WARRICK COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM

107 W. Locust Street

Boonville, Indiana

February 11, 2004

4:00 P. M.

The Warrick County Commissioners met for the purpose of Planning Commission business and other business that may come before the Board, with all members present. Also in attendance was County Administrator, Roger Emmons; County Auditor, Richard Kixmiller; Plan Commission Executive Director, Sherri Phillips; County Engineer, Steve Sherwood; County Sheriff, Marvin Heilman and County Attorney, Rick Martin.

President Don Williams called the meeting to order.

Auditor Richard Kixmiller recorded the minutes.

BIDS: Wheel Loader - Bid Discussion and Award:

Alan Ahrens: Foreman of the Warrick County Recycle and Disposal Center. In regard to the Wheel Loader, the Caterpillar, the John Deere loaders were delivered to our center on Wednesday , February 4^th. All the employees operated both loaders and made the recommendation for purchase. Since that time, a New Holland loader was delivered on Tuesday February 9^th. All the employees had an opportunity to use that loader and indicated to me that their original recommendation did not change. Also Commissioner Baxter was out and used all three pieces of equipment. All the employees agreed that all three are high quality machines. However, we feel that the Caterpillar loader meets more of our unique operations needs and we would suggest that the Commissioners consider that piece of machinery as the one to purchase.

Don Williams: Thank you. I have one question I would like to address to Mr. Baxter since he is our resident expert. Just in a nutshell, if you would let me know just as an operator the benefits of the Cat or the others, if there is any.

Phil Baxter: All three pieces of equipment are good pieces of equipment. There are no problems. I myself have better visibility on the Caterpillar and I think that is a real good selling point. So along with the employees...

MOTION: Phil Baxter made the motion to buy the Caterpillar loader the 924 G.

Carl Conner: I would ask Phil, what is the dollar amount in regards to his motion relative to the Caterpillar?

Phil Baxter: $118,216.00

Roger Emmons: I will make a correction on that. When I tabulated those, there was a math error, it is actually $118,251.00.

Phil Baxter: That does include the five year power train of $1500, right?

Roger Emmons: Yes. All of the optional guards, the foam in the tires and the five year power train, optional warranty.

Don Williams: So due to visibility and safety you are recommending the caterpillar, is that your motion?

Phil Baxter: Yes sir. I amend my motion.

MOTION: Phil Baxter made the motion to buy the Caterpillar loader the 924 G for $118,251.00

SECOND: Carl Conner

VOTE: 3 Ayes 0 Nays

Alan Ahrens: Mr. Williams, we had a request to, we had a machine that we need to be declared as salvage, it is a 963 Caterpillar dozer that has a blown engine. We would like to request that as salvage and be disposed of in the appropriate matter according to law and I believe that is where they do the bidding for that. It has to be advertised and we would like to do that. We have a couple of people who have indicated their interest in purchasing that piece of equipment.

Carl Conner: So we already have the possibility of somebody buying it?

Alan Ahrens: Yes we have some potential buyers.

MOTION: Carl Conner made the motion to declare the 963 Caterpillar as County Surplus for purposes of attempting to sell it.

SECOND: Phil Baxter

VOTE: 3 Ayes 0 Nays

AREA PLAN COMMISSION:

STREET CONSTRUCTION PLANS:

PP-03-20 - Victoria Bluffs Subdivision by Victoria Manor, LLC, Dennis Aiken, Member:

Sherri Phillips: They are requesting this be continued until the first meeting in March.

MOTION: Carl Conner made the motion to continue the Victoria Bluff Subdivision by Victoria Manor until March as requested.

SECOND: Phil Baxter

VOTE: 3 Ayes 0 Nays

REQUEST FOR RELEASE OF SURETY:

C-03-078 New Tech Construction - Commercial Driveway:

Sherri Phillips: The next item is a request for release of surety. Commercial driveway C-03-078 New tech construction. Bluegrass Recreation Center. This is on Boonville New Harmony Road, we are holding $7500. Steve Sherwood, County Engineer has signed off, the driveway has been constructed.

Don Williams: Any questions from the Board? Mr. Sherwood?

Steve Sherwood: Built according to plan, I recommend release of surety.

MOTION: Carl Conner made the motion to grant the request in the amount of $7,500 for commercial driveway, Bluegrass Recreation Center.

SECOND: Phil Baxter

VOTE: 3 Ayes 0 Nays

Sherri Phillips: Would you state your name for the record.

Dennis Higgs: New Tech Construction.

REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF SURETY:

Heartland Chevrolet by Scot Coonce:

Sherri Phillips: A request for the extension of surety Heartland Chevrolet by Scot Coonce. He has had two years and is requesting a one year extension with no reduction in the dollar amount. Mr. Sherwood has signed off that the dollar amount is still adequate.

Scot Coonce: Heartland Chevrolet. I have no comments.

Steve Sherwood: I recommend it is in order for a one year extension if the Board so desires.

MOTION: Carl Conner made the motion to grant the one year extension to Heartland Chevrolet, with no reduction in the dollar amount.

SECOND: Phil Baxter

VOTE: 3 Ayes 0 Nays

REZONING PETITIONS:

PC-R-04-02 Petition of Ted Brown. Owner of record: Larry E and Jean A Raley:

Sherri Phillips: The next item is PC-R-04-02 Petition of Ted Brown. Owner of record: Larry E and Jean A Raley to rezone 1.11 acres located on the East side of Epworth Road approximately 1300 feet North of intersection formed by Epworth Road and Oak Grove Road in Ohio Township from ‘A’ Agriculture to ‘M-1” Light Industrial zoning district. It was a unanimous recommendation of approval by the Plan Commission on January 14, 2004. The proposed use of the property will be automobile body shop located in an unattached building behind the residence.

