Agenda for April 5th Commissioners Meeting

AGENDA DEARBORN COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING

April 5, 2011 6:00 p.m., Commissioners Room County Administration Building 215 B West High Street, Lawrenceburg, Indiana

EXECUTIVE SESSION 5:30 - Personnel matter

I. CALL TO ORDER

II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

III. OLD BUSINESS 1. Purchasing Agent Ordinance

IV. NEW BUSINESS

1. Discussion on private web link policy

2. Discussion on return of investment for Chamber Administrative Agreement

3. Greg Townsend - Nolte Road ROW

4. Investment Policy

a.) Resolution - CDAR

b.) Resolution - Hoosier Fund

5. Medical Reserve Corps - Resolution

V. HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT- Todd Listerman Updates

VI. AUDITOR – Gayle Pennington

1. Claims/Minutes

VII. ATTORNEY - Andy Baudendistel

VIII. COUNTY COORDINATOR – Bill Ewbank

IX. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS

X. LATE ARRIVAL INFORMATION

XI. PUBLIC COMMENT

XII. ADJOURN

25 March 2011 DCRSD Meeting with OKI

25 March 2011 DCRSD Meeting with OKI

Present: Steve Renihan, Chairman, Brett Fehrman, Barry Pruss, Rodney Dennerline, Art Wenzel
ABSENT: Jeff Stenger and Robert Lischge
Vera Benning, Secretary is absent also.

Attorney,Frank Kramer, Engineer Bob Hrezo and Bill Ewbank- County Coordinator also present

Updating the Clean Water Plan: an Overview –Presented by Travis Miller
Why they are updating the 208 water quality management plan- under section 208 of the federal clean water act. The draft map was presented. $90,437 grant from IDEM paid for the update of this plan.

Several related groups participated in the plan including an advisory committee of sewer providers, and soil water, chamber, watershed groups, and oxbow members.
Data was gathered since 2/2010 and meetings in between- plans to finalize it by June 2011.
Impairments in Dearborn County Water: Aluminum, lowered dissolved O2, e coli, impaired biotic communities, mercury and PCBs which ,though outlawed since 1979, have remained in fat soluble sections of fish etc.

Non-point sources hard to find- septic tanks, sedimentation and silt, nutrients, floatables and trash and non restricted cattle.
17 hot point areas of sewer issues were identified in the county.
Population data and projections for this plan came from IU Kelley School of Business etc.
They looked at the county future land use map and those of the cities and towns.
Wastewater mgmt agencies service areas, planned treatment capacities, operational and institutional issues were considered in the plan, as was topography, population, current and planned uses, and existing water quality.
Started with a rough proposal on a map in September. Finally got to a draft map in February.

They have been presenting it to various groups. Hope to have all stakeholder input by April 1st.

PUBLIC:

Chris Mueller- asked if they had considered as a point source of pollution- the sewer plant itself when they have spills. This can be catastrophic if the water all ends up in one place and an accident occurs.

Ralph Thompson- Washington township-have worked against this board in the past and now this board is working well. Doesn’t think that DCRSD should give away territory to the municipalities. Ordinances allow people to repair their non-working systems and not be forced to hook-up. Doesn’t completely trust city or county boards due to politics. Thinks a county wide coordination would be better. Current system seems to be working well- where county is solving problems in the county and working with municipalities and other providers as needed. Solve it at the source or go with an aggregated system. Money from city taxpayers- they do not want to pay for county users.

Dennis Kraus Sr- said Art Wenzel is the Council’s rep and speaks for their issues.

Bob Hrezo- Greendale- sees a lot of unsewered areas and it would be inappropriate to burden the cities with funding these systems- he stressed his comment was as a resident of Greendale.

Jerry Jacobson- Greendale resident. DCRSD HAS TAKEN CARE OF 3-4 PROBLEM AREAS- but was not set up to take over the whole county. You were not set up to take over and create another road block and cost to clean this up. I think you have ulterior motives in what you’re doing. This is only to verify what IDEM gave you to do. Without OKI’s blessing IDEM doesn’t get the money they need to operate.

Brett Fehrman- asked Jacobson- why SDRSD hasn’t put up money to fix problems in any other area of the county. Fehrman thinks this map is set up use the existing districts with capacity to fix things.

Art Wenzel- says they will shortly be up to 6 problems fixed by DCRSD.

Jacobson says just fix the problems- you don’t need the regional title- fix the local things first.

Steve Renihan- said they have been focused on fixing problems the past couple of years. Serenity Ridge, Cole Lane, High Ridge, etc have been done. He thinks it’s valuable that DCRSD has the areas they have in order to fix the unincorporated area problems. He thinks it was wrong for municipalities to run lines wherever they wanted and then force people who are not represented in the municipality to hook on.
It is about representation. He went on to talk about how he came to these meetings as a property owner in Serenity Ridge. Platted in 1994 by Mr. Stotts. He purchased in 2004. Now 2 leach beds are required and his lot is unbuildable. Bids were $21-24,000 for an experimental system to build out there. The county is partially to blame for allowing the subdivision to be platted and granted this way. LMH was on the wrong side of their road. St. Leon had the district on the other side, DCRSD seemed to be the entity that brought things together in order to get the problem solved. Ten residents of Serenity Ridge collected $77,000 to get a line to LMH. It took 3 years to get that ¼ mile line run. No one else represents the unincorporated area. It is also important to work with Planning and Zoning to be sure these things don’t happen in the future.

Dennis Kraus Sr verified that DCRSD’s only source of income is what County gave from RR except for fees from high Ridge.

Art Wenzel- speaking on behalf of County Council and is a surveyor. Apologized for not getting it to Travis Miller sooner. Boundaries for sewer districts should be in watershed areas. These lines are set up on township and section lines. The crooked line on South Hogan Creek divides a watershed. With SDRSD it is made up of 3 towns plus the distillery and takes the tax money from their residents. They cannot go outside that area due to tax issues for their residents. He thinks that DCRSD has to get interlocal agreements in order to use their system at SDRSD. They are the biggest provider in the area but their hands are tied. St Leon- has problems all around their district. Sunman is actually closer for western Dearborn and would better serve this as an interlocal agreement. Moores Hill has a sewer district coming on line and DCRSD agreed to let them serve some areas. There is a creek again as a dividing line. Dillsboro was unable to help with High Ridge due to high tap in fees. LMH – Tucker looked at some of these red lines and said he has lines within a few hundred feet of these lines. Doug Baer said some of those lines were a mistake. He is unsure if they would want to go all the way over to the state line. He thinks VRUC needs to be looked at because of the condition of their lines. No one wants to take it in unless it gets fixed.

Thompson said that SDRSD wanted to buy VRUC with a 15 year plan to fix the lines.

Jacobson concurred and said they, VRUC, would rather maintain control and spend a lot of money on lawyers.

Art Wenzel continued- this map has taken the real providers and expanded their areas to take care of the real providers. He thinks DCRSD should be negotiating the deals and get money to solve the problems.

Thompson – went on about the politics of all this.

Wenzel concluded with saying that on WLW this morning- changing this map should be done just like porcupines mate- very carefully and only when necessary. Also most experts are not and be careful who we listen to.

Renihan said- the vast majority of these areas are in low income areas. These people should not live in complete filth when we have riverboat revenue to solve this. All these guys sat on problems for 40 years and now they want all these areas. Some are running areas only where they can profit and not the low income.

Thompson- noted St Leon’s problem with forced hook-ups and high costs due to long lines. Tried to work with Council to pay back debt service to a fund to help solve ongoing problems. Condemning property is abominable because the county allowed these subdivisions to be built. If the gambling boat goes away the county and cities will be in trouble.

Rodney Dennerline- talked about the overflow issues as well and that every sewer district has had issues with this. He cited several incidents with each provider. Our effluent doesn’t have to stay in the county- our trash doesn’t. We need to be able to use what is close by and available to you. Seems like we were picking on farm animals and soil and water does a good job of educating farmers about this. The reason the sewer district was formed in 2002- was because people were coming into the health dept and asking for help to get their problems fixed. He outlined how Dillsboro and Aurora couldn’t fix High Ridge. The $4million line cost more than it would be to condemn the homes.

Jacobson- with the update of the 208 water plan- you want to get things done. The effluent standards have been raised. The problems aren’t any worse than they were before. The standards have been raised. When is the gov’t going to fund some of these things? The OKI Plan was paid for with federal ARRA dollars via IDEM.

Chris Mueller- Planning issues for providers – they need to know where they might be called upon to serve so they can plan costs and infrastructure. Payments have worked in L-bg township by charging a different rate for services outside their municipality.

Renihan- wants to be sure that DCRSD has a place at the table- and agrees that planning for these providers is important. They want to do interlocal agreements and be sure the county citizens have representation and are not forced to hook-up and get reasonable terms. No one wants to have more treatment plants- they would rather use existing services.

Fehrman- we are not an impediment- we are a facilitator. We need to uphold IDEMs efforts. We need to work with OKI to get clean water and not pollute downstream.

Jacobson asked how federal money gets to us to help with these new standards.

