Citizen's Journal
"The laws of man may bind him in chains or may put him to death, but they never can make him wise, virtuous, or happy." John Adams
Welcome to the Citizen's Journal. This journal is:
A website devoted to the transparency of local government, local agencies and public related activities.
Become a Citizen Journalist
Click here to Send E-Mail to cj@citizensjournal.net
Wind Farm Hearing - RCHS, May 22, 6 - 7:50 P.M. This may be the ONLY chance to voice your opinions on the wind farms.
Chicken Ordinance Meeting - APC, May 22
What could the wind farms do to Rush county?
Read March 12 entry - "Editorial - Could The End of Mays Elementary Be Near?"
May 7, 2012 Commissioner's Meeting
Addess to the commissioners by citizen's rights advocate John Saxon:
When candidates are elected to positions on town boards, school boards, county council, city council and county commissioners, they have duties to perform that are not generally recognized by the public they serve. The elected officials have the authority to both appoint and remove members of other boards. The appointments are made with foresight in condoning any action the board members may make. The county commissioners are the "executive branch" of local county government. As in all other cases of organized hierarchy, gravity works and the responsibility for all actions of subordinate boards starts at the top.
During the March APC meeting, specifically the "audience participation", concerned citizens asked questions about the county wide, comprehensive zoning ordinance. An ordinance that was approved by the town boards of Carthage and Glenwood along with the City of Rushville only to be formally adopted by you, the Rush county board of commissioners. The questions had to do with the language pertaining to wind turbines and zoned ag land. These citizens brought to the attention of the board, numerous clauses that are being reference in the ordinance, that do not exist. These would be vital clauses, as they address the permitting, construction and decommissioning plan of wind turbines. Without the clauses being in place in the ordinance, the county lacks methods of dealing with these important issues. APC Board Member, Jeff Slaton, described this simply as an "oversight of numbers". There is nothing simple about this. The APC has referenced zoning ordinances that do not exist and must not simply be added without a hearing before the informed public.
Along with these omissions, language pertaining to residences in unincorporated areas of the county was discussed. The county zoning ordinance states "Provisions to encourage agricultural uses while discouraging additional single family housing by property owners who are not engaged in those agricultural activities". This is clearly discriminatory and prohibitive to people who may wish to live in Rush county.
The APC director and his board remedied their situation at the April board meeting. The director removed the audience participation from his meeting agenda. This removal was done as retaliation to the public. The public he is supposed to serve. The board passed a ban on all spontaneous public comments and questions at the meetings. This ban received no dissenting votes from the board during passage. A vote that is not only reflective of their opinion but ultimately of yours. The citizens of this county were ultimately stripped of their voices by the APC board, the very board that you as commissioners have a seat on, and appoint members to.
---------------------------------------------------
Saxon Address, Todd & Barnes Comments
From: The Whitley County Concerned Citizens - http://www.wcccitizens.org/
Letter Campaign
If you have an email list, would you please circulate this? If each of you could collect signatures and cut and past into one email (or several) and return to me, I will compile them all into one list to be attached from Indiana. Joan Null - jknull@embarqmail.com
Hi All -
As I alerted you a number of days ago, we're sending signatures to Congress again. This time it's a slightly different approach. The House Ways & Means Sub-Committee held a hearing on April 26th, concerning tax extenders - in other words, they were taking testimony about "why" certain expiring tax provisions should be extended. Of course, the PTC was on the agenda.
Lisa Linowes, of Industrial Wind Action Group, and her team, have reviewed all the testimony and authored rebuttal comments which are attached. We will be collecting signatures to attach to these comments, which will then be sent along with a cover letter, to the members of the Ways & Means Sub-Committee. Our comments will be entered into the record.
Take a few minutes to read and review the attached comments, and then reply to me with your name and address to have your signature included in the reply from the state of Indiana. Every signature adds to the weight of our comments, so include everyone of voting age in your household.
I need to have your name and address returned to me by Monday, May 7th.
Thanks so very much for your great response - you all really make Indiana look great - we are making a difference!
Joan Null - jknull@embarqmail.com Be sure to put "Letter Campaign" in the subject line
Whitley County Concerned Citizens
www.wcccitizens.org
---------------------------------------------------
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Ways and Means
Subcommittee on Select Revenue Measures
April 26, 2012 - Hearing on Certain Expiring Tax Provisions
Comments Submitted for the Record
The undersigned residents and property-owners of the State of Indiana respectfully submit these comments in response to the Subcommittee's April 26, 2012 Hearing on Certain Expiring Tax Provisions. Our comments are limited to the Production Tax Credit (PTC) for wind energy.
Executive Summary: The PTC is often credited for most of the growth in the wind sector but attributing market activity to the subsidy is overly simplistic and fails to consider other crucial factors driving development. When evaluated against key economic and environment criteria, the cost of the subsidy has proven excessive and the benefits to American taxpayers minimal. If the PTC were to expire, the economics of the industry would shift to States with renewable mandates. Power markets will ultimately confront the real cost of wind energy, and price it accordingly. The overall impact on the industry would be far less severe than proponents claim Linowes et.al. 2012 Congressional Testimony http://science.house.gov/hearing/subcommittee-investigation-and-oversight-subcommittee-energy-and-environment-%E2%80%93-joint-hearing
.
