Vieste Bills Slated for Commissioner’s Meeting June 5th
Kudos to the Commissioners and staff for posting their draft agenda 2 weeks in advance of the June 5th meeting. The agenda can be viewed on the County website at www.dearborncounty.org
Go to Government and then to Minutes and Schedules.
Though it is not listed on the agenda- (nor was it listed on the agenda of the last meeting in May) - the termination of the Vieste agreement and paying the pending bills is going to be discussed at this meeting June 5th.
For those of you interested in how much Vieste might cost the county- see previous blogs at the end of May for details.
Commissioners normally do not allow public comment at their meetings unless you are on the agenda. (Contact Commissioner’s Assistant: 537-1040- Ext 0)
Christine Brauer Mueller
Lawrenceburg Township
Thursday, May 31, 2007
Monday, May 28, 2007
VIESTE IS ALMOST GONE BUT NOT FORGOTTEN.
VIESTE IS ALMOST GONE BUT NOT FORGOTTEN
submitted by Alan S Freemond, Sr.
Jackson Township
Two months ago on this blog I had urged the resignation of Vieste et al from work for Dearborn ounty (Read that as work for the wealthy, omnipotent, ubiquitous DCEDI). Well of course no one paid attention to that; there was money to be made! For whom?
With Vieste and its accompanying companies making contributions against the county commissioner campaign of Ralph Thompson, an engineer with an MBA, one became suspicious as to why these companies would prefer a less educated commissioner in fields directly related to their own expertise. In fact there was the aroma of decaying roadkill on a hot July day. .
Now Vieste is leaving and leaving the taxpayers with all sorts of fees to be paid to the principals of Vieste et al for work done? Or work not done?
It is important that we do not make the same poor judgment call again, unless of course our wealthy members of the DCDEI and the Lawrenceburg Chamber of Commerce are willing to foot the bills AND guarantee contracts for all that they currently wish to impose upon the taxpayers of the County; then the costs be damned.
The contract signed by two of the current County Commissioners and former Commissioner Vera Benning was a joke. Among other depredations foisted upon our people was the section IV of the contract which essentially hold Vieste et al HARMLESS. Yes, unless one can prove intentional misconduct on the part of Vieste et al, all damages are paid by who else -- the taxpayers of the county.
Now who was it in the county administration who found Camparato or WAS FOUND by Camparato of Vieste?
With what other business entities did that individual or that group of individuals who proposed Vieste compare their ability, past performance and fee arrangements?
What is the experience of the finder/finders of Vieste or those found by Vieste in such matters?
Were our county officials in over their heads?
What are the qualification of Brian Messmore, Rick Fox, Jeff Hughes and Vera Benning to make such large decisions?
Who advised them?
This is serious business with 10’s of millions of dollars being bandied about by overly ambitious people.
Who decided that Camparato and Branaman were worth 300 dollars an hour?
That is outrageous, did no one question that pay rate? Which county officials were cognizant of that rate of pay? Did they negotiate these fees or were they overwhelmed by the fact that Camparato told of his hard working immigrant forebears, as if none of the rest of us had hard working immigrant forbearers. Oh what a wonderful "up from his boot strap" guy! Huh?
Or did Vieste simply take our obviously impressed officials or official to someplace like the Harrison Room at the Columbia Club in Indianapolis, a favorite watering hole of our Senator Johnny Nugent, to have a few and make a deal?
It is obvious to me that we had inexperienced people dealing with Vieste. It is obvious that the previous three Republicrat Commishes, and some members of the County Council did not act in the best interests of the citizens of this county. The very fact that Vieste and its associated companies campaigned against Commission Thompson, an engineer and a holder of the degree of Master of Business Administration should have raised warning flags and wrung bells. But no, for reasons best known to Commissioners Fox and Hughes, and former commissioner Benning, some members of the County Council, and other officials of the county including the formidable Republican Central Committee this was no alarm. In fact some of them may have encouraged these donations, certainly some approved of these contributions.
This expensive adventure is inexcusable. The money involved represents the tax payments of thousands and thousands of Dearborn Countians. Because this money is casually referred to as county money it is spent with abandon. One would like to see any of the denizens of the courthouse or their enablers, the members of the DCDEI and the Chamber of Commerce, come close to spending their own money as casually as were the payments contracted for and paid to Vieste and its associated companies.
I have sent multiple messages to the various companies associated with Vieste who are involved in Dearborn County. I asked them how they decided that they preferred to not have an engineer/MBA as a commissioner in Dearborn County. Of course they have not answered; there is no honorable answer.
Now let’s get to the fun part, the actual payments agreed upon by our County Commishes and County Administrator.
Vieste et al fixed themselves a deal whereby if they get fired (although there must be a euphemism for the term fired) they’d get plenty of money. Why it’d be enough to get them back to Indianapolis and find another county in which to employ their talents and then some. In fact they are in Wabash County involved in, what else? - an ethanol plant, of course!
So these boys may receive over 92 thousand dollars for simply being fired, terminated, released, or whatever. Yes it’s in that famous contract agreed to by our officials. Did they read it; could they read it; did they really care?
Actually Vieste and its associated companies and people could make a very good living by starting a project, tying the locals into a good contract for themselves and them manage to get fired so that a large chunk of the money appropriated for work not done is paid and Vieste et al can go down the road looking for more Dearborn County type officials.
One of the coziest expenditures is item 2-d, payment for completed work. It seems that our County wisemen are obligated to pay Vieste 2,250 dollars to evaluate a building for possible use by Dearborn County. The building in question is owned by our one and only Fortune management company, the self proclaimed guardians of environment and expert historic old building rehabilitators. If you remember, the Alan Greenspan wannabe’s of the Bond Bank loaned this guy eight million dollars at an interest rate of 1%. That is not a typographical error it is 1% -like one percent. Yet Fortune Management had difficulty raising 360,000 dollars for early-on bills. It was an “accounting problem.” That problem was never explained to the public. Dearborn County has strange happenings doesn’t it? How many times must money be put into that building. The bond bank bonds for Fortune’s 8 million dollars are guaranteed by the taxpayers, the money paid to Vieste to look at that building is also paid by the taxpayers.
Therefore I recommend the following two actions:
1. In regard to the slovenly appropriation of taxpayer money and the acceptance of a ridiculous contract; If the shoe fits (and you know who you are,) resign your positions.
2. The United State Attorney in Indianapolis should determine whether any of the actors in this matter have violated The Federal Honest Service Statute. People actually go to jail as a result of violating that Federal Statute but we all know that don’t we?
Alan Stanley Freemond, Sr.
Tanners Creek Farm
Jackson Township
submitted by Alan S Freemond, Sr.
Jackson Township
Two months ago on this blog I had urged the resignation of Vieste et al from work for Dearborn ounty (Read that as work for the wealthy, omnipotent, ubiquitous DCEDI). Well of course no one paid attention to that; there was money to be made! For whom?
With Vieste and its accompanying companies making contributions against the county commissioner campaign of Ralph Thompson, an engineer with an MBA, one became suspicious as to why these companies would prefer a less educated commissioner in fields directly related to their own expertise. In fact there was the aroma of decaying roadkill on a hot July day. .
Now Vieste is leaving and leaving the taxpayers with all sorts of fees to be paid to the principals of Vieste et al for work done? Or work not done?
It is important that we do not make the same poor judgment call again, unless of course our wealthy members of the DCDEI and the Lawrenceburg Chamber of Commerce are willing to foot the bills AND guarantee contracts for all that they currently wish to impose upon the taxpayers of the County; then the costs be damned.
The contract signed by two of the current County Commissioners and former Commissioner Vera Benning was a joke. Among other depredations foisted upon our people was the section IV of the contract which essentially hold Vieste et al HARMLESS. Yes, unless one can prove intentional misconduct on the part of Vieste et al, all damages are paid by who else -- the taxpayers of the county.
Now who was it in the county administration who found Camparato or WAS FOUND by Camparato of Vieste?
With what other business entities did that individual or that group of individuals who proposed Vieste compare their ability, past performance and fee arrangements?
What is the experience of the finder/finders of Vieste or those found by Vieste in such matters?
Were our county officials in over their heads?
What are the qualification of Brian Messmore, Rick Fox, Jeff Hughes and Vera Benning to make such large decisions?
Who advised them?
This is serious business with 10’s of millions of dollars being bandied about by overly ambitious people.
Who decided that Camparato and Branaman were worth 300 dollars an hour?
That is outrageous, did no one question that pay rate? Which county officials were cognizant of that rate of pay? Did they negotiate these fees or were they overwhelmed by the fact that Camparato told of his hard working immigrant forebears, as if none of the rest of us had hard working immigrant forbearers. Oh what a wonderful "up from his boot strap" guy! Huh?
Or did Vieste simply take our obviously impressed officials or official to someplace like the Harrison Room at the Columbia Club in Indianapolis, a favorite watering hole of our Senator Johnny Nugent, to have a few and make a deal?
It is obvious to me that we had inexperienced people dealing with Vieste. It is obvious that the previous three Republicrat Commishes, and some members of the County Council did not act in the best interests of the citizens of this county. The very fact that Vieste and its associated companies campaigned against Commission Thompson, an engineer and a holder of the degree of Master of Business Administration should have raised warning flags and wrung bells. But no, for reasons best known to Commissioners Fox and Hughes, and former commissioner Benning, some members of the County Council, and other officials of the county including the formidable Republican Central Committee this was no alarm. In fact some of them may have encouraged these donations, certainly some approved of these contributions.
This expensive adventure is inexcusable. The money involved represents the tax payments of thousands and thousands of Dearborn Countians. Because this money is casually referred to as county money it is spent with abandon. One would like to see any of the denizens of the courthouse or their enablers, the members of the DCDEI and the Chamber of Commerce, come close to spending their own money as casually as were the payments contracted for and paid to Vieste and its associated companies.
I have sent multiple messages to the various companies associated with Vieste who are involved in Dearborn County. I asked them how they decided that they preferred to not have an engineer/MBA as a commissioner in Dearborn County. Of course they have not answered; there is no honorable answer.
Now let’s get to the fun part, the actual payments agreed upon by our County Commishes and County Administrator.
Vieste et al fixed themselves a deal whereby if they get fired (although there must be a euphemism for the term fired) they’d get plenty of money. Why it’d be enough to get them back to Indianapolis and find another county in which to employ their talents and then some. In fact they are in Wabash County involved in, what else? - an ethanol plant, of course!
So these boys may receive over 92 thousand dollars for simply being fired, terminated, released, or whatever. Yes it’s in that famous contract agreed to by our officials. Did they read it; could they read it; did they really care?
Actually Vieste and its associated companies and people could make a very good living by starting a project, tying the locals into a good contract for themselves and them manage to get fired so that a large chunk of the money appropriated for work not done is paid and Vieste et al can go down the road looking for more Dearborn County type officials.
One of the coziest expenditures is item 2-d, payment for completed work. It seems that our County wisemen are obligated to pay Vieste 2,250 dollars to evaluate a building for possible use by Dearborn County. The building in question is owned by our one and only Fortune management company, the self proclaimed guardians of environment and expert historic old building rehabilitators. If you remember, the Alan Greenspan wannabe’s of the Bond Bank loaned this guy eight million dollars at an interest rate of 1%. That is not a typographical error it is 1% -like one percent. Yet Fortune Management had difficulty raising 360,000 dollars for early-on bills. It was an “accounting problem.” That problem was never explained to the public. Dearborn County has strange happenings doesn’t it? How many times must money be put into that building. The bond bank bonds for Fortune’s 8 million dollars are guaranteed by the taxpayers, the money paid to Vieste to look at that building is also paid by the taxpayers.
Therefore I recommend the following two actions:
1. In regard to the slovenly appropriation of taxpayer money and the acceptance of a ridiculous contract; If the shoe fits (and you know who you are,) resign your positions.
2. The United State Attorney in Indianapolis should determine whether any of the actors in this matter have violated The Federal Honest Service Statute. People actually go to jail as a result of violating that Federal Statute but we all know that don’t we?
Alan Stanley Freemond, Sr.
Tanners Creek Farm
Jackson Township
Thursday, May 24, 2007
VIESTE,LLC CONTRACT WITH DEARBORN COUNTY
Vieste, LLC
Professional Services Agreement
This agreement made and entered into this 5 day of September, 2006 by and between Vieste, LLC, 47 S. Pennsylvania Street, Suite 600, Indianapolis, Indiana,46204, hereinafter referred to as the “Consultant” and the BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF DEARBORN COUNTY, INDIANA, hereinafter referred to as the “Client.”
IN CONSIDERATION of the covenants hereinafter set forth, the parties hereto mutually agree as follows:
I. SCOPE OF SERVICES
PHASE I: CONSULTANT shall perform consulting services in connection with the CLIENT’S facilities in accordance with the Scope of Services set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto.
PHASE II: CONSULTANT shall be the Program Manager for CLIENT to execute capital projects under the Capital Investment Plan developed in Phase I and to provide ongoing advisory services as mutually agreed and as needed for CLIENT.
