Wednesday, May 31, 2017

AGENDA- June 1 DC Redevelopment Commission Meeting

June 1, 2017
8:30 a.m., 3rd Floor Commissioners Room
County Administration Building
215 B West High Street, Lawrenceburg, Indiana


  1. Call to order

  1. Actions of Executive Session

  1. Approval of Minutes
May 18, 2017 Meeting

  1. Claims & Financials
1. No General Fund Claims
2. TIF Fund Claim
3. Financials 

  1. Unfinished Business
1.  One Dearborn Contract Tabled from April 20, 2017

2.  Duke Energy Site Readiness Program

  1. New Business

  1. Economic Development Officer’s Report

  1. Attorney’s Report
  1. Other Business

  1. Adjournment

Tuesday, May 30, 2017

30 May 2017 Dearborn County Council Meeting Notes

30 May 2017 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
 ABSENT: Teresa Randall, County Administrator
Morris read the Title VI statement as required by law.
COMMISSIONERS- Terri Randall- Gayle Pennington presented in Randall’s absence -Courthouse Annex Project. $3 million draw requested to get them through September-October. Coming in smaller increments to keep the most in the bank as some are making a little over 1%. They will keep it invested as long as possible before spending. Goodman motioned and Brandt 2nd. All ayes except for Lansing and Kraus, Sr. 
AUDITOR- Gayle Pennington:
Minutes from May 2 approved with minor corrections made previous to meeting. Lansing abstained as he wasn't present at that meeting. 

3 Grant Proposals for Health Dept- Normally the health dept presents but Mary Calhoun was working on festival season. Pennington presented: 
$15,183- for part time staff benefits, meeting expenses, wifi, copier, etc. - Ullrich motioned and Kraus, Sr. 2nd - approved.
$ 49,000 - assist and purchase 2 weather sirens and verbal messages - combined with 911 for this grant. The new system we bought for emergency management and 911- will be getting some equipment and bull horns. Brandt motioned and Lansing 2nd. approved.
$19,376- main health dept staff- general office supplies, travel and meeting expenses etc. She noted the health dept pretty much runs on grants. Kraus, Sr, motioned nd Goodman 2nd. Approved. 

SBOA - State Board of Accounts Audit- Morris presented 2014 -2015 was the time period. County has to provide space for them to audit. Only the Home dock can revenue share. That would be Lawrenceburg. The County is not supposed to be revenue sharing. This has been a problem for several years. Morris received an email from SBOA- and all was considered confidential for 45 days ( but ended up being longer) until mid May. The corrections are being advised- and they checked with the county attorney to review the findings. She said she swore to uphold the laws of the state of IN and the attorney found nothing in law to contradict what the SBOA was advising that they do. Either we obey the laws of the state or we get the consequences including financial penalties now. IC 4-33-12- there are no provisions allowing them to revenue share as we have been doing. 1997 agreement- was the first one to revenue share. Attorney said they should repeal the 1997 resolution. 
Brandt noted that other counties don’t have the municipalities that Dearborn has. This came up before per Ullrich and Kraus, Sr. and no teeth in the law before this. They basically said no law said they could, but no law said they couldn’t ( home rule?) Ullrich doesn’t want to cut them off at the knees now. June 2002 amendments in that law to sections and also in 2007 per Pennington in answer to Keyes question. Exit interviews are every year for these audits. In 2013 there was a law saying we had to create and follow internal controls. This was to protect the taxpayer’s money.
Lansing said he thought the idea was to share the wealth. Morris said- that Lawrenceburg does to these same municipalities also. Kraus read the statement and that they can fine up to $50,000. It passed in 2017 per Morris. 

Alan Weiss - Greendale mayor urged them to get another opinion from other counties. He noted what Ohio County does with sharing with Aurora and Ripley County. Morris noted that was dictated by the state when they set up the riverboat. Not imitated by Ohio County. Ullrich said if they repeal the resolution and find out that they can do something to get it back to them they could change it later then. He didn’t want team to act on it tonight. 

Emery - Add of Aurora said that she thought that a Memorandum of understanding or something could be taken on to remedy that. Brandt said that they could only change internal controls for NON-GOVERNMENTAL entities. She thought maybe they could do it thru the separate fire and EMS entities. Pennington said that was a totally different tax than the admission tax. 

Dillsboro said this would cut 45% of all they receive from Riverboat. They use it for their parks etc. Wanted them to consider holding off this year. There has to be a way to do this. What was the intent? 

Morris spent some time stating why she did not want to be out of compliance with SBOA and the law. 

Dillsboro - cities and towns are the hubs for all of the county. 
We have been good stewards - it’s about sharing. take your time- get a second opinion. We just heard about this about a week or so ago. 

Morris- there has been no rush to judgement. We have to able the laws.

Weiss- Greendale- with all the numbers you gave about how much money we all have in our accounts form the riverboat. We always try to make sure we save 25%- and are good stewards of the money. He wants a written copy of Baudendistel’s opinion to let their lawyers look it over too. 

Chris Mueller- - I recapped some of the original sharing agreements and then asked if there could be a way that Lawrenceburg could keep some of this money and distribute it instead of sending it to us. Answer from Morris was no- because the state distributes it to us from what casino sends. I noted that the municipal entities were all here to get their first checks years ago- they were all pretty happy. They aren’t going to be so happy now.