Supporting Statements:
High Cost: Since adopted in 1992, the cost of the PTC for wind energy has ballooned from $5 million/year in 1998 to $1.5 billion annually today. The open-ended subsidy of 2.22/kWh in after-tax income represents a pre-tax value of approximately 3.7¢/kWh. In many regions of the country the PTC now equals, or is greater than, the wholesale price of power. Even if the PTC were to sunset, taxpayers are still obligated to cover nearly $10 billion in tax credits for wind projects built in the last decade. This is in addition to the $15 billion debt for wind projects eligible under Section 1603 (including anticipated 2012 grants).
Inefficient: Since the PTC is uniform across the country it is highly inefficient, supporting poorly sited development in some areas while in other areas supporting projects that would have been built regardless of the credit. This is true in Texas and the Pacific Northwest where wind capacity exceeds transmission capacity and wind is curtailed Wiser and Bolinger, 2010 Wind Technologies Market Report, (2011) vii http://eetd.lbl.gov/ea/ems/reports/lbnl-4820e.pdf
. In New England the PTC likely pays more subsidy than is necessary owing to aggressive State mandates. Utilities in New England routinely sign long-term power contracts for wind at prices significantly above market.
Other factors advancing wind development: The industry insists it's at risk of a slow-down without the PTC. This view ignores other crucial factors driving development including state mandates and natural gas prices. It is not possible given available data to identify the extent to which the PTC has contributed to growth in the sector Joint Committee on Taxation, Present Law And Background Relating To Tax Credits For Electricity Production From Renewable Sources (2005) 14 https://www.jct.gov/publications.html?func=startdown&id=1579
. In fact, demand for wind has eroded recently due, in part, to states meeting their renewable mandates. Lower natural gas prices further reduced wind's attractiveness as a 'fuel saver'. The EIA now forecasts flat growth in the wind sector for this decade regardless of what happens with the PTC EIA, Annual Energy Outlook 2012 (2012) http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/er/
.
Job losses: Despite billions in public funding the wind sector experienced a net loss of 10,000 direct and indirect jobs in 2010 bringing the total to 75,000 Wiser and Bolinger v - Note: No independent audits exist to confirm job counts. Since any new job in the electricity sector must contribute to increasing the cost of electricity, this creates economic de-stimulus.
jobs. Most of the remaining jobs are temporary construction positions requiring peak levels of development year-after-year to maintain current levels. Attempts to attribute job creation to the PTC must be tempered with corresponding job losses due to higher renewable energy prices. The State of Vermont found that adding just 50 MWs of renewable energy at higher-than-market electricity prices "had the deleterious effects of reshuffling consumer spending and increasing the cost of production for Vermont businesses VT DPS, The Economic Impacts of Vermont Feed in Tariffs (2009) 12 http://publicservice.vermont.gov/planning/DPS%20White%20Paper%20Feed%20in%20Tariff.pdf
."
Environmental benefits: Wind energy is an unpredictable, variable resource that cannot be relied on to serve load. Its primary benefit is in reducing U.S. electric carbon emissions. According the Navigant Navigant Consulting, Inc. Impact of the Production Tax Credit on the U.S. Wind Market (2011) 38
, a four year extension of the PTC could avoid an incremental 170 million tons of CO2 This "best case" estimate is not predicated on an actual working grid region, but if we accept Navigant's estimate the cost to taxpayers is at least $23/ton CO2 Navigant provides no detail on how it determined offsets. The study assumed some wind would be built without the PTC and only looked at incremental benefit over 4 years (2013-16). The cost per offset is potentially higher than 23/ton.
, ten-times the $1.92/ton market price for offsets in the Northeastern states participating in RGGI! The PTC is a high-priced vehicle for very questionable reductions of CO2 emissions.
Conclusion: The key question is whether the benefits of the PTC for wind are worth the cost. This 20-year old subsidy is expensive, inefficient, has failed to produce net-job increases that are sustainable, and the cost applied per ton of CO2 is more than 10x the market price of carbon under RGGI. The U.S. power market has undergone significant change since the PTC was adopted, including deregulation. It is not possible to isolate the extent to which the PTC contributes to wind sector growth Joint Committee on Taxation 14. Without the PTC, project economics would shift to states with RPS policies. The value of renewable credits might rise in response but power markets will ultimately confront the real cost of wind energy, and price it accordingly.
April 25, 2012
Area Plan Commission Meeting - Silence the Serfs
A new “law” to silence the citizens and taxpayers of Rush county was laid down at Tuesday's APC meeting. Along with this new “law”, a new chicken ordinance was submitted to the board by Executive Director Bill Todd. Also, Kate Singleton, the APC's new full time Assistant Director was introduced along with a “turn on your neighbor” complaint form, reminiscent of Janet Napolitano's “See Something, Say Something” Gestapo tactic.
Several months ago, a resident of Rush county was ordered by Area Plan Director, Bill Todd, to get rid of the chickens he used for his family's food source and 4-H project or face a $100 per day fine. Todd's action verified the need for a revision of the county's comprehensive zoning ordinance which only allows unprohibitive ownership of chickens to persons who own more than 10 acres. A clear example of creating two classes of citizens in Rush county by the APC. A new ordinance proposal (see January 6, 2012 below) was written and signed by over 100 Rush county residents and was delivered to Mr. Todd, the BZA and the APC. However it was never to be considered. Instead, Todd submitted his own ordinance which was written by county paid planner from Indianapolis, David Rogier, and that received input from Singleton, to the board Tuesday. The county's new ordinance will only allow 10 hens per lot, no roosters and only with a one year temporary special exception granted by the BZA. Require the chickens to be shut up from sunset to sunrise, require a chicken run of 12 square feet per chicken surrounded by an eight foot high fence. No chicken will be allowed outside the pen. The chicken coop and run will be required to have straw bedding which will be required to be removed and replaced weekly and disposed in a compost bin or trash container, all under setback guidelines. Furthermore, a log book recording the date of the removal of the chicken poop shall be maintained as evidence of compliance!!!! You can't make this crap up!! Rogier even handed out a color brochure of “Government Approved” chicken coops as a suggestion for a prospective "Chicken Overseer" to obtain for their flock.
