Get Adobe Flash player

 

 

 

BE IT REMEMBERED, that the White County Commissioners held a regular meeting on Monday, April 20, 2009, in the White County Building, 2nd floor, Commissioners’ Conference Room.

Commissioners present were: President John C. Heimlich, Vice President Steve Burton, and Commissioner Ron Schmierer. Also present was the White County Attorney George Loy, White County Auditor Jill Guingrich, and the Commissioners’ Secretary Donya Tirpak.

Commissioner Heimlich called the meeting to order.

MINUTES

  • Commissioner Schmierer made a motion to approve the minutes as presented for the regular meeting held on April 6, 2009, seconded by Commissioner Burton. Vote: Unanimous

PAYROLL

  • Commissioner Burton made a motion to approve the payroll as presented for April 6, 2009, seconded by Commissioner Schmierer. Vote: Unanimous

UNCOLLECTIBLE FEES FOR LAKEVIEW HOME

White County Auditor Jill Guingrich presented an ordinance to the Commissioners writing off uncollected fees for Lakeview Home.

  • Commissioner Schmierer made a motion to adopt Ordinance 09-04-20-02 to write-off uncollectible fees for Lakeview Home, seconded by Commissioner Burton. Vote: Unanimous

ORDINANCE NO. 09-04-20-02

Be it ordained by the Board of County Commissioners of White County, Indiana:

The fees for the following persons are uncollectible and the Board of Commissioners of White County, Indiana desires to remove these uncollectible fees from the ledgers of the Lakeview Home and the White County Auditor.

Carolyn Wanack $ 882.00 As of 8/26/05 Past Resident

Dorothy Stingley $1,187.00 As of 1/17/06 Past Resident

Charles Riley $ 550.00 As of 4/18/06 Deceased

Raymond Collard $2,226.25 As of 9/7/06 Past Resident

Max McCartney $1,458.00 As of 10/6/06 Past Resident

Mary Myer $ 497.00 As of 3/31/07 Past Resident

Terry Maxfield $ 608.00 As of 1/3/08 Past Resident

Merilinda Novak $1,239.50 As of 3/16/08 Past Resident

Total $8,647.75

The White County Auditor is hereby authorized to remove the above-described fees from the ledger of the Lakeview Home as uncollectible.

LAKEVIEW HOME

Julie Gutwein, Monticello Resident, appeared before the Commissioners’ discussing the future of Lakeview Home.

Mrs. Gutwein encouraged the commissioners to apply for a grant from Historic Landmarks to do a Feasibility Study on uses of the property. She also recommended that they register the home with the Historic Landmarks so the county, or the next owners, could use the financial benefits to repair the home.

Commissioner Heimlich said that no decisions have been made on the future of the home, but they are in the early stages of discussions.

Mrs. Gutwein said that she would contact someone to see what has been done with the other county homes in Indiana and what their options were.

Commissioner Schmierer said that it isn’t feasible to keep it operating as a county home because the county is losing $170,000 - $180,000 a year. He said that there are only seven residents out there right now, which most of them aren’t from White County and it takes nine employees to keep it running.

Mrs. Gutwein said that she understands the commissioners situation but she is most concerned about the property. The commissioners all agreed that they do not want to see the home destroyed.

AREA PLAN

White County Area Plan Director Joe Rogers appeared before the commissioners for the following:

Late Fees in the Fine Schedule

Mr. Rogers said that he is to the point where he needs to issue fine notices and he still hasn’t received an answer from the commissioners whether or not he is to continue with the “late fee” in the Fine Schedule.

Attorney Loy said that the commissioners need to vote on it and he will take care of putting it back into the ordinance.

  • Commissioner Burton made a motion to put back in the $50.00 late fee in the Fine Schedule for Area Plan, seconded by Commissioner Schmierer. Vote: Unanimous

Ordinance Recommendations

Chapter 4, Subchapter 4.5, Sub-Subchapter 4.5.2 – Single nonconforming lots of record.

Mr. Rogers said that the first ordinance pertains to Subchapter 4.5 and Sub-Subchapter 4.5.2 in Chapter 4. He said that this section in the county ordinance is not legal according to the state statute and this amendment will put the county’s ordinance into compliance.