Travis Miller- This plan reports the facts about what is available and what the problems are. This plan is to help understand what the standards are. He thinks having this plan in place will have it ready if money becomes available to fund these improvements. This is like the shelf ready plans for highway plans.

Renihan will have a written response by April 1st to OKI on the 2nd amendment of the plan. .

Meeting adjourned at 6:35 PM

Christine Brauer Mueller
Lawrenceburg Township

LAST MINUTE ANNOUNCEMENT FOR MEETING ON SEWER DISTRICT MAPS

DCRSD and other sewer boards in the county will be meeting with OKI here on Friday, March 25th at 4:30 PM in the Commissioners Meeting Room in the County Administration Building to go over the 2nd amendment to OKI's 208 maps.
The map to be discussed has different boundaries than the ones the county currently operates under.
This meeting is open to the public.

You can check out this announcement on the scrolling banner on the Register's home page as well at www.dcregister.com

New Democrat Party Chairman Announces Jefferson-Jackson Dinner

Democrats Gather for Jefferson Jackson Dinner

The Democratic party is having the Jefferson-Jackson dinner on April 16th at the Lawrenceburg American Legion with the door opening at 5:30 and dinner at 6:30 p.m.

The keynote speaker is going to be Joe Donnelly. The price for the dinner is $25.

Jerome ( Jake) Hoog
Chairman Dearborn County Democrat Party

Friday March 25th Rally in Lawrenceburg Planned

A rally against what the state legislators are trying to do with the collective bargaining bill and some of the other legislation going on in the state house is planned for tomorrow afternoon- Fri March 25. The rally is going to start at 4:45 p.m. and the meeting place is at 2nd and Main street in Lawrenceburg with the actual rally being at 15 Front street at U.S 50. Anyone who is concerned with the current legislation may attend. News stations in Cincinnati and all the local stations were notified about the rally. If you know of anyone who is interested please forward this to them.

22 March 2011 Dearborn County Council Meeting Notes

22 March 2011 Dearborn County Council Meeting Notes

Present: Dennis Kraus. Sr., President, Jim Hughes, Liz Morris, Maynard Barrett, Bryan Messmore, and Bill Ullrich.
Absent: Dan Lansing (recent death in the family)

Also present: Gayle Pennington, Auditor and Bill Ewbank, County Coordinator

County commissioners Orschell and McHenry were present. Hughes was on vacation

1. PAWS gave an overview of their progress noting that Sears, the architect, was able to reconfigure the new building to accommodate the original plans and naming rights for rooms. Maxwell Construction did the remodeling. ( John Maxwell was present) They will bring in their funding requirements and negotiate at the May 24the council meeting. PAWS will be raising twice their usual amounts to accommodate the facility. PAWS will be handling the animal care and the county will be doing animal control. The county will have space on the left side of the front of the building with a garage entry. PAWS will have microchip software and provide one month free pet insurance. They plan to use the facility to teach and train as well. Officials can tour in April. The rummage sale to raise funds is April 15-17 at Agner Hall at the Fairgrounds.

2. Bill Ewbank updated Council on the Hoosier Sqaure purchase and Votaw and Shumway. He stated that there will be about 6,000 additional square ft to work with and the Votaw and Shumway buildings will get torn down with Lawrenceburg’s help by the fall. They are trying to get similar services consolidated in areas close together and trying to figure out Superior Court II’s space in the Courthouse. They allotted $1.25 million and will have $219,000 left to do renovations. That may not cut it. He hopes to have that budget nailed down by the May 24th meeting.

3. Ewbank noted the lighting improvement in the meeting room- others will get the improved fluorescents too.

4. Collette from Umbaugh and Associates presented more scenarios for the jail payment options. In a detailed presentation she outlined several ways to do the 3 main options. The jail is coming in under the county’s debt limit. The Pay 2011 certified net assessed valuation of the county is $2,332,311,076. Divide that by 3 and take 2% and you get a debt limit of $15,548,741. The jail estimates are all around $14.9 million. This includes hard and soft construction costs and financing costs.
The 3 scenarios were downpay $5 million and borrow $9.9 million; downpay $7 million and borrow $7.9 million; and down pay $9 million and borrow $5.9 million. Debt service rates were between 2 and 3.33 cents . In the first case riverboat would be needed beyond the down payment, the other two did not require that. The other scenarios using the bonds we are finishing up could get paid off in as little as 5 years or as long as 9 years.
Kraus noted that with the competition for gambling it might be best to minimize the use of riverboat to just the down payments.
Liz Morris noted that the original jail was above the debt service limit when it was built- so it was a lease back.
The maximum riverboat expense in any of the scenarios that used it for monthly payments was $590,000 per year. Council made no decision on this.

5. Jeff from Umbaugh and Associates also gave a presentation explain the banking industry issues with public money and savings accounts due to new laws with the feds and the state. These have supposedly been causing our local banks to say they don’t want our county savings accounts.

The commissioners, treasurer, and the auditor are the Financial Board of the County. They have to adopt an investment policy for the county. What do the public funds codes allow the county to invest in?
With high unemployment, stricter lending standards, households not borrowing as much, and businesses not ready to hire, the banks have a lot of deposits on hand and few wanting to borrow.
The Dodd-Frank Act created 250 new regulations and 70 studies, plus 13 new agencies, higher capital requirements for banks and higher costs for the banks. HEA 1336-2010 created new rules for collateralization based on a rating of the bank. Indiana is using HighLine ratings. They require a certain amount of collateral for public funds based upon the banks ratings. Indiana had a PBIF Public Deposit Insurance Fund that had $300million. When one of the bigh banks had $800million in public deposits and was about to fail in 2009, new rules got set up as the PBIF couldn’t cover the losses.
The High Line rating for banks rates then from 0-99 with 99 being the highest and best rating. There are 188 banks in Indiana and 63% of them rate from40-99 no additional collateral. 22% rate from 22-39 requiring the Average balance of the previous year. And 15% rate 0-19 and require 100% collateral. Indiana may decide to go to a 100% collateral state like KY.
Indiana Public Funds code does give some options for local investments of public money IC 5-13-9: Government securities, treasuries and agencies, municipal securities added in 2010, money market mutual funds like Goldman Sachs, repurchase agreements, expanded CD bidding (requires a resolution), CDARS added in2010 and are FDIC insured (requires a resolution)- there are 30 banks in IN that have these, and local gov’t investment pool like TRUST IN for short term use, and IC 36-1-7 Interlocal Agreement like the Hoosier Fund ( requires a resolution).
Jeff noted you can pass all these resolutions and not use them unless needed. For any public money the rules are in order- first safety, second liquidity, and third rate of return.

REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING BEGAN AT THIS POINT:

1. Joanne Curasik (sp?) , Aurora, spoke to council regarding her experiences with referendum on jail in Hamilton County, OH. She noted the high incarceration in both the US and Indiana compared to the rest of the civilized world. She discussed reducing incarcerations due to drugs (particularly marijuana)and alcohol and using other forms of treatment such as halfway houses. Talked about the law that allowed property to be impounded with drug arrests and that money going to the state.
Kraus, Sr. and Ullrich explained to her that this was not the board or forum for this discussion- that it belonged in the state legislature.
She went on to emphasize that with the economy being what it is- can our citizens even get it together to finance this and also with the gambling in Cincinnati and competition for gambling dollars, will our riverboat revenue be enough?
Kraus, Sr. assured her that they do know about these things and that income tax was down in the county by $600,000 last year.

2. BJ Ault from Solid Waste Management District came to get Council’s blessing on their additional appropriation for $82,500 to purchase a building and 2 acres adjoining the property. The money is in place from DC foundation grant and Lawrenceburg each for ½ of the total. They council approved the ordinance that she read into the record.

3. Ruth Ann Batta was approved for $2,000 for the Summer Art program at Sunman Dearborn that is in it’s 24th year. All ayes except Messmore Nay.

4. Steve Walker from Dearborn County Park Board said that it was humbling to listen to the millions of dollars discussed earlier realizing it would be enough to fund the parks for years and years. There was a long discussion on parks funding stemming from an issue with non-reverting funds turning into reverting funds if they were transferred for payment and then they didn’t use them all. Park Board gets a lot of volunteer help so sometimes they save onlabor costs for projects. Pennington and Messmore volunteered to go to their meeting and go over the workings of funding and how to accomplish their transfers in a better way to suit their needs. It seems that the Park Board had hoped to have their projects approved at budget time and then be able to work with their funds without having to wait for Council to meet to get approvals again specifically for each project.
Council meets irregularly in between their scheduled 4 times a year, and this works a hardship for projects and planning, particularly in good weather months.
Walker told Council they were repurposing the Guilford Fort funds for restrooms at parks that do not have sewer infrastructure. Council seemed to think that was a better plan.
He said the board also was trying to get bright Park fenced and a shelter built for about $15,000 each estimated cost.
He was told to come back to the May 24 meeting with 3 bids for projects and advertize the requests in advance.

5. Bill Shelton- Building Commissioner- received approval to bump up an employee to the top slot that is now open and leave the bottom inspector spot unfilled for now. The cost difference is $2846 for the bump up. Total costs will be down due to one less employee. Approved.