Have our so called public servants lost their bird brained minds? Apparently so, but they don't want to hear about it.
For years the Rush County Area Plan Commission has operated without being scrutinized or with any oversight. As a direct result of pointed wind turbine questions posed to the board by concerned citizens and taxpayers at the prior meeting, the APC board retaliated against all the citizens of Rush county by implementing a procedure which will not allow spontaneous citizen participation or questions during their meetings. Bill Todd, supplied the audience with a form that would be used for citizens who had a "proper question" that would need to be submitted to the panel at least 7 days prior to the meeting for consideration. Todd said, If you have a question at a meeting and you don't ask it properly then fill one of these out and come to the next board meeting and you can say specifically what your question was that didn't get answered and they'll try to answer it. The form has spaces for your name, a summary of your issue and check boxes if you intend to bring 15 copies of your printed handout. 15 copies of one question? For who? What happens if you have a follow up question? Do you just hope a decision is not made prior to having all your questions answered? Does anyone know what the definition of absurd is? Has anyone read and do they understand the First Amendment?
A citizen in the audience said he felt this was not a good idea because it removed the voice of the people. Todd shouted down the audience member saying they had an agenda to follow. Board member Jeff Slaton added public comments are only allowed at public meetings, not regular monthly meetings. Todd went on to tell another audience member that public meetings were only held when they needed to change the ordinance. After that, the board unanimously agreed to approve Todd's request to silence the public.
This is another example of public officials who feel they do not have to answer to anyone. Not even the voters and taxpayers who gave them their jobs and pay their salaries.
For those readers who never attended an APC meeting and are not familiar who comprises the board or who makes the appointments:
Brad Berkemeier (appointed by Rushville City Council)
JoAnn Mull (appointed by Rushville Mayor)
Ramona Turner (appointed by Glenwood Town Board)
Ruth Geise (appointed by Rush County Council)
Marvin Rees (appointed by Term of Office by Commissioners)
Jerry Kent (appointed by County Council)
Neal Kuhn (appointed by County Council)
Mike Holzback (appointed by County Commissioners)
Jeff Slaton (appointed by School Superintendent)
Marvin Cole (appointed by Commissioners)
These board members are appointed by elected officials who condone their actions and conduct by leaving them on this board.
April 23, 2012
Rush County Commissioners' Meeting
April 12, 2012
What Local Officials Have Not Told Rush County Residents About The Wind Farms
The little known details that are emerging about the Rush county wind farms are beginning to stir the interest of local residents who have been kept uninformed of these projects. The public hearing, scheduled in May, will surely be a forum for executives of Nordex, a German wind turbine manufacturer, to sell the proposed benefits to the community. We would like to share some information and insight that probably will not be provided by Nordex, county officials or the ECDC.
We have obtained what looks to be a hard copy of a PowerPoint presentation, by Umbaugh advisors, titled Henry County and Rush County, Indiana, Wind Farm Development Concepts, dated May 10, 2011. During a recent commissioners meeting, Ken Masters acknowledged that he was in attendance at this meeting. Some of the items in this presentation that concern us are outlined below with our comments written in red.
Wind Farm Development Concepts
Scope of project in terms of acreage, investment, phases, etc. The initial wind farm may actually be “Phase 1” of a much larger project than Rush county residents realize. The proposed area of this initial project is located in northern Rush county. However, transmission lines are scattered throughout the county and may be the infrastructure that could be used for Phases 2, 3, and 4.
Tax abatement considerations impact on tax base and tax rate The officials will probably sell the idea of a great tax base increase for the county once the project is constructed. However at the wind farm meeting in Knightstown, attendees were told that it is common practice for the developer to receive a ten year tax abatement.
Working Group configuration and communication
Representatives of Commissioners and Council
County attorney and special counsel
Financial advisor
Economic development corporation/LEDO
Highway superintendent
Building Commissioner
This is the group of officials who must be kept informed of the progress of the project and work in coordination to see that it succeeds. For many months we were told by members of this group that no knowledge of the wind farms was available. How could this be when this was one of the vital steps in the Umbaugh outline?
Tax abatement seems to be standard consideration nationwide although not associated with large employment numbers.
Main reason to consider abatement is large increase in tax base. These two items go hand in hand. Even though the property tax amount will rise by the installation of the turbines, the revenue may not be realized by the county due to tax abatements. This will be the incentive paid by the county taxpayers to entice the developer to construct the wind farm in Rush county.
Economic Development Agreement
Main concept is that Wind Farm may take significant acreage and therefore reduce or eliminate opportunities for other economic development to occur within project area. This is an admittance that the developer, county officials and the economic development agency realize, in that the area will become sterile to future growth by anyone other than the wind farm developer.
Key Components of Economic Development Agreement
Payments by developer in consideration of possible elimination/restriction of other economic development opportunities in project area (Economic Development Payments) The Rush county ECDC received $65,000 from the county taxpayers this year. Once the wind farms are completed, is the developer proposing that the ECDC will receive additional funds from the developer due to the elimination/restriction of other opportunities in the area?