II. CONSULTANT’S RESPONSIBILITIES
CONSULTANT shall, subject to the terms and provisions of this AGREEMENT:
Appoint one or more individuals who shall be authorized to act on behalf of CONSULTANT and with whom CLIENT may consult at all reasonable times, and whose instructions, requests, and decisions will be binding upon CONSULTANT as to all matters pertaining to this Agreement and the performance of the parties hereunder.
Use all reasonable efforts to complete the Services within the time period mutually agreed upon, except for reasons beyond its control.
Perform the Services in accordance with generally accepted standards in existence at the time of the performance of Services.
III. CLIENT’S RESPONSIBILITIES
CLIENT shall at all times as may be required for the successful and expeditious completion of the Services:
Provide all criteria and information as to CLIENT’S requirements and designate a person with authority to act on CLIENT’S behalf on all matters concerning the Services.
Furnish the CONSULTANT all existing studies, reports and other available data pertaining to the Services and obtain additional reports, data, and services as may be required for the project. Consultant may be entitled to rely upon all such information, data, and other results of such other services in performing the Services hereunder.
IV. INDEMNIFICATION
To the full extent permitted under applicable law, CLIENT agrees to indemnify and hold harmless CONSULTANT from and against and all suits, actions damages, loss, liability or costs (including, without limitation, reasonable attorneys’ fees directly related thereto) for bodily injury or death of any person or damage to third party property if and to the extent arising, unless such arise from the negligent errors or omissions or willful misconduct of CONSULTANT during the performance if the Services hereunder.
V. COMPENSATION AND TERMS OF PAYMENT
The fees to be charged for the Services performed for Phase I hereunder are set forth in Exhibit A. The fees for Phase II of the contract will be funded out of project budgets as capital projects move forward. CLIENT agrees that CONSULTANT shall be retained as “Program Manager” on all capital projects contemplated as a result of PHASE I.
CONSULTANT shall submit to CLIENT an invoice for services supported by one copy based upon the schedule depicted in Exhibit A. CLIENT agrees to pay CONSULTANT the full amount of such invoice as depicted on Exhibit A. In the event CLIENT disputes any invoice item, CLIENT shall give CONSULTANT written notice of such disputed item within 10 days after receipt of invoice. CLIENT agrees to abide by any statutory prompt pay provisions currently in effect.
VI. TERMINATION
Either party may, with or without cause, terminate the Services at any time upon 90 days written notice to the other. The obligation to provide further Services under this Agreement may be terminated by either party upon 10 days written notice in eth event of substantial failure by the other party to perform in accordance with the terms hereof through no fault of the terminating party. In either case, CONSULTANT shall be paid for all expenses incurred and Services rendered to the date of the termination in accordance with the compensation terms of Exhibit B.
VII. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR
CONSULTANT shall be an independent contractor with respect to the Services to be performed hereunder. Neither CONSULTANT nor any of its subconsultants, nor the employees of either, shall be deemed [NOTE: to be?] to the servants, employees, or agents of CLIENT.
VIII. MISCELLANEOUS
This agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties hereto and supersedes any oral or written representations, understandings, proposals, or communications hertofor entered into by or on account of the parties and may not be changed, modified, or amended except in writing signed by the parties hereto. In the event of any conflict between this contract document and any of the exhibits hereto, the terms and provisions of this contract document shall control. In the event of any conflict among the exhibits, the exhibit of the latest date shall control.
This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Indiana.
In no event shall either party be liable to the other for indirect or consequential damages, including, but not limited to, loss of use, loss of profit or interruption of business, whether arising in contract, tort (including negligence), statute or strict liability.
In the event CLIENT uses a purchase order to administer this Agreement, the use of such form shall be for convenience purposes only, and any typed provision in conflict with eth terms of this Agreement and all preprinted terms and conditions contained in or on such forms shall be deemed stricken and null and void.
This Agreement gives no rights or benefits to anyone other than CLIENT and CONSULTANT and does not create any third party beneficiaries to the Agreement.
INWITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this agreement on the day and year first above written.
CLIENT:
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
DEARBORN COUNTY, INDIANA
(Signed by)
Jeffery Hughes
Richard Fox
Vera Benning
WITNESSED BY:
Bryan Messmore
County Administrator
CONSULTANT:
VIESTE ,LLC
(Signed by)
Michael A. Comparato
President and CEO
DATE: 8/28/06
WITNESSED BY:
Mark H Branaman
Senior Vice President
Professional Services Agreement
This agreement made and entered into this 5 day of September, 2006 by and between Vieste, LLC, 47 S. Pennsylvania Street, Suite 600, Indianapolis, Indiana,46204, hereinafter referred to as the “Consultant” and the BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF DEARBORN COUNTY, INDIANA, hereinafter referred to as the “Client.”
IN CONSIDERATION of the covenants hereinafter set forth, the parties hereto mutually agree as follows:
I. SCOPE OF SERVICES
PHASE I: CONSULTANT shall perform consulting services in connection with the CLIENT’S facilities in accordance with the Scope of Services set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto.
PHASE II: CONSULTANT shall be the Program Manager for CLIENT to execute capital projects under the Capital Investment Plan developed in Phase I and to provide ongoing advisory services as mutually agreed and as needed for CLIENT.
II. CONSULTANT’S RESPONSIBILITIES
CONSULTANT shall, subject to the terms and provisions of this AGREEMENT:
Appoint one or more individuals who shall be authorized to act on behalf of CONSULTANT and with whom CLIENT may consult at all reasonable times, and whose instructions, requests, and decisions will be binding upon CONSULTANT as to all matters pertaining to this Agreement and the performance of the parties hereunder.
Use all reasonable efforts to complete the Services within the time period mutually agreed upon, except for reasons beyond its control.
Perform the Services in accordance with generally accepted standards in existence at the time of the performance of Services.
III. CLIENT’S RESPONSIBILITIES
CLIENT shall at all times as may be required for the successful and expeditious completion of the Services:
Provide all criteria and information as to CLIENT’S requirements and designate a person with authority to act on CLIENT’S behalf on all matters concerning the Services.
Furnish the CONSULTANT all existing studies, reports and other available data pertaining to the Services and obtain additional reports, data, and services as may be required for the project. Consultant may be entitled to rely upon all such information, data, and other results of such other services in performing the Services hereunder.
IV. INDEMNIFICATION
To the full extent permitted under applicable law, CLIENT agrees to indemnify and hold harmless CONSULTANT from and against and all suits, actions damages, loss, liability or costs (including, without limitation, reasonable attorneys’ fees directly related thereto) for bodily injury or death of any person or damage to third party property if and to the extent arising, unless such arise from the negligent errors or omissions or willful misconduct of CONSULTANT during the performance if the Services hereunder.
V. COMPENSATION AND TERMS OF PAYMENT
The fees to be charged for the Services performed for Phase I hereunder are set forth in Exhibit A. The fees for Phase II of the contract will be funded out of project budgets as capital projects move forward. CLIENT agrees that CONSULTANT shall be retained as “Program Manager” on all capital projects contemplated as a result of PHASE I.
CONSULTANT shall submit to CLIENT an invoice for services supported by one copy based upon the schedule depicted in Exhibit A. CLIENT agrees to pay CONSULTANT the full amount of such invoice as depicted on Exhibit A. In the event CLIENT disputes any invoice item, CLIENT shall give CONSULTANT written notice of such disputed item within 10 days after receipt of invoice. CLIENT agrees to abide by any statutory prompt pay provisions currently in effect.
VI. TERMINATION
Either party may, with or without cause, terminate the Services at any time upon 90 days written notice to the other. The obligation to provide further Services under this Agreement may be terminated by either party upon 10 days written notice in eth event of substantial failure by the other party to perform in accordance with the terms hereof through no fault of the terminating party. In either case, CONSULTANT shall be paid for all expenses incurred and Services rendered to the date of the termination in accordance with the compensation terms of Exhibit B.
VII. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR
CONSULTANT shall be an independent contractor with respect to the Services to be performed hereunder. Neither CONSULTANT nor any of its subconsultants, nor the employees of either, shall be deemed [NOTE: to be?] to the servants, employees, or agents of CLIENT.
VIII. MISCELLANEOUS
This agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties hereto and supersedes any oral or written representations, understandings, proposals, or communications hertofor entered into by or on account of the parties and may not be changed, modified, or amended except in writing signed by the parties hereto. In the event of any conflict between this contract document and any of the exhibits hereto, the terms and provisions of this contract document shall control. In the event of any conflict among the exhibits, the exhibit of the latest date shall control.
This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Indiana.
In no event shall either party be liable to the other for indirect or consequential damages, including, but not limited to, loss of use, loss of profit or interruption of business, whether arising in contract, tort (including negligence), statute or strict liability.
In the event CLIENT uses a purchase order to administer this Agreement, the use of such form shall be for convenience purposes only, and any typed provision in conflict with eth terms of this Agreement and all preprinted terms and conditions contained in or on such forms shall be deemed stricken and null and void.
This Agreement gives no rights or benefits to anyone other than CLIENT and CONSULTANT and does not create any third party beneficiaries to the Agreement.
INWITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this agreement on the day and year first above written.
CLIENT:
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
DEARBORN COUNTY, INDIANA
(Signed by)
Jeffery Hughes
Richard Fox
Vera Benning
WITNESSED BY:
Bryan Messmore
County Administrator
CONSULTANT:
VIESTE ,LLC
(Signed by)
Michael A. Comparato
President and CEO
DATE: 8/28/06
WITNESSED BY:
Mark H Branaman
Senior Vice President
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
SHOW ME THE WORK VIESTE HAS DONE!
Vieste, LLC Invoice 11- Date 5/14/2007
Billed to Board of Commissioners Dearborn County, IN
Att’n: Bryan Messmore, County Administrator
Terms- Net 30 days
Capital Program Management:
Item 1…………………………………………………………….$22,500
Item 2-a………………………………………………………….$2,500
Item 2-b………………………………………………………….$3,957.43
Item 2-c…………………………………………………………..$703.64
Item 2-d…………………………………………………………..$2,250
Item 3-a…………………………………………………………..$21,482.80
Item 3-b…………………………………………………………..$21,482.80
Item 3-c…………………………………………………………..$7,482.80
Item 3-d…………………………………………………………..$991.40
Item 4-a…………………………………………………………..$8,832.80
Item 4-b…………………………………………………………..$3,345
Item 5-a…………………………………………………………..$3,381.71
Item 5-b………………………………………………………….$293.23
Item 5-c…………………………………………………………..$661.91
Item 6……………………………………………………………..$17,800
Total ………………………………………………………………$117,665.52
There follows 4pages : 1 of 5, 2 of 5, 3 of 5, 4 of 5, and there is no 5th page of 5. The remainder of the file is receipt copies of travel expenses and meals.
P1 of 5:
Vieste LLC and Dearborn County entered into an agreement to create a Dearborn County Comprehensive Capital Program Management Plan on Sept 5, 2006. The Dearborn County Comprehensive Capital Program Management Plan was submitted and approved by the Dearborn County Commissioners on January 16, 2007. The Dearborn County Comprehensive Capital Program Management Plan consisted of 4 parts:
Economic Development
County Facilities
Transportation
Dearborn County Regional Sanitary District
Vieste representatives along with the Dearborn County Administrator appeared before the Dearborn County Council to present the Dearborn County Comprehensive Capital Program Management Plan (CCPMP) and request funding on their behalf for the development and management of the Dearborn County Comprehensive Capital Program Management Plan.
Vieste representatives along with the Dearborn County Administrator (Messmore) were able to secure funding for the Criminal Justice Facility Project as shown in Appendix 5, Table 4 of eth Dearborn County Comprehensive Capital Program Management Plan. This amount included the funding for Program management services, A/E services, financing, legal, and miscellaneous. The fee for Program Management services was $197,010 and this funding was approved for the months of Jan through June of 2007.
Deduct the invoices already paid:
2/1/2007- $15,000
3/1/2007- $67,814.97
4/1/2007- $39,877.50
Total deducted- $122,692.47
Balance remaining in Program Management services in Criminal Justice Facility in Appendix 5 of the Dearborn County Comprehensive Capital Program Management Plan approved by the DC Commissioners is $74,317.53
Balance remaining in the Criminal Justice Facility Fund approved by DC Council on Feb 13, 2007 for the months of May and June is $74,317.53
THE NEXT ITEMS REPRESENT ITEMS THAT ARE DUE AND PAYABLE FOR WORK COMPLETED TO DATE:
Item 1 Capital Program Management for the period of 9/5/08 thru 1/23/07 for the creation of the Dearborn County Comprehensive Capital Program Management Plan. ½ of deferred payments for Economic Development to be paid in 2007 according to the Contract signed Set 5, 2006- $22,500
Item 2-a- Reimbursement to Vieste, LLC for Master Plan review for the Dearborn County Justice Complex by PSA Dewberry, a Vieste Team Member- Invoice 320307- $2,500.
Item 2-b- Reimbursement to Vieste, LLC for Program management on the Justice Complex by Level 5 Engineering, a Vieste LLC Management Team Member Invoice # 07-015.TR001-1 Chip Broadway 23 hrs @$160/hr= $3680 plus mileage 3 trips and hotel $277.43 Total $3957.43.