Don Williams: Is Mr. Brown or Mr. Raley here?

Ted Brown: 1700 Stevens Avenue, Evansville.

Don Williams: Do you have anything to add?

Ted Brown: No sir.

Don Williams: Couldn’t hear question.

Ted Brown: State of the art facility.

Carl Conner: You presently do not live at this location?

Ted Brown: No. Larry Raley owns it.

Carl Conner: He is going to be your partner?

Ted Brown: No, he is going to sell me the property.

Steve Sherwood: the proposed shop that will be behind the existing residence, as you all know that is a Federal Aid Project that we are involved in. Probably within a year or less we will be approaching all the property owners including the owner of this facility for additional right of way on the Epworth Road Project. The past rezonings going to industrial by the gentleman across the street with a large house, help me with his name, Dilliage and the O’Bryan trailer, at the North west corner of Epworth and Oak Grove, I believe the arrangements made with them is that we could purchase the land as an agriculture price based upon if the zoning was allowed. And both those property owners agreed to that. Do we want the same condition for this gentleman?

Carl Conner: Do you basically understand what he is speaking of?

Ted Brown: Yes.

Steve Sherwood: He asked who owned it and another gentleman owns it and I don’t know if he can speak for him.

Ted Brown: He is here.

Steve Sherwood: Okay but what I was explaining to them, it is a project on our books and it is being designed as a Federal Aid Project, it behooves the taxpayers, a project on the books, that we buy land at agriculture prices compared to commercial or industrial because the appraised value will go up significantly. These were previous agreements by previous boards or this Board on the other two properties I mentioned just a few minutes ago.

Ted Brown: I wouldn’t have a problem with that as far as easement, is that what you are referring to?

Steve Sherwood: We will have to buy the right of way and it is not projected that we displace that residence at this location because your building will be behind the residence that is there anyhow.

Carl Conner: I guess what we are asking for, in fact the engineering has been completed and that road is going to be developed into four or five lane road from the intersection of 66 going North up to Lynch Road and Telephone Road. I guess basically what we are asking is when we come through there, because we are going to have to buy right of way, are you willing to sell us the right of way at a fair market value, but the fair market value will be based upon agriculture and not on commercial.

Ted Brown: That wouldn’t be a problem. As long as they are not going to knock the house down.

Steve Sherwood: We do have a public informational meeting this month, I don’t know if you received a notification or not.

Ted Brown: It is my understanding that most of the driveway was going to the West of Epworth where I am more than the East side.

Steve Sherwood: That is correct. It is to avoid taking buildings as much as possible.

Carl Conner: Steve correct me, but to the best of my knowledge, the plan calls for the removal of only one house in that area, is that correct?

Steve Sherwood: Only one.

Carl Conner: So you are basically safe.

Don Williams: Do you know what the footage is as far as his property?

Steve Sherwood: I don’t but he only has a 1.11 acre property so his frontage isn’t that great.

Unable to hear conversation regarding frontage.

MOTION: Carl Conner made the motion to grant the rezoning PC-R-04-02 as requested with the stipulation that the road right of way will be sold to the County at agriculture prices and not commercial.

Rick Martin: Carl before you get a second, I would like to confirm. Did Mr. Raley confirm as the current property owner that he would be agreeable to that?

Unknown Speaker: Yes.

Carl Conner: I thought that both of them agreed.

Rick Martin: I wasn’t sure he did I just wanted to make sure the record was clear.

SECOND: Phil Baxter

VOTE: 3 Ayes 0 Nays

Sherri Phillips: The only other item I have, it is not on the agenda, but it is a request from a Tommy Wilson who is an Eagle Scout and he is going to be building a skate board ramp and things at Grace Community Church as an Eagle Scout Project. It is being built entirely with donations and they are requesting that I waive the improvement location permit fee of $50.00 for the permit.

Don Williams: Any questions from the Board?

MOTION: Phil Baxter made the motion to waive the $50.00 permit fee for the project.

SECOND: Don Williams

VOTE: 3 Ayes 0 Nays

Sherri Phillips: That is all I have, thank you.

TABLED ITEMS:

Peabody Coal - Proposed Contract and Leasehold Agreement - Nelson Brothers Building (waiting for receipt and review of the final documents:

Roger Emmons: The Peabody Coal contract, lease hold agreement on the Nelson Brothers building, we have still not received the final documents for the Council to review, however we did receive a letter from Mancil Robinson going ahead and giving the Highway Department permission to go ahead and start using that building and ground. I talked to him today and they are still waiting to get it back from their attorney. So I guess that would be in order to table again.

MOTION: Carl Conner made the motion to table the proposed contract for the lease agreement with Peabody Coal Company for the Nelson Brother building.

SECOND: Phil Baxter

VOTE: 3 Ayes 0 Nays

Verizon E911 Renewal Contract:

Roger Emmons: I think Rick has reviewed that.

Rick Martin: That is correct Roger. I have reviewed that agreement, it appears to be consistent with the prior agreement. At least from a legal standpoint, it appears to be in order and acceptable. I will leave it to you all to move to accept the agreement or reject the agreement based upon that, but I would recommend acceptance.

Don Williams: Any questions?

MOTION: Phil Baxter made the motion to approve the Verizon E911 renewal contract.