Allowance for payment in lieu of taxes (PILOT) in the event of change in laws that would exempt investment What is this?
Summary
Takes great amount of communicating internally and with public There is little doubt that the internal communication was, and still is being carried out. Only through persistence of concerned Rush county citizens and the questioning of local officials is this information beginning to be verified.
April 9, 2012
Rush County Commissioners' Meeting - Wind Farm Public Hearing Set for May 22
Audio Files Underlined
Through determination by a group of local concerned citizens, questions that had been posed many times to the county commissioners, Rush County ECDC, the Area Plan Commission and the Board of Zoning Appeals concerning the wind farms in Rush county were confirmed at the county commissioners' meeting.
Commissioner Tom Barnes told the audience Monday that after being questioned several times concerning the wind farms in Rush county, he finally talked with northern Rush county landowners and Howard Kruger, project manager for Nordex. Barnes went on to announce that the commissioners had found that there will be more development in this area and that a public meeting was needed to let the public know of the progress.
Area Plan Director, Bill Todd asked Barnes why the commissioners wanted to hold a public meeting on a "hypothetical" . Todd wanted to wait until the wind companies had the drainage plans, road plans and entire blueprint in place before allowing the public to comment. Barnes went on to state that there is a lot of activity and it is steamrolling now.
The commissioners agreed to hold a public hearing on May 22, 2012, 6 P.M. at the Rushville High School.
ECDC Executive Jim Finan followed and explained once again that they are in the "Silent Period" but there has been work that needed to be done in this time period. Finan said there have been three wind developers working in the county. Wesco Wind, NextEra, and Nordex.. Wesco Wind is working on the west side of SR3, Nordex is working on the east side of SR3 and NextEra is in the northeast quadrant of Rush county. Nordex is working with Henry county and NextEra is working with Fayette county. Finan said that Nordex is in the phase of entering into formative agreements. These are agreements between landowners and Nordex to allow Nordex to construct turbines. Barnes added that Nordex plans to have the contracts in place by May 22.
A concerned resident and taxpayer questioned Commissioner Barnes about the contracts but was interrupted by Todd saying it was none of her business. Todd later continued his berating of the taxpayer when she asked Mr. Finan a question about the benefits of the turbines. Todd said her question was ridiculous.
Finan said they may know something by June as to the number of turbines Nordex plans to place in the county and that Nordex is 90% certain they will construct the wind farm in Rush county.
Livestock Friendly County program stalled
This is for information purposes only and should not be taken as legal advice.
How Rush County Bans Pets
March 30, 2012
Page 9 - B. Notification Requirements
The following notification requirements are for all public hearings involving property within the city limits. If a conflict exists between this ordinance and state or county ordinance, the more restrictive ordinance will prevail.
Rush County Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance
Many people are looking for the zoning ordinance and are concerned about their pets. Here is a link to the Rush county zoning ordinance. Pages 19 and 71 outline keeping pets on less than 10 acre. The first acre is taken out for your dwelling. After that you are allow, by permission from the county, 5 pets per acre. So if you live on less than 2 acres and do the math......
Page 19
5.1.20 Livestock on less than 10 Acres (Code 825) - The keeping and raising of livestock for pleasure or sale including horses, cattle, swine, sheep, goats, and similar quadrupeds; chickens, turkeys, and similar fowl; dog and cat kennels and similar domesticated pets; and, the necessary buildings for housing the livestock and storage of their food supply. Does not include concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFO) nor confinement feeding operations (CFO) as defined in the Ordinance.
Page 71
e. Restrictions for 824: Agriculture use on less than 10 acres
825: Livestock on less than 10 acres
1. If there is a dwelling unit on the lot, one acre shall be allocated to the dwelling unit.
2. Limit of one quadruped per acre of land.
3. Limit of ten fowl per acre of land.
4. Limit of five domesticated pets per acre of land.
Information Rally on Courthouse Square
A group of concerned citizens and taxpayers of Rush county held a information rally in front of the Rush County Courthouse Friday morning to bring awareness of the "Livestock Friendly County" program meeting, wind turbine issue and other matters to folks on Main Street. The group realized that information was being witheld from the public and wanted to do a public service to their fellow residents of the county. During the event, Frank Denzler, reporter for the Rushville Republican, passed by the group. Even though the group motioned to him for some local newspaper coverage, Denzler looked at his watch, waved and drove on.
March 27, 2012
Area Plan Meeting - (Audio Files Underlined)
At the Rush County Area Plan meeting Tuesday, David Rogier, county paid planner, informed the audience that the only proposed animal ordinance that had been submitted to the boards for consideration was the proposal which Executive Director, Bill Todd had ordered Rogier to prepare.
Todd's proposal as written:
--------------------------------------------
Proposed Amendment to Rush County, Indiana Zoning Ordinance
Code 826 Chickens on less than 10 acres
Special Exception in R1, R2, PUD Zone Districts
Restrictions
Limit of ten chickens per lot.
Hens permitted, Roosters prohibited.
From sunset to sunrise and, to provide shelter from the elements, chickens are to be kept in a chicken coup in the rear yard, incompliance with side and rear yard setbacks.
An outdoor chicken run with twelve square feet per chicken and a four foot high fence is allowed.
The chicken coup and chicken run shall be kept free from trash and accumulated droppings and odor.
