 45 jobs to start, and receives acreage for $1. The DCRC paid $1,677,000 to Stone Properties for 41.6 acres in 2013 per county tax records. Skally’s gets about 36 of those acres. They also get $800,000 in bonds with 25 years from March 2015 to pay. The payment is coming from the TIF money that Skally’s pays in personal property taxes. 

Tagging along in this Skally’s Expansion area is property, called West Harrison, LLC, registered to Randy Maxwell at Maxwell Construction’s Greendale business address. This piece of land is 90.3 acres that West Harrison LLC purchased from Tootles Trust in January 2016 for $1,628,000 per the county’s tax records. In executive sessions with DCRC Randy Maxwell touted a strategy to build something to offer to prospective businesses. The big plus per the DCRC, Terri Randall (Economic Development Director) and Randy Maxwell is that Maxwell is supposedly “taking all the risk and the county is the conduit.” That purchase is listed in the feasibility study as being worth $2.53 million and then later in bond issuing documents as being worthy of $3 million of bonds for 25 years. This payment on bonds is coming from the personal property TIF money that SKALLY’S pays. So Maxwell’s bonds get paid by Skally’s success. His bonds don’t get issued until two years go by to get Skally’s built and running.

Randy Maxwell stated at the January Council meeting that he is “frustrated that development hasn’t happened faster. Every time we can take advantage of an opportunity we are going to do it.” That’s what private business does. Randy Maxwell resigned from his consulting position with the DCRC on Feb 11, 2015 stating that he had “decided to continue to focus on the private side of real estate development in and around our County.” Yet he was present at nearly all of the executive sessions for DCRC from then on and is credited for landing Skally’s.

Previously the DCRC noted that we have a competitive redevelopment edge because we have more large pieces of land than OH and KY. Now the county administrator claims that 75% of her leads need an existing building. It’s never been clear how many leads that really is or if these are really viable leads for the county to “lure” to our shores. No documentation has been discussed at the DCRC meetings. This proposed Maxwell building is speculation. And the county taxpayer is essentially funding it with future taxes that could go to something else.

Unintended Consequences:

The county is big on Economic Development. They list it as their first priority. Placing development appropriately and PACING it so that the taxpayers can absorb the costs is critical to the economic well being of the residents of the county.

 It seems they forgot about the nearly $12million spent on the jail last year, the nearly $12million earmarked for the proposed Courthouse Annex this year, (both managed by Maxwell Construction) and a Bright Connector road (with Maxwell on the Advisory committee) on the drawing board to have its first public meeting Feb 17th. Don’t forget the $1,957,961 that the state said we had to CUT from our 2016 budget. Council intends to replace that money with Riverboat revenue also, at the same time that the Riverboat money is decreasing.

 When a county focuses so narrowly on economic development that they fail to look at the unintended consequences of their actions, the taxpayers need to be yanking the chain on their elected officials. Waiting for elections will be too late for this one.

Schools Are Affected:

 One of the largest recipients of property tax money is our schools. When business is lured here and 25 years of their increased tax base goes back to economic development and its infrastructure, what happens if the economic development brings in more workers and their school age families? Economic development is not just about jobs and political pats on the back. It’s about advancing the education and advantages for our residents.

When the school board appointee to the DCRC never comes to meetings for 2 years- then the school kids have no voice. Terri Randall, the county administrator/economic development director, suggested they appoint John Maxwell (recently elected to Sunman Dearborn School board) as the new representative on DCRC. The DCRC board has proposed Jamie Graf. Oddly, the item is on a future agenda for SD School board- so how does anyone know who this representative will be? Commissioners get to appoint the rep to that spot. Someone who has kids as a priority over real estate and development needs to be there to balance the mindset of the DCRC.

Council Set to Vote:

County Council heard the first presentation of these two sets bonds and is set to approve one, both, or none of the ordinances allowing these bonds on Feb 23. At Council’s January 26th meeting, several members were singing the praises of BOTH of these proposals without even having the data in hand. Umbaugh’s Jason Semler orally presented the numbers and feasibility study to back up this plan. There was no handout and in fact the Council had none of this information in advance, evidence of another complex issue without preparation. Umbaugh and Randall promised to email it to them the following week. I requested it and posted what I was given on the Dearborn County Public Forum Blog. The letters accompanying the study were dated Jan 13 and Jan 21.