Dillsboro- - reiterated that these entities all pay county taxes and are part of the county.

Morris noted that HVL and Bright are part of the county and they don’t get any distribution. And they do a lot in their communities. 

Another citizen said what happens to the money? It gets spent in the county. 

Lansing said- maybe we should let them do their homework and see what happens. That’s all they are asking. 

Tom Walker- Dillsboro- are you in contempt of court if you don’t pass this tonight? Is there no grace period?  Morris said we have 10 days. It has been ignored for several years but now they have put teeth in this. Have patience for  little time. 

Pennington- taking off auditor hat and putting on her taxpayer hat- can we work harder at budget time to find a way to disburse these funds in legal ways. 

Emery- not implying that they should do anything illegal - but take the time to get more information. 
Morris - not been in a rush- but we have swept this under the rug for a while. We need to rescind the resolution from 1997 to keep us within the law. Ullrich said we can come up with another resolution at budget time. Lansing wants to see what other counties are doing to correct this. Find a county that is a recipient but not a home dock to compare.
Morris said rescinding the 1997 would be effective at the end of 2017.
Keyes said he works for town of West Harrison. He wants to see the original agreement and also the law. Too much at stake - so we should take the fine if that happens.
House Bill 1031 effective July 1

Morris asked to either rescind resolution 7-1997 which set aside 25% of gaming  revenue to divide among the municipalities by % of population - or table this. IC 4-33-12 can be viewed online. 
Brandt- before we make the motion- we have heard from 3 of the municipalities. The law is the law- but I need more time - to get more information. 
Brandt motioned and Lansing 2nd to TABLE until June meeting on the 27th - TABLED . 
[NOTE: Is the county in need of more revenue with all the recent spending on capital projects?]

Resolution- Investment of Public Funds- Every two years- they need a resolution to authorize the investment of public funds. Treasurer unable to be here. Same as last one. This allows banks outside the political subdivision to submit quotes for the county funds for CDs. Ullrich motioned and Goodman motioned to authorize as read. Passed. Also allowed the terms of investments to go out for a max of 5 years as they have done for past several years. 

Council wants Baudendistel to attend the June meeting. Pennington will do that.  

Meeting adjourned at 8:05 PM
Christine Brauer Mueller

Lawrenceburg Township

AGENDA- May 30 County Council Meeting

Tuesday, May 30, 2017
6:30 p.m., Commissioners Room
County Administration Building
215 B West High Street, Lawrenceburg, Indiana


            Courthouse Annex Project

AUDITOR – Gayle Pennington
Minutes from May 2, 2017
            3 Grant Proposals for Health Department
            SBOA audit
            Resolution – Investment of public funds



Monday, May 22, 2017

22 May 2017 Dearborn County Plan Commission Meeting Notes

22 May 2017 Dearborn County Plan Commission Meeting Notes
Present: Dennis Kraus, Jr., Chairman, Russell Beiersdorfer, Mark Lehman, Jake Hoog, Dan Lansing, Jim Thatcher, and Eric Lang
ABSENT: Art Little and the County Extension Member (not appointed yet)
Also Present: Mark McCormack, Plan Director, and Andy Baudendistel, Attorney.
Baudendistel read the Title VI statement s required by law.
ACTION ON MINUTES- April 24 minutes approved with corrections.
OLD BUSINESS: TO REMAIN TABLED  Request: Requesting 2 Waivers; (1) Create an access point which does not meet the minimum driveway spacing requirements. (2) Create a direct access point onto Jamison Road. Applicant / Owner: Judy Traynor Site Location: 24140 Mayfield Lane / Jamison Road Legal: Sec. 35, T 7N, R 1W, Parcel# 15-01-35-300-026.001-006 Township: Harrison Zoning: Agricultural (A) Size: 6.449 Acres 
  1. Request: Primary approval to re-plat Lot 156 of the Villages of Sugar Ridge, a proposal which involves the creation of 22 residential units as well as waiver requests for: 1) a waiver to not construct sidewalks within the proposed development area; 2) a waiver to not install curbs and gutters for the proposed residential street, as required by Article 3 of the Dearborn County Subdivision Control Ordinance. Applicant / Owner: GMT Enterprises, LLC Site Location: Augusta Drive, approx. 1000 feet from the northern Augusta Drive / Stateline Road intersection (on the eastern portion of Augusta) Legal: Sec. 13, T 6N, R 1W, Parcel# 15-06-13-400-037.000-020 Township: Miller Zoning: Planned Unit Development (PUD); Residential Size: 7.013 Acres
Discussion was held about whether to hear this item on Sugar Ridge because there was evidence that proper notification was not given. There were no green cards in the file showing that the letters were sent to adjoining property owners, when McCormack checked after he returned from vacation. Three residents came to the meeting who had not been notified , but heard about it by word of mouth. 
Beiersdorfer motioned and Lansing 2nd to table. TABLED until June 12, 2017 meeting at 7 PM which will be called for this request only. 

Staff notes are below on this item which will be considered June 12th:

The Applicant is requesting to re-plat Lot 156 of the Villages of Sugar Ridge Subdivision— specifically, the Applicant is seeking to: 1) create 22 single-family homes in accordance with the “Parcel C” standards outlined in the approved Concept Development Plan for the P.U.D.; and 2) obtain 2 waivers pertaining to sidewalks, curbs, and gutters not being installed within the development area. 