An initial one year Temporary Special Exception may be granted by the Board of Zoning Appeals.
Poultry definition ?:
chickens, turkeys, ducks, geese, guinea fowl, pigeons, pheasants
------------------------------
This proposal is more restrictive towards chickens than what is currently in the ordinance. The county wants to make ownership even more restrictive. The current zoning ordinance is as follows:
------------------------------
5.1.20 Livestock on less than 10 Acres (Code 825) - The keeping and raising of livestock for pleasure or sale including horses, cattle, swine, sheep, goats, and similar quadrupeds; chickens, turkeys, and similar fowl; dog and cat kennels and similar domesticated pets; and, the necessary buildings for housing the livestock and storage of their food supply. Does not include concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFO) nor confinement feeding operations (CFO) as defined in the Ordinance.
825: Livestock on less than 10 acres
1. If there is a dwelling unit on the lot, one acre shall be allocated to the dwelling unit.
2. Limit of one quadruped per acre of land.
3. Limit of ten fowl per acre of land.
4. Limit of five domesticated pets per acre of land.
----------------------------------------------
Yes, Rush county even prohibits the ownership of PETS on less than 10 acres. If you live in any area where your home is on less than 2 acres, you are not permitted, by Rush county, to own any pets. This could be why the Carthage Town Marshall asked Rogier about banning all animals per the Rush county zoning ordinance. Later, the Marshall admitted he believed that people who live in town or cities have a reasonable expectation of their rights being diminished.
Rogier told the audience that the separate proposal and petition which had been signed by over 100 Rush county residents had never been distributed to the boards. This proposal was submitted to Todd at a meeting on January 10, and was to be distributed to both APC and BZA boards. The petition was re-submitted on February 7, to Mr. Rogier for distribution. The citizen's proposal is outlined in the January 6, 2012 entry on this website. The citizen's ordinance follows mandates enforced by the Indiana State Board of Animal Health. Rush county officials feel the need to restrict the citizens of Rush county to a much greater degree than is applied by Indiana law.
Rush county zoning is used by the county and the town boards of Carthage, Glenwood and Rushville to take away rights and freedoms of certain citizens of Rush county by creating two separate classes of people. This must end.
March 26, 2012
Livestock Friendly County = People Unfriendly County?
The Rush County ECDC along with the Farm Bureau is pushing Rush County to adopt the new "Livestock Friendly County" program. Rushville Mayor, Mike Pavey and the Rushville City Council are already on board with this project, but do Rushville residents know what their mayor and council have planned for them? The County Commissioners will also adopt this program unless the residents become informed and speak up. So, what does this mean for the citizens of Rush County? If history repeats itself in Rush county, this program could be the same program that the Farm Bureau implemented in Nebraska and other states. Jim Finan, Rush County ECDC President, said the Rush county program would be the "Pilot program" for the state and it involves the production AND processing of agriculture products. Even though Finan was questioned about further details of the program, he said the program is a marketing tool and we'll learn more on April 9. This method of secrecy will not allow the citizens to become informed what the program involves prior to the hearing, thus no one will be interested in attending. After the hearing, it will be too late to voice your opinion. There is no difference between what Finan meant about this program and what Nancy Pelosi said about Obamacare when she said, we'll have to pass it to see what's in it. Like the wind farms, this is another SECRET the county and ECDC doesn't want you to know.
The "Livestock Friendly County" program in Nebraska lures out of state producers into the area and gives these CAFO operators unlimited ability to construct and operate MEGA-CAFOs. An operator can build an unlimited number of CAFOs in an area and as long as the manure and waste products are held in a single common pond, lagoon or pit, and the CAFO is considered a single unit. The program also mandates the county to take steps to reduce nonfarm development and nonfarm residential density and to discourage land uses that conflict with animal agriculture. In other words NO PEOPLE.
This program looks like another “people unfriendly policy” that will be used in Rush county. With production AND processing are we going to have to live with MEGA-CAFOs and MEGA-SLAUGHTER HOUSES? Will Rushville become the SLAUGHTERHOUSE CITY?
-------------------------------------
Commissioners Meeting - Audio Files
ECDC - "Livestock Friendly County" Designation
Masters' Report - Free County Owned Computers
March 12, 2012
County Commissioner's Meeting - Audio File
Graham School Property Sale - The former Graham School Property, which encompasses an entire city block in Rushville, located at 7th and Perkins St. was sold to the Masonic Lodge for $5,000. The Rush County Surveyor and Masonic member, Marvin Rees, approached the commissioners about selling the site to the Masons. The commissioners agreed to sell this property on the condition that it would only be sold to the non-profit group thus eliminating the need for an appraisal. This detail opened the way for the commissioners to convey the property at any price they wished. Furthermore, since non-profits do not pay property taxes, the sale of the property to the organization will never produce a property tax benefit to the county. The motion to sell the site was made by Commissioner and Masonic member, Ken Masters and second by Marvin Cole. Motion passed. Even though Commissioner Masters also belongs to the Masonic organization, he never offered to remove himself from the voting process.
More Wind Turbine Information - The County Commissioners were once again pressed for information on the wind farm going in Rush county. Two weeks ago, Commissioner Tom Barnes suggested that the Henry County Commissioners was the group that knew about the wind farms. Monday he stated the ECDC would be the agency that would have the information. We brought to his attention the fact that Rush county funds the ECDC through taxpayer money. Barnes told the audience that the commissioners would ask the ECDC for information but stessed "they may not want to talk to us yet." This is another troubling statement from the elected official since Commissioner Masters has a seat on the ECDC board.