I am a firm believer in competition and open discussion as ways of getting better results. The bottom line is that the DCRC and several on Council seem content to be told what to do without doing any legwork or brainwork.

 So I ask myself and you the taxpayers: Who is really running our county? 

Christine Brauer Mueller has attended county meetings for 21 years and posts her notes on those meetings to the Dearborn County Public Forum Blog- 

Friday, February 12, 2016

AGENDA Feb 16 @ 8:30 AM Commissioners Meeting

February 16, 2016 
8:30 a.m., Commissioners Room
County Administration Building
215 B West High Street, Lawrenceburg, Indiana


911 Board Appointment for EMS – 911 Director Jared Teaney

1.  National Day of Prayer May 5th, 2016 – Connie Riegel
2.  Child Support Pilot Project – Prosecutor Aaron Negangard

3.  CASA Update and Approval of Grants – Donna Thacker

4.  Surveyor Dennis Kraus, Jr.
1.  Storm Water Discussion
2.  Approval to Approach Council 
5.  Zoning Administrator, Nicole Daily
1.  Update on Blight Elimination Program
2.  Invitation to Media Day for Demolition in Aurora

6.  Robert Schroeder’s DCH Board of Trustee Appointment 
V. ADMINISTRATOR – Terri Randall
1.  Non-voting School Board Member to DCRC
2.  Title VI Nondiscrimination Plan & Policy

VI. AUDITOR – Gayle Pennington
1.  Claims/Minutes
2.  Financial Annual Report





12 February 2016 Dearborn County Redevelopment Meeting Notes

12 February 2016 Dearborn County Redevelopment Meeting Notes

Present:Jim Deaton, Chairman, Jim Helms, John Rahe,, Alan Goodman and Dave Deddens.
 ABSENT: Dusty Burress (non- voting school board member)

Also present: Terri Randall, county administrator and economic development director, Andrea Ewan, attorney, Sue Hayden, minute taker, Gayle Pennington, Auditor and DCRC treasurer.

Randy Maxwell was present for the preceding hour long Executive session.

Verification of information discussed in Executive session.The DCRC board verified that they only discussed purchase or lease of real property up to the time of purchase. 

Action on Executive session- There was no action taken from the executive session.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES- Feb 4th Public Hearing- approved
Feb 4th Meeting- approved

UNFINISHED BUSINESS: Randall Avenue Property- Randall talked to Brett Fehrman and she can’t come here so she will see if a couple members can meet with her in Louisville.

Terri Randall conference registration for $40 approved.Modern printer solutions for an RFP on a project - not approved.
Financials approved. 



ATTORNEY’S REPORT: Andrea Ewan said that the resolution numbers from the Feb 4 meetings need to be renumbered to reflect that they are the 1st ones for 2016 and also add DCRC to the numbering system to keep them separate from other boards. Approved. 



Christine Brauer Mueller

Lawrenceburg Township

Thursday, February 11, 2016

Ball State Researchers Cast A Gimlet Eye on TIF Programs

Ball State Researchers Cast
A Gimlet Eye on TIF Programs

For immediate release 
reprinted with permission from IN Policy Review
by Craig Ladwig

A group of researchers at Ball State University last week released another critical assessments of Tax Increment Financing (TIF). The authors, Dr. Michael Hicks, Dr. Dagney Faulk and Srikant Devaraj, join Tom Heller, writing in the current issue of The Indiana Policy Review, in casting doubt on this enigmatic tax policy.

The problem for those of us without subpoena power, though, is that it requires multiple graduate degrees and a flare for forensic accounting to fully understand the alarming implications of the TIF research.

In Fort Wayne, for example, grown men (members of a council with professional degrees and experience in finance) are having a devil of a time tracking a $4-million garage. Parking spaces disappeared when a TIF-funded project shifted objectives, the allocated dollars apparently used to subsidize something else entirely.