Item 2-c- Reimbursement to Vieste, LLC for Program management on the Justice Complex by International Facilities Group, a Vieste LLC team member. Team Member expense report #454- Phil Coutre travel for Justice Complex and kick-off meeting 1/29/07-1/30-07 - $703.84
Item 2-d- Reimbursement to Vieste, LLC for the evaluation of a building owned by Fortune Management by Jungclaus-Campbell, Inc. for reuse by Dearborn County- 9 hours @$250/hr = $2250
Subtotal of Items 2 a-d = 9,411.07
Page 2 of 5
Item 3- Estimate of extra time and expenses incurred by ViesteLLC staff to appear before the Dearborn County Commissioners to offer an explanation of the Criminal Justice Facility need. Also extra appearances before the Dearborn County Council on behalf of the Dearborn County Commissioners to get funding approved for the Dearborn County Economic Development (I-74 NW Quadrant) Plan that the Dearborn County Commissioners approved Jan 16, 2007.
Item 3-a- Feb 13, 2007
Extra meeting with Dearborn county Council to get Financial Approval for DC Commissioners Economic Development Plan.
Mike Comparato – 30 hr @$300/hr = $9,000
Mark Branaman- 30 hr@ $300/hr = $9,000
Adm Team – 20 hr @ $100/hr = $2,000
Dick Robertson- 10 hr @ $125/hr = $1,250
Mileage reimbursement 120 m x2x2x$.485 = $232
Total= $21,482.80
Item 3-b- March 14, 2007
Extra meeting with Council to get Financial approval for DC Commissioners Economic Development Plan
Mike Comparato – 30 hr @$300/hr = $9,000
Mark Branaman- 30 hr@ $300/hr = $9,000
Adm Team – 20 hr @ $100/hr = $2,000
Dick Robertson- 10 hr @ $125/hr = $1,250
Mileage reimbursement 120 m x2x2x$.485 = $232
Total= $21,482.80
Item 3-c- March 21, 2007
Extra meeting with Dearborn County Commissioners to discuss the explanation for an addition to the County Jail Facility
Mike Comparato – 20 hr@ $300/hr= $6,000
Dick Robertson – 10 hr @$125/hr = $1,250
Mileage reimbursement 120 m x2x2x$.485 = $232
Total = $7,482.80
Item 3-d- March 26, 2007
Council President Charlie Fehrman and Bryan Messmore, Co Adm Extra meeting with Commissioner Jeff Hughes
Dick Robertson- 7 hr@ $125/hr = $875
Mileage reimbursement- 120 m x2x$.485 = $116.40
TOTAL- $991.40
Subtotal Items 3athru 3-d = $51,439.80
Page 3 of 5
Item 4-a- From Feb 1 through March 30 2007
Time spent developing a capital program for the Transportation Dept. of Dearborn County with Vieste staff and management team.
Mark Branaman- 12 hr @ $300 /hr= $3,600
Dick Robertson – 40 hr @ $125/hr = $5,000
Mileage reimbursement- Mileage reimbursement 120 m x2x2x$.485 = $232
Total $8,832.80
Item 4-b-Reimbursement to Vieste LLC for Transportation Program Management Review by Level 5 Engineering. Invoice #07-015 TR001-1
Matt Taylor 12 hr @ $160/hr= $1920
Denise Hughes 19 hr @ $75/hr = $1,425
Total $3,345
Total 4a and 4 b = $12,177.80
Item 5 Miscellaneous items for reimbursement not billed from Jan 1 thru May 31, 2007
Item 5-a- Dick Robertson hotel and meal expenses
No date- $ 11- lunch
1/16 - $79.91
1/26 - $120 kickoff luncheon
1/29 - $45.93 Dinner with Vieste team
2/6 - $88.79
2/6 - $79.91
2/12 - $22 dinner
2/19 - $159.82- 2 nights
2/20 - $20.33 lunch and dinner
2/26 - $25 dinner
2/27 - $177.58 2 nights
2/28 - $25.82 lunch and dinner
2/28 - $79.91
3/5 - $28.41 lunch with Vieste team
3/6- $79.91
3/15- $18.82 lunch with Vieste team
3/20- $159.82 – 2 nights
3/30 - $20.33 lunch
4/3- $159.82 2 nights
4/5- nothing
Total hotels and meals- $1402.91
Dick Robertson mileage expenses = 120 m x 17 trips x2 x $.485 = $1978.80
TOTAL = $3,381.71
Item 5-b-Mike Comparato Hotel and meals = $176.83
Mileage 120 m x 2 x $.485 = $118.40
Total $293.23
Item 5-c- Mark Branaman Hotel and meals = $79.91
Mileage – 120 m x 5 trips x 2 x $.485 = $582
Total = $661.91
Total items 5 a-c = $4,336.85
Page 4 of 5
Item 6 – Early project close out.
Mike Comparato – 40 hr @$300/hr = $12,000
Dick Robertson – 40 hr @ $125/hr = $5,000
Adm staff – 8 hr @ $100/hr = $800
Total Item 6 - ESTIMATED Early Close Out Costs = $17,800
Grand total work completed to date, to be invoiced = $117,665.52
Vieste LLC will present these items to Dearborn County Commissioners for approval for work completed to date for or on behalf of Dearborn County Commissioners.
Item 1………………..$22,500
Item 2a thru 2d…..$9,411.07
Item 3a thru 3d…..$51,439.80
Item 4a thru 4b…. $12,177.80
Item 5a thru 5 c….$4,336.85
Item 6………………….$17,800
Total amounts to be billed - $117,665.52
90-Day termination Program Management Services Feed per Appendix 5 Table 4
May $39,877.50
June $39,877.50
July $12,278.19
Total= $92,033.19
Investment in pre-Agreement costs by Vieste to understand Dearborn County’s requirements, develop options, educate and inform client as to possibilities, and perform project scope work.
Dick Robertson $29,375
Mark Branaman $24,600
Mike Comparato $25,000
Total Investment by Vieste in pre Agreement Costs = $78,975
[NOTE: These figures are all IN ADDITION to the invoices for Vieste and London Witte previously submitted and recorded on this blog site. This entry was retyped from the Vieste forms submitted to the county last week. ]
Christine Brauer Mueller
Lawrenceburg Township
Billed to Board of Commissioners Dearborn County, IN
Att’n: Bryan Messmore, County Administrator
Terms- Net 30 days
Capital Program Management:
Item 1…………………………………………………………….$22,500
Item 2-a………………………………………………………….$2,500
Item 2-b………………………………………………………….$3,957.43
Item 2-c…………………………………………………………..$703.64
Item 2-d…………………………………………………………..$2,250
Item 3-a…………………………………………………………..$21,482.80
Item 3-b…………………………………………………………..$21,482.80
Item 3-c…………………………………………………………..$7,482.80
Item 3-d…………………………………………………………..$991.40
Item 4-a…………………………………………………………..$8,832.80
Item 4-b…………………………………………………………..$3,345
Item 5-a…………………………………………………………..$3,381.71
Item 5-b………………………………………………………….$293.23
Item 5-c…………………………………………………………..$661.91
Item 6……………………………………………………………..$17,800
Total ………………………………………………………………$117,665.52
There follows 4pages : 1 of 5, 2 of 5, 3 of 5, 4 of 5, and there is no 5th page of 5. The remainder of the file is receipt copies of travel expenses and meals.
P1 of 5:
Vieste LLC and Dearborn County entered into an agreement to create a Dearborn County Comprehensive Capital Program Management Plan on Sept 5, 2006. The Dearborn County Comprehensive Capital Program Management Plan was submitted and approved by the Dearborn County Commissioners on January 16, 2007. The Dearborn County Comprehensive Capital Program Management Plan consisted of 4 parts:
Economic Development
County Facilities
Transportation
Dearborn County Regional Sanitary District
Vieste representatives along with the Dearborn County Administrator appeared before the Dearborn County Council to present the Dearborn County Comprehensive Capital Program Management Plan (CCPMP) and request funding on their behalf for the development and management of the Dearborn County Comprehensive Capital Program Management Plan.
Vieste representatives along with the Dearborn County Administrator (Messmore) were able to secure funding for the Criminal Justice Facility Project as shown in Appendix 5, Table 4 of eth Dearborn County Comprehensive Capital Program Management Plan. This amount included the funding for Program management services, A/E services, financing, legal, and miscellaneous. The fee for Program Management services was $197,010 and this funding was approved for the months of Jan through June of 2007.
Deduct the invoices already paid:
2/1/2007- $15,000
3/1/2007- $67,814.97
4/1/2007- $39,877.50
Total deducted- $122,692.47
Balance remaining in Program Management services in Criminal Justice Facility in Appendix 5 of the Dearborn County Comprehensive Capital Program Management Plan approved by the DC Commissioners is $74,317.53
Balance remaining in the Criminal Justice Facility Fund approved by DC Council on Feb 13, 2007 for the months of May and June is $74,317.53
THE NEXT ITEMS REPRESENT ITEMS THAT ARE DUE AND PAYABLE FOR WORK COMPLETED TO DATE:
Item 1 Capital Program Management for the period of 9/5/08 thru 1/23/07 for the creation of the Dearborn County Comprehensive Capital Program Management Plan. ½ of deferred payments for Economic Development to be paid in 2007 according to the Contract signed Set 5, 2006- $22,500
Item 2-a- Reimbursement to Vieste, LLC for Master Plan review for the Dearborn County Justice Complex by PSA Dewberry, a Vieste Team Member- Invoice 320307- $2,500.
Item 2-b- Reimbursement to Vieste, LLC for Program management on the Justice Complex by Level 5 Engineering, a Vieste LLC Management Team Member Invoice # 07-015.TR001-1 Chip Broadway 23 hrs @$160/hr= $3680 plus mileage 3 trips and hotel $277.43 Total $3957.43.
Item 2-c- Reimbursement to Vieste, LLC for Program management on the Justice Complex by International Facilities Group, a Vieste LLC team member. Team Member expense report #454- Phil Coutre travel for Justice Complex and kick-off meeting 1/29/07-1/30-07 - $703.84
Item 2-d- Reimbursement to Vieste, LLC for the evaluation of a building owned by Fortune Management by Jungclaus-Campbell, Inc. for reuse by Dearborn County- 9 hours @$250/hr = $2250
Subtotal of Items 2 a-d = 9,411.07
Page 2 of 5
Item 3- Estimate of extra time and expenses incurred by ViesteLLC staff to appear before the Dearborn County Commissioners to offer an explanation of the Criminal Justice Facility need. Also extra appearances before the Dearborn County Council on behalf of the Dearborn County Commissioners to get funding approved for the Dearborn County Economic Development (I-74 NW Quadrant) Plan that the Dearborn County Commissioners approved Jan 16, 2007.
Item 3-a- Feb 13, 2007
Extra meeting with Dearborn county Council to get Financial Approval for DC Commissioners Economic Development Plan.
Mike Comparato – 30 hr @$300/hr = $9,000
Mark Branaman- 30 hr@ $300/hr = $9,000
Adm Team – 20 hr @ $100/hr = $2,000
Dick Robertson- 10 hr @ $125/hr = $1,250
Mileage reimbursement 120 m x2x2x$.485 = $232
Total= $21,482.80
Item 3-b- March 14, 2007
Extra meeting with Council to get Financial approval for DC Commissioners Economic Development Plan
Mike Comparato – 30 hr @$300/hr = $9,000
Mark Branaman- 30 hr@ $300/hr = $9,000
Adm Team – 20 hr @ $100/hr = $2,000
Dick Robertson- 10 hr @ $125/hr = $1,250
Mileage reimbursement 120 m x2x2x$.485 = $232
Total= $21,482.80
Item 3-c- March 21, 2007
Extra meeting with Dearborn County Commissioners to discuss the explanation for an addition to the County Jail Facility
Mike Comparato – 20 hr@ $300/hr= $6,000
Dick Robertson – 10 hr @$125/hr = $1,250
Mileage reimbursement 120 m x2x2x$.485 = $232
Total = $7,482.80
Item 3-d- March 26, 2007
Council President Charlie Fehrman and Bryan Messmore, Co Adm Extra meeting with Commissioner Jeff Hughes
Dick Robertson- 7 hr@ $125/hr = $875
Mileage reimbursement- 120 m x2x$.485 = $116.40
TOTAL- $991.40
Subtotal Items 3athru 3-d = $51,439.80
Page 3 of 5
Item 4-a- From Feb 1 through March 30 2007
Time spent developing a capital program for the Transportation Dept. of Dearborn County with Vieste staff and management team.