Editorial - Could The End of Mays Elementary Be Near?
On Hogan's Heroes, Sgt. Schultz always used the line, I see nothing. In 2003, Iraqi Information Minister, Muhammad Saeed al-Sahhaf, aka “Baghdad Bob” would say, There are no American infidels in Baghdad. Never!
We have three commissioners who were elected to represent all the citizens in Rush county and be entrusted and knowledgeable with what goes on in the county. However, either through ignorance or incompetence, they are failing to find out, or release information on the Rush county wind farms. We brought to their attention the various out-of-county news articles outlining the construction of over 50 turbines in Northeast Rush County. The commissioners passed the buck and told us to ask the Henry County Commissioners and the Rush County ECDC for information. During a county commissioners' meeting, the ECDC informed us that they are having ongoing conversations with the wind companies and the ECDC is playing an oversight role to make sure that county regulations are followed. however, they are going through the silent period. Commissioner Barnes passed the buck a second time when he told us if we wanted to know about the Rush County wind farms we needed to go, again, to the Henry County Commissioners' meeting. Seriously? Are we supposed to believe no one knows the status of the wind farms in Rush county?
We realize there are supporters, opponents and undecided citizens when it comes to the subject of wind farms in the county. We believe there is significant progress by the wind companies to complete this operation and once it is finalized, the construction process will begin. All one has to do is look at the timeline of events that were needed by the different local offices of government in the county and agencies to facilitate the construction of the wind farms. We understand how we got here, and we want to shed some light on where the county is headed.
As you follow the timeline, keep in mind that the elected officials also sit on the different boards. The School Board and it's Superintendent along with the County Commissioners have officials who sit on the APC and the ECDC. The County Surveyor sits on the APC and the commissioners make up the drainage board.
Potential School Closures
In 2007, our only remaining county schools, Arlington, Mays and Milroy faced closure. There was a huge push to construct new schools in Arlington and Milroy. The supporters of the construction were organized by the powerful politicians who live in the Arlington and Milroy areas. The opponents of the new schools wanted to close all the county schools and construct a new elementary in Rushville. In the end, new elementary schools were approved for Arlington and Milroy while Mays elementary was kept open with electrical updating and air conditioning. Perhaps a small price to pay the residents of the Mays elementary school district.
Addition of Wind Energy Conversion Systems to the Rush county Zoning Ordinance
In January 2009, the Rush County APC adopted language in the zoning ordinance to clear the way for wind turbines.
Two very interesting points in the ordinance are:
the minimum distance from a turbine to a neighbors house is 1000 feet, and
in wetland areas, Wetlands, as defined by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. And, as determined by a permit obtained from the Army Corps of Engineers.
Rush County Wind Farm Meeting Held in Knightstown
In June 2011, a meeting conducted by the Rush County ECDC was held at the Knightstown High School concerning the wind farms in Rush County. During the meeting, Rush County Area Plan Director, Bill Todd was asked a question concerning the residents in the development area or anyone wishing to build a home in the area. Todd said that the fact is, when a (wind) project is developed, certain land uses are restricted, you can no longer use that land for certain things. Residences and residential development would not be good in that area. People don't want to have houses around these wind mills, you would have to pick a different area.
Samuel Cohee Becomes The Little Blue River
June and July 2011, preparations were being made by the Rush County Surveyor, Marvin Rees and a few northern Rush County landowners to combine the Samuel Cohee drain north of Mays and the Little Blue River. Through an order by the Rush County Drainage Board, all the landowners in the Little Blue River watershed, in western Rush County, will be taxed for reconstruction and drainage of the Cohee drain north of Mays. Commissioners Ken Masters and Tom Barnes were removed from voting on the Cohee Board, due to land ownership in the watershed, and replaced by Tom Ripberger and Former State Senator, Bob Jackman.
Newspapers Report Construction of 52 Wind Turbines in Rush County
January 2012, out-of-county news sources reported the construction of the Henry-Rush County wind farm. The reports place the wind farm from 600N to the Henry county line and SR3 to the Fayette county line with the wind farm being in place by 2013.
February 2012, Commissioners Meeting
Commissioner Masters confirms wind contract by a landowner in the 600N and 50W area. This is west of SR3.
The Future of Northeast Rush County
The location of the wind farm is roughly north of 600N and east of SR3. But the wind farm area has another name that no public official wants to use. This wind farm area is the Mays Elementary School District. If Mr. Todd is right when saying, People don't want to have houses around these wind mills, you would have to pick a different area, why would anyone move to or live in the area? The county zoning ordinance forbids anyone from building a home within 1,000 feet of a turbine. However, only three turbines in a row will kill any new development in an area of 2,000 feet wide, by over one mile long. Fifty two turbines have the potential of stopping all residential development in an area of 2,000 feet wide by 104,000 feet, or twenty miles long. Zero growth, zero population. Without the needed population in the area, Mays Elementary will be forced to close. By losing Mays Elementary and the having the construction of over 50 wind turbines, very few people will live in the Mays, Falmouth, Raleigh or Sexton areas.
March 9, 2012
Cohee Drainage Board Reversed - Petition Ordered Dismissed
In the appeal of the action of the Cohee Drainage Board on July 18, 2011, which attempted to convert the Little Blue River in Rush County to a legal drain, the Honorable Terry Snow, Judge Hancock Superior Court I, ruled that Marvin Rees, the county surveyor, overstepped his legal authority when he tried to use the drain reconstruction statute to create an entirely new drain.