Mr. Rogers explained that the county ordinance took properties that were in plotted and legally approved subdivisions and made them illegal. According to his attorney and state statute, you can’t overwrite a subdivisions legally vested right by an ordinance.

The White County Area Plan Commission did hold a public hearing concerning this ordinance on April 6, 2009. The APC made the recommendation to approve the amendment to the ordinance by a vote of 9 yes and 1 no.

  • Commissioner Schmierer made a motion to approve the Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance of White County, Ordinance No. 09-04-20-04, seconded by Commissioner Burton. Vote: Unanimous

AMENDMENT

TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF

WHITE COUNTY

STATE OF INDIANA

ORDINANCE NO. 09-04-20-04

WHEREAS, the White County Area Plan Commission has initiated and prepared this ordinance to amend the White County Zoning Ordinance pursuant to IC 36-7-4-602(c) and IC 36-7-4-607;

WHEREAS, the White County Area Plan Commission has reported that it held a public hearing concerning this ordinance on April 6, 2009, after timely notification of the hearing was given by publication in the Herald Journal, Monticello, Indiana on or before the 27th day of March, 2009 as required by IC 36-7-4-604;

WHEREAS, the White County Area Plan Commission has reported that it paid reasonable regard to the factors enumerated in IC 36-7-4-603 in consideration of the ordinance and determination or a recommendation to be made to the legislative body of White County;

WHEREAS, the White County Area Plan Commission has certified this ordinance to the legislative body with a recommendation by a majority vote in favor of adoption pursuant to IC 36-7-4-603 before acting on this ordinance;

WHEREAS, the legislative body recognizes that certain land uses, by their very nature, require restricted size of signage. Because the restrictions are a necessary aspect of zoning use to the public, it is deemed that such restrictions on signage are not detrimental to the public safety and welfare.

WHEREAS, the legislative body has determined that this ordinance should be adopted without amendment as certified by the White County Area Plan Commission pursuant to IC 36-7-4-607; therefore,

BE IT ORDAINED AND ADOPTED BY THE LEGISLATIVE BODY OF WHITE COUNTY, INDIANA:

PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO TEXT OF

WHITE COUNTY, INDIANA ZONING ORDINANCE

COMES NOW the White County Area Plan Commission and approves the following amendment to the text of the White County, Indiana Zoning Ordinance.

Chapter 4, Subchapter 4.5, Sub-Subchapter 4.5.2 (Single nonconforming lots of record): This section is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:

A nonconforming lot is a lot which does not meet the minimum requirements in Appendix B for lot size and lot width, and which otherwise lawfully existed at the time those minimum requirements became effective.

In any district in which single-family dwellings are permitted, a single-family dwelling and customary accessory building(s) may be erected on a nonconforming lot if the legally created lot was either recorded in separate ownership or included in a recorded subdivision on or before August 4, 2008, the effective date of this ordinance; provided, however, that the single-family dwelling and its accessory building(s) meet all other requirements of this ordinance, except for lot size and lot width, including, but in no way limited to, the setback requirements in Appendix B.

A nonconforming lot changed to a conforming lot shall never be changed back to a nonconforming lot.

THIS ORDINANCE TAKES EFFECT UPON PASSAGE.

Ordinance Recommendation

Chapter 3, Subchapter 3.3 – Manufactured and Mobile Homes

Mr. Rogers said that this section pertains to mobile homes. He said that the ordinance was written to reducing or eliminate home opportunities for lower income scale. This correction gives lower income residents an opportunity to replace a mobile home if it was damaged

· Commissioner Schmierer made a motion to approve the proposed Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance of White County, Ordinance No. 09-04-20-05, seconded by Commissioner Burton. Vote: Unanimous

AMENDMENT

TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF

WHITE COUNTY

STATE OF INDIANA

ORDINANCE NO. 09-04-20-05

 

WHEREAS, the White County Area Plan Commission has initiated and prepared this ordinance to amend the White County Zoning Ordinance pursuant to IC 36-7-4-602(c) and IC 36-7-4-607;