Mark Branaman- 12 hr @ $300 /hr= $3,600
Dick Robertson – 40 hr @ $125/hr = $5,000
Mileage reimbursement- Mileage reimbursement 120 m x2x2x$.485 = $232
Total $8,832.80
Item 4-b-Reimbursement to Vieste LLC for Transportation Program Management Review by Level 5 Engineering. Invoice #07-015 TR001-1
Matt Taylor 12 hr @ $160/hr= $1920
Denise Hughes 19 hr @ $75/hr = $1,425
Total $3,345
Total 4a and 4 b = $12,177.80
Item 5 Miscellaneous items for reimbursement not billed from Jan 1 thru May 31, 2007
Item 5-a- Dick Robertson hotel and meal expenses
No date- $ 11- lunch
1/16 - $79.91
1/26 - $120 kickoff luncheon
1/29 - $45.93 Dinner with Vieste team
2/6 - $88.79
2/6 - $79.91
2/12 - $22 dinner
2/19 - $159.82- 2 nights
2/20 - $20.33 lunch and dinner
2/26 - $25 dinner
2/27 - $177.58 2 nights
2/28 - $25.82 lunch and dinner
2/28 - $79.91
3/5 - $28.41 lunch with Vieste team
3/6- $79.91
3/15- $18.82 lunch with Vieste team
3/20- $159.82 – 2 nights
3/30 - $20.33 lunch
4/3- $159.82 2 nights
4/5- nothing
Total hotels and meals- $1402.91
Dick Robertson mileage expenses = 120 m x 17 trips x2 x $.485 = $1978.80
TOTAL = $3,381.71
Item 5-b-Mike Comparato Hotel and meals = $176.83
Mileage 120 m x 2 x $.485 = $118.40
Total $293.23
Item 5-c- Mark Branaman Hotel and meals = $79.91
Mileage – 120 m x 5 trips x 2 x $.485 = $582
Total = $661.91
Total items 5 a-c = $4,336.85
Page 4 of 5
Item 6 – Early project close out.
Mike Comparato – 40 hr @$300/hr = $12,000
Dick Robertson – 40 hr @ $125/hr = $5,000
Adm staff – 8 hr @ $100/hr = $800
Total Item 6 - ESTIMATED Early Close Out Costs = $17,800
Grand total work completed to date, to be invoiced = $117,665.52
Vieste LLC will present these items to Dearborn County Commissioners for approval for work completed to date for or on behalf of Dearborn County Commissioners.
Item 1………………..$22,500
Item 2a thru 2d…..$9,411.07
Item 3a thru 3d…..$51,439.80
Item 4a thru 4b…. $12,177.80
Item 5a thru 5 c….$4,336.85
Item 6………………….$17,800
Total amounts to be billed - $117,665.52
90-Day termination Program Management Services Feed per Appendix 5 Table 4
May $39,877.50
June $39,877.50
July $12,278.19
Total= $92,033.19
Investment in pre-Agreement costs by Vieste to understand Dearborn County’s requirements, develop options, educate and inform client as to possibilities, and perform project scope work.
Dick Robertson $29,375
Mark Branaman $24,600
Mike Comparato $25,000
Total Investment by Vieste in pre Agreement Costs = $78,975
[NOTE: These figures are all IN ADDITION to the invoices for Vieste and London Witte previously submitted and recorded on this blog site. This entry was retyped from the Vieste forms submitted to the county last week. ]
Christine Brauer Mueller
Lawrenceburg Township
22 May 2007 Dearborn County Council Meeting Notes
22 May 2007 Dearborn County Council Meeting Notes
Present: Fehrman, Chairman, Kraus, Sr., Ullrich, Morris, Cheek, and Lansing. (Stephanie Disbro covered minutes for Pickens)
Absent: Mitter Also Absent: Pickens, Auditor in Indy for Auditor’s training and Messmore, County Administrator.
Library Districts: Mary Alice Horton, Aurora and Sally Stenger, Lawrenceburg – passed out their annual report and asked for the Council’s blessing for this phase o f their request for a library tax to cover their capital projects fund. It goes to the state after this. Cheek motioned Morris 2nd All ayes- passed.
Sally Stenger asked for the Council to reappoint Julia Dickey to the Library Board. Kraus motioned Cheek 2nd – all ayes. Passed.
Sandy Karly and Becky Foster of PAWS passed out an update on PAWS funding for the new animal shelter with $450,000 remaining to raise of the $1.6 Million total thanks to an $800,000 matching grant from Lawrenceburg. The new website is www.pawsofdearborncounty.org.
Chuck Folop of the Dearborn County Clearinghouse requested $1,500 for 2 refrigerators that died in Lawrenceburg and Aurora. Cheek motioned and Lansing 2nd to approve $1,500 from the Benevolent Fund. All ayes passed.
Brett Fehrman and Bob Powell of Hillforest requested $5,000 from the benevolent fund toward their $44,000 total that they need to do maintenance repairs on the home. Ullrich motioned and ? 2nd. All ayes. Passed.
Ullrich stated specifically that he wanted CVTB (the tourism board) to match it.
Aaron Negangard- Prosecutor requested $5,000 from $21,000 available from the Diversion Fund (money that is not tax money- derived from other court fees) for “equipment.” No specifics were given or details on costs of these items that were not named. Kraus motioned and Lansing 2nd. All ayes. Passed.
GIS- Margaret Minzner requested $1998 from County General for mileage to get through the year. Cheek motioned and Ullrich 2nd. All ayes. Passed.
Highway and MVHA – Todd Listerman took about 10 minutes presenting and 15 minutes answering questions then Cheek motioned and Kraus 2nd to approve the following- all ayes -passed:
$50,000 for Wilson Creek repair and $45,000 for Collier Ridge geotech ($18K)and engineering design ($20-25K) were approved from Major Moves funding.
$75,000 concrete and $25,000 steel to repair small structures from Cum Bridge
$100,000 to do design work on bridges and small structures. ($50,000 of this goes to 3 that need work now according to recent inspections.)
Cheek asked Listerman about Dutch Hollow work and wanted him to see if Greg Platt would donate ROW to fix curves on the stretch they are about o repair up there. Listerman said he hadn’t asked Platt but remembered he personally wanted the road fixed for “whatever reason.” Listerman also said the hump at the other end where there was much more traffic needed repair also- and funds were limited.
Ullrich said a woman from Ennis Ridge had called to get the chip seal section fixed. It has a thin overlay on Ennis Ridge and then this chip seal deteriorated section up to Hyland Road. Listerman said it’s about in the middle of the chip seal list ranking.
Ralph Thompson- Commissioner- spoke about the need to look at the road funding- he gets lots of calls and it seems they have about $2million to do $20 million of work. He has told a lot of people that they are not going to get their roads fixed. They are not happy to hear that. But there is not enough money.
Listerman said if it weren’t for casino cash, he does not know what he’d do- as the fuel tax is not keeping up with needs.
Morris said that there has been a lot of progress in the county- she didn’t use to have snow plowed except for locals like Tidwell and Tucker doing it. Now the county does. And she has a nice surface on their road.
Cheek said they need to look at this at budget to reinforce road dollars- maybe cut some of the other things funded.
Budget hearings are set for August 20, 21, and 22 this year.
In answer to Lansing’s questions about the July meeting they were supposed to have for Vieste Fehrman told Council that both parties agreed it was not worth pursuing. There was $378,000 appropriated in the jail fund for them.
Thompson- Commissioner- got up then and recapped the discussions at the last commissioner meeting saying Messmore had read a prepared statement and commissioners voted to accept the termination pending the cost of terminating the project at their June 5 meeting. He gave them a copy of Vieste’s bill to look over. He said there were jail issues with PSA Dewberry quoting mostly from RQAW’s study that the county already had. He thinks we “need to do the job right and quit screwing around.”
Council said that they thought Chamber or EDI was contacting Purdue/IU Business schools to see if they would do this as a school project.
Thompson said he’d spent the day reviewing the jail/courthouse facilities today and those people are working in very tight spaces.
Fehrman said he thought he’d let the Commissioners wade through this Vieste agreement first and then Council would step in.
Thompson said it looks like they (Vieste) want to take all the money in the account.
Numbers mentioned were $117,000 plus another $92,000 plus $78,000 in the billing, which appears to be IN ADDITION to the $206,000 already paid out.
Fehrman said if they have given us say 3/5 ingredients of whatever finished project- we pay- but he doesn’t want to pay for lost work claims. Fehrman asked about London Witte’s contract. (I spoke up and told them London Witte’s contract specifically says they do not charge extra to come to meetings for the Council and public informational ones)
Thompson said most work he’s ever seen done- you get pay for work- not pay for time- in his business.
No action.
Cheek asked about Mitter’s status- and was told by Fehrman that he was taking a job in Indy- Hamilton County, IN. Nothing else was know specifically yet.
Meeting adjourned at 8:45 PM
Christine Brauer Mueller
Lawrenceburg Township
Present: Fehrman, Chairman, Kraus, Sr., Ullrich, Morris, Cheek, and Lansing. (Stephanie Disbro covered minutes for Pickens)
Absent: Mitter Also Absent: Pickens, Auditor in Indy for Auditor’s training and Messmore, County Administrator.
Library Districts: Mary Alice Horton, Aurora and Sally Stenger, Lawrenceburg – passed out their annual report and asked for the Council’s blessing for this phase o f their request for a library tax to cover their capital projects fund. It goes to the state after this. Cheek motioned Morris 2nd All ayes- passed.
Sally Stenger asked for the Council to reappoint Julia Dickey to the Library Board. Kraus motioned Cheek 2nd – all ayes. Passed.
Sandy Karly and Becky Foster of PAWS passed out an update on PAWS funding for the new animal shelter with $450,000 remaining to raise of the $1.6 Million total thanks to an $800,000 matching grant from Lawrenceburg. The new website is www.pawsofdearborncounty.org.
Chuck Folop of the Dearborn County Clearinghouse requested $1,500 for 2 refrigerators that died in Lawrenceburg and Aurora. Cheek motioned and Lansing 2nd to approve $1,500 from the Benevolent Fund. All ayes passed.
Brett Fehrman and Bob Powell of Hillforest requested $5,000 from the benevolent fund toward their $44,000 total that they need to do maintenance repairs on the home. Ullrich motioned and ? 2nd. All ayes. Passed.
Ullrich stated specifically that he wanted CVTB (the tourism board) to match it.
Aaron Negangard- Prosecutor requested $5,000 from $21,000 available from the Diversion Fund (money that is not tax money- derived from other court fees) for “equipment.” No specifics were given or details on costs of these items that were not named. Kraus motioned and Lansing 2nd. All ayes. Passed.
GIS- Margaret Minzner requested $1998 from County General for mileage to get through the year. Cheek motioned and Ullrich 2nd. All ayes. Passed.
Highway and MVHA – Todd Listerman took about 10 minutes presenting and 15 minutes answering questions then Cheek motioned and Kraus 2nd to approve the following- all ayes -passed:
$50,000 for Wilson Creek repair and $45,000 for Collier Ridge geotech ($18K)and engineering design ($20-25K) were approved from Major Moves funding.
$75,000 concrete and $25,000 steel to repair small structures from Cum Bridge
$100,000 to do design work on bridges and small structures. ($50,000 of this goes to 3 that need work now according to recent inspections.)
Cheek asked Listerman about Dutch Hollow work and wanted him to see if Greg Platt would donate ROW to fix curves on the stretch they are about o repair up there. Listerman said he hadn’t asked Platt but remembered he personally wanted the road fixed for “whatever reason.” Listerman also said the hump at the other end where there was much more traffic needed repair also- and funds were limited.
Ullrich said a woman from Ennis Ridge had called to get the chip seal section fixed. It has a thin overlay on Ennis Ridge and then this chip seal deteriorated section up to Hyland Road. Listerman said it’s about in the middle of the chip seal list ranking.
Ralph Thompson- Commissioner- spoke about the need to look at the road funding- he gets lots of calls and it seems they have about $2million to do $20 million of work. He has told a lot of people that they are not going to get their roads fixed. They are not happy to hear that. But there is not enough money.
Listerman said if it weren’t for casino cash, he does not know what he’d do- as the fuel tax is not keeping up with needs.
Morris said that there has been a lot of progress in the county- she didn’t use to have snow plowed except for locals like Tidwell and Tucker doing it. Now the county does. And she has a nice surface on their road.
Cheek said they need to look at this at budget to reinforce road dollars- maybe cut some of the other things funded.
Budget hearings are set for August 20, 21, and 22 this year.
In answer to Lansing’s questions about the July meeting they were supposed to have for Vieste Fehrman told Council that both parties agreed it was not worth pursuing. There was $378,000 appropriated in the jail fund for them.
Thompson- Commissioner- got up then and recapped the discussions at the last commissioner meeting saying Messmore had read a prepared statement and commissioners voted to accept the termination pending the cost of terminating the project at their June 5 meeting. He gave them a copy of Vieste’s bill to look over. He said there were jail issues with PSA Dewberry quoting mostly from RQAW’s study that the county already had. He thinks we “need to do the job right and quit screwing around.”
Council said that they thought Chamber or EDI was contacting Purdue/IU Business schools to see if they would do this as a school project.
Thompson said he’d spent the day reviewing the jail/courthouse facilities today and those people are working in very tight spaces.
Fehrman said he thought he’d let the Commissioners wade through this Vieste agreement first and then Council would step in.
Thompson said it looks like they (Vieste) want to take all the money in the account.
Numbers mentioned were $117,000 plus another $92,000 plus $78,000 in the billing, which appears to be IN ADDITION to the $206,000 already paid out.
Fehrman said if they have given us say 3/5 ingredients of whatever finished project- we pay- but he doesn’t want to pay for lost work claims. Fehrman asked about London Witte’s contract. (I spoke up and told them London Witte’s contract specifically says they do not charge extra to come to meetings for the Council and public informational ones)
Thompson said most work he’s ever seen done- you get pay for work- not pay for time- in his business.
No action.