Please refer to Article 2, Section 288 of the Dearborn County Subdivision Control Ordinance regarding revisions to approved Primary Plats. SECTION 288 - Revisions to Approved Primary Plats and/or Improvement Plans In certain cases, a Developer or Applicant may find it necessary to make changes to the arrangement, size, 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. Any changes made to the Improvement Plan shall be submitted to and reviewed by the staff to determine if the changes are major or minor. Major changes will require the developer to reapply under the Improvement Plan procedure identified in Section 228. Minor changes shall be submitted as an as-built plan. Major changes shall consist of any substantial increase in density, elimination of roadway connections, major realignment of roadways, major reconfiguration of lots and similar type changes. 

Background / General Information: The affected property (Lot 156), which contains 7.013 acres, is located on the eastern portion of Augusta Dr., approximately 1,000 feet from the northern intersection of Augusta Dr. and Stateline Rd., in Section 13, R 6N, 1W of Miller Township. 

 Historical Timeline, Villages of Sugar Ridge
This property is located within the 315-acre confines of the Villages of Sugar Ridge, a semi-mixed use development that was rezoned as a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Residential District (as recommended favorably, by a 7-0 vote by the Plan Commission) from June to August of 2003. 
The (original) Applicants for the Villages of Sugar Ridge were approved for a maximum build-out of 315 residential units, in accordance with a Concept Development Plan that specifically identified detached, single family areas, duplexes, multi-family residential condominium and townhouse areas, commercial areas, and open space / recreational areas. The above-referenced, approved plans also articulated building setbacks and densities for the above-referenced areas, among other items. 
The (original) Applicants for the Villages of Sugar Ridge received Primary Plat Approval to develop one-hundred-and-forty-eight (148) lots in September of 2003. 
The Planning & Zoning staff administered minor changes to the approved Concept Development Plan and Primary Plat in April of 2004 and December of 2005. Although the above-referenced, approved changes did not increase the overall density or change building setbacks, it is important to note that land use areas were shifted or reshaped within the overall development. 

As stipulated in the approved and effective Concept Development Plan, the building setback and density requirements for the portion of the Villages of Sugar Ridge that involves Lot 156 (known as Augusta Point on the current plans) are as follows: 
Front Yard setbacks = 25 feet from the right-of-way / property line 
Side Yard setbacks = 20 feet total between buildings; 0 feet minimum from line 
Rear Yard setbacks = 25 feet from the property line 
The maximum approved density = *4.28 units / acre (*per a previously-approved plan in July of 2007) Re-plat / Waiver Requests: 

 As a result of the numerous, cumulatively significant modifications to the approved Villages of Sugar Ridge Concept Development Plan(s) and Primary Plat from 2003-2005, the Plan Commission advised the staff in October of 2006 to forward any and all applications involving further (significant) changes to this subdivision to the Board for its consideration. In accordance with this mandate and as a result of the waiver requests necessary to process this application, the ‘Augusta Point’ project for Lot 156 is being forwarded for the Plan Commission’s review at its May, 2017 public hearing. 6) For the Pointe at Sugar Ridge, the Applicant is requesting the following items in reference to the approved (and revised) Concept Development Plan(s): 
Front Yard setbacks = 30 feet from the right-of-way / property line* *A five-foot (5’) increased setback to match the nearby homes along Augusta Drive 
Side Yard setbacks = 10 feet total / 5 feet minimum* *No minimum distance between buildings but setbacks are comparable to current, approved side yard setbacks 
Rear Yard setbacks = 25 feet from the property line* *Same setback as current, defined setback 
Density = 3.14 units / acre (which is 1.14 units / acre less than the previous plan approved in July of 2007) 

The Applicant is seeking two waivers in association with this development proposal. The first waiver is with respect to the installation of sidewalk improvements. According to Article 3, Section 305 R. Sidewalks: “All Subdivisions or developments shall have sidewalks constructed according to the following standards: a. Sidewalks shall be required along both sides of all local streets in new residential Subdivisions that have an average density of two (2) dwelling units per acre or greater… e. A subdivider can propose paths or trails as substitutes for conventional sidewalks if the alternative system provides the same or better level of pedestrian access, upon approval by the Commission… h. 

The Commission, upon request of the subdivider can grant waivers of the sidewalk requirements, if extreme grading or construction techniques would be necessary to accommodate the sidewalks. In addition, the Commission can grant a waiver upon request, if the Average Daily Traffic (ADT) for the Subdivision is less than 250 trips per day…” In this case, the Applicant is seeking a full waiver to not install sidewalks within the proposed development of Lot 156. 

Staff Comments: In the original Concept Plan—and subsequent Improvement Plan—for the Villages of Sugar Ridge, there was a multi-use 8-foot wide bike and pedestrian trail planned for the entire length of Augusta Drive. This trail improvement is currently not in place, but longterm trail (concept) plans for the County have identified Augusta Drive as an area of opportunity, with respect to the creation of a trail in this part of the County—eventually serving as a connector between Bright and Hidden Valley Lake, Greendale, and the State of Ohio (and future Hamilton County trails). If a trail on Augusta Drive is created in the future, a sidewalk or trail connection from the development area of Lot 156 could benefit all of the residents on Muirfield Point (which could conceivably be extended in the future and also affect sidewalk / trail connectivity to Lots 157 and 181). 