6. Assessor Gary Hensley sent a letter to Council- he wants to hire to fill a vacancy and is still one less than he had before. All ayes except Messmore Nay- passed.

7. Auditor- Gayle Pennington said they are going thru an audit with SBOA right now and needed approval to close out accounts that haven’t been used in over 3 years. Total amounts in the 3 accounts were $30.80, 0.40, and 0.42. Approved.

8. Council signed off on the Lewes and Kappes contract for lobbyist for the county. She noted that cities and towns pay back their portion to us. Signed.

9. Minutes approved.

Meeting adjourned at 8:10 PM

Christine Brauer Mueller
Lawrenceburg Township

BO LANSING- FORMER COUNTY COUNCILMAN OBITUARY

George “Bo” Lansing, 82, of Lawrenceburg, Ind., died Friday, March 18, 2011.
He was born Sunday, May 6, 1928, son of the late George and Ruth (Maley) Lansing.
He was a member of Knights of Columbus; the Democratic Club; past treasurer, clerk, and councilman for Dearborn County, and member of St Lawrence Catholic Church.
He is survived by his loving wife of 61 years, Mary Lansing; six sons, Bill (Linda) Lansing, Tim (Debbie) Lansing, Tony (Cindy) Lansing, Tom (Lisa) Lansing, Mike (Shellie) Lansing, and Danny (Dana) Lansing; daughter, Beth Lansing; 12 grandchildren, Jackie, Bryan, Jake, Jeff, Carrie (Jason), Andrew, Trey, Josh, Evan, Jordyn, Riley, and Cayla; and two great-grandchildren, Lunden, and Jensen.
Friends will be received Sunday, March 20, 2011, from 5 p.m. to 8 p.m. at the Fitch-Denney Funeral Home, Greendale, Ind. Funeral services will be held at St. Lawrence Catholic Church, Monday, March 21, 2011, at 11 a.m. with Father Peter Gallagher officiating. Interment will follow in the Greendale Cemetery, Greendale, Ind.
Contributions may be made to the Greendale Emergency Medical Services or American Cancer Society.

15 March 2011 Dearborn County Commissioners Meeting Notes

15 March 2011 Dearborn County Commissioners Meeting Notes

Present: Jeff Hughes, President, Tom Orschell, and Shane McHenry
Also present: Gayle Pennington, Auditor, Bill Ewbank, County Coordinator, and, Andy Baudendistel, Attorney.

Executive session preceeded the meeting and commissioners denied the appeal at the regular meeting.

OLD BUSINESS:

Purchasing Agent Ordinance- Hughes said it was an assigned task by the legislature and he would like it taken out. Orschell asked to table it for further review. Tabled.

Contract Amendment- Votaw Building Purchase- JJ Malcolm Inc aka Votaw building. Bill Ewbank presented. Seller wants to extend the closing to April 30, 2011 and possession of the building will be within 6 months of this. Votaw requested this to take advantage of the lifetime captial gains exclusion law. Commissioners approved the amendment.

NEW BUSINESS:

OKI- Jane Wilke and Travis Miller- Dearborn County Water Quality Management update- Jane Wilke presented that this was under section 208 of the Federal Clean water Act. IDEM has funded $9,000 of this plan. This plan was adopted in 1978 with some amendments. GIS, Planning and Commissioners and Council , Soil and Water, Oxbow, DCRSD etc have participated in this. The public has been involved in several public meetings. Another one will be May 9 at 7 PM at Dearborn County Adult Center. The Plan Commission posts data and information on this plan on their section of the County website. The Plan update will be finalized by June and is due to IDEM this summer. They have mapped certain pollutants. Lower dissolved oxygen, E.coli from animal and human waste, impaired biotic communities, mercury in fish tissue, PCVs in fish tissue still exist as they are fat soluble and stay in fish tissue a long time. Point sources and non-point sources of contamination were identified. Septic tank discharges, sedimentation and siltration, floatables and trash, and unrestricted cattle access. They mapped home sewage problem clusters.
This plan has a 20 year horizon- to 2030. When population data comes in OKI uses it for transportation and also for water quality. OKI also uses future land use plans both for the county and the towns in it. Facility planning areas are created and OKI looked at existing quality, existing and planned areas. Population projections, topography, non point pollution, wastewater management and their resources.
Originally SDRSD, Dillsboro, and Moore’s Hill existed. Now we have LMH, St. Leon, and DCRSD added. There is a federal requirement to get discharge permits and those require looking at the 208 Water plan. These designated areas are on the county website. Go to Government, and then Water Quality Plan.
Considered an amendment that commissioners asked for in the West Harrison TIF district previously as there was a development prospect there that needed to be ready before this summer to get lines in. Whitewater River is a pristine resource and so amendment process was undertaken and passed unanimously to take the sewage to West Harrison. This was designated as a facility planning area.
Hughes said this was responsive and flexible.
$1.3 million was appropriated to build this sewer line by Council.
Wilke thanked Hughes and Orschell for their OKI representation and noted that McHenry has heard this presentation twice now as he was at a previous presentation. Orschell noted that St. Leon was upset that they’d chosen Harrison. He said that it was more economical to use Harrison as "it was all about the money at that point. "

Doxpop Contract- recorder’s office- Glenn Wright- this will allow people to get on internet and pull down their deeds. Checked with 8 other Recorders using them in Indiana and had all positive comments. They also have a fraud alert if someone puts a lien on the property etc. there will be a fee to pull down the deed etc. Ewbank said the contract has been reviewed by the county attorney. Title searching can be done on line now. The fees will go to the recorder’s fund. This is tied to GIS as well. These go back to 1965 for deeds. Mortgages go back to 1990. This would not do a complete title search as they go only to 1965. A DD214 for veterans are recorded – but these are not public record- only the veteran himself, the licensed funeral director, or the veteran’s officer have legal access to these.
There is no cost to the county- these are user’s fees. All old surveys are being scanned into the system. Public can still come to Recorder to get full size images of these. This is just an additional service to the recorder’s regular services. The property watch service is no cost to the user or the county. You can set a watch on your name or your parcels. Enhanced access fund is created (like a perpetuation fund that the state has to keep records) by state law for these fees. Council will set that up. Commissioners approved the contract.

HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT- Todd Listerman gave the following updates:

Contract with URS Corp for design of 2 message signs along US50 for $39,860- 100% reimbursable to the county. There is funding in highway budget to cover this until INDOT reimburses this. Commissioners signed the contract. Will be operational by next spring.
Meeting set up Monday March 28 9 AM commissioners room to discuss regional freight issues with OKI. This is includes rail, truck, and barge traffic. Local cities, Planning dept., and commissioners were notified.

Meeting with INDOT for funding for fiscal 2012.

Orschell and he will meet Thursday with Mr Larry Smith of North Dearborn road for ROW. This will leave only one landowner to settle with. Project is set for 2013.

AUDITOR- Gayle Pennington- - gave Margaret Minzner part of her time to update the commissioners on GIS. Since she was back from medical leave- she was working with Schneider to set up databases with the website. With the webmap they decided what to put on it. They decided what layers they wanted for both public and private use. Hoping within 2-4 weeks they will be ready to demonstrate this all to commissioners.
Schneider has completed the parcel edits. Schneider wants to convert using something like AutoCad. She is hoping to save $5,000 by doing this herself. She is collecting the orphan data as well. They are working on assigning the privileges to different dept. heads. Only a few people can edit. ARC GIS 10 is what they are on now. She doesn’t implement new software until bugs are worked out.
Looking for training opportunities for staff also. They trying to close out with Sidwell. They will set up a 3-day Arc map training for what would have cost $7-10,000. There are some issues with dispatch. They want to fix that up and get address ranges set up to geo-code. They have done some service requests for park board and also GPSing hydrant data for towns. They have provided data for other projects going on.
The commissioners said this GIS report was over their head- but there were an impressive amount of services. Gayle said we will soon see the results of a lot of hard work.

Gayle Pennington presented- claims and minutes- approved.

EMS services from Greendale were approved for 2 units at $20,000 each
.
ATTORNEY- Andy Baudendistel- this is last meeting on 30 days on SPICE ban and it will go into effect before the next meeting.

Asbury tort claim on L-bg speedway- will show that county has no involvement with the speedway. He is handling that.

Baudendistel then read his 3 page OPINION on the issue of a funds transfer requested by the prosecutor, Aaron Negangard, to pay for his defense on a disciplinary grievance filed against him:

OPINION

I have reviewed the issue raised by Christine Mueller regarding the transfer of funds approved by County Council on December 14, 2010 and present the following opinion:

Three statutes in the Indiana Code address the issue of representation of Prosecuting Attorneys in certain matters, and they are as follows:

1. Indiana Code 4-6-2-1.5(a) states that: “Whenever any state governmental official or employee, whether elected or appointed, is made a party to a suit, and the attorney general determines that said suit has arisen out of an act which such official or employee in good faith believed to be within the scope of the official’s or employee’s duties as prescribed by statute or duly adopted regulation, the attorney general shall defend such person throughout such action.”