Cheek asked about Mitter’s status- and was told by Fehrman that he was taking a job in Indy- Hamilton County, IN. Nothing else was know specifically yet.
Meeting adjourned at 8:45 PM
Christine Brauer Mueller
Lawrenceburg Township
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
21 May 2007 Dearborn County Plan Commission Meeting Notes
21 May 2007 Dearborn County Plan Commission Meeting Notes
Present: Mike Hall, Chairman, Tarry Feiss, Nick Held, Ken Nelson, Robert Laws, Dennis Kraus, Jr., and Ralph Thompson.
Absent: Mark Mitter and Patrick DeMaynadier
Also Present: Mark McCormack, Planning Director, Mike Ionna, Assistant Planner shared with West Harrison and St. Leon, and Arnie McGill, Attorney. Absent: Kate Rademacher, Enforcement Officer
1.Variance for driveway spacing to allow direct access to Lake Tambo Rd (a collector)was granted to Eugene and Melanie Cappel for 31.5 acres for their son to build a home on the family farm I Jackson Township. Dennis Kraus , Jr. stepped down for this item and his father, Dennis Kraus Sr. presented the case for the Cappels. Sight distance was 1000 ft in each direction and the driveway access was needed in this area to prevent using up space for eth soybean fields and accessory barn. Thompson motioned and Nelson 2nd to grant the 137 ft variance because it met all 4 criteria though Thompson questioned the one about “public morals.” All ayes- motion passed.
Nelson also asked for clarification on the difference between subdivision ordinance variances and dimensional variances.
2.Proposed changes to the Zoning Ordinance were discussed:
Section 1640 changed the language to allow more than one person to decide whether a change to a development plan was major or minor- it is now proposed to have tech review look at them rather than just the Planning director. More examples of minor changes were discussed and it was noted that minor changes can have a cumulative effect- therefore they were only going to allow one per year- if more they have to go to PC. Most of these used examples of issues with Sugar Ridge, where they did some changes and considered even the lawns on each lot as part of the “open space” requirements in a so -called minor change. Thompson motioned and Feiss 2nded to do more review on this. All ayes.
Section 315 on conditional use permits – particularly multi-family housing was approved to go to the commissioners with Thompson motioning and Feiss 2nd all ayes. It includes language encouraging concept development plans for these cases. These uses go to both PC and BZA. There will eventually be more residential divisions in the code. As an aside it was noted that Farruggia had lost their options on the Stateline Road property for Classic Properties, a case where this multifamily use might have been used.
Sewage and water supply ordinance was discussed with a presentation from John Grace of the County Health Dept. This was difficult to follow without seeing the actual language changes and Grace’s presentation had some VERY SMALL text. The PC members were given written copies.
Ewbank had prepared a version of this ordinance at Hughes’s request and the PC had 60 days to act upon it. There was concern that the commissioner’s version was not legal as it was less stringent than the state requirements.
Grace stressed that the Health Dept works with people to allow time to fix their septic tanks and leach fields. He also noted that there is NO GRANDFATHERING of older approved systems that are no longer approved by the health dept. There have been numerous issues with requests to remodel homes, build pools, or pole barns where NO ADDITIONAL LOAD is put on the septic system and yet the permit requires the system to be checked to get the permit. The Health Dept recommended they leave the ordinance as is or use #2, #3 with setbacks changed to 50 ft on the downhill side of the leach field, or develop another option with Plan Dept, Health Dept, and Building dept. input. Grace also cited Ind Adm Code Rule 410 and bulletin SE 11.
Thompson was concerned they would use reviewing septic supply to force people onto sewers. Grace said that in areas with small lots there were no options except costly ones.
Thompson motioned and Laws 2nd to do option #3 as proposed by the Planning Dept with changes to be 50 ft on the downhill side of the leach field as a minimum distance for the building. Passed to go to commissioners for approval.
Thompson also suggested they look at SDRSD and Greendale in particular to see how public sewer systems should be built.
ADMINISTRATIVE:
Staff is working on grants to help Bright Fire Dept get water tanker. Hoping to get $100,000 from Lawrenceburg for this as the increased development in the area has overloaded Bright’s ability to handle it all financially.
Margaret Minzner (GIS) also helped them with their FEMA grant.
There was a vague question regarding someone approaching the PC next month and whether or not it should be on their agenda.
The future land use material will be available around the end of June and the PC plans to have the public hearing in August or September to be sure to set it at a time where most people are NOT on vacation.
McCormack also noted there was some talk at the last Advisory Board Meeting for the Master plan about getting outsiders to help with maps. He noted historically this has not been successful with Corradino and HNTB plans failing and more recently the Capital Improvement Plan and parts of the Sewer Study even. He wanted the PC to let him know if they wanted to pursue this or if they wanted staff to change their approach. Thompson told him that he wanted to commend staff on how they handled the planned and the data they produced. He asked that they not feel the frustrations of the committee were addressed to them specifically. PC members seemed to concur with this- nodding as he said that.
The fiscal impact model is being considered with OKI and the County Extension office as sources.
Staff is also working on amendments to the zoning districts.
Staff requested a change in the code to upgrade costs for certified mail to reflect new postal rates. Granted.
Two places were open for a seminar on Tuesday evening on Historical and Preservation Codes. Plan members will let Cathy know if they can attend.
Meeting adjourned at 9:30 PM
Christine Brauer Mueller
Lawrenceburg Township
Present: Mike Hall, Chairman, Tarry Feiss, Nick Held, Ken Nelson, Robert Laws, Dennis Kraus, Jr., and Ralph Thompson.
Absent: Mark Mitter and Patrick DeMaynadier
Also Present: Mark McCormack, Planning Director, Mike Ionna, Assistant Planner shared with West Harrison and St. Leon, and Arnie McGill, Attorney. Absent: Kate Rademacher, Enforcement Officer
1.Variance for driveway spacing to allow direct access to Lake Tambo Rd (a collector)was granted to Eugene and Melanie Cappel for 31.5 acres for their son to build a home on the family farm I Jackson Township. Dennis Kraus , Jr. stepped down for this item and his father, Dennis Kraus Sr. presented the case for the Cappels. Sight distance was 1000 ft in each direction and the driveway access was needed in this area to prevent using up space for eth soybean fields and accessory barn. Thompson motioned and Nelson 2nd to grant the 137 ft variance because it met all 4 criteria though Thompson questioned the one about “public morals.”
Nelson also asked for clarification on the difference between subdivision ordinance variances and dimensional variances.
2.Proposed changes to the Zoning Ordinance were discussed:
Section 1640 changed the language to allow more than one person to decide whether a change to a development plan was major or minor- it is now proposed to have tech review look at them rather than just the Planning director. More examples of minor changes were discussed and it was noted that minor changes can have a cumulative effect- therefore they were only going to allow one per year- if more they have to go to PC. Most of these used examples of issues with Sugar Ridge, where they did some changes and considered even the lawns on each lot as part of the “open space” requirements in a so -called minor change. Thompson motioned and Feiss 2nded to do more review on this. All ayes.
Section 315 on conditional use permits – particularly multi-family housing was approved to go to the commissioners with Thompson motioning and Feiss 2nd all ayes. It includes language encouraging concept development plans for these cases. These uses go to both PC and BZA. There will eventually be more residential divisions in the code. As an aside it was noted that Farruggia had lost their options on the Stateline Road property for Classic Properties, a case where this multifamily use might have been used.
Sewage and water supply ordinance was discussed with a presentation from John Grace of the County Health Dept. This was difficult to follow without seeing the actual language changes and Grace’s presentation had some VERY SMALL text. The PC members were given written copies.
Ewbank had prepared a version of this ordinance at Hughes’s request and the PC had 60 days to act upon it. There was concern that the commissioner’s version was not legal as it was less stringent than the state requirements.
Grace stressed that the Health Dept works with people to allow time to fix their septic tanks and leach fields. He also noted that there is NO GRANDFATHERING of older approved systems that are no longer approved by the health dept. There have been numerous issues with requests to remodel homes, build pools, or pole barns where NO ADDITIONAL LOAD is put on the septic system and yet the permit requires the system to be checked to get the permit. The Health Dept recommended they leave the ordinance as is or use #2, #3 with setbacks changed to 50 ft on the downhill side of the leach field, or develop another option with Plan Dept, Health Dept, and Building dept. input. Grace also cited Ind Adm Code Rule 410 and bulletin SE 11.
Thompson was concerned they would use reviewing septic supply to force people onto sewers. Grace said that in areas with small lots there were no options except costly ones.
Thompson motioned and Laws 2nd to do option #3 as proposed by the Planning Dept with changes to be 50 ft on the downhill side of the leach field as a minimum distance for the building. Passed to go to commissioners for approval.
Thompson also suggested they look at SDRSD and Greendale in particular to see how public sewer systems should be built.
ADMINISTRATIVE:
Staff is working on grants to help Bright Fire Dept get water tanker. Hoping to get $100,000 from Lawrenceburg for this as the increased development in the area has overloaded Bright’s ability to handle it all financially.
Margaret Minzner (GIS) also helped them with their FEMA grant.
There was a vague question regarding someone approaching the PC next month and whether or not it should be on their agenda.
The future land use material will be available around the end of June and the PC plans to have the public hearing in August or September to be sure to set it at a time where most people are NOT on vacation.
McCormack also noted there was some talk at the last Advisory Board Meeting for the Master plan about getting outsiders to help with maps. He noted historically this has not been successful with Corradino and HNTB plans failing and more recently the Capital Improvement Plan and parts of the Sewer Study even. He wanted the PC to let him know if they wanted to pursue this or if they wanted staff to change their approach. Thompson told him that he wanted to commend staff on how they handled the planned and the data they produced. He asked that they not feel the frustrations of the committee were addressed to them specifically. PC members seemed to concur with this- nodding as he said that.
The fiscal impact model is being considered with OKI and the County Extension office as sources.
Staff is also working on amendments to the zoning districts.
Staff requested a change in the code to upgrade costs for certified mail to reflect new postal rates. Granted.
Two places were open for a seminar on Tuesday evening on Historical and Preservation Codes. Plan members will let Cathy know if they can attend.
Meeting adjourned at 9:30 PM
Christine Brauer Mueller
Lawrenceburg Township
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Fiscal Impact of Growth Research Site
Fiscal Impact of Growth Research Site from Purdue Economist
For an excellent overview and researchon the fiscal impact of growth by Larry DeBoer, an AgEconomist from Purdue, copy and paste the following web address into your browser. This will take you to an Indiana Local Government Information Website at purdue.
http://www.agecon.purdue.edu/crd/localgov/Second%20Level%20pages/topic_fiscal_impact.htm#Implications%22%3E
For an excellent overview and researchon the fiscal impact of growth by Larry DeBoer, an AgEconomist from Purdue, copy and paste the following web address into your browser. This will take you to an Indiana Local Government Information Website at purdue.
http://www.agecon.purdue.edu/crd/localgov/Second%20Level%20pages/topic_fiscal_impact.htm#Implications%22%3E
Growth Rate Calculation and Population Projections for Dearborn County for 10 Years
Growth Rate Calculation and Population Projection
Researched by Planning office staff and provided to Master Plan Advisory Board
All core data from Census 2000-2006 Tables and studies
Some of these tables cannot be reproduced on the blog- that data is being summarized.
Table 1 showed the county population increase from 2000 through 2006 going from 46,352 to 49,663
The net change was 2,775
There was a TOTAL population increase of 3,311 with 3,651 births, 2,157 deaths leading to a natural increase (births minus deaths) of 1,494.
There was in migration of 1,817.
The average annual growth rate was calculated as 1.15
Using this number: Table 2 took population projections from 2007 through 2017 as being 49,663 in the beginning of 2007 and ending with 55,679 in 2017 for a total new population of 6,016 people.
To determine the effects of population on housing and land consumption- 4 more tables were presented:
Table A showed projected new housing units needed for the 6,016 people at 2,220 homes using the average household size of 2.71 people calculated in 2000.
Table B showed residential construction trends in number of new homes in 10 year increments:
Pre 1940- 3,272
1940-1959- 2,995
1960-1969- 1,413
1970-1979- 3,040
1980-1989- 2,567
1990-2000- 4,585 (This was 90-94-1,922 and 95-00 – 2,663)
Table C Showed how much Land would be consumed at different densities from 2007 through 2017 It was also broken down by native population and in-migration:
High Density at 1.25 acres would use 300.3acres for natives and 365.7 acres for migration =666 acres
Mid density at 1 acre would use 1,001.1 acres for natives and 1,340.9 acres for migration=2,442acres
Mid density at 3 acres would use 3,153.2 acres for natives and 3,839.9 acres for migration=6,993acres
Low density at 5 acres would use 5,205.2 acres for natives and 6,338.8 acres for migration=11,544 acres
Table D showed Miscellaneous County Population Land Data:
Projected Population Increase from 2007-2017 = 3,002 natural increase and 3,654 in-migration
Average County household size in 2000 = 2.71 people
Density- (Persons per square mile) = 151.2
Farmland in 2002= 74,042 acres
County land Area = 305 square miles
Median Home value= $120,600
Ownership Rate = 78.6%
Researched by Planning office staff and provided to Master Plan Advisory Board
All core data from Census 2000-2006 Tables and studies
Some of these tables cannot be reproduced on the blog- that data is being summarized.