SECOND: Carl Conner

VOTE: 3 Ayes 0 Nays

Health Board Appointments:

MOTION: Carl Conner made the motion to appoint Pastor Bland to that position on the Health Board.

SECOND: Phil Baxter

VOTE: 3 Ayes 0 Nays

HIPAA Update:

Rick Martin: Roger is going to probably pass that one to me and I am going to beg off one last time here and request that you table it for another two weeks to the next meeting that I am at. As you guys are aware, going full steam on these two T.I.F. Projects trying to get those wrapped up by the end of this week and I just haven’t had the time to move forward on the HIPAA issues yet. But I anticipate wrapping these issues up this week and can address those issues at the meeting I believe on February 25^th.

Roger Emmons: Rick, I would add, did Dave Waltz call you today?

Rick Martin: He may have I haven’t been at the office all day.

Roger Emmons: Of course he is with our TPA, Third Part Administrator and they have soft ware for $600 he is downloading it and that could make it available to us and so far that is the cheapest remedy that we have found. He wants to sit down with you and I to discuss it.

Rick Martin: I would be more than happy to sit down with him if you want to get with me tomorrow and we can set up a time to meet with him, I think that would be a good idea.

Roger Emmons: So right now table until the 25^th?

Rick Martin: That is what I am suggesting, yes.

MOTION: Carl Conner made the motion to table HIPAA update until the next meeting of February 25^th at 4:00 P.M.

SECOND: Phil Baxter

VOTE: 3 Ayes 0 Nays

Bridge 43/44 Revised Supplemental Agreement:

Roger Emmons: That has been reviewed by Attorney Charles Martin and he says that is okay and is proper to sign.

Don Williams: Any discussion, any questions?

MOTION: Carl Conner made the motion to sign the new Revised Supplemental Agreement for Bridge 43 /44.

SECOND: Phil Baxter

VOTE: 3 Ayes 0 Nays

Epworth Road Revised Engineering Agreement:

Roger Emmons: I was discussing this with Carl and I think probably that the funding, this basically Charlie Martin has reviewed it and says he finds it in order. However, I think that Commissioner Conner had requested some amended figures in there. The total in this is $447,400 but I think a portion of that is going to be paid from Economic Development funds and those funds have not been appropriated yet.

Don Williams: Do we need to hold off on this until it is appropriated?

Carl Conner: I think that it is only appropriate that we hold off on signing the contract until such time that $285,000, which was recommended by Redevelopment, to the County council is approved. They are holding a special meeting on Tuesday, February 24^th, to take that request under consideration.

Rick Martin: The Council is?

Carl Conner: Yes.

Don Williams: I would agree with that also.

MOTION: Carl Conner made the motion to table the Epworth Road Revised Engineering Agreement until such time that the monies are appropriated by the County Council.

SECOND: Phil Baxter

VOTE: 3 Ayes 0 Nays

ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION:

Commonwealth Engineering - MS4 Contract Amendment/Addition:

Donald B. Larson: My name is Don Larson I am representing Commonwealth Engineering out of Indianapolis. I am here today on the MS4 Program that you folks are involved in which I might add has gotten increasing more complicated for you folks as of last week. With the overturn of the governors veto that now allows County Government to form a Storm Water Utility for financing and such things. Those are things that are going to be additional thoughts on your folks minds to think on how you are going to be funding this classic unfunded mandate. You may recall last April I was here and presented you with a contract for carrying you through the Part A, B and C of this MS4 Program. However in order to keep our pencil very sharp, we had only provided you a cost for doing the Part A aspect of it. That particular part which was the notice of intent and the Part A application was filed timely on November 3^rd. Subsequently you have received your permit and permit numbers assigned to you. The next part to the program is Part B which is called a Base Line Characterization Report. Which goes into an evaluation of what are called best management practices or those structural and non-structural things within your jurisdiction that effect the quality of storm water. It also goes into the evaluation of land use, it also goes into looking at the various receiving streams and what kind of condition they are in. This particular side of this process is due to be submitted to IDEM on May 3^rd or this spring, coming up in short order. There is a lot to do between now and then and I think in recognizing this, the State of Indiana in their rule making of this particular piece of rule making allows for a 60 day extension, if requested. So while right now it is due May 3^rd, it could be moved to July 3^rd and in the amendment I gave you I spelled that out and depending on what transpires over the next month or so, we may take advantage of that. Going past the Part B application, it is the ABC’s and Part C is kind of the largest piece of all of this and that is the Storm Water Quality Management Plan. Which is due one year from the middle of Part A. Therefore, it is due November of next year. After we are well into Part B, we will evaluate how we can most cost effectively process with Part C and be coming back to you with another amendment as was spelled out to you in the initial contract for doing that work. I would be happy to answer any questions you have on where the program stands, what we have done to date, besides what I have stated so far or any opinions I might have.

Roger Emmons: I had something that she had copies to Charlie. I thought we had placed those in your boxes.

Don Williams; I know we have a Joint Meeting coming up with the Council on the 24^th at 4:00 P.M.

Carl Conner: I was curious, you raised my interest when you said something about the actions of the governor recently.

Don Larson: Yes, you may recall that Governor O’Bannon vetoed a bill during the last session that because it had tagged on other provisions to a bill in regard to isolated wet lands, also overturned a portion of a bill that provided opportunity for Counties to develop Storm Water Utilities. With that bill vetoed, there were no other tools except for taxation for Counties to generate revenues to do this. That veto has been overturned as approximately a week ago, so now that was opportunities, are back on the table. And should at least be weighted out, is taken consideration because it should be clear as we have gone through this process, that this is the equivalent of your County forming a Storm Water Department. Going well beyond the duties that are currently being handled here. One example, a simple example is, you will have to assume the responsibility for the permitting of construction site activities. That means not just issuing permits but having the authority to do inspection, as well as enforcement if they are not done correctly. So those are the kinds of things that are coming down into your responsibilities. There are other responsibilities that come into the program but that one certainly stands out as one that will require time. I know that Steve is familiar with it.