WHEREAS, the White County Area Plan Commission has reported that it held a public hearing concerning this ordinance on April 6, 2009, after timely notification of the hearing was given by publication in the Herald Journal, Monticello, Indiana on or before the 27th day of March, 2009 as required by IC 36-7-4-604;

WHEREAS, the White County Area Plan Commission has reported that it paid reasonable regard to the factors enumerated in IC 36-7-4-603 in consideration of the ordinance and determination or a recommendation to be made to the legislative body of White County;

WHEREAS, the White County Area Plan Commission has certified this ordinance to the legislative body with a recommendation by a majority vote in favor of adoption pursuant to IC 36-7-4-603 before acting on this ordinance;

WHEREAS, the legislative body recognizes that certain land uses, by their very nature, require restricted size of signage. Because the restrictions are a necessary aspect of zoning use to the public, it is deemed that such restrictions on signage are not detrimental to the public safety and welfare.

WHEREAS, the legislative body has determined that this ordinance should be adopted without amendment as certified by the White County Area Plan Commission pursuant to IC 36-7-4-607; therefore,

BE IT ORDAINED AND ADOPTED BY THE LEGISLATIVE BODY OF WHITE COUNTY, INDIANA:

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO TEXT OF

WHITE COUNTY, INDIANA ZONING ORDINANCE

COMES NOW the White County Area Plan Commission and approves the following amendments to the text of the White County, Indiana Zoning Ordinance.

Chapter 3, Subchapter 3.3 (Manufactured and Mobile Homes): The introductory paragraph included in Chapter 3, Subchapter 3.3 shall be deleted and replaced in its entirety with the following:

Any manufactured home or mobile home permitted within the jurisdiction of the White County Plan Commission shall have been constructed on or after January 1, 1981. These general manufactured home and mobile home requirements shall apply to all zoning districts where a manufactured home or mobile home is permitted under Appendix A, Official Schedule of Uses, and to manufactured homes and mobile homes permitted under section 4.5.8 of this ordinance. The establishment, location, and use of all manufactured homes and mobile homes shall meet the installation instructions of the manufacturer, and all standards set forth in Appendix B and minimum parking requirements for single-family dwellings. They shall also meet the requirements in Sections 3.3.1 or 3.3.2, whichever shall apply.

Chapter 4, Subchapter 4.5, Sub-Subchapter 4.5.8 (Nonconforming manufactured and mobile homes): This sub-subchapter shall be deleted and replaced in its entirety with the following:

This provision shall apply to manufactured homes and mobile homes located within White County, outside of municipal jurisdiction. Any manufactured home or mobile home located within a municipality shall be subject to the regulations of said municipality.

Manufactured homes and mobile homes are designed to be movable rather than fixed structures. Therefore, when a manufactured home or mobile home is a nonconforming use, the requirements of this section apply, rather than those of 4.5.1, 4.5.4, 4.5.5, and 4.5.6.

A. Nonconforming manufactured homes and mobile homes permitted to remain

Nonconforming manufactured homes and nonconforming mobile homes are ones which are not permitted in Appendix A, Schedule of Uses, to be located in the zone in which it is in fact located, and which otherwise lawfully existed at the time the applicable portion of Appendix A became effective. An otherwise lawful manufactured home or mobile home made a nonconforming manufactured home or mobile home by this Ordinance or an amendment to it, may be continued under each of the following terms and conditions:

(1) The dimensions and size of the manufactured home or mobile home are not increased beyond what they were at the time this Ordinance or its amendment became effective and the footprint for the manufactured home or mobile home is not changed; provided, however, that the footprint of the manufactured home or mobile home may be changed and/or the dimensions and size of the manufactured home or mobile home may be increased beyond what they were at the time this Ordinance or its amendment became effective if the standards for setbacks, maximum lot coverage, and maximum structure height set forth in Appendix B for the particular zone in which the manufactured home or mobile home is located can be met.

(2) No additional structure serving the nonconforming manufactured home or nonconforming mobile home is erected; provided, however, that a permitted accessory structure may be erected if the standards for setbacks, maximum lot coverage, and maximum structure height for principal structures and accessory structures set forth in Appendix B for the particular zone in which the manufactured home or mobile home is located can be met.