Let it just be said that TIF doesn’t dependably create the economic development it promises or even the projects for which it is authorized. A scan of the Ball State research tells us as much:
  • TIF use in Indiana does not boost income or sales taxes, its raison d'ĂȘtre. Nor is it associated with a statistically significant net increase of assessed property in the counties where it is deployed. Nor does it boost employment. Nor could the researchers find clear economic developments associated with the average TIF in Indiana over the past decade. 
  • What it does do is enrich the professional class. Legal and professional services ranged from $32,000 to $85,000 per year in the first five reports randomly selected by the study. The authors note that is far more than $10,000 per TIF district per year, suggesting that at least $7.5 million per year is paid by Indiana Redevelopment Commissions for legal and consulting work alone. 
  • In addition, there is: a) the creation and sale of bonds, which comprise many more millions of dollars per year in professional services; and b) the general use of TIF to finance speculative property development. 
  • A small number of consulting, legal and engineering firms benefit in the tens of millions of dollars per year. The authors say that alone explains the presence of strong interest groups advocating for TIF to policymakers at all levels of government, along with a strong pressure to retain TIF without consideration for its efficacy or the overall well-being of Hoosier taxpayers.
  • The authors conclude that the value of a TIF to the average Indiana community is as a mere budget management tool. As such, “It is not transparent, likely to capture assessed-value growth from other more urgent community needs (such as schools) and likely dampens economic activity outside the TIF area through higher taxes or asset capture.”
That's just great. It is not only obtuse but also largely worthless and quite possibly corrupting. We asked someone steeped in TIF arcana, then, to explain why it is so popular with Indiana local governments. What, other than big-time law firms, propels such bad policy?

Our friend, In at least rhetorical answer to our question, sent us a clipping from the New York Times. It tells how a little town in Puerto Rico has been able to finesse the electric utility in order to pay for an ice skating rink and other economic-development projects. This is made possible by an old New Deal program that tacitly encourages Puerto Rican politicians to provide electricity without actually paying the electric company. It is popular, as you might expect, so popular that the mayor of the now-bankrupt town once bragged he would be in office "until the day I die.”

Granted, ice skating rinks might be politically popular in a place where the temperature rarely drops below 90 degrees but they are exceptionally expensive there. And “free” ice, like “free” financing and “free” parking garages, is not free. In fact, the Times estimates that 288 governmental bodies on the island are delinquent in their power payments by $300 million.

It would be a good idea for Indiana voters to start jotting down the names of politicians taking credit for TIF-financed economic-development schemes. And don’t buy any bridges in Brooklyn, parking garages in Fort Wayne or ice skating rinks in Puerto Rico.

Craig Ladwig is editor of the quarterly Indiana Policy Review.

The Indiana Policy Review Foundation is a non-profit education foundation focused on state and municipal issues. It is free of outside control by any individual, organization or group. It exists solely to conduct and distribute research on Indiana issues. Nothing written here is to be construed as reflecting the views of the Indiana Policy Review Foundation or as an attempt to aid or hinder the passage of any bill before the legislature or to further any political campaign.

AGENDA for Feb 12 DC Redevelopment Commission Meeting

February 12, 2016
9:00 a.m., 3rd Floor Commissioners Room
County Administration Building
215 B West High Street, Lawrenceburg, Indiana


  1. Call to order

  1. Verification of Information Discussed in Executive Session

  1. Action of Executive Session 

  1. Approval of Minutes
February 4, 2016 Public Hearing
February 4, 2016 Meeting 

  1. Claims & Financials
1.  Approval of Claims
2.  Review of Financials

  1. Unfinished Business
1.  Randall Avenue Property

  1. New Business

  1. Economic Development Officer’s Report

  1. Attorney’s Report
  1. Other Business

  1. Adjournment


Who Is Running Dearborn County?

Hess Family and Negangard Weigh in on the Plea Deal

Hess Family and Negangard weigh in on the plea deal:

Friday, February 05, 2016




The Dearborn County Redevelopment Commission is required by Indiana Code 36-7-14, as amended (the "Act"), to provide a statement disclosing the impact of amending a tax allocation area on the overlapping taxing units. This impact statement discloses and explains the impact on the overlapping taxing units caused by amending the West Harrison Allocation Area (as hereinafter defined), establishing the Skally's Bakery Allocation Area (as hereinafter defined), and designating a taxpayer in the Skally's Bakery Allocation Area.


The Dearborn County (the "County") Redevelopment Commission (the "Commission") adopted Resolution No. 1-1999, as confirmed by Resolution No. 2-1999 (collectively, the "1999 Resolution") designating the Interstate 74 & Highway 52 Economic Development Area (the "Original Area") and a coterminous allocation area (the "Original Allocation Area") and approved an economic development plan for the Original Area (the "Original Plan"). The Original Allocation Area expires thirty (30) years from the date of Resolution No. 1-1999.