The objectors, represented by William B. Keaton, successfully argued that the action of Rees and the Cohee Drainage Board constituted a new drain, not reconstruction, as Rees and the board had contended. In his ruling Judge Snow observed that proposed change would extend the drain by more than 5 times its original length and would drain an additional 30,000 acres of land in Ripley, Jackson, Union and Posey Townships. He stated, "The proposed extension to the Samuel Cohee Open Drain is not just a permitted reconstruction of the drain, but the construction of an entirely new drain."
The objectors also contended that they had been denied "Due Process of Law" as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and the Indiana Constitution as the result of the continued and active participation of Commissioner and Drainage Board member, Kenneth Masters, after he was disqualified from participation by Indiana law due to his financial interest in the outcome. The court did not address this issue because the Reconstruction Petition was dismissed on the first issue raised by Mr. Keaton.
The Defendants in this appeal were Marvin Rees, Rush County Surveyor and Cohee Drainage Board members, Tom Ripberger, Robert Jackman, DVM, and Marvin Cole.
____________________________________________________________________
Carthage Town Board Attacks Animal Owners Property Rights
The Citizen's Journal received this letter from a reader. Please attend these meetings and stand up for your rights. - CJ
------------------------------------------------------
Dear Citizens Journal,
I am need of your help. On March 1st the Carthage Town Council passed the attached ordinance on the 1st reading. This ordinance is a attack on current flock owners residing in town. Carthage has no man power to over see this legislation and currently doesn't even enforce its own dog tax. The is no provision for grandfathering current poultry and rabbit owners. You may request a variance from the town council but they may revoke that at any time for any reason they see fit.
There is not basis for the new ordiance. There has been NO complaints made by citizens on the current flock owners. Please help us by attending the next town council meeting on March 13th at 6 pm.
Hopefully with a packed house they will back down...
Thank you,
A.W.
TOWN OF CARTHAGE, INDIANA
ORDINANCE NO. -2012
An Ordinance Regarding the Control and Disposition of Animals in the Town of Carthage, Rush County, Indiana.
WHEREAS, the Town of Carthage, Indiana (hereinafter "Town") desires to revoke any and all previous Ordinances regarding the control and disposition of Animalswithin the Town Code of the Town of Carthage, Rush County, Indiana ("Town Code");
and
WHEREAS, the Town concludes that a comprehensive Ordinance shall be enacted such that various matters related to animal control and disposition within the Town which affect the health, safety and general welfare of the Town and community are addressed;
and
WHEREAS, the Town has the power and authority to regulate the ownership and activity of animals within the Town and there have been incidents in the Town involving injuries and potential injuries to citizens and visitors by animals within the Town.
NOW THEREFORE BE'IT ORDAINED by the Town Council of the Town of Carthage, Rush County, Indiana, as follows:
Section 1.
That any and all prior Ordinances or provisions thereof within the Town Code regarding the control and disposition of Animals are hereby revoked, including all language relating to the control and disposition of animals contained therein and inserting in lieu thereof, the following:
Chapter 1. ANIMALS
1. Definitions
2. Type of Animals Permitted in Town Limits
3. Number of Pet Animals Permitted
4. Required Vaccinations
5. Running at Large
6. Quietude
7. Removal of Excrement
8. Animals in Vehicles
9. Free Roaming Cats
10. Humane Care of Animals
11. Dangerous/Vicious Animals
12. Penalty
Carthage Town Council
Ordinance No. - 2012
Page 2
1. DEFINITIONS
The following words, terms, phrases, when used in this Chapter, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning;
(A) ANIMAL. A vertebrate animal not including any human being.
(B) AT LARGE. A pet animal shall be deemed to be "at large" when it is off the property of its owner and not under the control (e.g., leashed, obedient to commands or caged) of its owner or other competent person.
(C) CAT COLONY. A managed group of one or more feral cats that has undergone Trap-Neuter-Release and been returned to its colony caretaker.
(D) COLONY CARETAKER. A person who provides food, water and necessary shelter to a cat colony. Colony caretakers are not deemed to be owners of feral cats.
(E) DANGEROUS/VICIOUS. Any pet animal that, because of its individual temperament or breed propensity, endangers the safety of or injures a human being. This definition shall also include pet animals that injure or kill another
animal without provocation and dogs trained for the purpose of dog fighting.
(F) EXOTIC ANIMAL. Any animal requiring a special permit from the State of Indiana or Department of Natural Resources.
(G) FERAL CAT. Any cat that has no apparent owner or identification and is wild, untamed, unsocialized, unmanageable, and unable to be approached or handled.
(H) LIVESTOCK. Cattle, calves, horses, ponies, mules, donkeys, swine, sheep, goats, llamas, alpacas, rabbits (more than four), chickens and ducks.
(1) OWNER. A person who keeps, houses or harbors pet animals or small animals. Harboring occurs when a pet animal or small animal is fed or sheltered for seven (7) consecutive days or more by a human being.
(J) PET ANIMAL. Any domesticated cat or dog.
(K) SMALL ANIMAL. Any mouse, rat, turtle, reptile, ferret, hamster, rabbit, chinchilla, gerbil, and caged bird.
(L) TOWN. The Town of Carthage, Rush County, State of Indiana.
(M)WILD ANIMAL. Any non-domesticated, free roaming animal, to include feral cats.