The Applicant’s second waiver request involves the installation of curbs and gutters. Specifically, the Applicant does not want to place curb and gutter improvements within the street, as set forth in Article 3, Section 305 W. Curb and Gutter Requirements: “All residential streets that have an average lot frontage of one hundred (100) feet or less shall be required to install curb and gutter according to Appendix C….Residential collector streets shall not be required to provide curb and gutter unless determined to be necessary by the County Engineer because of drainage, maintenance or safety concerns.” In this case, the Applicant is seeking a full waiver to not install curbs and gutters within the proposed development of Lot 156. Staff Comments: There are no other curb and gutter improvements for the public or private streets within the Villages of Sugar Ridge Subdivision. In this case, the Applicant’s request is consistent with the development patterns of the rest of the subdivision, to date. 

An additional note: If this re-plat / primary plat of Lot 156 is approved, the Applicant must still receive a variance from the Dearborn County Board of Zoning Appeals (in an additional, separate public hearing process) for the front yard setback on Lots 22 and 23 to be reduced to 10 feet—as they are both considered corner lots as they are presently conceived. Lot 23 is a corner lot in association with this request, with the creation of Muirfield Point and with Augusta Drive adjoining the western portion of the proposed tract. Lot 22 is anticipated to be a corner lot as well, with the establishment of Muirfield Point and a future private access—which is presumably a future private street for all intents and purposes (until or unless this 50-foot ingress and egress easement is eliminated or relocated). 

 Please refer to Article 1, Section 160 of the Dearborn County Subdivision Control Ordinance. SECTION 160 - Appeals and Waivers “…Upon written request to the Plan 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 Plan Commission shall review and take action on all waiver requests that involve the Subdivision Control Ordinance…As a condition of granting a waiver under this Section, the Plan Commission may allow or require a commitment to be made (as outlined in IC 36-7-4- 1015).” 

Please refer to the Technical Review Committee Report from April 3, 2017. With respect to the items in this report, the items below remain in question or of note: 
Lot #1, as it is currently labeled, is a non-buildable lot—so it must be transferred or retained by an adjoining property owner. At this time, it is unclear who the intended owner of this lot will be. 
The lots of the proposed development area must be renumbered in accordance with the sequence / assignment approved by the Dearborn County Auditor’s Office—and this area must be referenced as being within / part of the Villages of Sugar Ridge Subdivision. (Augusta Point may need to be removed from subsequent plans and plats, based on the County’s standards for naming development areas within Subdivisions.) 
The primary utility layout does not include electric and gas utilities—but the service lines are anticipated to be within easements or right-of-way (and will be required to be shown on any subsequent Improvement Plan submittal for this property). 
The width of the “existing golf cart easement” that is intended to remain on the property is approximately 20 feet wide--but this easement does not appear to be defined or recorded on a plat or deed at this time. The golf cart easement may be relocated more towards the rear / north of the northern proposed lots, if possible with the golf course ownership. 
At this point, the existing joint access easement for Lots 156, 157, and 181 is slated to remain in its current, platted location—which was established between 2005 and 2006 and was evaluated during the Plan Commission’s review of a project called “The Pointe at Sugar Ridge” in 2007. 

 Please refer to the Applicant’s statement(s) and enclosures. 
 The County Engineer’s report on this request is forthcoming and will be included as a separate enclosure, when it is received by the Planning & Zoning. 


Bonds are good until September. Notices will be sent out by July for those.
Proposed ordinance changes to Article 20, regarding signage requirements, of the Zoning Ordinance:
Discussion items brought up: Board questioned the temporary sign time limits and Agricultural U-pick signs. Also restrictions on semi trailers with signs painted on them and parked. Sign restrictions on residential properties could be a gray area as to legality with Supreme Court decisions on those. Weather takes care of many temporary signs. They don’t last. Electronic message boards are mostly located in Bright, St. Leon, and one in Manchester and located on arterial roads in those areas. Signs prohibited include ones that distract by moving in many directions. See section 2020. Sight distance issues being created by signs is being referenced also. There could be massive enforcement issues if they don’t do things right. Temporary signs for real estate were discussed as to permitting over 90 days. The driver for these changes seems to be the supreme court decisions on signs. Commercial signs can be regulated more than free speech. Took park benches out of the ordinance so as to allow businesses etc to sponsor park benches. All removed bus stops as there are none in the county jurisdiction. 2055 leave as is and 2065 also. 
The board is to consider all the items in the proposed sign ordinance language for the next month or two and send comments to McCormack so that he can rewrite and get a vote on it in June or July.
Section in Article 13 in Manufacturing districts which has been a problem for BZA. 1304- #2 So they want to strike out some issues listed there. they will be taking a look at that later.  
Meeting adjourned at 8:30 PM 
Christine Brauer Mueller

Lawrenceburg Township

Rethinking Economic Development

reprinted with permission of IPR

A 'Florida' Vacation?
Rethinking Eco-devo

by Jason Arp

Being a city councilman in a medium-sized city, you are going to come across the writings of Dr. Richard Florida in one way or another. Real estate developers, Chambers of Commerce heads and politicians of all stripes have learned that Florida’s concept of “quality of place” translates into big bucks at the taxpayers’ expense. The best-selling author, however, has recently done an about-face that might signal a change in the appetite of city governments for urban renewal projects.