On February 6, 2006, the Commission adopted Resolution No. 2006-3 (the "2006 Amending Resolution") to expand the Original Area (as amended, the "West Harrison Area") and Original Allocation Area (the "2006 Expansion Allocation Area"), and to amend the Original Plan (as amended, the "2006 Plan"). The 2006 Expansion Area expires thirty (30) years from the date of the 2006 Amending Resolution, or February 6, 2036. The Original Allocation Area and the 2006 Expansion Allocation Area are collectively referred to as the "West Harrison Allocation Area".

On September 16, 2013, the Commission adopted Resol ution No. 2013-DCRC-002  (the  "2013 Resol ution") to (1) remove certain parcels from the West Harrison Allocation Area; (2) to create a separate allocation area (the "Whitewater Mill Allocation Area") within the West Harrison Area; (3) designate Whitewater Mi ll, LLC ("Whitewater") and its successors or assigns, or any affiliates of Whitewater and their successors or assigns, as a designated taxpayer for the purpose of capturing increases in depreciable personal property assessed value; and (4) add certain projects to the 2006 Plan  (as amended, the "2013 Plan"). The Whitewater  Mill Allocation  Area will  expire  twenty-five
(25) years from the date of issuance of debt secured by the allocated property taxes, or at such time  as no bonds payable from allocated property taxes are outstanding. The base assessment date of the Whitewater Mill Allocation Area is March 1, 2013.

On November 12, 2015, the Commission adopted a resolution (the "2015 Resolution") to further amend the West Harrison Area and the West Harrison Allocation Area to (1) expand the West Harrison Area and the West Harrison Allocation Area; (2) remove certain parcels from the West Harrison Allocation Area and add additional parcels to create the "Skally's Bakery Allocation  Area";
(3) designate Odette, LLC (the "Company") and its successors or assigns, or any affiliates of the Company and their successors or assigns, as a designated taxpayer (the "Designated Taxpayer") for the purpose of capturing increases in depreciable personal property assessed value in the Skally's Bakery Allocation Area; and (4) add certain projects to the 2013 Plan (as amended, "the Plan") (collectively, the "Amendment'').
The Commission also finds that the Amendment will be of public utility and benefit, that the public health and welfare will be benefited, and that the Amendment and the Plan conform to the comprehensive plan for the County.

Tax Increment consists of all property  tax  proceeds  from  the  assessed  valuation  of  non-residential real and designate

ed depreciable personal property in the allocation area as of the assessment  date  in excess of the base assessed valuation described in IC 39(b)(I ) of the Act, multiplied by the current property tax rate (referred to throughout  this  Report  as  the  "Tax  Increment").  The  base  assessed  value means the net assessed  value of all the property  in the  allocation  area as finally determined  for the assessment date immediately preceding  the  effective  date  of  the  declaratory  resolution  establishing  the allocation  area pursuant  to  Section  39 of the Act.

The Original Allocation Area, the 2006 Expansion Area, and the Whitewater Mill Allocation Area shall mai ntain their original base assessment dates, and the Skally's Bakery Allocation Area shall expire twenty-five (25) years from the date of issuance of debt secured by the allocated property taxes, or at such time as no bonds payable from allocated property taxes are outstanding. The base date for the Skally's Bakery Allocation Area is March  1, 2015.


The Company, Odette, LLC, is planning to build a bagel processing facility located within the Skally's Bakery Allocation Area. The Company anticipates investing $20 million in real  property and $20 million in personal property (the "New Development").

The Company requested certain incentives in order to locate its new manufacturing facility in Dearborn County (the "Incentive"). The Commission plans to capture the real and depreciable personal property Tax Increment from the New Development in order to provide the Incentive. A portion of the Tax Increment will be pledged to pay bonds that will be purchased by the Company.


The Commission  currently  captures the Tax Increment  in the  West Harrison  Allocation  Area,  which  is located within Harrison  Township.  Per  the  Dearborn  County  Auditor's  office,  the  estimated existing i ncremental assessed value is  $1,187,857  for  taxes  payable  in  2015.  The  incremental assessed value is multiplied by the  2015 tax  rate  of $1.8466 (per $100 of assessed  value) to calculate  the estimated  annual  real  property  Tax Increment  of $21,930.