This statute is inapplicable because the legal matter involved in this instance was not a suit, rather it was a disciplinary complaint filed against Mr. Negangard and disciplinary complaints are not contemplated by this statute.

2. Indiana Code 33-39-9 (formerly IC 33-14-11) is titled “Defense and Indemnification of Prosecutors,” however, it states in Section 1 that: “This chapter does not apply to a threatened, pending, or completed action or a proceeding that: (1) results in the criminal conviction of; or (2) is a disciplinary action or proceeding against; a prosecuting attorney.”

As stated above, the matter for which Mr. Negangard received representation was a disciplinary complaint, therefore, Indiana Code 33-39-9 does not apply as it is clearly indicated in Section 1 that it does not apply to disciplinary actions.

3. Indiana Code 33-23-13 (formerly IC 33-2.1-9-1) is entitled “Defense of Judges and Prosecutors,” however, Section 4 (formerly IC33-2.1-9-2) states that: “This chapter does not permit the appointment of counsel for the defense of a judge or prosecuting attorney in criminal or disciplinary proceedings.”

This chapter is inapplicable because it is stating that the Attorney General cannot appoint counsel in disciplinary proceedings and this statute is specifically directed at the Attorney General. Because the Attorney General was not involved in this matter, this statute does not apply.

Based on the above statutes, it is my opinion that the Indiana Code is silent as to the situation before us.

While the cases of State of Indiana v. T. Eric Evans (which involved a prosecutor) and In the Matter of the Honorable Raymond L Kern (involving a judge) may seem to be on point, they too can be distinguished from the situation at hand.

Evans involved the Attorney General going after a prosecutor for misappropriation of public funds. While the ultimate issue was whether or not Evans was entitled to counsel at public expense, the holding of the Court turned on an issue much different from the one before us. The Court in Evans held that the prosecutor could not be represented by the Attorney General because the Attorney General was also the person who was bringing the suit, therefore, the Attorney General would have been representing both the Plaintiff and the Defendant. Furthermore, Evans was seeking counsel at the public expense provided by the Attorney General, which is not the situation here.

The Supreme Court decision in Kern is also inapplicable because, while the judge was attempting to obtain payment from the county for his legal expenses incurred in a disciplinary proceeding, the Court ultimately states that the issue was moot and does not even address the charge; therefore, this case offers no guidance because the Court made no decision on the relevant issue.

Since the statutes and the case law are both inapplicable and do not explicitly say that a County Council cannot provide legal expenses for an elected official facing a disciplinary complaint, it is my opinion that Indiana Code 36-1-3 governs. This statute, more commonly referred to as “Home Rule,” states, in pertinent parts, as follows:

Indiana Code 36-1-3-3(b): “Any doubt as to the existence of a power of a unit shall be resolved in favor of its existence.”

Indiana Code 36-1-3-4(b): “A unit has: (1) all powers granted it by statute; and(2) all other powers necessary or desirable in the conduct of its affairs, even though not granted by statute.”

Indiana Code 36-1-3-4©: “The powers that units have under subsection (b)(1) are listed in various statutes. However, these statutes do not list the powers that units have under subsection (b)(2); therefore, the omission of a power from such a list does not imply that units lack that power.”

Indiana Code 36-1-3-5(a): “Except as provided in subsection (b), a unit may exercise any power it has to the extent that the power; (1) is not expressly denied by the Indiana Constitution or by statute…”

Having read the applicable chapters and analyzed the relevant information, it is my opinion that because there is not a statute specifically forbidding the transfer of funds or the use of the money for legal expenses, whether or not to approve the transfer for the purpose stated was at the complete discretion of the County Council. What occurred is not barred by statute, therefore it is allowable. Mr. Negangard presented the transfer to County Council on December 14, 2010, stated that the transfer was needed to cover legal fees for a disciplinary complaint, the transfer was approved by County Council, and ultimately the Board of Commissioners. A way to avoid this expenditure would have been to have had the County Attorney represent Mr. Negangard in this matter; however, because the disciplinary complaint was filed by the County Attorney, G. Michael Witte, this was not an option and would have resulted in the problem presented in the Evans case.

Again, whether or not to approve the transfer for the stated purposes was at the complete discretion of County Council, therefore it was appropriate.

This opinion was prepared at the request of the Dearborn County Board of Commissioners and presented this 15th day of March, 2011.

(signed)
Andrew D. Baudendistel # 28212-15
County Attorney
230 West High Street
Lawrenceburg, IN 47025
Phone: (812)-537-4500
Fax: (812)-539-4500

COUNTY COORDINATOR- Bill Ewbank- County assessor wished to inform that he is seeking RFPs ( request for proposals) for consultant- no action required.

COMMISSIONER COMMENTS:
Hughes won’t be present at the March 22 working meeting. PAWS contract will be discussed then and not take action till May 24 when Council meets to decide on finances for the long term support for the Animal Shelter. Jail expansion will also be discussed then- just informational.

McHenry said our Microsoft licensing was corporate licensing and it was cheaper under gov’t. Gayle said that has been fixed.

Thanks to EMA and Vic Grieve for Highway crew for taking care of flood situation from McHenry.

LATE ARRIVAL INFORMATION: none

PUBLIC COMMENT: Paul Filter expressed his concerns about Dillsboro EMS problem. Two nursing homes out there. Its iffy if any one shows.” It’s not a glorious event- it’s just some sick old person. “ I fell off ladder- no one responded. So they made a second call. Finally an EMT fireman came from a training session in Versailles. Lawrenceburg came and ended up making the run as Dillsboro’s ambulance broke down. Management skills and motivation of the EMS out there were questioned. Scott Fortner at town council tried to get county payments stopped. They got paid the $40,000 by Commissioners. State EMS commission did not do anything the last time this was turned over to them. County Commissioners have more control over them than the town council.

Orschell said he thought they’d need a formal complaint from the town council.

The town council attorney said the council has no authority over them. Filter said he is making a formal complaint to Commissioners on this. He said Ralph Thompson wanted to leave it up to the state EMS and they didn’t do anything about it.

Filter said- you can’t assume everything is OK.
McHenry said the Commissioners the town council and EMS need to meet. He said we are looking at this- and he said McCormack is getting a grant to study this. Filter said he wants them to work with the town. Orschell said he was willing to meet with them. No meeting set.

Meeting adjourned at 10:35 AM

Christine Brauer Mueller
Lawrenceburg Township

PRESS RELEASES Indiana Courts- County Payment of Legal Fees- Judge Raymond Kern

PRESS RELEASES Indiana Courts- Judge Raymond Kern
Regarding county payment of legal fees.

June 28, 2002
The Indiana Commission on Judicial Qualifications filed disciplinary charges today against Lawrence Superior Court Judge Raymond L. Kern. Judge Kern currently is suspended from office with pay pending an earlier recommendation from the Commission that he be removed from the bench due to charges filed last year. Today’s charges include five counts of alleged judicial misconduct. In Count I Judge Kern is accused of taking judicial action to advance his own interests by issuing orders to the Lawrence County Auditor for the county to pay over $23,000.00 in legal fees to the judge’s attorneys who defended him in the prior disciplinary case. The Commission also alleges the orders were misleading because Judge Kern indicated in the orders that the attorneys had been “appointed” to defend him
In Count II, Judge Kern is accused of falsely advising county officials in an appropriation request for $39,500.00 to pay his defense bill that the county had been obligated to pay the fees, and of falsely advising the Qualifications Commission that the county was obligated to pay the legal fees because of an earlier agreement with county officials. The Commission asserts no agreement had ever been made.

In Count III, Judge Kern is accused of submitting claims to the county for reimbursement of mileage expenses for two court employees for travel between Indianapolis and Lawrence County to take part in the Commission’s prior disciplinary case when the Commission already had reimbursed the employees.

In Count IV, in connection with Judge Kern’s federal Chapter 13 bankruptcy filing, the Commission alleges Judge Kern committed misconduct by hearing several cases involving his creditors and failing to inform the opposing parties of his financial involvement with the creditors, some of whom filed claims in the bankruptcy and suffered losses as a result, and to one of whom Judge Kern had missed several payments and had issued checks written with insufficient funds

These allegations of misconduct relate to a rule of judicial ethics forbidding a judge from engaging in financial dealings that may be perceived to exploit the judge’s position, which involve the judge in frequent transactions with lawyers or others who appear in the judge’s court, or which tend to reflect adversely on the judge’s impartiality

In Count V, Judge Kern is charged with making a false statement to the Commission when he said he did not miss any payments to his creditors. The Commission alleges Judge Kern missed approximately 32 payments between January 2000 and August 2001

Judge Kern may respond to these charges within 20 days, after which the Supreme Court will appoint a panel of three judges to preside over a hearing on the Commission’s allegations.

August 22, 2002

Commission, Judge Kern Resolve Charges by Resignation

The Indiana Supreme Court has accepted an agreement between the Indiana Commission on Judicial Qualifications and Judge Raymond L. Kern, Lawrence Superior Court #1, which resolves all pending disciplinary charges against the judge and includes his resignation from the bench effective August 31, 2002.