(3) If the nonconforming use is discontinued for a period of twelve (12) months or more, the legally nonconforming mobile home status expires, and any subsequent use of that property shall conform to the requirements of the Ordinance including, but in no way limited to, setbacks, lot width, lot size, and Appendix A.


(4) If the nonconforming manufactured home or nonconforming mobile home is substantially damaged or destroyed by any means to the extent that repairs or replacement would equal or exceed fifty percent (50%) of the market value of that manufactured home or mobile home, the nonconforming manufactured home or nonconforming mobile home may be replaced in accordance with Section 4.5.8(B) below provided that substantially damaged or destroyed nonconforming manufactured home or nonconforming mobile home is replaced within one (1) year of the date substantial damage or destruction is incurred. If replacement is not made within that time frame, the legally nonconforming manufactured home or mobile home status shall expire, and any subsequent use of the property shall conform to the requirements of the Ordinance including, but in no way limited to, setbacks, lot width, lot size, and Appendix A.

(5) A nonconforming manufactured home or nonconforming mobile home changed to a conforming or permitted use shall never be changed back to a nonconforming manufactured home or nonconforming mobile home.

(6) A nonconforming manufactured home or nonconforming mobile home shall not be replaced by any other kind of nonconforming use.

B. Replacement of nonconforming manufactured home or mobile home

A nonconforming manufactured home or nonconforming mobile home may be replaced with a Type I or Type II manufactured home or mobile home provided that the standards set forth in section 3.3 of the Ordinance and 4.5.8(A) above are met, and the manufactured home or mobile home replaced is removed from the subject property within thirty (30) days of its replacement.

Rezoning Petition #972

James M. and Ruth C. Davis are requesting to rezone their property from an R-5 (Rural One and Two Family) to an L-1 (Lake). The property is located at 2325, 2335, and 2337 N. Untalulti Drive, Monticello.

Mr. Rogers said that this is simply taking an R-5 property, which no longer exists, and making it an L-1, which is compatible with the ordinance.

Commissioner Heimlich asked if there was anyone present to speak about this request. No response.

The APC held a public hearing on April 6, 2009, and voted to recommend this rezoning to the commissioners by a vote of 9 yes and 0 no.

  • Commissioner Schmierer made a motion to approve Rezoning Petition #972 (Ordinance No. 545-09) from an R-5 to an L-1 for James M. and Ruth C. Davis for property located at 2325, 2335, and 2337 N. Untalulti Drive, Monticello, seconded by Commissioner Burton. Vote: Unanimous

Rezoning Petition #973

Chris M. Holt is requesting to rezone his property from an R-5 (Rural One and Two Family Residence) to an L-1 (Lake). The property is located at 1824 Royal Oaks Drive, Monticello.

The APC held a public hearing on April 6, 2009, and voted to recommend this rezoning to the commissioners by a vote of 9 yes and 0 no.

Commissioner Heimlich asked if there was anyone present to speak about this request. No response.

  • Commissioner Schmierer made a motion to approve Rezoning Petition #973 (Ordinance No. 546-09) from an R-5 to an L-1 for Chris M. Holt for property located at 1824 Royal Oaks Drive, Monticello, seconded by Commissioner Burton. Vote: Unanimous

Rezoning Petition #971

Donna S. Durflinger is requesting to rezone her property from an A-1 (General Agriculture) to an R-2 (Single and Two-Family Residential District). The property is located at 808 W. State Road 16, Monon.

The APC held a public hearing on April 6, 2009, and voted to recommend this rezoning to the commissioners by a vote of 9 yes and 0 no.

Commissioner Heimlich asked if there was anyone present to speak about this request. No response.

  • Commissioner Burton made a motion to approve Rezoning Petition #971 (Ordinance No. 544-09) from an A-1 to an R-2 for Donna S. Durflinger, seconded by Commissioner Schmierer. Vote: Unanimous

Zoning Maps

Mr. Rogers said that they have approximately 970 rezonings to enter onto the GIS mapping on the Internet to bring it up to date. This does not include the splits and subdivisions. He is hoping to have this done within the next month.