Table 1 showed the county population increase from 2000 through 2006 going from 46,352 to 49,663
The net change was 2,775
There was a TOTAL population increase of 3,311 with 3,651 births, 2,157 deaths leading to a natural increase (births minus deaths) of 1,494.
There was in migration of 1,817.
The average annual growth rate was calculated as 1.15
Using this number: Table 2 took population projections from 2007 through 2017 as being 49,663 in the beginning of 2007 and ending with 55,679 in 2017 for a total new population of 6,016 people.
To determine the effects of population on housing and land consumption- 4 more tables were presented:
Table A showed projected new housing units needed for the 6,016 people at 2,220 homes using the average household size of 2.71 people calculated in 2000.
Table B showed residential construction trends in number of new homes in 10 year increments:
Pre 1940- 3,272
1940-1959- 2,995
1960-1969- 1,413
1970-1979- 3,040
1980-1989- 2,567
1990-2000- 4,585 (This was 90-94-1,922 and 95-00 – 2,663)
Table C Showed how much Land would be consumed at different densities from 2007 through 2017 It was also broken down by native population and in-migration:
High Density at 1.25 acres would use 300.3acres for natives and 365.7 acres for migration =666 acres
Mid density at 1 acre would use 1,001.1 acres for natives and 1,340.9 acres for migration=2,442acres
Mid density at 3 acres would use 3,153.2 acres for natives and 3,839.9 acres for migration=6,993acres
Low density at 5 acres would use 5,205.2 acres for natives and 6,338.8 acres for migration=11,544 acres
Table D showed Miscellaneous County Population Land Data:
Projected Population Increase from 2007-2017 = 3,002 natural increase and 3,654 in-migration
Average County household size in 2000 = 2.71 people
Density- (Persons per square mile) = 151.2
Farmland in 2002= 74,042 acres
County land Area = 305 square miles
Median Home value= $120,600
Ownership Rate = 78.6%
HOW MUCH LAND IS AVAILABLE FOR RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION IN DEARBORN COUNTY?
How much land is available for residential construction in unincorporated Dearborn County?
Open Lots in Dearborn County- Data researched and provided to Master Plan Advisory Board by the Planning Office Staff:
Subdivision Name ./Total Number of Lots /Number of Lots Available
Bear Tree Subdivision /9 /Built out
Block Hollow/9 /5
Briarwood Estates /92/ 34
Brightwood Estates/ 114/ 9
Brookstone Way /114/ 104
Carlee Acres/ 10/ 4
Cedar Ridge/ 18/ 12
Chapel Thorne Estates/ 21/ 20
Colonial Acres/ 103/ Built out
East Dearborn Heights /19/ 14
Eden Garden Estates /16/ 7
Goldenrod Acres /17/ 7
Happy Hollow Estates /19/ 3
Harley Springs/ 87/ 18
Hidden Valley Lake/ 3109 /1398
High Ridge Estates /108 /61
Hill Springs Acres /18/10
Indian Ridge Estates/ 85/ 58
Long Branch Ridge /15/ 9
Manchester Farms /11/ 8
Miller Ridge Estates /9 /5
Mountain Meadows /167/ 29
Old Orchard Hill /105/ 46
Park Place Estates /78/ 25
Picnic Woods /281/ 25
Rocky Mountain Estates /129/ 44
Rookwood Estates /39/ 29
Seldom Seen Estates /109 /3
Shangri-La /232/ 197
Skeen’s Lands/ 11/ 6
Somerset/ 12/ Built out
Villages of Sugar Ridge /315units/ 203
West Miller Addition /14/ 2
Wildfire Estates/ 9/ 8
Woods Edge /15/ 10
*Lake Dilldear /204/ Built out?
**Harvest Ridge /198with44S /179with25 available in section 1
**Hidden Acres /295/ in for 2ndary approval
**Lawrenceville Farms/ 20/ Section 3 in for 9 lots
**Morgan’s Ridge Estates /190/ in for 2ndary approval
**Stonebrook Estates /122 /2ndary approval ready to expire
**Whitewater Pointe /136/ in for 2ndary approval
*Denotes open lots or units that must be combined for the purposes of building 1 house.
**Denotes subdivisions that have been approved on a preliminary basis, but have not yet completed the legal process to sell/transfer land.
This report does NOT include minor subdivisions or certified survey “open” lots nor does it include an estimate for the incorporated areas. These figures do NOT reflect lots that have been combined to accommodate improvements that are situated on platted property lines.
How Much Land Do We Need for Future Commercial and Industrial Use?
How Much Land Do We Need for Future Commercial and Industrial Use?
Some information researched by Planning office staff for Master Plan Advisory Board:
This might be helpful in discussions of how much commercial and industrial acreage is needed for the future of the county.
Average Sizes of Commerical / Industrial Uses
Fast Food Size of Parcel
McDonald's 35,000 sq.ft.
Burger King 20,000 - 40,000 sq.ft
Taco Bell 35,000 sq.ft.
Long John Silvers 35,000 sq.ft.
Big Box Retail
Walmart
100 Sycamore Estates Dr. 20.32 acres
1143 Smiley Ave 25.58 acres
2322 Ferguson Rd 14.00 acres
3430 Highland Ave 14.10 acres
5375 West Fork 15.51 acres
Average 17.9 acres
Lowes
505 E. Kemper 14.70 acres
10235 Colerain Ave 18.28 acres
970 W Eads Pky 11.75 acres
Average 14.9 acres
Home Depot
1266 Omniplex Dr 14.60 acres
3400 Highland Ave 13.44 acres
Average 14.0 acres
Banks
UCB
92 Walnut St 0.21
215 W Eads Parkway 0.18
1970 Stateline Rd 0.48
Average .291 acres
Fifth Third
132 Calhoun 0.11
4812 Vine St 0.20
7001 Vine St 0.14
1850 Seymour 0.91
6800 Hamilton 0.70
Average .410 acres
US Bank
7660 Reading Rd 0.18
4525 Montgomery Rd 0.69
317 Ridge Ave 0.10
239 Walnut Ave 0.12
1203 W Eads Parkway 0.85
Average .388 acres
Industrial
Honda Plant 1,700 acres
AAP St. Mary's Corp. 58.41 acres
Industrial Parks/Sites
Circleport II 176.80
Enterprise V Industrial Park 133.30
Walton Industrial Park 108.60
Southpoint Business Park 101.00
Tewes Business Parks 47.50
CPX Mt. Zion 45.60
Airpark International 79.70
Northern Ky Industrial Park 44.80
Airpark West 76.30
South Park Business Center 31.10
Executive Center 275 24.00
Circleport IV 19.90
Northern Ky Inudstrial Park II 21.60
Aurora Casket Company 10.00
Anchor Glass 59.18
Andres Property 23.00
Lobenstein Property 25.00
Mariah Property 40.00
Stone Property 50.00
Tanners Creek Properties 100.00
V&G Rack Industrial Park 150.00
Ziegler Property 17.00
Average 62.92 acres
Office Uses
State Farm Insurance
549 Walnut 0.1
23596 Jeb Dr. 0.81
535 Green Blvd. 0.68
2637 Erie Ave 0.2
4953 Delhi Pike 0.13
4796 Ridge Ave 0.21
Average 0.35 acres
*Various office properties for sale
0.23
0.46
0.67
0.78
1.20
1.99
2.50
Total 7.83
Average 1.12 acres
Median .78 acres
*Various warehousing properties for sale
0.87
0.97
1.07
1.54
1.60
2.50
2.82
2.92
3.00
3.00
3.12
3.42
4.23
4.96
6.41
7.00
9.72
10.00
12.00
30.00
Total 111.15
Average 5.56 acres
Median 3.06 acres
*Various manufacturing properties for sale
0.52
1.33
2.01
3.15
6.07
8.87
9.50
29.00
Total 60.45
Average 7.50 acres
Median 4.61 acres
* The acreages for these industrial uses were obtained
through the Colliers International list of commercial
properties for sale in various regions throughout Ohio,
Kentucky, and Indiana.
Some information researched by Planning office staff for Master Plan Advisory Board:
This might be helpful in discussions of how much commercial and industrial acreage is needed for the future of the county.
Average Sizes of Commerical / Industrial Uses
Fast Food Size of Parcel
McDonald's 35,000 sq.ft.
Burger King 20,000 - 40,000 sq.ft
Taco Bell 35,000 sq.ft.
Long John Silvers 35,000 sq.ft.
Big Box Retail
Walmart
100 Sycamore Estates Dr. 20.32 acres
1143 Smiley Ave 25.58 acres
2322 Ferguson Rd 14.00 acres
3430 Highland Ave 14.10 acres
5375 West Fork 15.51 acres
Average 17.9 acres
Lowes
505 E. Kemper 14.70 acres
10235 Colerain Ave 18.28 acres
970 W Eads Pky 11.75 acres
Average 14.9 acres
Home Depot
1266 Omniplex Dr 14.60 acres
3400 Highland Ave 13.44 acres
Average 14.0 acres
Banks
UCB
92 Walnut St 0.21
215 W Eads Parkway 0.18
1970 Stateline Rd 0.48
Average .291 acres
Fifth Third
132 Calhoun 0.11
4812 Vine St 0.20
7001 Vine St 0.14
1850 Seymour 0.91
6800 Hamilton 0.70
Average .410 acres
US Bank
7660 Reading Rd 0.18
4525 Montgomery Rd 0.69
317 Ridge Ave 0.10
239 Walnut Ave 0.12
1203 W Eads Parkway 0.85
Average .388 acres
Industrial
Honda Plant 1,700 acres
AAP St. Mary's Corp. 58.41 acres
Industrial Parks/Sites
Circleport II 176.80
Enterprise V Industrial Park 133.30
Walton Industrial Park 108.60
Southpoint Business Park 101.00
Tewes Business Parks 47.50
CPX Mt. Zion 45.60
Airpark International 79.70
Northern Ky Industrial Park 44.80
Airpark West 76.30
South Park Business Center 31.10
Executive Center 275 24.00
Circleport IV 19.90
Northern Ky Inudstrial Park II 21.60
Aurora Casket Company 10.00
Anchor Glass 59.18
Andres Property 23.00
Lobenstein Property 25.00
Mariah Property 40.00
Stone Property 50.00
Tanners Creek Properties 100.00
V&G Rack Industrial Park 150.00
Ziegler Property 17.00
Average 62.92 acres
Office Uses
State Farm Insurance
549 Walnut 0.1
23596 Jeb Dr. 0.81
535 Green Blvd. 0.68
2637 Erie Ave 0.2
4953 Delhi Pike 0.13
4796 Ridge Ave 0.21
Average 0.35 acres
*Various office properties for sale
0.23
0.46
0.67
0.78
1.20
1.99
2.50
Total 7.83
Average 1.12 acres
Median .78 acres
*Various warehousing properties for sale
0.87
0.97
1.07
1.54
1.60
2.50
2.82
2.92
3.00
3.00
3.12
3.42
4.23
4.96
6.41
7.00
9.72
10.00
12.00
30.00
Total 111.15
Average 5.56 acres
Median 3.06 acres
*Various manufacturing properties for sale
0.52
1.33
2.01
3.15
6.07
8.87
9.50
29.00
Total 60.45
Average 7.50 acres
Median 4.61 acres
* The acreages for these industrial uses were obtained
through the Colliers International list of commercial
properties for sale in various regions throughout Ohio,
Kentucky, and Indiana.
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
15 May 2007 Dearborn County Commissioner Meeting Notes
15 May 2007 Dearborn County Commissioner Meeting Notes
VIESTE AND COMMISSIONERS PLAN TO PART WAYS- SEE DETAILS BELOW on Item #3
Present: Hughes, Chairman, Fox, and Thompson.
Also present: Pickens, Auditor, Ewbank, Attorney, and Messmore, Administrator.
A uniformed police officer was present. Gary Morris, Republican Party Chairman, was also present throughout most of the meeting.
Meeting started 10 minutes late. Executive session preceded this meeting regarding litigation potential for PSEG tax abatement issues. The meeting was to be continued later for further consideration- no decision.
1. Margaret Minzner- GIS- presented another possible vendor for GIS services. Andrew Harrison of Schneider Corporation gave a 15- minute overview of their services and client comments on their company. He noted that people have a desire to get info after courthouse hours and from their homes- so GIS tools are valuable. They also cut down on employee counter time with citizens. They have 300 staff with 8 certified and 25 senior level GIS. Schneider has been in business since the early 1960s.
Thompson asked questions regarding proprietary software- (which didn’t get a direct answer)- Harrison said it had an open architecture and was on the EIS platform. He said they’d use county info in answer to the question about rectifying parcel discrepancies and the cost estimate was about $12-16 per parcel – depending on what’s involved. He did say this was NOT SURVEY GRADE software and that it was a combination of vector and RAST (sp?) No decision- commissioners just heard this presentation. Minzner will be back for more discussion to decide the way to proceed next.
2. Animal Control Ordinance- per Fox- it’s to be discussed further at May 21st meeting.
3. Bryan Messmore- Administrator- read a prepared statement stating that he’d spoken with Dick Robertson and Mike Comparato of Vieste and they mutually agreed that the comprehensive capital program be put on hold indefinitely
The team thinks more work needs to be done to get public support.