Steve Sherwood: Would that permitting enforcement be required County wide or just in that census areas that require the MS4 structure?

Don Larson: Strictly speaking, it can be limited just to the area within the MS4 area, however, I caution our clients in that you don’t want to set up a situation where you have an entity that makes his decision on location based on the location whether in or out of that bright line.

Steve Sherwood: Which could happen.

Don Larson: Which could very easily happen. Understanding that, when they submit their construction plans showing their construction site run off control measures, they are also required by law now to show post construction control measures. These are easiest to visualize as a retention or detention facility. With a caveat, that those facilities have been traditionally been built to deal with the quantity of storm water. The new structures that will be built will have to deal the quality of the storm water and therefor have to have appendages to the, such as four bays to allow for the dropping out of materials. Obviously if we have wedges designed to drop out materials in them, that creates an operation maintenance issue of which has to be cleaned out. Which also means that the County will want to make sure that if they require subdivisions or what not to do these things, that it is done under some general specification or series that is approved so that you don’t have a whole haphazard group of these things. You will want to have some control. So there should be some kind of thought given to that. The program is extremely complex, as noted by the small binder over there that we are putting together and should not be taken lightly. That is why I am encouraged that we are having this meeting next week, particularly with this new concept of potentially being able to open up a storm water utility. Knowing that here within your County we have Newburgh, and we also have Chandler. Which have options of going up to two miles outside of their jurisdiction to bring people into Chandler would be a new utility which they are looking at forming and to Newburgh expanding on the coverage of their existing utility. That may come into conflict if you want to have a utility you may want to encompass it as well. In other words we are going to have increased dialog between all the entities just so that we have uniformity on discussion of issues so we are partnering at least on how we are going to deal with this enormous program that is taking place. I spoke with Karan before this meeting, I was up in Chandler yesterday evening talking with those folks, I will be having a meeting in Newburgh in a week or so and I am encouraging that at your meeting next Tuesday that we try to get a core group of people together from these entities to start to ferret this out. Remembering a few short weeks away and we are going to be at the due time for this Part B. Not that all this these decisions have to be done by then, but realize we have to start working towards that because it will be November and by that time we have to have detailed budgets in place, on how we are going to do all these six minimum control measures, what our map and jurisdiction is, how we are going to fund these things, let along a whole caveat of things. There is a great deal of activity that is going to be taking place as we ramp up to this.

Carl Conner: Have all the rules and regulations been published and distributed to various municipalities?

Don Larson: All the rules, actually it is one rule. The one that is pertinent to you it is 327 IAC 15-13. That is how it gets the term Rule 13. Cased in with that, there are two other storm water rules. One is IAC 15-5, which is strictly for construction activity for those entities outside urbanized areas. But that program, that Rule 5, that goes down to one acre now, is brought into the Rule 13 for you folks. The Rule 6, or 15-6 , deals with industrial activities. There are very little changes done to that. In fact, the change to that rule was a positive one and gave them an option for wavering out if they can provide building coverage ... that precludes precipitation coming in contact with product that could come into play with precipitation. To say they are available, they are available on the internet through IDEM. I was on the Rule 13 development committee. So when people ask me how do I find it, I tell them to go to Google and type in my name then and Rule 13 because that takes you right to that place in IDEM where you will see the list of the people on the Committee and you can go out from links there and find copies of why you are an entity, and who are the other entities, and who are the operators and all of that. There is a tremendous amount of information from those links. So Google Don Larson Rule 13 will get you right in to that particular portion of the web site.

Steve Sherwood: We are currently in compliance with Part A? Are we in line with everything else?

Don Larson: That was all hand delivered by myself and I had them stamp that document in and I returned a stamped copy of that back. I retained one for my files, since then they have done a adequacy check of that and they have issued your permit and permit number to you.

Steve Sherwood: And then Part B is due this November?

Don Larson: No, Part B is due in May 3^rd with the possibility of a sixty day extension.

Steve Sherwood: You said something about the next due date being November.

Don Larson: No, November 2004, this November. That is the Part C which is the Storm Water Quality Management Plan. Which really is the biggest beast of all of that. It will be after that time that Commonwealth will be stepping back and that your own personnel will be taking over this program. Not that we are doing the entire program for you, we are in assistance and trying to maximize County energies. For instance I have been in contact with your Think Map people, to try to take full advantage of all the layers that you currently have so we are not going to be reinventing the wheel on any of this. We are trying to minimize the field time on this, we are providing tools to Karan, to use to go out and visually locate these things. We will then send our staff out of our Evansville office to come in and field check and verify these things. Again, we are trying to maximize your own resources to minimize our resources on this.

Don Williams: Has IDEM ever released the guidance document they promised?