Mr. Rogers asked the commissioners to consider utilizing the GIS mapping system as the official zoning maps once they get everything updated. He has asked the attorney to see if there is a statute that will not allow them to use this.

Commissioners Attorney George Loy said that this is something that should be approved by the APC first.

Commissioner Heimlich said that he doesn’t understand why we wouldn’t utilize the GIS mapping system for the official zoning maps. He thought this was a great idea.

HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT – LPA ERC

Highway Superintendent Steve Brooke discussed an appointment made by the commissioners for an LPA ~ designated employee in responsible charge of a project.

  • Commissioner Schmierer made a motion to designate Highway Superintendent Steve Brooke as the county’s LPA designated employee in responsible charge of a project, seconded by Commissioner Heimlich. Vote: Unanimous

REPORTS

At this time, the White County Council President Richard “Buzz” Horton called the council members to order in joint session with the County Commissioners. County Council members present were:

President Richard “Buzz” Horton Raymond “Butch” Kramer Dennis Carter

Bruce Clear Gary Hendryx Denny Cain

Kevin “Casey” Crabb

HOSPITAL

White County Memorial Hospital CEO Paul Cardwell presented the Financial Analysis for March 2009.

Mr. Cardwell said that they continue to have great revenue since the beginning of the year. First quarter revenues were all record breaking. Revenue was $11.7 million for the first quarter, which was significantly more than the $10.2 million on the budget.

Last year at this time, Mr. Cardwell reported that the hospital had $346,000 in the bad debt category and this year for the first quarter their already at $780,000.

Mr. Cardwell reported that the cash has remained constant at $7.5 million and they are making a $400,000 payment to Regions, and with that, they will be done with their payment for 2009. Things are going very well.

COUNCIL ON AGING

Council on Aging Director Gale Spry presented a copy of the Quarterly Operating Financial Stats Report for the first quarter.

Gale said that they can only collect on their expenses every quarter and by the end of the quarter, they are always running tight on their funds by the end of every quarter. Since it is looking like they will not be receiving any financial assistance from United Way in the third and forth quarter of this year, things will really be tight towards the end of the year.

Gale discussed the possible need to start charging people under the age of 60 yrs old. She has always asked for a donation but most counties do charge. Gale said that they did do 5,000 more trips in 2008 then in 2007.

BUILDING INSPECTOR

White County Building Inspector Dave Anderson reported that there were 37 permits issued last month, six of those were for new houses.

LAKEVIEW HOME

Lakeview Home Director Kae Fuller presented her Director’s Report for March 2009.

ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICER

Environmental Officer John Raines presented the Complaints & Violations report for March, 2009.

TIOGA BRIDGE

Don Ward, County Engineer, appeared before the Council giving them all of the updates and financials that were presented at the last commissioners’ meeting to bring them up to speed.

  • First half of stimulus package is dedicated to INDOT and already spent.

  • Second half of stimulus package will be obligated within 1 year.

  • Plans for the rehabilitation of the Tioga Bridge are 95% completed (does not include raising bridge)

  • A contract was signed by White County Commissioners, Carroll County Commissioners, and Barker Engineering on November 19, 2007, for $10,000, appropriated from SFLECC, to investigate the availability of Federal Aid matching funds to raise the bridge

  • Barker Engineering has now proposed $44,000 to draw up engineering plans to raise the bridge, which would require an additional $34,000.

  • The county currently has $300,000 budgeted for Tioga Bridge for 2009. Carroll County has not contributed any funds to this project at this time.

  • The original contract signed on April 3, 2000, by White County Commissioners and Barker Engineering was for $64,750, which covered the preliminary designs. The funds spent to date on preliminary engineering by White County are now at $58,510.

  • The estimated rehabilitation cost, which includes the 10%-15% contingency fee, is $664,000, the cost of raising the bridge is estimated at $300,000, and construction engineering will cost $100,000. The total cost for the rehabilitation and raising the bridge is estimated at $1 million.

  • Original grant for $200,000 in TE expired May 4, 2000

  • The SFLECC on January 2, 2007 offered $17,000 toward the engineering costs to raise bridge

  • It may be possible to receive stimulus money to raise the bridge for 100% of construction costs if action is taken in the near future.