In May, 2001, the Commission filed ethics charges against Judge Kern resulting from an Order he issued awarding temporary custody of a child to the child's step-father without notice to the mother or her attorney. In February, 2002, a panel of three judges presided over a trial on those charges and concluded that the judge had violated the Code of Judicial Conduct in issuing the Order and that some of his statements during the investigation and at trial were untrue. The Masters recommended to the Supreme Court that it suspend the judge from office without pay for up to 15 days. The Commission argued he should be removed from office permanently.

In June, 2002, the Commission filed a new five-count charge of misconduct against Judge Kern alleging he misled Lawrence County officials and the Commission in his attempt to have the county pay his legal fees from the first case, that he submitted travel claims on behalf of two employees for their travels to Indianapolis as Commission witnesses in the first case when the Commission already had reimbursed them for their travel, that he continued to preside over cases involving financial institutions who were creditors in his bankruptcy proceeding and did not disclose that fact to the other parties, and that he falsely stated to the Commission that he never missed a payment to any of his creditors. Judge Kern denied misconduct on these Charges.

In their agreement, which the Supreme Court accepted, the Commission and Judge Kern agreed that the judge committed misconduct as found by the Masters in the first case, that the Court will assess against Judge Kern the costs of the prosecution of the first case, that the charges in the second case now are moot, that Judge Kern resigns as judge effective August 31, 2002, and that he agrees to neither seek nor hold any judicial office in Indiana or to serve in any judicial capacity in Indiana in the future.

Judge Kern is represented by Kevin McGoff

Supreme Court Ruling on Who Defends Blackford County Prosecutor

Attorneys for Appellant Attorneys for Appellee
Steve Carter Ralph E. Dowling
Attorney General of Indiana Indianapolis, Indiana

Jodi Kathryn Stein
Deputy Attorney General
______________________________________________________________________________

In the
Indiana Supreme Court
_________________________________
No. 05S02-0311-CV-497



State of Indiana,
Appellant (Plaintiff below),

v.


T. Eric Evans,
Appellee (Defendant below).
_________________________________
Interlocutory Appeal from the Blackford Circuit Court, No. 05C01-0202-CC-25
The Honorable Jan L. Chalfant, Special Judge
_________________________________
On Petition To Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals, No. 05A02-0210-CV-875
_________________________________
June 15, 2004


Shepard, Chief Justice.

After an audit by the State Board of Accounts, the Attorney General sued former prosecutor T. Eric Evans to recover public money spent on alcohol, hotel rooms, ammunition for personal use, personal phone calls, and the like. Evans contends he is entitled to counsel at public expense. We hold he is not.

On February 12, 2002, the Attorney General filed a complaint against Evans and Western Surety Company to recover public funds “which were found to be misappropriated, diverted or unaccounted for by an examination of the books, accounts and records of the Office of the Prosecutor, Blackford County, Indiana, by the State Board of Accounts.” Appellant's App. at 8. The allegations arose from Evans’ activities as prosecuting attorney of Blackford County from January 1, 1993, through December 31, 1998. The complaint reads in relevant part:

COUNT I
. . .
4. T. Eric Evans was an employee of the Office of the Prosecutor, Blackford County, Indiana, during the period of the loss and had a duty to properly account for and deposit all funds of the Office of the Prosecutor, Blackford County, Indiana which came into his possession and assure that the funds of the Office of the Prosecutor, Blackford County, Indiana were only expended as authorized by law and commit no acts of misfeasance, malfeasance or nonfeasance in management of said funds.
5. That during the audit period, T. Eric Evans, wrongfully or negligently failed to properly account for, expend and deposit the funds of the Office of the Prosecut[or], Blackford County, Indiana or otherwise committed several acts of misfeasance, malfeasance and nonfeasance which acts resulted in the misappropriation, diversion and misapplication of public funds.
6. As a direct and proximate result of the actions of T. Eric Evans, he is indebted to the State of Indiana and the Office of the Prosecutor, Blackford County, Indiana in the amount [of] Sixteen Thousand Two Hundred Eighteen Dollars ($16,218.00).
. . .
COUNT II
. . .
10. That Plaintiff, State of Indiana, is a party suffering a pecuniary loss as a result of a violation by Defendant T. Eric Evans, of one or more of the following I.C. 35-43-4-2 [theft], I.C. 35-43-4-3 [criminal conversion] or I.C. 35-43-5-3 [deception], which loss consists of the sum of . . . ($16,218.00) and Plaintiff is entitled to recovery of treble damages in the amount of . . . ($48,654.00) plus costs, attorney fees and all other just and proper relief.
11. That Plaintiff, State of Indiana, is a party suffering a pecuniary loss as a result of a breach by Defendant, T. Eric Evans, of his contract and trust, both real and constructive, . . . and a violation of the resultant trust imposed on him by law and equity to collect, administer, bank and disburse public funds belonging to the State of Indiana and the Office of the Prosecutor, Blackford County, Indiana.

Id. at 9-10. The State attached to the complaint the audit performed by the Board of Accounts and Evans’ fourteen-page response to the allegations.
Before answering the complaint, Evans filed a motion pro se seeking appointment of counsel. He cited Indiana Code § 4-6-2-1.5, Indiana Code § 33-2.1-9-1, and Indiana Code § 34-13-3-15. In an attached affidavit, Evans averred as follows:
That these claims were all handled and processed in exactly the same manner, as prescribed by law and as directed by the Auditor of Blackford County and the Commissioners of Blackford County.
That all claims submitted by the affiant were in the ordinary and usual course of business, were advertised as required by law, approved by the Auditor, and approved by the County Commissioners and paid by the Treasurer.
That each and every act of submitting claims for payment by the affiant was within the scope of the duties of the affiant as Prosecutor, as prescribed and required by law and practice, and done in good faith by the affiant in his capacity as Prosecutor.

Id. at 63.
The trial court granted his motion, saying: “The Attorney General should be directed to comply with the statutory procedure set forth in Indiana Code [§ 33-2.1-9-1(c)(2)] within thirty days, giving priority to this case as a consideration in the hiring of private counsel for Defendant Evans.” Id. at 70. The State moved to stay all proceedings and asked the court to certify the order for interlocutory appeal. On October 8, 2002, the trial court granted the State’s motion to stay and certified the interlocutory order. The Court of Appeals affirmed. State v. Evans, 790 N.E.2d 558 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003). We granted transfer.

Must the Attorney General Supply Counsel?

The trial court relied on Indiana Code Annotated § 33-2.1-9-1(c)(2) (West Supp. 2003), in determining that Indiana’s Attorney General must provide private counsel for Evans. The statute at issue reads in relevant part:
If a judge or prosecuting attorney is sued for civil damages or equitable relief and the suit would be construed, under notice pleading, as arising out of an act performed within the scope of the duties of the judge or prosecuting attorney, the attorney general shall:
(1) defend the judge or prosecuting attorney in the suit; or
(2) authorize the executive director of the division of state court administration to hire private counsel to provide the defense.

Ind. Code Ann. § 33-2.1-9-1(c).
While Evans, as a prosecuting attorney, enjoys the protections that this statute provides, we cannot ignore the incongruous result that a literal reading would render under the present facts: the Attorney General’s office would be either litigating or financing both sides of this suit. Our method of analyzing statutes on such occasions is this:
When interpreting a statute, appellate courts independently review a statute's meaning and apply it to the facts of the case under review. If a statute is unambiguous, that is, susceptible to but one meaning, we must give the statute its clear and plain meaning. If a statute is susceptible to multiple interpretations, however, we must try to ascertain the legislature's intent and interpret the statute so as to effectuate that intent. We presume the legislature intended logical application of the language used in the statute, so as to avoid unjust or absurd results.

Bolin v. Wingert, 764 N.E.2d 201, 204 (Ind. 2002) (citations omitted). We conclude that the interpretation urged by Evans would produce an absurd result. The statute’s objective is to protect officeholders from litigation by those dissatisfied with the decisions they make (typically, in the case of judges and prosecutors, lawsuits by prisoners). We think the General Assembly’s intent for situations like the present case is reflected by its explicit rule for statewide officials. See Ind. Code Ann. § 4-6-2-1 (2002) (Attorney General “shall defend all suits brought against the state officers in their official relations, except suits brought against them by the state”).
Requiring the Attorney General to finance both sides of this suit is akin to the dog chasing its own tail and an absurdity that the General Assembly could not have intended. See, e.g., Livingston v. Fast Cash USA, Inc., 753 N.E.2d 572 (Ind. 2001) (applying the “absurd result rule” to the Indiana Uniform Consumer Credit Code). See footnote Whether the statute would afford reimbursement to a defendant who prevails we leave for another day.
Evans also contends that Indiana Code Annotated § 33-14-11-4 (West 1996) entitles him to a defense provided by the State. The statute provides in relevant part: “The state shall pay the expenses incurred by a prosecuting attorney from a threatened, pending, or completed action or proceeding[.]” We conclude that this section is unavailing to Evans for reasons substantially similar to those mentioned above.