Don Larson: There is a guidance document that is available on the internet which is April version. I have provided to you folks a May version in conversation I had with the MS4 Coordinator, Mark Vailess, last week asking where this is, the final is not out. I do not anticipate significant changes, again that is an interpretative of what the rule is. The rule doesn’t leave a whole lot for interpretation. There are certain things in the guidance document that we were instrumental in getting in, for instance on how do you evaluate your impacts on receiving streams. Knowing that if you were to take a bacterial analysis or a chemical analysis of water chemistry you will find as in every place when it is raining the state that they exceed the water quality standards. So what we are going to do, as shown in our amendment, we are going to do what is called an Index Biological Integrity where we look at the macro and micro, the bugs and fishes in a receiving stream segment that is affected by input compared to when it is not affected and in our dealing with those kinds of approaches with combined sewer communities, we show that there is usually very little degradation, and therefore we had a disconnect. We don’t want to be pulling samples showing that we are in violation of water quality standards. So we have set this program up not to put a noose around our necks.

Steve Sherwood: Do we have a definite boundary then for our MS4 boundaries?

Don Larson: No you don’t. I could pull out a map and show you what the census department says, and that bright blue line that the census department map puts out is based on urbanized areas. Again, it is a line that is drawn around and it is based on two things, first to be an urbanized area you have to have a core population, 15,000 individuals. Then the urbanized area that is with that you have to have a population density o f 500 per square mile. That is why you have these bazaar lines that came up, in your case, come up, go around Chandler and come down. Most people say, why not Boonville? Boonville the distance between Chandler and Boonville doesn’t have the population density. My guess is during the next 2010 census that problem will pull Boonville into this and that will be cognizant of that. What needs to be done to answer your question directly is, in the Part C application, we will have to be showing them our boundary map that we are taking responsibility for. At minimum, we it would have to be that bright line based on the census. But since that bright line is based on residential not commercial, I would guess that everyone is going to have a map that is bigger in some areas than the bright blue line on the urbanized area map.

Steve Sherwood: Is that something that you will be doing for us as part of your service?

Don Larson: Yes. We will be actually initiating that activity here in the next few weeks so particularly if you start looking for a utility development, because you need to know how this starts to shape in order to make good decisions. The actual map itself again, A overlaps to B, B overlaps to C. The actual map has to be done in the C application so when we come back for another amendment to move past the B to C there will be refinements made. But I fully anticipate having pretty good maps that is why we are coordinating GIS guys with the THINK map guys to be doing that.

Steve Sherwood: One final questions if I may how do we stand to other governmental entities in the State of Indiana.

Don Larson: That is one of the most common questions I get. Everyone is, jumping right now, there were a lot of binders put on for a long time and it seems that upon the submittal this last November, the reality of this program has set in and the learning curve has taken over. People have realized that this is not a function that a consultant comes in and drafts things like that and it goes on a shelf. This is something that is forming Storm Water Departments. They are realizing this requires a commitment far beyond consultant cost, it requires a commitment to personnel and many other questions that must take place. There is an awful lot that has to be done between now and then. Not just reports but the development of agreements and ordinances that give you authorities. One can’t just start these programs and not have the authority. So there has to be the ordinances that have to be developed to give you controls to do the minimum control measures. If you form a utility, there has to be a fair and equitable means of forming a utility and an ordinance that does it. In that case it doesn’t go before the IURC because it is Storm Water.

Steve Sherwood: All the governments should be moving along with some uniformity we shouldn’t be redesigning the wheel many times over throughout the state.

Don Larson: Absolutely, and really there was a core group as you know, Steve, that started up down here about two years ago which has placed you folks in some ways for the learning curve quite ahead, particularly from a County government standpoint. There are a several County governments that I am aware of, I currently working with Delaware County as well as Posey County, Delaware County struggled with this too, but they have Muncie again like in Evansville, it is in the center. They are moving forward making tough decisions, I don’t know whether they are going to do a utility, this is a week old. So it is hard to know how that direction is going to take.

Carl Conner: In the rules and regulations that I assume the present Governor signed, that overturned the veto, you are talking primarily the establishment of a utility organization of some sort? Okay, but what you are saying is there is no guidelines relative to establish a utility that all these decisions have to be made at the local level?

Don Larson: There are definitely guidelines, absolutely, the rule, what it did, it went into the Indiana Code and modified the Indiana Code to be inclusive of County governments and I believe it also expanded on various options that you have for coming up with a fair and equitable fee. One could say based on the number of acreage, one could say based upon the number of out falls, what most entities are doing looking at utility development are coming up with an equivalent drainage unit. An equivalent drainage unit is such that you would take, typically a home, a residence, of typical size, and you look at the roof area and you look at the drive area and you come up with X number of square feet. It often ranges from 1500 to 2500 square feet. Then a fee is established for that as an equivalent, some times it is $2.50, it could be $5.00. Depends on what amount of revenue needs to be generated. Then if you have a commercial establishment or an industrial establishment come in, you use that equivalent unit as a multiplier. So you have a Wal Mart that has ten equivalent units, fifty units it is fifty times whatever fee on a monthly basis and then there could be adjustments. It could be that if Wal Mart agrees they are going to put in a widget of some form that will capture whatever comes off, they may get a 25% reduction. The complexity becomes great but obviously it has to be fair and equitable. That is why these equivalent drainage units are being developed because they are fairly fair and equitable.

Carl Conner: Sounds like ultimately, we are going to be required by the state to just put on another local tax on everybody that lives in the community.

Don Larson: If you go on a tax basis, the problem with that is you have tax exempt, churches, schools, what not. They are still areas that generate a lot of storm water run off. The tax option was the only option you had up until a week ago. I am not suggesting one over the other, I will tell you, if you develop a utility, the people that would get a break on taxes are not going to be pleased with that. So it is something that must be balanced out and done as a public weighted out process.

Carl Conner: Sounds like a no win situation.

Don Larson: It is a no win situation. Well it is an unfunded mandate. How can that ever be a win situation?