Commissioner Heimlich read a letter from the SFLECC stating that on April 16, 2009, the SFLECC Board of Directors voted to spend up to $39,000 for the Tioga Bridge Raising Project to finalize the engineering plans. This is contingent upon the City of Monticello spending at least $5,000 and the project being completed by White County whether if federal stimulus money is obtained or not. Seventeen thousand has already been appropriated but not spent plus $22,000, which equals the $39,000.

Summary of funds with stimulus funds for construction costs:

Rehabilitation $664,000

Raising $300,000

Construction Eng. $100,000

TOTAL $1,064,000

County Cost:

PE Rehabilitation $ 64,750

PE Raise Bridge $ 44,000

Less SFLECC $ 17,000

TOTAL $ 91,750

White County 60% $ 55,050

Carroll County 40% $ 36,700

The consensus of the commissioners and the council was to contact the Carroll County Commissioners and explain all of this to them and meet with them to find out where they stand.

  • Commissioner Burton made a motion to accept the money from SFLECC to move forward with the Tioga Bridge project contingent upon Carroll County’s participation, seconded by Commissioner Schmierer. Vote: Unanimous

RESOLUTION – VALERO ENERGY

Commissioner Heimlich presented a resolution with Valero Energy and the Town of Reynolds. The resolution is concerning the VeraSun Economic Development Agreement.

  • Commissioner Burton made a motion to approve Resolution No. 09-04-20-03 between Valero Energy, Valero Renewable Fuels, and the Town of Reynolds, seconded by Commissioner Schmierer. Vote: Unanimous

RESOLUTION NO. 09-04-20-03

A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF WHITE COUNTY, INDIANA APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH VALERO ENERGY CORPORATION, VALERO RENEWABLE FUELS COMPANY, LLC AND THE TOWN OF REYNOLDS, INDIANA AND CERTAIN OTHER MATTERS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH

WHEREAS, White County, Indiana (the “County”), the Town of Reynolds (the “Town”) and VeraSun Reynolds LLC (“VeraSun Reynolds”) entered into an Economic Development Agreement, dated as of April 5, 2007 (the “Economic Development Agreement”), pursuant to which VeraSun Reynolds was obligated to build an ethanol plant (the “Project”), on a specific site in the County (the “Site) and the County and the Town were to provide certain economic development assistance, in the form of infrastructure construction and financing, to assist in the construction of the ethanol plant;

WHEREAS, pursuant to the Economic Development Agreement, the County issued its Taxable Economic Development Revenue Bond, Series 2007 A (VeraSun Reynolds, LLC Project) (the “Bonds”), which Bonds were purchased by VeraSun Reynolds and payable from tax-increment revenues from the Project;

WHEREAS, in connection with the issuance of the Bonds, the County entered into a Loan Agreement with VeraSun Reynolds, LLC, dated as of September 1, 2008 (the “Loan Agreement”);

WHEREAS, on October 31, 2008, VeraSun Energy Corporation and numerous of its related companies, including VeraSun Reynolds, filed voluntary petitions commencing chapter 11 cases in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the “Bankruptcy”);

WHEREAS, as a result of the Bankruptcy, the Site was purchased by Valero and the Project will not be completed; and

WHEREAS, on the date hereof, this Board of Commissioners of the County (the “Board”) has been presented a form of an Agreement Regarding EDA, Loan Agreement and Bonds, among the County, Valero, and the Town (the “Termination Agreement”), pursuant to which the County will receive an assignment of and terminate all parties’ rights to the Economic Development Agreement, the Bonds, and the Loan Agreement.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Commissioners of White County, Indiana, that:

1. The Board hereby finds that the execution and delivery of the Termination Agreement are in the best interests of the County and its citizens. The Board is authorized and directed to execute the Termination Agreement, in the name and on behalf of the county, and the Auditor of the County is hereby authorized and directed to attest the execution of such Termination Agreement, with such changes and modifications as such persons deem necessary or appropriate to effectuate this Resolution, said persons’ execution thereof to be conclusive evidence of the approval of such changes.