The Commission intends to remove nine (9) parcels from  the  West  Harrison  Allocation  Area  to  create the Skally's Bakery Allocation Area. As a result,  the  West  Harrison  Allocation  Area's incremental assessed val ue would decrease to $1 ,034,816, which is estimated to generate annual Tax Increment of $19, 1 10.The Commission intends to capture the real and  depreciable  personal  property Tax Increment from the New  Development  in  the  Skally's  Bakery  Allocation  Area,  located  within the West Harrison Area. The estimated real property assessed value is $17,150,000. The  estimated assessed  value  assumes that the new building  will  be  assessed  at 85% of the estimated  cost and the

land will be assessed at 90% of the estimated cost. The estimated assessed value of $17, 150,000 is multiplied by the certified 201 5 tax rate for the Harrison Township taxing district (per $100 of assessed value) resulting in the estimated annual Tax Increment of $316,690 from the proposed real property investment. Th.e actual assessed value will be determined by the Dearborn County assessor u pon completion, and the actual value may vary materially different from the value assumed in this analysis.

The Company also proposes to invest $20 million in new equipment. In this analysis, the estimated assessed value is $6 million (which is the estimated value after the depreciation of the equipment to the 30% floor). The estimated depreciable personal property assessed value is multiplied by the certified 2015 tax rate of $1.8466 for the Harrison Township taxing district (per $100 of assessed value) resulting in the estimated annual Tax Increment of $110,800 from the proposed investment in designated depreciable personal property.

The total estimated Tax  Increment  from the existing  incremental  assessed  value  (less the value of the ni ne parcels removed) and the New Development is $446,600. No adjustment for future statewide reassessments or trend ing was made in this analysis. Future tax rates and assessed  value may  differ  from the tax rates and assessed  value used  in this  analysis and the  differences  could  have an  impact  on  the  actual  Tax  Inc1·ement.  For  the  purposes  of  this  analysis,   it  has   been   assumed   that  the equ ipment will be purchased as new and be depreciated  in Pool  #2 (5-8 year useful  life) for property tax purposes. Once instal led, the Company may  report  the  depreciation  in  a different  pool,  which  may have a material effect on  the  resulting  tax  increment  calculations.  No  assumption  has  been  made for future equipment  reti rement/replacement.  See  sections  below  for  additional  information about the  recent  legislative  changes  as they  relate to property  tax changes.

Circuit Breaker  Tax Credits (Property  Tax Caps)

In 2007, the Indiana General Assembly enacted legislation (IC 6-1.1-20.6), which would provide taxpayers with a tax credit for property taxes in an amount that exceeded a certain percentage of the gross assessed value of real and personal property (the "Circuit Breaker Tax Credit") in  effect creating a property tax cap.

Circuit Breaker  Tax Credits (Property  Tax Caps) (Cont'd)

Beginning with property taxes payable in 2010, and every year thereafter, property taxes for homesteads are limited to 1 .0% of the gross assessed value of the homestead; property taxes for agricultural, other residential property and long term care facilities are limited to 2.0% of their gross assessed value; and property taxes for all other real and personal property are limited to  3.0% of gross assessed value. In November of 20 I 0, Indiana voters passed a proposal to add the Circuit Breaker Tax Credit to the Indiana Constitution at the 1.0%, 2.0% and 3.0% levels, with special provisions applicable to Lake and St. Joseph Counties. Additional property tax limits have been made available to senior citizens that meet certain income and property assessed value thresholds.

If applicable, the Circuit Breaker Tax Credit will result in a reduction  of property  tax collections  for each political subdivision i n which the Circuit Breaker  Tax Credit  is applied. A political  subdivision may not increase its property tax levy or borrow money to make up  for any  property  tax  revenue shortfall  due to the application  of the Circuit Breaker  Tax  Credit.

In this analysis, the Circuit Breaker Tax Credit is not assumed to reduce the estimated Tax Increment because, based on the 2015 tax rates, the estimated Tax Increment is below the maximum threshold  of 3.0% of the gross assessed value for commercial and industrial property. There can be  no assurance that  the  levies  and  tax  rates  of the  County  and the  overlapping  taxing  units will  not  increase in some future year to the point of causing the Circuit Breaker Tax Credit to be applied to taxpayers' tax bills.


The schedule entitled "Estimated Impact on the Overlapping Taxing Units of Amending the West Harrison Allocation Area and Establishing the Skally's Bakery Allocation Area" provides  an  estimate of the effect on the tax rates of the overlapping taxing units (holding all other factors constant) of amending the West Harrison Allocation, establishing Skally's Bakery Allocation Area, and naming a designated taxpayer.