Carl Conner: I just agreed with what Don said, that is pretty typical, unfunded mandate.

Don Larson: Yes it is, it is more and more typical. I have certain opinions that it should be funded through state income tax. Because it is the environment and the people of the State of Indiana benefit from the environment. I also believe it should be weighted to those areas that don’t have the revenues to cover some of these mandates because some of these places like my home town, receive a lot more money because supposedly they have greater pollution so they have greater grants to build their Bellmont and South Park Sewage Plants.

Carl Conner: So basically what you are saying then, a state tax is not an option?

Don Larson: Not at this point in time. I think you are talking legislature and they are not talking anything about state tax.

Carl Conner: I really appreciate your input, thank you very much.

Steve Sherwood: And we though wet land mitigation was unfair.

Don Larson: Strange you should mention that Steve, that same bill, that provides this funding opportunity was also, the veto was overturned, that takes the isolated wetland authority out of IDEM hands.

Don Williams: And puts it back in the County hands where it belongs.

Don Larson: Now there is legislation trying to fix that.

Carl Conner: To take it back away from the County?

Don Larson: No, to redefine what an isolated wetland is, actually that bill was pretty poorly written, if you look at it. It could be linear as opposed to a pond.

Steve Sherwood: Technically you are looking at a wet storm water retention basin by our subdivisions, if it is not dry, in other words if it does not drain completely dry, after a storm, if it is wet for ten days or more it could be considered a wetland.

Don Larson: Let me add one very quick thing, don’t be confused. This program while it deals with a lot of issues does not deal with issues on private property. If you have a subdivision that is owned by the subdivision, if you have an apartment complex, that has a retention detention facility in it, you do not have to worry about evaluating it, locating it and all of that. That is private. Now if that causes you a problem, you have to have the authority to deal with it. There are certainly other management practices, such as ...swales and the likes of that that need to be identified and you need to take credit for those things.

Don Williams: Thank you very much see you Tuesday the 24^th, 4:00 P.M.

ADMINISTRATOR:

Roger Emmons: I have several items that I think we can get them pretty quickly. The first has to do with the Telephone Road Project. I got a call at three o’clock from Rick Bennett, who is the manager of right of way services for the consultant Bernardin Lochmueller. I don’t know which order I listed them in there but one has to do with Parcel 35. I would like the County Attorneys concurrence on his recommendation that a partial mortgage release not be secured, that it is not needed. I talked to Charlie briefly about it.

Rick Martin: He briefed me on it so I can comment on it. I guess I wouldn’t necessarily concur with them that it is in needed but I believe that I can advise the Commissioner of the benefits and risks associated with going one way or the other. It is my understanding here what we are seeking, we have purchased a parcel of land or a right of way there. The bank apparently in order to do a partial release of the mortgage for the portion of the ground we purchased, if I am not mistaken, the bank is requesting a $300.00 processing fee in order to do a partial release of the mortgage. So we either incur a $300.00 fee from the bank to have the partial release of the mortgage done, and that portion that we bought is released from the mortgage or we let it lie in that portion of land that we have purchased is still subject to the mortgage. Probably in all likelihood, it appears that payoff of the mortgage, according to the information I have been provided, is a little over $25,000. The appraised value of the property is $135,500. So in one sense there appears to be ample value there even on the portion of property that we don’t own that should cover the mortgage and we shouldn’t be left holding the bag on anything. However, if for some reason, the only thing I can possibly foresee is something that may leave the County holding the bag, assuming there is a fire, the house burns to the ground, there is no insurance coverage, they default on the mortgage, and the property, what’s left that we didn’t take isn’t sufficient to cover the $25,000 that is still owed on the mortgage, the County could be liable for the balance of the mortgage. It’s sort of a far fetched set of circumstances and not likely to occur because I am sure the mortgage holder requires the home owner to maintain insurance because of the mortgage. I guess my opinion would be absent some sort of extraordinary circumstances there appears to be enough equity in the property there to cover the balance that is owed on the mortgage. I don’t seeing it being a down side to us but there is a potential there. The other thing that I would recommend if the County does choose to forego the partial mortgage release, and leave that as is, I would only recommend you would do that subject to an agreement by the property owners not to further encumber the property. Basically not to increase the mortgage amount beyond that $25,000.

Carl Conner: That brings up a good question, I assume that if they had a second mortgage on that property it would be reflected?

Rick Martin: Should be.

Carl Conner: So we are only dealing with the first mortgage?

Rick Martin: Yes. I didn’t do the research but according to the research that has been presented to me there appears only the first mortgage for roughly $25,000.

Don Williams: Do you have a recommendation or are you just laying that out?

Rick Martin: I am just laying out the pros and the cons to it and let you all decide what to do. Basically you can pay the $300 processing fee and sleep well that there is not ever going to be an issue raised or save the $300 fee and there is a slight chance that an issue could arise that the County may be liable for something but I don’t think it is, I guess my recommendation would be either to pay the $300 processing fee and get the partial release or if you choose not to pursue the partial release at least get an agreement from the Bradleys’ not to further encumber it if you are going to forego the partial release. So either/or, it is your choice. I wouldn’t forego the partial release and still allow them the ability to further encumber it, because that where there may be a potential for a problem.

Don Williams: Why would the Bradleys’ give us that kind of a guarantee? I don’t know that I would if I owned the property.

Rick Martin: I don’t know whether they would or not but I think it puts the County in a situation where, It is $25,000 say they take another $75,000 or $100,000 out on it, and it is pushing the property value then we could be left. Say thy mortgaged it for $100,000 and then defaulted on it, the house run down and not enough value there, out of what is left without our strip to pay off the mortgage, we are going to be responsible for the balance.