Conclusion


We reverse the trial court’s grant of Evans’s motion to appoint counsel and remand for proceedings on the merits.
Sullivan, Boehm, and Rucker, JJ., concur.
Dickson, J., dissents without opinion

________________________________________
Footnote: Our Rules of Professional Conduct instruct us as follows: “As a general proposition, loyalty to a client prohibits undertaking representation directly adverse to that client without that client's consent.” Ind. Rules of Prof’l Conduct R. 1.7 cmt. (1987). While full disclosure or the hiring of private counsel might resolve the Attorney General’s ethical dilemma, the questionable use of public funds to prosecute and defend the same person would still give great concern.

________________________________________

Agenda for March 15th- 9 AM Commissioners Meeting

AGENDA
DEARBORN COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING
March 15, 2011
9:00 a.m.
City of Lawrenceburg
Administration Building
230 Walnut Street, Lawrenceburg, Indiana

EXECUTIVE SESSION 8:30 AM - Med Ben Appeal

I. CALL TO ORDER

II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

III. OLD BUSINESS
1. Purchasing Agent Ordinance
2. Contract Amendment - Votaw Building Purchase

IV. NEW BUSINESS
1. OKI/Jane Witke, Travis Miller - DC Water Quality Mgmt Plan Update

2. Doxpop Contract

V. HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT- Todd Listerman
Updates

VI. AUDITOR – Gayle Pennington
1. Claims/Minutes

VII. ATTORNEY - Andy Baudendistel

VIII. COUNTY COORDINATOR – Bill Ewbank

IX. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS

X. LATE ARRIVAL INFORMATION

XI. PUBLIC COMMENT

XII. ADJOURN

More Indiana Code on Defense of Prosecuting Attorneys

IC 33-39-9
Chapter 9. Defense and Indemnification of Prosecuting Attorneys

IC 33-39-9-1
Application of chapter
Sec. 1. This chapter does not apply to a threatened, pending, or completed action or a proceeding that:
(1) results in the criminal conviction of; or
(2) is a disciplinary action or proceeding against;
a prosecuting attorney.
As added by P.L.98-2004, SEC.18.

IC 33-39-9-2
Expenses defined
Sec. 2. As used in this chapter, "expenses" includes the following:
(1) Reasonable attorney's fees, if the attorney general has authorized the prosecuting attorney to hire private counsel to provide the defense.
(2) A judgment.
(3) A settlement.
(4) Court costs.
(5) Discovery costs.
(6) Expert witness fees.
(7) Any other expense incurred as a result of an action or a proceeding.
As added by P.L.98-2004, SEC.18.

IC 33-39-9-3
Prosecuting attorney defined
Sec. 3. As used in the chapter, "prosecuting attorney" means a prosecuting attorney, a deputy prosecuting attorney, or a senior prosecuting attorney appointed under IC 33-39-1.
As added by P.L.98-2004, SEC.18.

IC 33-39-9-4
Payment of expenses
Sec. 4. The state shall pay the expenses incurred by a prosecuting attorney from a threatened, pending, or completed action or proceeding that arises from:
(1) making;
(2) performing; or
(3) failing to make or perform;
a decision, a duty, an obligation, a privilege, or a responsibility of the prosecuting attorney's office.
As added by P.L.98-2004, SEC.18.
________________________________________

Indiana Code on Defense of Prosecuting Attorneys

IC 33-23-13
Chapter 13. Defense of Judges and Prosecuting Attorneys

IC 33-23-13-1
"Judge" defined
Sec. 1. As used in this chapter, "judge" has the meaning set forth in IC 33-38-12-3.
As added by P.L.98-2004, SEC.2.

IC 33-23-13-2
"Prosecuting attorney" defined
Sec. 2. As used in this chapter, "prosecuting attorney" includes a senior prosecuting attorney appointed under IC 33-39-1.
As added by P.L.98-2004, SEC.2.

IC 33-23-13-3
Defense by attorney general or private counsel
Sec. 3. If a judge or prosecuting attorney is sued for civil damages or equitable relief and the suit would be construed, under notice pleading, as arising out of an act performed within the scope of the duties of the judge or prosecuting attorney, the attorney general shall:
(1) defend the judge or prosecuting attorney in the suit; or
(2) authorize the executive director of the division of state court administration to hire private counsel to provide the defense.
As added by P.L.98-2004, SEC.2.

IC 33-23-13-4
Criminal or disciplinary proceedings
Sec. 4. This chapter does not permit the appointment of counsel for the defense of a judge or prosecuting attorney in criminal or disciplinary proceedings.
As added by P.L.98-2004, SEC.2.

IC 33-23-13-5
Right to select defense counsel; responsibility for civil damages
Sec. 5. This chapter does not:
(1) deprive a judge or prosecuting attorney of the judge's or prosecuting attorney's right to select defense counsel of the judge's or prosecuting attorney's own choice at the judge's or prosecuting attorney's own expense; or
(2) relieve a prosecuting attorney from responsibility for civil damages.
As added by P.L.98-2004, SEC.2.

IC 33-23-13-6
Attorney general employment of legal and other professional services
Sec. 6. The attorney general may employ legal and other professional services necessary to adequately and fully perform the duties required by this chapter.
________________________________________
As added by P.L.98-2004, SEC.2.

COUNTY COUNCIL EXCERPT 14 December 2010 - Prosecutor's Request for $25,000 Legal Fees Transfer

County Council Meeting excerpt from auditor’s copy (obtained March 7, 2011) of original tape 6:09:26 PM to 6:13:40 PM on Dec 14, 2010 - transcribed verbatim.

Dennis Kraus, Sr., President of County Council: Aaron’s here we may as well go ahead with his and do this somewhere else.

Aaron Negangard, County Prosecutor: Thank you. Umm, this is not uhh, an additional appropriation, as it turns out it is a transfer. There was additional monies left in- appropriated monies left, in uh- we had some additional money from the grant – some of the grants monies had been received for salaries and we were using some of this money for intern, but we’ll have about $30,000 left over- and we need to get $25,000 transferred to pay some – uh- attorney’s fees.

Liz Morris:- So nothing out of Riverboat?

Aaron Negangard, Prosecutor: No

Liz Morris: OK,just simply a transfer?

Maynard Barrett: Can this grant be used for this, I mean?

Aaron Negangard, Prosecutor: No

Maynard Barrett: Won’t it…( doesn’t finish the sentence)

Aaron Negangard, Prosecutor: But the grant, the grant- it was money not spent because of it.

Maynard Barrett: Oh- BECAUSE of the grant. OK. But I was wondering how you used grant money for …

Aaron Negangard, Prosecutor: No, I didn’t.

Maynard Barrett: … legal defense.

Aaron Negangard, Prosecutor: No it was money that was appropriated that wasn’t spent . It’s actually Mike Kreinhop’s position. He was working for me at the first of the year, or at some point.

Liz Morris: Just a transfer.

Aaron Negangard, Prosecutor: Correct.

Liz Morris: I move to approve.

Bill Ullrich: Second.

Tom Cheek: You said this was for attorney’s fees?

Aaron Negangard, Prosecutor: Attorney’s fees.

Tom Cheek: For?

Aaron Negangard, Prosecutor: To defend a -uh - disciplinary grievance.

Tom Cheek: You mean by a county employee here?

Aaron Negangard, Prosecutor: YES.

Dennis Kraus, Sr.: We have a motion on the floor. All in favor say Aye.

COUNCIL: Aye ( 6)

Dennis Kraus, Sr.: Opposed No-

Tom Cheek: Nay

Dennis Kraus, Sr.: Motion passes.

Maynard Barrett: Aaron, since we’re here, between friends- this thing that’s in the paper, uh- if that would go against the prosecutors of Indiana, what kind of money are we talking about there?

Aaron, Negangard, Prosecutor: Well.

Maynard Barrett: Do we have any idea?

Aaron, Negangard, Prosecutor: Uh.

Maynard Barrett: I’m sure it won’t but…

Aaron, Negangard, Prosecutor: If it does I’m sure it’s all absorbed by the state.

Maynard Barrett: Oh OK.

Aaron, Negangard, Prosecutor: It’s not- it wouldn’t affect the county. But the claim is completely frivolous, in fact, thet sent a number of requests to prosecutors- they did a request for information to prosecutors- they did a number of requests to prosecutors who responded that they did not have any- some small counties don’t even do forfeitures. Some counties don’t even bother with it. And they sued THEM. So I talked to some of those prosecutors and they are planning on filing a counter claim or a lawsuit against the people, because it’s really… They didn’t do any…To show you how lax they were in their investigation, they didn’t even realize they sued me twice- as Dearborn County prosecutor and Ohio County prosecutor. <> So there’s actually not 78 prosecutors, there’s 77.

Maynard Barrett: OK

Aaron, Negangard, Prosecutor: So I’m quite confident it’s not going to go anywhere. I spoke – I personally spoke to the attorney general this last week, and he had the option to actually take the case and then dismiss it because he could opt to take the case. But he chose not to do that because he felt if he took the case that would give it merit and he didn’t feel it had merit. Um- and I would say that they haven’t even followed the appropriate procedures as far as that statute. It’s for false claims and nobody’s filed a claim so. Um – that being said I would anticipate but I can assure you that we don’t have to come and ask for any money from you. The attorney general takes the defense, and if they lose, they pay them.