Vieste has submitted a termination agreement, which is currently in Ewbank’s hands. Messmore wants all outstanding claims for the June 5th meeting. Messmore said he personally looks forward to working with them sometime in the future.
Thompson asked if the county would get the deliverables to date. Messmore said yes. The agreement per Ewbank relieves both Vieste and the county with the dollar amount to be inserted by June 5th when the outstanding claims are in. Thompson motioned and Fox 2nd to affirm this pending approval of the final dollar amounts on June 5th. Passed.
Messmore left after this.
[NOTE: There has been over $200,000 paid to date on this Vieste plan. It would be interesting to see what “deliverables” or work has actually been accomplished for the bulk of that money. With the plan tied to the NW Quadrant as its cash cow to pay for the other county building projects, particularly the expanded jail, there will need to be major revisions with public input before a plan will succeed. The county needs to remember that at the core of any plan- the desires of the people come first. Plans are about the people and for the people. Sustainable plans balance THREE factors- economics, environmental, and social. Making it all about the first and neglecting the other two factors will NOT provide a successful venture. Let’s hope we’ve learned something for our $200,000 mistake.]
New Business:
4.David Tinsley- Huffman Road Extension- Art Wenzel from surveyor office looked into this. Listerman noted it was on the county maintenance list clear back to Wilson property. (.73 miles) This goes through an easement on Tinsley’s property to Wilson’s. There is a declared 30 ft ROW and the county is going to handle this like they did Vogelsang Road per Fox. Listerman will research and get the deeds done. Fox motioned and Thompson 2nd to allow the county engineer to maintain the road as currently listed on the road inventory.
5.John Wright- Langley Heights – York Avenue- (an old ROW that is a grassy path to Wright’s and other properties.) Wright wants the ROW opened up and the encroachments off the ROW. He and a neighbor had surveys done to verify status for the county. Art Wenzel from County surveyor’s office said this was part of an 1891 plat with 110 plats and 4 houses. The ROW is 30-ft on all streets with a few fences put up- some are 2-3 ft inside with gates. Archie Crouch has done a lot of surveying here. Listerman will speak with tenants and owners and draw up a letter to show that it’s county ROW. The sheriff will be able to enforce then- and keep cars, gates, and playhouses, etc. from blocking free passage through the ROW. They are not asking for a road- just free access through the county ROW that exists. Passed.
6.Gus Grote- Noise ordinance- gave info on noise readings at his establishment in Bright. He has an outdoor band playing at night and facing the building. Grote says the noise level is fine- thinks it would be OK to 100 db at night and neighbors ¼ mile away can just close their windows. He has been cited twice and wants the law changed to avoid further citation. [NOTE: It would seem that the neighbors also have a right to quiet enjoyment of their property. Why force increased energy consumption with A/C use if windows have to be closed on warm nights? Perhaps the band should move INDOORS after 9 or 10 PM]
They discussed Lawrenceburg’s laws, county law 93.01, and planning ordinance 2532 and decided that the sheriff will report to commissioners on a reasonable level to consider. Passed.
7.Todd Listerman- Transportation gave a 5-minute report and then answered commissioner’s questions for another 5 minutes.
Everyone was invited to Seymour District INDOT meeting 2:30-4 and 5:30-7 on Tues May 22 to go over county plans and new funding issues to see what we will get done.
Stateline and Stephens on target for June 1st completion. The annual report will be ready for signatures soon.
Wilson Creek will proceed when the 2nd owner signs the right of entry forms.
Collier Ridge has HC Nutting doing geotech plans for $10,500 and the county working in-house. Fox asked Listerman to be sure flashing lights were on the signs there- as it’s a “death trap.”
Owners can pay for Private drive signs and and pay to have county install them. Todd will write up a policy on this for commissioners to review.
Advertising for 2007 paving and striping was done and snowplow ads soon to follow.
8. Pickens had claims and service agreements signed for Cummings and the assessor. He also reported more savings on the NACO drug plans.
PSA Dewberry Claim was released as they finally produced details of work and costs. Fox noted to Thompson that he thought they got the message.
Hughes said it was unfortunate that they had to sever the contract with Vieste.
Fox said that since they were not moving forward he didn’t want to get any more bills.
Meeting adjourned 8:45 PM
Christine Brauer Mueller
Lawrenceburg Township
VIESTE AND COMMISSIONERS PLAN TO PART WAYS- SEE DETAILS BELOW on Item #3
Present: Hughes, Chairman, Fox, and Thompson.
Also present: Pickens, Auditor, Ewbank, Attorney, and Messmore, Administrator.
A uniformed police officer was present. Gary Morris, Republican Party Chairman, was also present throughout most of the meeting.
Meeting started 10 minutes late. Executive session preceded this meeting regarding litigation potential for PSEG tax abatement issues. The meeting was to be continued later for further consideration- no decision.
1. Margaret Minzner- GIS- presented another possible vendor for GIS services. Andrew Harrison of Schneider Corporation gave a 15- minute overview of their services and client comments on their company. He noted that people have a desire to get info after courthouse hours and from their homes- so GIS tools are valuable. They also cut down on employee counter time with citizens. They have 300 staff with 8 certified and 25 senior level GIS. Schneider has been in business since the early 1960s.
Thompson asked questions regarding proprietary software- (which didn’t get a direct answer)- Harrison said it had an open architecture and was on the EIS platform. He said they’d use county info in answer to the question about rectifying parcel discrepancies and the cost estimate was about $12-16 per parcel – depending on what’s involved. He did say this was NOT SURVEY GRADE software and that it was a combination of vector and RAST (sp?) No decision- commissioners just heard this presentation. Minzner will be back for more discussion to decide the way to proceed next.
2. Animal Control Ordinance- per Fox- it’s to be discussed further at May 21st meeting.
3. Bryan Messmore- Administrator- read a prepared statement stating that he’d spoken with Dick Robertson and Mike Comparato of Vieste and they mutually agreed that the comprehensive capital program be put on hold indefinitely
The team thinks more work needs to be done to get public support.
Vieste has submitted a termination agreement, which is currently in Ewbank’s hands. Messmore wants all outstanding claims for the June 5th meeting. Messmore said he personally looks forward to working with them sometime in the future.
Thompson asked if the county would get the deliverables to date. Messmore said yes. The agreement per Ewbank relieves both Vieste and the county with the dollar amount to be inserted by June 5th when the outstanding claims are in. Thompson motioned and Fox 2nd to affirm this pending approval of the final dollar amounts on June 5th. Passed.
Messmore left after this.
[NOTE: There has been over $200,000 paid to date on this Vieste plan. It would be interesting to see what “deliverables” or work has actually been accomplished for the bulk of that money. With the plan tied to the NW Quadrant as its cash cow to pay for the other county building projects, particularly the expanded jail, there will need to be major revisions with public input before a plan will succeed. The county needs to remember that at the core of any plan- the desires of the people come first. Plans are about the people and for the people. Sustainable plans balance THREE factors- economics, environmental, and social. Making it all about the first and neglecting the other two factors will NOT provide a successful venture. Let’s hope we’ve learned something for our $200,000 mistake.]
New Business:
4.David Tinsley- Huffman Road Extension- Art Wenzel from surveyor office looked into this. Listerman noted it was on the county maintenance list clear back to Wilson property. (.73 miles) This goes through an easement on Tinsley’s property to Wilson’s. There is a declared 30 ft ROW and the county is going to handle this like they did Vogelsang Road per Fox. Listerman will research and get the deeds done. Fox motioned and Thompson 2nd to allow the county engineer to maintain the road as currently listed on the road inventory.
5.John Wright- Langley Heights – York Avenue- (an old ROW that is a grassy path to Wright’s and other properties.) Wright wants the ROW opened up and the encroachments off the ROW. He and a neighbor had surveys done to verify status for the county. Art Wenzel from County surveyor’s office said this was part of an 1891 plat with 110 plats and 4 houses. The ROW is 30-ft on all streets with a few fences put up- some are 2-3 ft inside with gates. Archie Crouch has done a lot of surveying here. Listerman will speak with tenants and owners and draw up a letter to show that it’s county ROW. The sheriff will be able to enforce then- and keep cars, gates, and playhouses, etc. from blocking free passage through the ROW. They are not asking for a road- just free access through the county ROW that exists. Passed.
6.Gus Grote- Noise ordinance- gave info on noise readings at his establishment in Bright. He has an outdoor band playing at night and facing the building. Grote says the noise level is fine- thinks it would be OK to 100 db at night and neighbors ¼ mile away can just close their windows. He has been cited twice and wants the law changed to avoid further citation. [NOTE: It would seem that the neighbors also have a right to quiet enjoyment of their property. Why force increased energy consumption with A/C use if windows have to be closed on warm nights? Perhaps the band should move INDOORS after 9 or 10 PM]
They discussed Lawrenceburg’s laws, county law 93.01, and planning ordinance 2532 and decided that the sheriff will report to commissioners on a reasonable level to consider. Passed.
7.Todd Listerman- Transportation gave a 5-minute report and then answered commissioner’s questions for another 5 minutes.
Everyone was invited to Seymour District INDOT meeting 2:30-4 and 5:30-7 on Tues May 22 to go over county plans and new funding issues to see what we will get done.
Stateline and Stephens on target for June 1st completion. The annual report will be ready for signatures soon.
Wilson Creek will proceed when the 2nd owner signs the right of entry forms.
Collier Ridge has HC Nutting doing geotech plans for $10,500 and the county working in-house. Fox asked Listerman to be sure flashing lights were on the signs there- as it’s a “death trap.”
Owners can pay for Private drive signs and and pay to have county install them. Todd will write up a policy on this for commissioners to review.
Advertising for 2007 paving and striping was done and snowplow ads soon to follow.
8. Pickens had claims and service agreements signed for Cummings and the assessor. He also reported more savings on the NACO drug plans.
PSA Dewberry Claim was released as they finally produced details of work and costs. Fox noted to Thompson that he thought they got the message.
Hughes said it was unfortunate that they had to sever the contract with Vieste.
Fox said that since they were not moving forward he didn’t want to get any more bills.
Meeting adjourned 8:45 PM
Christine Brauer Mueller
Lawrenceburg Township
Wednesday, May 02, 2007
1 May 2007 Dearborn County Commissioners Meeting Notes
1 May 2007 Dearborn County Commissioners Meeting Notes
Present: Hughes, President, Fox, and Thompson
Also present: Pickens, Auditor, Ewbank, Attorney, and Messmore, Administrator
Dick Robertson, Vieste/Level 5 Engineering ,LLC – the so-called “extension of county staff” was also present tonight- and presented his claims for payment at the end of the meeting.
No uniformed officers were present.
OLD BUSINESS:
Don Townsend- Bldg Dept- presented the facts of the case tabled from 4/17 meeting regarding a burned out structure on Winter St at the end of Conwell just outside Aurora city limits. Ewbank swore Townsend in- declaring his testimony to be the truth. [NOTE: Wonder what would happen if all presenters were sworn in at county meetings?]
Townsend said the building burned on 1/19/2005 per Aurora FD and was unsafe, had gang graffiti on it, and that the order to Bev Gabbard was sent 4/4 and effective 4/16 for 60 days notice to demolish and clean up the building debris. She’s about half way through demolition- neighbor complained of debris laying all over and flying into neighboring property and the creek. If Gabbard fails to clean it all up by mid June then the county will do it and a lien will be placed on her taxes to collect the fees for this. Ewbank then called Bev Gabbard’s name 3 times and she was not present. Commissioners voted to allow the order to demolish with a deadline of 60 days from 4/16.
GIS- Margaret Minzner introduced the Sidwell Company with a presentation for parcel building for our GIS system database. Neal Carpenter, CEO and Joyce West Account Manager presented a thorough overview of their services, their company, personnel, and services. They are based in St. Charles, IL but have 90+ counties throughout the Midwest- many in IA, IL and IN. They presented this also to the office holders recently and Pickens said “ I think it’s kinda’ nice and you know I don’t like anything!” [NOTE: Sidwell did one of the classiest presentations I’ve seen at the county. It was low key- informative- very open to questions- (several technical ones came from Thompson).] They gave key references to check- stated it is NOT proprietary software- it is compatible with ProVAL and Low and stated that we should map it once- map it right and it should easily last 100 years. The idea is that the technology can change, but if they stay compatible with certain systems, you can just upgrade and forward the data to the new format. As long as the basic data is accurate- the system will last if updated regularly. Carpenter noted that the topography and other issues in our county made it a challenge, but that they liked working on those kinds of challenging projects. Sidwell started in 1927 and is 100% employee owned. Average tenure of employees is 11 years. They have 6- IAAO CMS designees on staff. They are the leader in Cadastral Mapping. The cost is estimated to be about $800,000- certainly no more. Commissioners took this info under advisement.
Animal Control Ordinance – not ready yet.
Purchasing Agent Ordinance was briefly discussed but commissioners seem to want to leave this as is for now.
NEW Business:
Bill Black- EMA- gave an overview of the Homeland Security grant received and got commissioners to sign off on it. Total $517,000 which includes $50,ooo for district manager adm., $450,000 for mobile command unit for the region, $17,000 for more laptops for first responders at %1,000 each, and $150,000 for a regional exercise project at Muscatatuck.