Carl Conner: I think the risk of that is very minimal however, for the amount of money $300 I think is very reasonable to protect us from something that could happen that way. In addition to that, in todays market they could probably go out and borrow 110% where there would be no equity in that real estate whatsoever.

Roger Emmons: The only thing, Rick Bennett, he has been in right of way for twenty years and he feel comfortable with it. Rick makes a valid point, he is thinking the legality, the ramifications, of an extreme circumstance.

Carl Conner: If we were talking $3,000, I don’t think I would take the position, I am about ready to state but for $300 to protect us against something such as that. I am sure you understand that every day people are being solicited, that is the problem today, credit it to easy to obtain and when you can go out and take home and borrow 110% of it’s equity, it is just, that is my thought.

Richard Kixmiller: Rick, isn’t the bank required to have the homeowners carry insurance on the building?

Rick Martin: They usually do. If they fail to do that I guess that could leave us holding the bag if there is no value.

Richard Kixmiller: They wouldn’t be able to collect on their loan if they didn’t.

Carl Conner: I am sure on a $25,000 mortgage the bank is not requiring any insurance coverage out of monthly house payments.

Richard Kixmiller: An escrow account but they still require the insurance.

Several speaking.

Rick Martin: If they refinanced they would probably have to prove they have insurance at that time. Who is to say the homeowner doesn’t let the insurance lapse after they sign the loan.

MOTION: Carl Conner made the motion to pay the $300 as requested for the partial release on said property.

SECOND: Phil Baxter

VOTE: 3 Ayes 0 Nays

Roger Emmons: Parcel 21, this is a case where they know that the property owner is mortgaged to the hilt and they recommending to obtain the partial mortgage release. A couple of financial institutes one requiring a non-refundable processing fee of $100 and the other is $500 for a total of $600. The buyer RWS, they are just wanting, they will go ahead and pay these they just want the reassurance that they will be reimbursed as part of the acquisition of the property right of way parcel. This given their situation would be a wise $600.

MOTION: Carl Conner made the motion to approve the payment of the $600 on parcel 21 for the purposes of giving the release on both the first and second mortgages.

SECOND: Phil Baxter

VOTE: 3 Ayes 0 Nays

Roger Emmons: The last item I have on Telephone Road has to do with parcel 26, Charles Freudenberg, we are at an impasse and I think we need a decision by the Commissioners to proceed with condemnation on that parcel.

Carl Conner: As much as I hate to initiate condemnation I feel that this land owner has had more than sufficient opportunity to accept a reasonable agreement between him the County.

MOTION: Carl Conner made the motion to initiate condemnation of parcel 26 that is presently held by Freudenberg.

SECOND: Phil Baxter

VOTE: 2 Ayes 1 Nay (Don Williams)

Roger Emmons: The next item has to do with a request from the Ohio Township Public Library System. They would like for the Commissioners to make their appointment to the Common Construction Wage Committee. They recommended Mr. Tom Tweedy who we had used in the past.

Don Williams: Any discussion?

MOTION: Phil Baxter made the motion to reappoint Tom Tweedy for the Common Construction Wage Committee.

SECOND: Carl Conner

VOTE: 3 Ayes 0 Nays

Roger Emmons: One item, I got a call from Dave Waltz today and I copied Don and Carl on the renewal contract with Med Ben. We have a letter from Charles Martin that he has reviewed the renewal contract and he finds it to be in all things appropriate for Don’s signature.

Don Williams: Any questions?

MOTION: Carl Conner made the motion to approve the contract with Med Ben the third party administrator.

SECOND: Phil Baxter

VOTE: 3 ayes 0 Nays

Roger Emmons: The last thing I have is, the Highway Department gave this to me right before the meeting. There are two trees, two large oak trees down on Frame Road just North of St John’s School on the West bank, we couldn’t get Sigeco, Vectren to work with us on that. Steve it is in the County road right of way. The concern is the liability exposure to the County. So they solicited three quotes, one from American Eagle Tree Service, their quote was $3,100, S&S Tree Service $2,350 and the low was Reliable Tree Service for $1,500. I know talking to Assistant Superintendent, Jack Gore, feels this is a very good price. They have submitted their certificate of insurance so they are covered.

Carl Conner: I have been down there I don’t know if the other two Commissioners have or not but I think it is a real safety issue.

Don Williams: I agree.

Carl Conner: I think the definitely need to come out. If Mr. Gore is comfortable in using Reliable Tree Service.

MOTION: Carl Conner made the motion to hire Reliable for the total dollar amount of $1,500 for purposes of removing those two trees on Frame Road.

SECOND: Phil Baxter

VOTE: 3 Ayes 0 Nays

Roger Emmons: I think that is all I have.

Thank you.

SIGN IN SHEET:

Don Williams: Mr. Clark.

Hal Clark: I live in Boonville, Indiana. I grew up in Lynnville and I still have quite a bit up there. Some business a lot of friends, it is my home town, but I can’t get there from here. Having a problem getting there. I think all of you have been up the state highway, you can’t pack enough washer fluid to get up it. There ain’t nothing that is going to be done about it. I am wondering about our County roads and why they haven’t been put back and if they are going to be. Such as Eby Road , Stanley Road. I know anybody would take the Eby Road the way it was thirty five years ago rather than take the highway. So I was wondering if you can give me some insight on what we are going to do about it.

Don Williams: Eby is on East where Stanley is on the West of 61. Right now Peabody is still going to mine the area on the East side so that won’t be put back in, I am going to say, until they are through mining.