Florida is a professor of a particular niche of economics labeled “urban studies,” which is sort of an economic geography and public-policy amalgamation. In his 2002 work, “The Rise of the Creative Class,” he posited that in order for a city to be prosperous, particularly its urban core, it needed to attract the type of people who will make it so. 

Florida divides the world into three basic classes: service-industry workers (retail, restaurants, call centers); blue-collar workers (manufacturing, mechanical, construction); and creatives (“knowledge workers,” “techies” and “artists”).

Presumably, the category “knowledge workers” includes bankers, attorneys, architects and doctors as well as painters and videographers. The essence of “The Rise of the Cr
eative Class” was that the right kind of urban growth would only happen in places that attract and retain members of the creative class. In order to attract and retain these talented people, cities must look and act more like San Francisco or New York.

And for the last 15 years cities across the United States have been trying to do just that — recreate themselves to meet the criteria that Florida laid out as having a vibrant “quality of place.” Florida defines that as having the right kind of restaurants, a music scene and lots of stuff to do. This he associates with population density and a certain je ne sais quoi that attracts  younger, hipper people. As a result, cities and states spent billions trying to use the Florida Model to reverse a five-decade flow of people to the suburbs.

The clamor to capture Dr. Florida’s creative class has been the impetus for ever-escalating budgets of redevelopment commissions and community-development departments in city governments nationwide. Tax increment financing (TIF) of downtown apartment complexes became the norm. Florida inspired the creation of regional development authorities and other special-purpose entities. In short, the Florida Model has been a boon to the so-called economic development industry by adding straight-up, public works-type financing to private construction projects, an area previously limited to tax abatement and incentives to individual companies.

But Dr. Florida’s most recent book, “The New Urban Crisis,” can be described as a mea culpa. As data came in from the past decade and a half of re-urbanization, Florida began to see that the people who benefited from his plan were the wealthy, while the poor and middle class suffered. The unintended result, he now writes, was “something that conferred a disproportionate share of its benefits on a small group of places and people.”

But the more startling revelation is the admission that only his previously identified “super-star cities” and “knowledge hubs” actually saw any benefit from his recommendations. Indeed, only a couple of dozen cities showed any benefit whatsoever from catering to his formula, and the great number of those were the cities on which “The Rise of the Creative Class” was modeled. The Florida Model, in other words, fits only the Florida Model.

Dr. Florida, the authority in city planning departments across America, now is saying that Pittsburgh, where he labored as a professor at Carnagie Mellon for 20 years, cannot after all compete with Boston for talent. And that is so despite building a state-of-the-art convention center and two gleaming stadiums. In fact, as a result of what he describes as “winner-take-all urbanism,” places like Pittsburgh — or Indianapolis, or Evansville or Fort Wayne, for that matter — need not apply.

This new policy position likely ends Dr. Florida’s own superstar status in American economic-development circles. His offering the white flag on turning Topeka into San Francisco, while long overdue, is a surrender that will not please his crony capitalist fan club. There is simply too much money left on the table.

Chasing the golden chalice of the creative types has provided a lucrative industry for savvy developers. In my city, downtown apartment buildings complete with posh bars and restaurants are being constructed with public money (to be owned privately, of course) all in the name of attracting the right kind people. 

These deals (yes, there are more than one) are done on the most outrageously uneconomic terms, averaging $275,000 a unit in a city where the average single-family home is priced at $100,000. If you discount the projected future cash flows (rents less expenses) of these operations at a reasonable rate, say six percent, their value would be typically a third of their financed costs. That means the government is paying three times what it should for something that it then gives away to “equity” investors.

“The curse of the creative class,” to borrow the phrase of Steven Malanga, a Manhattan Institute scholar, is that cities now have an elusive goal that can never be measured or even precisely defined, a goal they nonetheless spend hundreds of billions to pursue.

As a result, the “quality of place” rationale justifies practically any project anywhere — riverfront promenades, extensive bike trails, apartments, entertainment districts — as long as it requires massive amounts of public financing.

Dr. Florida’s “new urban crisis” is a crisis for sure, but one of his own making.

Jason Arp, a financial consultant, represents the 4th District on the Fort Wayne City Council. He wrote this for the Indiana Policy Review Foundation.


Richard Florida. The New Urban Crises: Gentrification, Housing Bubbles, Growing Inequality, and What We Can Do about It. S.l.: Oneworld Publications, 2017.

Florida. The Rise of the Creative Class and How It’s Transforming Work, Leisure, Community and Everyday Life. New York: Basic Books, 2002.

Steve Malanga. “The Curse of the Creative Class,”  City Journal, winter 2004. (Retrieved from

The Mission
To marshal the best thought on governmental, economic and educational issues at the state and municipal levels. We seek to accomplish this in ways that:

EXALT the truths of the Declaration of Independence, especially as they apply to the interrelated freedoms of religion, property and speech.

EMPHASIZE  the primacy of the individual in addressing public concerns.

RECOGNIZE that equality of opportunity is sacrificed in pursuit of equality of results.
Indiana Policy Review Foundation
Update your preferences and payment options here to get your password for 2017.