Scenario I:   Present  Situation  (Prior to the Amendment  of the Area)

Scenario I represents the current situation  (based  on payable  2015 property  tax  information)  prior to the amendment of the West Harrison Allocation Area. Scenario I presents the payable 2015 assessed values, property tax levies, and tax rates for the overlapping taxing units and provides the estimated existing Tax Increment  of $21 ,930 which  is currently captured  in the West  Harrison  Allocation  Area.

Scenario II:  Assumes the Area isAmended

Scenario II depicts the impact on the overlapping taxing units (holding all other factors constant) if the West Harrison Allocation Area is amended, the Skally's Bakery Allocation Area is established, and a Designated Taxpayer is identified to capture Tax Increment from the New Development to finance the Incentive. Scenario II assumes the capture of an estimated $17, 150,000 of real property incremental assessed value and $6 million of incremental assessed value from the Company's designated depreciable personal property (after full depreciation) from the New Development to be located in the Skally's Bakery Allocation Area. The incremental assessed value is estimated to generate annual Tax Increment of $316,690 from the real property investment and $110,800 from the depreciable personal property investment.


Scenario II also assumes that nine (9) parcels will  be  removed  from  the  West  Harrison  Allocation Area to create the

 Skally's Bakery Allocation Area. As a result, the West Harrison Allocation Area's incremental assessed 
value will decree
se to $1,034,816,which is estimated to generate annual Tax Increment  of  $19,110.

Scenario III:  Assumes  the Area is NOT Amended

Scenario Ill represents the impact on the overlapping taxing units if the Area is not amended, and therefore, assumes that the New Development would not occur. Without the Tax Increment to  finance the Incentive, it is assumed that the Company would not locate its new manufacturing facility in Dearborn County.

Impact Summary

The Commission has determined that the capture of increases in assessed value from the New Development (including the Company's real property and designated depreciable personal property) in the Skally's Bakery Allocation Area will not have a negative impact on anticipated revenues or the tax rates of the taxing u nits that are wholly or partially located in the West Harrison Area.

The Commission has made a finding that the designation of Odette, LLC (the Company) as a Designated Taxpayer wi ll result in new property taxes that would not have been generated without this new allocation provision. The Company requested incentives in order to locate and construct its new bagel processing facility in Dearborn County. The Commission cannot finance the Incentive without the Tax Increment from the New Development, including the capture of increases m depreciable personal property taxes from the Designated Taxpayer's new facility.

Therefore, the Commission does not believe that there is a negative impact on the taxpayers or the taxing units. Without the TIP-funded Incentive, the New Development would not be located in Dearborn County and the property would remain undeveloped and the tax base would remain unchanged. During the period of the Tax Increment capture, the tax base of the overlapping taxing  un its will remain the same (hold ing other factors constant). After the expiration of the Skally's Bakery Allocation Area, the additional assessed value will increase the property tax base of all the overlapping taxing units.

Please note that for purposes of estimating the impact of Tax Increment financing, certain factors were held constant in this analysis. No other growth in real or personal property assessed value was assumed to take place anywhere in the County or within the Area. No increases in the budgets of the overlapping taxing units were assumed for purposes of this analysis. Potential impacts from future statewide reassessments or trending were not included in this analysis.

Additional local income taxes would be generated from the new jobs associated with the New Development, assuming the new employees will be new residents of Dearborn County or from incremental growth in wages and income  of current and new employees.  Increases  in employees  and wages, would, in tum, increase local spending and commercial activity as well as residential growth. Additional revenue sources, which would potentially increase as a result of new business enterprises which locate to the West Harrison Area include: motor vehicle highway funds, local road and street funds and excise taxes.



Represents 2014 taxes payable 2015 property tax levies, assessed valuation, and tax rates.

Total Tax Rate (per $I 00 AV) $1.8466 $0.0000 $0

Total Tax Rate (per $100 AV) $1.8466 $0.0000 $0

(l) Based on information provided from the 2015 Budget Order. Existing Tax Increment is based on information from the Dearborn County Auditor's office.
(2) Tax rates are not adjusted for rate driven 

funds. Assumes these funds are at their maximum rates.

(Subject to the attached Impact Statement dated January 20, 2016)