Hal Clark: Did we give it to them for life?

Don Williams: No, not for life.

Hal Clark: You have to understand the last coal that was mined there was December 29^th of 1999.

Don Williams: They still have their permits and they keep them renewed.

Hal Clark: Did the Commissioners just give them a two year renewal on the closure on the road?

Don Williams: I think they did.

Carl Conner: September I think.

Don Williams: September or October.

Hal Clark: Why, if I may ask.

Don Williams: Because, they are still going to be mining, no need to put it back in and tear it right back out.

Hal Clark: You don’t have to let them tear it right back out do you? They don’t have the right of eminent domain.

Don Williams: No, they do not.

Hal Clark: For instance the other day, I went up in the Amish country, doing some trading up there, you can’t pack enough washer fluid. I had a jug with me and I filled up at Petersburg and going on to, evidently my state Representative, when he goes to Indianapolis he either flies or goes Highway 41. Because he couldn’t drive it safely. Look at every Sheriff’s vehicle, there is nothing that can be done. Why, I don’t know. But for the people in the County, those are our roads, they don’t belong to Peabody Coal Company. That road has been closed for thirty something years I’d say. And they have not mined any coal in four years. So I think doing the people right would be giving us our road back. So can something be done?

Don Williams: We will check. I’ll check and see what is going on with Peabody but we have already given them two years so not for two years.

Hal Clark: I feel that was wrong. If they haven’t done anything in four years, the road should have been put back the day after they ceased mining, I feel. They are our roads, they don’t belong to them. We elected our County Officials, only thing we can hope for is if you guys do us a good job. But treat the people right, we are the County, they are not, they live in St Louis. I am sure your Mother and Dad, where they live, anytime they would come to Boonville, it would be much safer if they could come the Eby Road rather than that highway.

Don Williams: I would feel more accurate in talking for my Mom and Dad than probably you Mr. Clark. I will tell you they would never come through Eby Road.

Hal Clark: You don’t think they would? I know your Dad I worked with him for twenty years.

Don Williams: I know you did, I just don’t think he would.

Hal Clark; It was a black top road, they have had it closed for thirty years. They have not mined any coal for four years, and it is our road. Thank you.

Don Williams: Thank you.

Someone speaking from audience, couldn’t hear.

Don Williams: We have had two instances of Commissioners meetings we were talking about the equipment. All three presented their cases the first meeting, then last Saturday we had a special meeting, once again all three distributors presented their equipment and their arguments. The agreement of the three of you was to deliver your equipment, let our people try it and you were to abide by their recommendations. They have made their recommendations and our resident expert which is Commissioner Baxter, drove all three of them, and he made his recommendation. I have never driven one and I don’t think Commissioner Carl Conner has either but we look at all the different areas and we look at the recommendations and the employees, their operations, how they felt about them. We determined for several areas, the safety, the visibility issue, the fact, safety of our drivers up there should that thing turn on its side, the two doors makes it easier to get out. Especially if they are injured, it would be difficult crawling out of a window. Another issue is the resale value. It is much different between it and your equipment, it was not brought up in the specs but it was definitely a consideration. The protective shielding over the various areas that could be damaged, that they could provide. I think there were three different shields that were talked about.

Discussion from the audience, could not pick it up.

Carl Conner: If I may respond in regard to what my ....

Comment from audience.

Don Williams: Is there any other discussion from the Board.

Carl Conner: I would like to have the opportunity. Sir we gave you the opportunity to voice your opinion and I would like to follow up. I think that you can show me the same courtesy. When I requested that they be here, my intentions were that they would be present, however, ...

Speaking from audience.

Carl Conner: If you will please show me some courtesy that I may finish my statement. Maybe you will understand better. They did send us a letter with their signature on it with their recommendation and as far as I am concerned, that is sufficient and that they did not need to be here. So I think that looking at that as an issue for the purpose of selling us a piece of equipment is totally inappropriate.

Speaking from audience.

Don Williams: Does anybody else have discussion?

Greg Granger: If I can make one comment on that, and Roger correct me if I am wrong. I think in the three years I have been County Attorney I think the Commissioners have gone with this one bid project, have gone over and above in taking input, than is the normal procedure for a bid proposal. Normally bids are submitted, bids are opened, bids are considered and bids are awarded. To conduct two special meetings to go out and actually test the equipment, at least in my experience in three plus years as County Attorney, is more consideration than is typically given in bid proposals. I think they did go over and above the normal procedure here.

Roger Emmons: I concur with that.

Don Williams: You have been around a lot of Board of Commissioners Roger, has any other given this kind of consideration?

Roger Emmons: No, this is the first time I have seen it.

Don Williams: Do you have anything else Roger?

Roger Emmons: No sir.

COMMISSIONERS ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION:

Don Williams: Carl do you have anything?

Commissioner Conner: No I don’t have anything.

Don Williams Mr. Baxter do you have anything?

Commissioner Baxter: No sir.

Don Williams: How about you Mr. Sherwood?

Steve Sherwood: No sir.

Don Williams: I would entertain a motion to adjourn.

MOTION: Carl Conner made the motion to adjourn.

SECOND: Phil Baxter

VOTE: 3 Ayes 0 Nays

WARRICK COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

______________________________________

DON WILLIAMS, PRESIDENT

ATTEST:

______________________________________

________________________________________________ CARL CONNER

RICHARD KIXMILLER, AUDITOR

WARRICK COUNTY, IN ______________________________________

PHIL BAXTER