It's easy, sign up here.


From the South Wall "Dollars to the Classroom"; "A Move to Ensure the Bicentennial Legacy"; "Educators in an Era of 'Fake' News" (Neal).
Cover | "Christianity in a Civic Society" (Gard); "The Political Christian" (Schansberg); "The Unraveling" (Lantz) "Politics and the Third Commandment" (Volmerding).
Special Report |  "A Covenant for Young Men in Trouble" (Heath).
Social Division | "Whose Lives Matter?" (McGowan); Framing the News" (Modisette); "An Education in Polarization" (Berkowitz).
Book Review | "Listen, Liberal" by Thomas Frank (Schansberg).
Backgrounders | Webster, Pickerill, Schansberg, Huston, Arp, Ladwig, Watts, Van Cott, Cummins, Bohanon, Harper.
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.
The desktop version of the most recent journal can be shared directly by clicking the social-network icon at the upper left of the PageTurnPro tool bar of a particular issue. And the journal can be read, searched or forwarded from an iPad, iPhone or other hand-held device through this mobile version.

Friday, May 19, 2017




This Agreement is effective as of April 27, 2017 (the “Agreement”) and is executed by and between the Dearborn County Redevelopment Commission (“DCRC”) and One Dearborn, Inc. (“One Dearborn”) whose principal place of business is located at 500 Industrial Drive, Suite 2110, Lawrenceburg, Indiana 47025.
WHEREAS the Dearborn County Redevelopment Commission wishes to acquire certain economic development services which One Dearborn can provide; and
WHEREAS One Dearborn is willing to provide such services in return for appropriate compensation;
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows:

1. Economic Development Services.
During the term of this Agreement, One Dearborn will maintain an economic development office in Dearborn County and will provide the following economic development services to DCRC:
  1. a)  Serve as the central, county-wide Local Economic Development Organization (LEDO) as required by the Indiana Economic Development Corporation (IEDC) and other regional organizations in order to receive confidential new business leads;
  2. b)  Respond to Request for Information (RFI’s) on new business project leads and continuously develop and improve the quality and efficiency of the RFI process. This includes partnering with DCRC in developing incentive responses and negotiation of details with DCRC’s approval;
  3. c)  Serve as a resource, gatekeeper and intermediary between parties to help ensure that new businesses settling in Dearborn County have a professional, quality experience that meets their project deadlines and creates positive impressions.
  4. d)  Promote the County and its TIF Districts through business development marketing, a centralized economic development website and collateral materials which discuss the attributes of the county, region and state of Indiana. This includes maintaining a data base of available sites and building inventory;
  5. e)  Integrate the county’s existing businesses into a comprehensive Business and Retention program, identifying common issues and concerns that could be a barrier to growth and success;
  6. f)  Develop and implement strategies around a ready workforce for current and future employers;
g) Maintain membership and actively participate in appropriate local, regional, state and national economic development organizations that will provide wider exposure for DCRC and build networks, relationships and resources that can be leveraged for improved economic development results over time.
  1. Fees paid to One Dearborn.
    Based upon the time estimated to be required for the above-described Economic Development Services, DCRC will compensate One Dearborn the following fees during the following periods:
    2017 Twenty nine thousand dollars ($29,000) for services for the following period: 6/1/17 through 12/31/2017; and
    2018 Fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) for services for the following period: 1/1/18 through 12/31/18
    For administrative reasons for both parties, fees will be invoiced to DCRC from One Dearborn as follows:
    •   $10,000 invoiced August 1, 2017
    •   $10,000 invoiced October 1, 2017
    •   $ 9,000 invoiced December 1, 2017
    •   $12,500 invoiced March 1, 2018
    •   $12,500 invoiced June 1, 2018
    •   $12,500 invoiced September 1, 2018
    •   $12,500 invoiced December 1, 2018
      Fees are payable within 30 days of receipt of invoice.
  2. Parties agree that:
    1. Payments to One Dearborn under this contract are in exchange for services and other benefits provided to DCRC.
    2. Payments received by One Dearborn are not based upon and do not involve a consideration of the tax revenues or receipts of DCRC.
    3. Payment amounts under this contract have been negotiated by One Dearborn and DCRC.
    4. DCRC shall only be billed for services and other benefits that are actually provided by One Dearborn.

  1. Documentation of Work Performed. One Dearborn will provide regular quarterly reports outlining the work performed and accomplishments and will meet with the board of commissioners of the DCRC (if desired) to review progress. Such reports will be provided with the invoice.
  2. Advisory Input. One Dearborn’s Bylaws allow for contracted entities to sit on an Advisory Board that will meet at least quarterly and as needed. The Advisory Board does not have voting authority which is only given to the One Dearborn Board of Directors, as it is a private organization. After signing this agreement, DCRC may choose to select a member of their board of commissioners to serve as a liaison and advisory representative on the Advisory Board which is designed to obtain input from customers and community partners on economic development strategy, projects, and various work groups to accomplish common goals.
  3. Best Efforts. One Dearborn will use its best efforts, skill and experience in rendering the Economic Development Services described in Item 1. However, DCRC shall recognize that economic development project deals are complex and may not come to final fruition despite quality communication and gatekeeping to ensure issues are resolved and questions answered throughout the process; especially when due to circumstances not under One Dearborn or DCRC’s control. If claims arise relating to the performance of the Economic Development Services hereunder, both parties agree to work amicably to resolve those claims. Each will carry professional liability and the respective insurance carriers may ultimately have to resolve claims in the best interests of both parties.
  4. Term. The term of this Agreement shall be through December 31, 2018. Either party may terminate this agreement in writing within sixty (60) days of its intent to terminate the Agreement. In the case of such notice of termination, the DCRC will only be billed for services and other benefits that are actually provided by One Dearborn.
  5. Extension of Agreement. This agreement shall be renewable for additional terms of one year upon approval by the DCRC and One Dearborn.
  6. Notices. Any notices required or allowed hereunder shall be in writing and given by registered mail to the parties at the following addresses or at such addresses that may be furnished by one party to the other:
    Dearborn County Redevelopment Commission 215B W. High Street
    Lawrenceburg, IN 47025