Maynard Barrett: OK

Dennis Kraus, Sr: Thank you.

Aaron, Negangard, Prosecutor: Tom, I did want to thank you for your service all these many years. Thank you.

1 March 2011 Dearborn County Commissioner Meeting Notes

1 March 2011 Dearborn County Commissioners Meeting Notes

Present: Jeff Hughes, President, Tom Orschell, and Shane McHenry
Also present: Gayle Pennington, Auditor, Bill Ewbank, County Coordinator, and, Andy Baudendistel, Attorney.

OLD BUSINESS:

Reaction PC Maintenance Renewal-Bill Ewbank reported that with the $1600 vs $3,000 fee he recommends using the $3,000 fee and have Reaction PC train the dept heads individually based on their needs and level of expertise. Reaction PC agreed to do it that way rather than a group training. McHenry agreed that this was a pretty fair price. Ewbank said that the dept heads will be responsible for content on their sections of the website. McHenry motioned and Orschell 2nded. Commissioners approved renewing the one year contract for the website maintenance at $3,000. All ayes.

Purchasing Agent Ordinance- Andy Baudendistel said that the ordinance does not add anything to what we do already. McHenry said that he’d had 4 dept head not want it. Hughes didn’t want an extra law if we don’t need it. They wondered if there had been a problem with this before- then laughed and said – well a long time ago maybe. Commissioners decided to TABLE this for further clarification for Hughes. McHenry motioned and Orschell 2nd – all ayes . Baudendistel to further research. Hughes kept asking about whether or not they could get rid of the original ordinance.

Committee of IT renewals- Gayle Pennington and Ewbank received about 12 responses mostly from the adm bldg. All were happy with Hi-tech. Ewbank said that because we don’t have an IT person on staff. He wants to look at all options- there are 3 vendors we are using- Reaction PC, Hi-tech, an individual helping the sheriff’s dept, and Midwest Data. He thinks we should finish out this year and look at options for next year. Ewbank said we also provide services for other groups like Solid Waste, etc. He recommends renewing Hi-tech’s contract for this year. McHenry said the judges and prosecutor have their own group and they are very comfortable with that. Ewbank said that they are not reviewing their services in the Courthouse. Hi-tech is being paid monthly right now. Orschell and Ewbank both said they can ask the Courthouse their thoughts- not forcing anything. Ewbank said they should have survey results in 60-90 days.

NEW BUSINESS:

Ruth Batta- Summer Art Program- request to go to Council- this will be her 24th year. They keep getting more kids every summer. She outlined some of the trips (Ball State last year) and project they work on. She tries to go to a college each year. Marion is a possibility this year. Commissioners approved her going to Council to seek funding again from the Youth Fund.

Bill Shelton – Building Dept Staffing- Orschell said Shelton was ill tonight. This was for 1 position and the money has already been appropriated. He wants permission to go to Council. McHenry said that Shelton thought there was a need – and it would take a couple months to fill it anyway. Commissioners recommended they let Council look at this- they have been pretty cautious. They will probably try to recommend cross training or sharing a person with another dept.

Contract Amendment – Votaw Building Purchase- Ewbank said the current tenant by agreement was to continue rent free. Votaw has asked for a delay to April 30 to close on that building to accommodate some tax issues related to his new building. Andy Baudendistel can’t comment as he works in the building with Votaw. That is why Jack Gay is handling this. Gay was not present tonight. The commissioners will wait for Gay to decide.

HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT- Todd Listerman, county engineer, gave an update:

Stateline design is complete and acquiring 32 right of way parcels. Tucker has 4. Fifteen appraisals completeand working on appraisals for the last 13. This should take 12-18 months to secure all ROW.

Orschell and Listerman have met with 2 owners on North Dearborn and concerns have been addressed. Reinhardt wants to go to court and not meet with them. Larry Smith to meet with them in near future.

Holt Road bridge 219 has been started. The project will be completed by mid April weather permitting.

Short Ridge Road Bridge 34 plans are complete - they are still acquiring parcels.

North Dearborn bridge 102- plans are 80% complete. They will start to secure ROW soon. That should be ready to let sometime in June- if ROW issues are resolved.

Will need to get funding from Council for the closed bridge 212 on Lower Dillsboro. Plans complete- working on permits. Letting inn June- subject to funding. McHenry said he has heard from constituents wanting that to get opened.

Cold Springs- Bridge 24- they are seeking federal dollars for that. Environmental has started. Letters to 8 property owners to get right of entry to survey. One has replied so far.

Collier Ridge Bridge #55 meeting was held. The plans to do several alternates and the consultant asked to do a minimum design of a 25 mph design instead of a 40 mph design. The 25 mph might be able to get fed dollars used. The existing alignment won’t qualify for fed dollars. The other alignment to check is a 35 mph alignment. Three total designs would be considered. One option has a dead end as part of it. It will be less than 1300 ft so it won’t violate the planning laws on cul-de-sacs. Commissioners motioned and 2nded and approved the design option changes.

Listerman will meet with INDOT on the flashers at schools. If all goes well they will be installed in spring of 2012 if the funding comes through. He has received 4 RFPs so far on the designs for these.

T,W Th next week Listerman will be at road school at Purdue with Kraus Jr.

Hrezo Engineering and Listerman will meet on the new salt buildings. They will be ready for next season.

Listerman personally thanked Grieve and crews on the job they did for the snow removal. McHenry reiterated that and wanted the crew to know also.

AUDITOR- Gayle Pennington- claims and minutes approved.
Manchester EMS contract and Sunman EMS (2 squads) and Moores Hill (2 squads) all approved at $20,000 each squad.

ATTORNEY- Andy Baudendistel- Lewes and Kappes interlocal agreement for lobbyist and consulting services- signed by Commissioners.

Marlene Underwood was happy with the letter designed for owners of vicious dogs for Animal Control. He will be working with them also for an ordinance relating to that.

Orschell asked Baudendistel about the research on the $25,000 that was asked about last meeting. He said that he was working on the backstory – that there was more he needed to check than just the law. He will have it for next meeting.

COUNTY COORDINATOR- Bill Ewbank-
Clothes line project by support and advocacy services- Cathy Dwyer- Rape crisis team- outlined the campaign to bring awareness of crimes of sexual assault. The T-shirts are created by survivors of rape and sexual assault in our community. There are about 50 shirts now. Commissioners approved the clothesline for April 21 on the courthouse lawn. At the Community center there will be a Take Back the Night program also.

Community Corrections Grant Application-annual application for $499,417. Commissioners signed for their approval and support for this grant.

Approval of a grant for study of county’s fire and ems program. This was requested by the fire and ems groups. Ball State can do that study- Hughes signed it today and commissioners ratified that signature. Planning and Zoning helped get the grant. Both Orschell and McHenry were very supportive of this idea.

Bill Black- EMA- Every March we have Severe Weather Awareness Week – commissioners signed the proclamation for March 13-19.

COMMISSIONER COMMENTS:
Orschell asked how they want to proceed with Hoosier Square. He thinks they need a predesign done. There are 3 buildings/spaces available. They have a contract for $12,000 with RQAW already. He thinks we need a professional to get on this. RQAW has the stats in their computer already. Bill Ewbank said that Hoosier Square would be the first done. They could bid out sooner if they get his started. He hoped to get the agencies over to that building by the fall. These will be an important pressure reliever on this bldg and the courthouse. RQAW is from out of town and they can mediate space needs discussions between judicial and executive branch. The contract with RQAW can be signed now because we now own Hoosier Square. They’d like to plan it out before “squatters” move in. Hughes asked about other quotes. Ewbank recommended they do this with RQAW and get the bids for the construction. Hughes wanted another set of eyes on this. Orschell said that would be good for the jail. McHenry said normally he’d get more quotes- but with the time crunch and RQAWs knowledge of the 3 campuses- he wants to go with that. Commissioners agreed to use RQAW for the predesign on Hoosier Square and the other two spaces as they come ready for $12,000.

Hughes asked commissioners to agree to get Ewbank to negotiate with another company to take a 2nd look at the numbers for the jail project and bring that option to commissioners before signing a contract. Ewbank said they don’t want to complete that until legislature finishes up with sentencing reforms etc. He will bring something to commissioners in an upcoming meeting.

McHenry asked if they could designate some visitor parking so that employees wouldn’t tie them up in front all day. They will think about that. Listerman said that he can make signs like he did last year for certain depts. and handicapped areas. Hope to have vacant lot soon for parking across the street.

LATE ARRIVAL INFORMATION: none

PUBLIC COMMENT:
Chris Mueller- asked if the research on the legality of a payment made by the prosecutor for legal fees relating to a grievance that was filed against him would be done by the next commissioners meeting. Baudendistel said YES.
Mueller asked what the problem was with the research and he said he needed more background info. Mueller offered and gave him 2 more opinions from the disciplinary board and state supreme court relating to who pays legal fees in these cases.