They also signed a Greater Cincinnati agreement to assist each other in the tristate area. We still don’t have a Mutual Aid agreement with Ohio. Black is also going to a WEBEOC conference in San Antonio to tie the state together.
Gary Hensley- Assessor- gave an overview of his first 1/16 of a term and stated that his office is now complaint and property tax revenue will be released. He stressed that the contracts he’s working under were started prior to his tenure. He mentioned the $45,000 Homestead Credit and reminded commissioners that he doesn’t MAKE THE RULES- he has to work with them. There are problems in his current software and wants ASII that was created by a user to be purchased for sales disclosures for $12,500. It is compatible with ProVAL and LOW , but he’s not sure if it is with GIS. The trustees requested he seek bids for new construction assessor- because only one trustee is certified to do this. He was OK’d to select and hire from the 3 bids he has opened already. No Names were given at this meeting.
Robert Bissett- Property Tax questions- citizen moved here about 3 years ago. He mentioned that his wife has a degree in computer science from Mount St, Joe and he has a masters in Inf Tech from Ball State and that neither of them can figure out what their property taxes will be! The math doesn’t work. He talked to Hensley also about why the county was using out of state assessors to work here- rather than hiring locally. He wondered when we were getting through reassessment to get a bill that makes sense. Hensley noted we are going to go through another reassessment next year. Assessments go up, then the rates should go down. They are hoping to get a budget order with rates soon.
Bissett asked about getting an update on Ag Econ Dev Meetings- but said that could be at a later meeting- he saw a full agenda tonight. Hughes said they talked about farm products, biofuels, and wants to get a round table through the Chamber or the Extension Office.
Todd Listerman Transportation Dept- Gave a 15-minute summary (which is short for Listerman) of Council’s actions at their April meeting, presented a signatory page for the bridge inspections, which were performed for $96,831 and noted the cost 2 years from now on the 2nd part will be $86,325. The county also saved $300 on these contracts. These are 80/20 reimbursements with the state.
He told them Major Moves money was allotted for Wilson Creek 9$50,000) and Collier Ridge slips ($40,000 preliminary engineering by HC Nutting geotech) They will do a lot of work in house to save money.
Chip seal THRU Roads will be addressed at budget hearings. It would take $3 million to do all of these – would have to be phased.
Listerman asked permission to go to Council for $25,000 for steel and $75,000 concrete from cum bridge to do in house small structure rehabilitation. Fox said this was high payback- Commissioners OK’d to go to Council.
Three bridges need repair we cannot do- rockers, bearing pads, and expansion joints- on Johnson Fork, Salt Fork, and Sagamaw. OK’d to go to Council for $100,000 for preliminary engineering on these.
Commissioners also signed statements regarding land acquisitions for Bells Branch Bridge. One says we will comply- one says we did comply.
Fox asked Listerman to put notices in paper on Collier Ridge and Wilson Creek so citizens know they are working on them. Collier Ridge may not get finished this year yet. They are also doing a small structure replacement on Kuebel Road.
PUBLIC HEARING- WHITE PINES ZONE CHANGE-
McCormack presented the overview of the Tucker/Schmidt/Bayer Becker development. [NOTE: John Watson attorney for St. Leon was there representing the developer- but did not speak publicly.]
McCormack spent a lot of time detailing how the concept development plan and written commitments would stand and that changes to these would require another PC hearing. He passed out IN Adm Code on this. He noted NO DENSITY changes were made as requested by the PC in their Feb meeting. If commissioners act tonight, then written commitments on the concept dev. Plan would have to be signed by the applicant and the PC. Also noted were $30,000 total to be donated to the school and the road fund.
Jeff Hughes asked why the advertising for Commissioner Meeting was done BEFORE the PC hearing. Applicant requested this and McCormack and Messmore and Ewbank discussed before they did that. [NOTE: HURRY HURRY HURRY]
Tucker presented for the development. He said they couldn’t go less dense- they changed many things to improve the development and he made a big issue of protecting an adjoining subdivision (Farmland Dr) from aesthetic issues. [NOTE: If these sub’ns are so compatible- why do they need to be shielded from each other?] Tucker noted this flat land with all the infrastructure is good for all types of development, but then hastened to say that it wasn’t good for INDUSTRY. [NOTE: Why not? If all the infrastructure is there- or is it?]
He said there would be NO detrimental effects on property values and used national figures to allot 0.62 kids per home. He also showed high school scores and grad rates for the 3 school districts (no year was shown for that data) saying that Sunman Dearborn is still best in almost all categories. Tucker compared miles of “visibility” of the sub’n to others in the area. He also showed how much economic impact the housing industry has on the county in wages and taxes, etc. He’s committed to 94 homes, and giving $10,000 to the ND Elementary to use as they wish and $20,000 for improvements to Gaynor Ridge. [ NOTE: It costs $50,000 to pave an already improved road. It costs more (like 2-3 times that) if the road needs to be widened etc. per Listerman after a previous Commissioner meeting.]
Public Comment:
Jeff Hughes presented emails received for the public record- they were not read aloud.
Glen Crocker- gave a timeline of this development proposal- June 2006 submitted 131 homes and July 2006 PC UNFAVORABLE at 5-1 for density issues.
Aug 2006- Commissioners Meeting- Tucker complained that there were only 6 PC members Fox thought this should go back to the PC and work something out.
Oct 2006 108 houses submitted. Nov 2006 PC UNFAVORABLE 7-1 for density issues again.
Jan 2007 submitted 94 homes and Feb 2007 – eight PC members were polled and all but one was ready to say no due to density. They also gave direction to Tucker on what they wanted to see- individually ranging from ¾ to 2-3 acre lots. Tabled at Tucker’s request for up to 90 days.
Then at April meeting applicant makes no changes and the PC gave no recommendation. He said he noticed Tucker is not complaining about only 6 PC members now.
Crocker noted the PC was working hard to give Tucker direction through all of this. They did their job and told the applicant how to get a FAVORABLE- he did not do it. [NOTE: Instead they bring a lawyer…]
He referred to suburban ugliness and doesn’t believe we should “put stuff where stuff’s at.” (referring to Tucker’s statement at a previous PC meeting) “We’re common folk and we wonder how much our voices are heard.” Crocker said his adrenaline was running like on Friday nights and hoped he wouldn’t slobber like they do when they are playing football and slapping on helmets. (Referring to his coaching at LHS) [LAUGHTER]
Pulling up PowerPoint slides he asked- what will this subdivision do FOR the surroundings? Not much. He suggested putting 23-56 homes in this as a transitional zone- no trees and bunkers would be needed – they’ll bring oohs and aahs – that’s what it’s all about.
Crocker showed the plats surrounding the development and Ag/ rural use with the exception of Harley Springs nestled down mostly out of eyesight. “If the comp plan says to DEFACE THE RURAL AREAS, this will do it. But I don’t believe that’s what it says.”
Fox- Would you have been here if the ¾ acres had been adhered to? Crocker: NO
Hughes- we’re pushing Ag here. Crocker- I wouldn’t mind if it stayed in hay.
Fox- If most people who lived on Ag ground asked a realtor to assess- they’d be shocked at the increased value. P/Z says to be sure you don’t do HARM to other people- balance. [ NOTE: Fox said to Crocker in this portion of the meeting that they would continue with the hearing but indicated he wanted to send this back to PC]
Terry Powell- Wife is lifelong resident- I’ve been here 26 years. Live on Farmland Drive. The primary issue is density and the density proposed is inconsistent with the area. Focus on Ag- R rezone- if you don’t rezone it- that forces the density to 1 per acre. Powell repeated used the term- “What is in the best interests of the county and its residents.” He said that there were an overwhelming number of residents in the area- and some outside the area who agree that this is too dense. You as commissioners should know where your constituents stand on rezones in Ag. Powell mentioned the community costs and negative impacts and also the standard of living of the current people who chose to invest in low-density rural areas and farms. The PC reviewed this 4 times and failed to give a favorable. The consistent message of the majority of the PC is that this is NOT in the best interests of the county and its residents.
Tom Gaynor- family lived here 147 years and he and sons operate livestock farm. Consider the current residents. A sewer line does NOT mean you have to have high density. If you can afford 1-2 acres you can afford to pay taxes to improve schools. 33 kids in primary classrooms now. Maps passed out showing existing condition of Gaynor Ridge Road with 4 sharp turns within ½ mile of this. Schools and road safety are not someone else’s problem- the commissioners should look at this.
Todd Schumate- North Dearborn and Gaynor are the only E-W roads in the area. Has 3 kids age 8 and under. Where will kids play. Works on volunteer fire dept.- biggest worry is to have to go on a run for a hurt child. Wants to develop an area safe to raise kids.
Steve Kuhn- Grew up and live on a farm here- density is way too high. This is not smart and doesn’t go with the county’s plan for development. PC members polled in Feb agree – ¾ to 2 acre lots. He feels the developers are not listening to the PC board. Development is judged on a case by case basis. Just because something got approved in the past doesn’t mean it was right for the community. Infrastructure cannot handle high-density housing. Will the $20,000 for roads go to fix the ruts and fences they run into on our farms? The N Dearborn Rd project is being put on hold. We plant corn in our fields and will continue- that affects visibility too. Farm vehicles need to use the roads.
Glen Richardson- our family lives all along the N side of this development on Gaynor Ridge. He went thru the 5 criteria for a zone change : 1. Comp plan says Ag. 2. Current conditions show mostly low density and character is rural. 3. Most desirable use- looking for a reasonable use of land as we move forward. The connecting roads are not that strong, there is no strong need for housing, and there will be a negative impact on the schools that are in debt now. 4. It will diminish property values when high-density smaller homes are put next to 80 acres with 5 homes. 5. It’s not responsible to require high density when there are no extenuating circumstances to require that.
He then made RECOMMENDATIONS: for 1-acre lots minimum, improving the roads, and strong housing covenants. Make it an eye catcher- not an eye sore. What’s the compelling reason to approve? Just because you can; doesn’t mean you should.
Bob Gaynor- This is rural farming low-density area with 7 livestock farms. There are already bad issues with farm equipment and traffic. Currently he has between 86-114 cars in the morning rush hour (7-8 AM)and 52-62 between 3-4 PM.
My brother Tom and I have given ENOUGH for development in this area- our farms still bear the scars of sewer lines from years ago. He passed out tax rates in surrounding areas- with ours being highest.
Diana Hay- I recently attended the Comp Plan meetings- they were well attended. Land Map A was the winner- with the least amount of development. I think people are saying we want low density. It takes time to feel the effects of overcrowded schools, traffic on roads, and litter scattered on the roadside. Children are feeling the effects with 32 in the classroom and so are their teachers. At a Christmas concert we had to sit on the floor of the gym- the bleachers were full. She asked – What is being done to promote Ag in Dearborn County? ( No answer)
Mike Gaynor- We raise cattle and hogs- hard to haul on roads with traffic now. What happens when we expand our business? We need to look out for OUR best interests- the developers won’t.
Fox motioned Thompson 2nd to Deny. Ewbank said they had to base it on the 5 criteria. Fox read through them and then stated especially they one on current conditions and character was not met. Thompson wanted to ad road condition. Fox stuck to #2 only. Thompson went with Fox.
Hughes said he hated to see him not be able to use his property. Thompson said BALANCE the rights of both sides. Fox agreed with Thompson on balance. Hughes agreed with Fox that it should go back to PC- be fair to every individual. He said zoning makes an artificial market- increases some people and decreases others. Fox asked Thompson to convey the commissioner’s thinking to the PC- and you’ll be in an awful position…
Vote: 2 ayes with Hughes Nay. Zone change DENIED.
[NOTE: Developer can reapply for another zone change in 90 days or can go for primary approval for an Ag zoned subdivision. Those have to demonstrate that they are compatible to the Ag purposes- which usually requires most lots being 5 acres to accomplish Ag use]
Claims and minutes approved with PSA Dewberry being denied again for incomplete substantiation. The check will be held until that comes in. Hughes said he talked to them and was comfortable- no specifics. Thompson insisted that we should be able to stand up and explain to people what we approved for payment.
[NOTE: In answering Thompson questions, there was a lot of variability in the back up that Messmore and Robertson were giving as to when and what PSA Dewberry was doing. They couldn’t seem to get dates or duties right and seemed to be grasping at straws to try to latch on to something that would please the commissioners. Robertson said PSA Dewberry was part of the TEAM along with Jungclaus Campbell and RBC. Then the team members seemed to disappear from the Vieste website) Vieste was to be paid and then they pay the team who works for them. Now it seems that the team wants to be paid directly. If they aren’t part of Vieste then perhaps this is just a ploy to get the job without having to bid it out competitively?]
London Witte and Vieste were approved. Vieste will be paid per the contract schedule EVEN THOUGH WORK IS CURRENTLY ON HOLD. [NOTE: Is anyone going to suggest we terminate or rewrite this contract to be FAIR to the county?]
School contract for state was signed- an annual process to get the interest on $29,000 distributed to 3 districts.
Lifetime Resources letter signed.
Meeting adjourned at 10:45 PM
Christine Brauer Mueller
Lawrenceburg Township
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)