    One Dearborn, Inc.
    500 Industrial Drive, Suite 2110 Lawrenceburg, IN 47025.

10. Independent Contractor. This Agreement does not create a principal or agent, employer or employee, partnership, joint venture or any other relationship except that of an independent contractor relationship between the parties. Nothing contained herein shall be construed to create or imply a joint venture, principal an agent, employer or employee, partnership, or any other relationship except that of an independent contractor, and neither party shall have any right, power or authority to create any obligation, expressed or implied, on behalf of the other in connection with the performance hereunder.
11.Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire Agreement and understanding between the DCRC and One Dearborn with respect to the subject matter of this Agreement.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement has been executed as of the day and year first above mentioned.
Dearborn County Redevelopment Commission
_______________________________________________ James Deaton, Redevelopment Commission President
One Dearborn, Inc.
______________________________ John Browner, Acting Chair



April 20, 2017 

Dearborn County Redevelopment Commission 
215B West High Street 
Lawrenceburg, IN 47025 

Dear Redevelopment Commissioners: 

Thank you for considering One Dearborn to serve as your economic development service provider. As you deliberate, I assure you the One Dearborn board has the utmost respect for the important role you play and your responsibility to the taxpayers. Frankly, we also applaud your due diligence in evaluating this new relationship by getting all your concerns addressed before entering into an official agreement. I’d like to try and address some of those concerns in this letter and explain the level of work and commitment that will be provided to the Dearborn County Redevelopment Commission if you move forward with One Dearborn.


From a service standpoint, we want you to feel confident you will receive: 1) improved quality, quantity and depth of services for the pressing work of growing your TIF districts and bringing jobs and tax base to Dearborn County, and 2) an important focus, that is not occurring in Dearborn County now, on being prepared to respond to the #1 and #2 concerns of business when choosing where to locate --- workforce quality/availability and quality of place. 

It is our belief that attracting companies to your TIF districts will take more investment in marketing, boots on the ground touching developers and site selectors and networking in the right circles. Moreover, helping you build a plan to develop buildable sites and building inventory is essential. We will have two full time, professionals working on these priorities (and the other important pillars) 100% of their time. 


As to engagement of and services to the municipalities, they do not have as many possible building sites so Business Retention & Expansion (BRE), workforce development and quality of place issues are higher priorities in terms of the support they desire from One Dearborn. We felt it was important to get the county on board first but each mayor has been supportive and updated regularly throughout the development of the organization. Because they each have an economic development professional or city/town manager full time focusing on these issues as well, they will not need as much direct involvement as the county. Thus, the fee structure will reflect that fact along with the distribution of population. 


We believe our model will provide a laser focus with more time commitment than the County Administrator has been able to provide due to multiple responsibilities. Additionally, our diverse group of investors that include utilities companies, like Duke Energy and REMC, and site development professionals will follow the strategic plan closely and monitor the work activity in a way that encourages them to link us to programs through their companies or connections in other parts of the state that may identify resources to help reduce your expenses in the long run. 


One Dearborn will be giving you regular written reports of pertinent work activity, sharing its strategic plan, offering opportunities to be a part of work teams and cross-community committees in addition to having a representative from your commission sitting on an advisory board meeting every other month. Information on that advisory board is attached. 

As leads for projects with an interest in your TIF districts are being vetted, any incentive offers and pertinent information will be shared in Executive Session with your board in the same way you handle leads now. Your One Dearborn representative will be coming to you with those projects and will attend your meetings when appropriate to discuss the work. All legal proceedings for your TIF districts (various boards to coordinate, resolutions, etc.) will still be organized at the county through your resources/clerical assistant. However, over time and with new connections, we hope to develop better processes to help all TIF districts streamline these processes and even provide information or examples that may also reduce your reliance on expensive outside legal counsel for rather routine TIF management processes. 


We take public access laws seriously and fully support open access for citizens to public information. However, there is an important distinction when it comes to the government contracting for professional services and a private company “receiving” government money (a grant). 

Your redevelopment commission, and the county as a whole, regularly contracts significant dollars with engineers, consultants, legal experts, etc. When private companies provide you a clear service that is paid for with tax dollars, this does not make every private company subject to having their company board meetings open to the public. Our services are no different than these types of services and our agreement spells out the services you will receive and the fee associated as well as how/when you will be invoiced. Additionally, the bills will be accompanied by a summary of the work performed under the contract. Like all other service agreements in the county, you can chose to terminate your agreement and manage your TIF district work in a different way. 