Meeting adjourned at 7:45 PM

Christine Brauer Mueller
Lawrenceburg Township

28 February 2011 Dearborn County Plan Commission Meeting Notes

28 February 2011 Dearborn County Plan Commission Meeting Notes

Present: Mike Hall, Chairman, Dennis Kraus Jr., Russell Beiersdorfer, Mark Lehman, Mike Hornbach, Jeff Hughes, Jake Hoog, Dan Lansing, and Ken Nelson
Also Present: Mark McCormack, Plan Director, and Andy Baudendistel , substituting for Arnie McGill.
ABSENT: Arnie McGill, Attorney

All current officers were maintained. Arnie McGill was reappointed as attorney. Mike Hall was reappointed as the Plan Commission rep to the BZA.

Request to vacate a portion of Happy Hollow Road by Applicant Rob Seig, Surveyor, and owner David C and David J Lykins ( father and son) This portion is 5.169 acres of Ag zoned land in Jackson and York Townships. There were about 10 citizens in the audience. The ROW is 6,823 ft long. County maintenance was established in Jan 2010. The access is used by the Lykins who own most of the property along this ROW. The Grote piece at the end is the only piece that touches this ROW. Grote has no problem with the vacation and would like to see it closed off. The road crosses a creek in a couple areas. Pictures of the area were shown.

Per Indiana code- a person may make a written request to Plan Commission and they must satisfy 4 criteria to allow it.

Rob Seig, surveyor, presented the request for the Lykins. The county was looking for ways to shorten roadways and have a cul de sac. The deeds are vague from the 1917 era, using creeks as landmarks. He redid the surveys for the road. They found a pin on Engels and found the end 2 ft south of it- and about 2.5 ft from the ROW. This would mean Engel would have to cross over Lykins to get to his land. The next closest properties were 40-50 ft from the road. The road is very rough- no one else drives this road. Lykins wants to vacate and will grant a cul de sac. He is willing to grant an easement for utility only should the county need it for sewer in the distant future. There was some question of adequate frontage for David J (the son) for the future. Mike Hall was questioning the old pins. Seig said he believed they were set in the 1970s by Fishvogt to mark the line for logging at the time. Hughes asked if Seig saw any indication of where the road was EXACTLY. The old surveys had distances that “ran with the creek.” He looked at even the 1937 aerials and others and questioned people in the area. He felt the surveys reflect where the road went. The commissioners do not get paid for this ROW as they are not really maintaining it. However they did keep the ROW in inventory. He did not see a clear cut to get into Engel’s.

Amy Streiter ( sp?) attorney form Batesville, representing Engels. Their son Greg owns a section of the property. 56.18 ft is the maximum discrepancy in the surveyor’s report. This comes into play on part of Engels. Engel’s own a ¼ of a quarter section- a square. Their son will need that road in order to build his home. The lay of the Engel’s land makes it hard to get access thru Engel’s other parcel. The county also paid the owner prior to the Engels to build the road on their land in 1917. (One was George Woliung) The gate has been put across that road by the Lykins. Lykins wanted to put the cul de sac further away from Engels than was previously discussed at a commissioners meeting. The cut in the road was an old roadway shown on 1937 maps. January 13, 2011- Greg Engels recorded his deed to the land. The survey was done in December 2010 by Seig.

Kraus Jr- March 6, 1917 Commissioners minutes showed that they paid Woliungs and Renner for repairs to the Herman Station Road. From those minutes 2 deeds were filed. One has a center line description. The other one was filed in Aug ,1926 from the Cash farm to Woliungs. When Woliungs sold to Felix York- parts of that went to Engels. Barb and John own a 40 acre tract and Greg Engel owns a 30-acre tract.

Rob Seig explained his 56 ft discrepancy allowance. The deeds of Lykins and Engels overlap by 56 feet. This was due to surveys. He chased the title back to when the US gov’t granted it to James Angevine in 1817. In 1847 it was sold to Woliungs. It started as rods, then went to metes and bounds. The deed for the county paying for damages Seig claims it could have been for any given parcel that the road was along. He said he did his survey the way he was supposed to do his work. The 30-acre parcel was created over a hundred years ago. He didn’t go into greater resolution between the property lines because it wasn’t in the scope of what they were doing. Hughes was having trouble because he knows roads move as land moves. We can’t actually say what the county bought or paid for back in 1917. Noah Creech bought land from Engels grandparents in 1970. Lykins bought it from Creech in 1980s or 90s.

Greg Engel- when Creech lived there, we had no trouble accessing our land back there. When Lykins bought it, they asked where the road was. Now there is a problem with either a gate being locked or Lykins parks a vehicle blocking the access. They use tractors and trucks to access their land on that hillside.

Tina Murray- daughter- said that this land has been in our family for years- we want it to stay in the family. It’s heartbreaking to see this- my grandmother Engel would hate to see this happening. It’s uncomfortable to go down there now- wishes people would just get along.

John Engel- this all started a few years back with the gate. This started in 2007. Listerman wanted a 50-ft cul de sac or he’d close the road. County has put baskets in there to hold the road by the creek. He let the county do a lot of work there- and he said nothing. For 60 years I’ve walked that road. It has changed with that work. He feels like he’s being railroaded. He claims Lykins houses and barns have permit issues and there is forgery on a document. County has been paid to maintain the road and they haven’t doneit. The maintenance was done by owners who were also excavators. He outlined the old roadway and the old owners who lived along it back to Ester Ridge. The 56-ft overlap brings this road clearly onto our property. He apologized for going on but he’s frustrated.

Seig was asked about jr-sr rights on the 56 ft. overlap. He wasn’t sure about that as he was only fitting it to Lykins property survey. He did not chase everyone’s title all the way through.
Kraus, Jr. said that if a title issue exists this board cannot resolve that. Only one option is to table it until the title issue is resolved.

Seig said he was there as Lykins agent. He didn’t want to short anyone, but his job was to represent Lykins.

Jeff Stenger- surveyor- the one thing you are missing- they can have prescriptive rights across that road if they can prove they used it. Beiersdorfer said they can’t have that use because a GATE is across that road. It’s prevented it.

Engels said this has been there since 2007. The vehicle parked there is like an intimidation factor. It’s illegal to park on county roads.

PUBLIC discussion ended.

Plan Commission TABLED this item after nearly 2 hours for information on ownership or prescriptive easement. All ayes. Lawyer said they’d have the information in 90 days. Engel is allowed to use the ROW as it is public.

ADMINISTRATIVE:

Tucker and Schmidt’s White’s Farm Development is requesting a 2-year extension for the Primary Approval of White Pines Subdivision. This is after a one year extension was previously granted. The reason for extension is due to the economy. This would end in Feb 2013.
Jeff Stenger surveyor stated that the market has been in the tank. They’d hoped the economy would come back with a one-year extension and now are asking for two- as the market hasn’t bounced back. They are planning on keeping the plat the way it is.

Ken Nelson said that he’d like to see them adhere to any technical changes that might happen in that time period.

Approved the extension with the acknowledgement that any technical changes in the ordinance will be reflected in the final drawings of the plan. All ayes. Granted.

1. Financial guarantees report was passed out. One of the developers brought in a check to finish up Hill Springs.

2. 2010 annual report and stats were included as were all the grant writing they have been doing. They have also been working on fiscal impact plan and also water quality issues with OKI.

3. Jim Hough is appealing the primary plat that was brought in on Joseph Field to BZA. Then it may come to PC again, depending on BZA.

4. Working on 3 different grants for State Street grant money. This money has not been applied for yet. Newspaper was notified that their story was not totally accurate. Fire emergency management grant and another for a trailer are also being worked on. If state changes the law- we’ll only have about a year to get a study on Fire and EMS done.

5. Water Quality Management Plan is on the planning website. There are documents for 2030 plan. They are dividing up where the waste water management boundaries will be. They have been meeting for about a year. Old plan dates back to 1977. The new plan takes into consideration point and non-point discharges
.
6. Fiscal impact model is on-going. Hoping to roll that out in a couple months.

7. They have been working on the zoning revisions and waiting to see how they will be received by the new commissioner as well. If the commissioners are not supportive of the effort, they should spend their time on other tasks. If there is enough general support, they will set zoning committee up for March or April. Nothing for March meeting- so that date could be used for that. Landscaping part of the ordinance needs some work also
.
8. Working to tweak all our permitting forms to improve the process. They will be able to create more of a checklist form. Looking at other areas for examples. They are absorbing all the county transportation and driveway permits. And then they will email it to the highway dept for their signatures. This will link them to the new highway dept. when they move to Randall Avenue.

9. Currently digitizing the planning records. They have 10 years just about done. They are all linked by the person’s names as well.

10. County is to be launching a new GIS web site in the next 2-4 weeks. Base info will be up first. There will be an open house at some point to teach people how to use it. Eventually the permitting applications will be one stop- one shop permitting application.

11. Mike Hall told McCormack that PZ website was praised as being the best on the county website by Bill Ewbank.

Meeting adjourned at 9: 30 PM

Christine Brauer Mueller
Lawrenceburg Township