2. The members of the County Council, the Board, the Auditor of the County, the legal counsel of the County, and other appropriate officers of the County are hereby authorized to take all such actions and execute all such instruments as are necessary or desirable to effectuate this Resolution.

3. This resolution shall be in full force and effect from and after its adoption.

WIND FARM

· Councilman Kramer made a motion to adopt Resolution No. 2009-04-20-04 establishing the Wind Farm Economic Development Fund, seconded by Councilman Carter. Vote: Unanimous

RESOLUTION NO. 2009-04-20-04

RESOLUTION OF THE COUNTY COUNCIL OF WHITE COUNTY, INDIANA ESTABLISHING THE WIND FARM ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FUND

WHEREAS, White County, Indiana (the “County”) and Meadow Lake Wind Farm LLC (the “Company”) have entered in an Economic Development Agreement, dated as of January 20, 2009 (the “Phase I Agreement”), pursuant to which the Company will construct the first phase of a wind-powered electric generating facility in the County (“Phase 1”);

WHEREAS, pursuant to the Phase I Agreement, in consideration for the possible restriction of certain other new commercial development and employment in portions of the County as a consequence of the Project, and other assistance provided by the County pursuant to the Phase I Agreement, the Company has agreed to make certain Economic Development Payments and payments for certain expenses with respect to the Phase I Agreement to the County (collectively, the “Phase I Payments”);

WHEREAS, pursuant to the Phase I Agreement, the Phase I Payments shall constitute a contribution by the Company to the furtherance of other economic development in the County and shall not constitute a payment in lieu of any tax, charge, or fee of the County or any other taxing unit;

WHEREAS, pursuant to the Phase I Agreement, the Phase I Payments shall be used (i) by the County to pay legal, financial advisory, and other expenses related to the negotiation, execution and implementation of Phase I Agreement, or (ii) by the County or one or more other local governmental or nonprofit entities for the construction, repair, or maintenance of infrastructure, the improvement of the education, library, and park systems or other services provided in the County, or other purposes which improve the quality of life in the County and thereby foster economic development in the County;

WHEREAS, other portions of the County may be suitable for wind-powered electric generating facilities, and the Company or other entities developing such facilities may make payments similar to the Phase I Payments to the County with respect to the development and construction of additional facilities (the Phase I Payments and any similar payments with respect to the development of additional facilities, collectively, the “Payments”); and

WHEREAS, this Council desires to establish a fund for the purpose of the deposit and expenditure of the Payments.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNTY COUNCIL OF WHITE COUNTY, INDIANA RESOLVES THE FOLLOWING:

Section 1. There is hereby established a fund of the County designated as the “White County, Indiana Wind Farm Economic Development Fund” (the “Fund”), into which all Payments shall be deposited upon receipt by the County.

Section 2. All amounts on deposit in the Fund shall be expanded for the following purposes:

(i) the payment of legal, financial advisory, and other expenses related to the negotiation, execution and implementation of the Phase I Agreement and any other agreement related to the development, construction, and implementation of wind-powered electric generating facilities in the County; or

(ii) the payment of the costs of the construction, repair, or maintenance of infrastructure, the improvement of the education, library, and park systems or other services provided in the County, or other purposes which improve the quality of life in the County and thereby foster economic development in the County,

(iii) The payment to any other local government entity or nonprofit organization which has agreed to use such amounts solely for the purposes set forth in subsection (ii) above.

Section 3. Any member of the Board of Commissioners or the County Council, the Auditor of the County, and the County Attorney are hereby authorized, empowered and directed, on behalf of the County to take any other action as such individual deems necessary or desirable to effectuate the foregoing resolutions and any actions heretofore made or taken be, and hereby are, ratified and approved.

Section 4. This Resolution shall be in full force and effect from and after its adoption by the Council.

Their being no further business to come before the council and commissioners, the council adjourned to their own meeting room.

There being no further business to come before the board, the meeting was adjourned.

__________________________ _____________________________ _______________________

John C. Heimlich, President Steve Burton, Vice President Ronald Schmierer, Member

ATTEST: _________________________

Jill Guingrich, Auditor