Because we were also unclear on this matter, we used legal firms to make sure the organization was set up legally, in a way that is sustainable. We invested several thousand dollars of private sector funds to obtain a legal opinion on this matter from one of the most experienced attorney’s in Indiana on these matters at Barnes & Thornburg. That opinion letter, if you have not yet seen it, is also attached. I am sure Mr. Richard Starkey would be open to speaking with your board attorney to answer any specific questions as well. 


The county is responsible for determining which line items and accounts are appropriate for paying your contractual fees. After the meeting last week, we did pay our attorney at Barnes and Thornburg to provide an opinion on that matter as well in an effort to start that discussion going. A copy of that opinion letter is also attached. 

At his advice, we emailed that to individuals at the State Board of Accounts, including their legal counsel. We asked that they let us know if they concur with the conclusion of Mr. Starkey on that matter. However, beyond that, we feel that this is really an issue that is internal to the government and it is not appropriate for us to be weighing in on how your bills should be paid legally. 

We have been told that it often takes State Board of Accounts several weeks to respond and research inquiries. Thus, it is likely this issue may remain unresolved for some time. Further, it is also possible that the State Board of Accounts does not agree with our legal counsel. In that case, you may indeed need to pay for the services using the method ultimately required by the State Board of Accounts. 

Because you have already been expending funds for some of these services and the REDI membership, etc. out of your cash account, it is our hope that this will not be a deciding factor. However, these factors are really completely up to your board, your legal counsel and your County Auditor to settle. 


In response to your concerns about why 2017 is at a $40,000 fee when services will only run for seven (7) months --- versus 2018 being billed at $50,000 for a full year --- we established those fees based on the additional time and resources that will be expended and deployed aggressively in the first several months of operation. It is critical to get caught up on work that is a high priority and this will take a larger portion of our staff time to ensure we give you the service you deserve. 

However, we understand your concerns and agree to prorate the fee for 2017. This change will reduce the fee from $40,000 to $29,000 (approximately $4,167/per month spread over the seven (7) month service period). We hope this will make it even more enticing to enter into the agreement knowing that we are committed to demonstrating our value and earning your continued business. We have attached a revised service agreement reflecting this reduction. 


The current agreement requires a 90 day notice of intent to terminate the agreement (for either party). It has been expressed that you prefer a shorter period. Thus, we have also revised the contract to read 60 day notice. 


Mrs. Ewan expressed concern about the language in item #6 of the agreement related to waiver of your right to sue One Dearborn for claims other than gross negligence. Our legal counsel recommended that the language remain in the contract. However, we have elected to work to resolve your attorney’s concerns and made changes to the language that essentially leaves both parties obligated to carry professional liability insurance and work amicably to resolve difference with deferral to our respective insurers should such a situation arise. We believe this should address Mrs. Ewan’s concerns. (See revised agreement attached – Item #6). 


One Dearborn is supported by a large capital investment from private companies. As investors, it stands to reason that we will hold our staff and each other accountable for demonstrating that even our own financial investment is accomplishing the bigger goals under each pillar of focus. We intend to remain independent and have a highly engaged and experienced board that will be hands-on beyond simply leaving leadership to the senior executive. Further, before we made individual investment commitments, we required that the organization commit to developing written strategies and key metrics to measure results over time (i.e. jobs, average wages, project leads, BRE visits, average median income, etc.). Like you, we want to ensure that our expenditure of funds produces results. 

With that said, it is important to note that our work will be both short term/action-oriented as well as long term in impact on issues that will take several years to begin to see results. Thus, we will always have to balance the day-to-day focus on today’s tasks-at-hand (growing and retaining business) with the important underlying work related to workforce and quality of place. 


In summation, it is important to restate the reason the private sector has invested funds from their respective businesses in this endeavor. Like you, we have high hopes and a vision for a robust Dearborn County economy and thriving communities. Additionally, we believe it is obvious that we are at a crucial time of opportunity that requires a professional, central Economic Development organization that wakes up every day focused only on work that moves the needle on business attraction, business retention/expansion, work force development and growing our population through quality of place initiatives. Our schools need students and meaningful discussions around major infrastructure barriers like the Highway 50 bottleneck (that is literally creating a physical barrier to growth in your West Aurora TIF district) and a lack of sewer infrastructure must be facilitated between the private sector, government leaders and regional/state influencers.

 Success will only come with investment of more financial resources, time, hard work and bringing new ideas and best practice experiences to the critical work of ensuring that Dearborn County citizens and businesses are prosperous as we move into a future that is highly competitive and a labor market that is driving business location. Together, we can accomplish more and we hope to serve as a liaison, leader and facilitator to all our communities and believe we can build bridges between the various organizations in a way that ensures less duplication of work and more results --- with everyone rowing in the same direction. 

I hope my attempt at responding to your concerns has been beneficial. However, please feel free to contact me with any additional questions or if you would like to have One Dearborn meet with one or two members of your board before the next meeting on Thursday, April 27, 2018. 

With sincere appreciation, 

John Browner, Acting Chair 
One Dearborn, Inc. 
500 Industrial Drive, Suite 2110 
Lawrenceburg, IN 47025 Office 

Phone: (812) 537-4822. Ext. 102