2. TYPE OF ANIMALS PERMITTED IN TOWN LIMITS
(A) No resident of the Town shall be permitted to own or temporarily confine any type of animal other than a pet animal or small animal within the Town's corporate limits.
(B) Exceptions:
(1) Procedure for issuance: Exceptions to these provisions may be issued by the Town Council.
Carthage Town Council
Ordinance No. - 2012
Page 3
(a) Persons desiring any exception(s) to these provisions must submit to the Town Council a written application setting forth the reason such Exception(s) should be issued by the Town Council.
(b) Upon receipt of such application, the Town Council shall proceed to determine in their sole and unlimited discretion, whether said request for exception should be granted, and if so, under what terms, conditions or limitations, all of which shall be stated on the permit issued if the exception is granted.
(2) Factors to be considered for issuance of exception(s): Factors to be considered by the Town Council in determining whether or not an exception should be issued include, but are not limited to, the following:
1. The size of the applicant's lot, relating most specifically to the determination of the number of animals that can be maintained thereon.
2. The nature of the neighborhood and surrounding zoning.
3. The physical conditions and standard of care given the animals by the applicant, including, but not limited to, disposal of animal waste.
4. The wishes and concerns of those living in the general vicinity of the applicant.
5. The length of time such exception(s) would be applicable.
6. Whether the applicant's situation with the care and disposition of animals pre-dated the enactment of this Ordinance, in which case, a presumption exists favoring the grant of the exception(s) requested, so long as the exception(s) sought relate to the then existing animals and conditions; however, in the event that the Town Council determines that an excessive number of animals are maintained on a property the Town Council shall have the discretion to require the owner to remove a certain number of animals within a reasonable amount of time, with the presumption being that thirty (30) days constitutes a reasonable amount of time.
7. The presumption against an applicant's request to maintain livestock with an individual weight in excess of sixty pounds (60 lbs).
8. Any other factor deemed relevant by the Town Council.
3. NUMBER OF PET ANIMALS OR SMALL ANIMALS PERMITTED
A resident of the Town shall not own more than four (4) pet animals or small animals over the age of six (6) months within the Town's corporate limits. Owners with more than four (4) pet animals or small animals at the time of passage of this ordinance shall be exempt from this section, subject to the following: a resident owner shall be permitted to maintain his or her current pet animal or small animal population until the pet animals or small animals expire or are relocated, but shall not be permitted to replace pet animals or small animals until that population falls below four (4) pet animals.
Carthage Town Council
Ordinance No. - 2012
Page 4
4. RABIES VACCINATIONS REQUIRED
(A) All dogs, cats, and ferrets three (3) months of age and older must be vaccinated against rabies. The rabies vaccination of a dog, cat, and ferret shall be maintained by ongoing revaccination of the animal as follows:
(1) Ferrets shall be revaccinated within twelve (12) months of the prior vaccination.
(2) Dogs and cats that are vaccinated with a rabies vaccine whose label recommends annual boosters shall be revaccinated within twelve (12) months of the prior vaccination.
(3) Dogs and cats that are vaccinated with a rabies vaccine whose label recommends a booster one (1) year later and triennially thereafter shall be revaccinated within twelve (12) months of the first vaccination and shall be revaccinated within thirty-six (36) months of each vaccination thereafter.
(B) The owner of the animal is responsible for procuring the vaccinations required by this section.
(C) Proof of rabies vaccination shall be required for all dogs or cats found running loose or involved in a bite incident.
5. RUNNING AT LARGE
No person owning or having control of a pet animal or small animal shall permit such animal to run at large, damage the property of anyone other than the owner, or attack without provocation any person, including the owner, within the Town corporate limits. The Carthage Police Department may confine any pet animal or small animal caught running at large until it is either released to its owner or transported to a Rush County, Indiana, animal-sheltering facility. The owner shall be responsible for the daily cost of impoundment of the pet animal or small animal. The owner shall also provide proof of compliance with paragraph 4 above.
6. QUIETUDE
(A) No owner within the Town's corporate limits shall allow his or her pet animal or small animal to disturb the peace and quiet of any other person by failing to control prolonged periods of barking, howling or other loud noises. The time of day and circumstances surrounding the incident may be considered before a warning or violation is issued, but continuous noise shall not be permitted to exceed 30 minutes, nor intermittent noise to exceed two hours.
Carthage Town Council
Ordinance No. - 2012
Page 5
(B) Based upon complaints by neighboring residents, a maximum of two (2) warnings may be issued by the Carthage Police Department. Upon the third or more complaint, a violation shall be issued.
7. REMOVAL OF EXCREMENT
An owner or person responsible for a pet animal or small animal is required to immediately remove such animal's excrement from any public lands or from the private property of any other person with the Town's corporate limits. Violations issued under this section shall be issued to the adult owner of the pet animal or small animal.
8. ANIMALS IN VEHICLES
No animal shall be left unattended in a vehicle when the conditions in that vehicle would constitute a health hazard to the animal.
9. ROAMING FERAL CATS
Cats that are kept as pet animals are subject to all of the requirements of this chapter. Feral cats are not considered pet animals, but colony caretakers are required to manage their cat colonies by having each cat in the cat colony sterilized, immunized and ear-tipped to identify the cat within thirty days ofthe eat's arrival to the cat colony. When not identified as in compliance with this section, feral cats are subject to trapping and relocation or humane euthanasia. Trapped cats found to be ear-tipped must be released back into the area from which they were trapped.
10. HUMANE CARE OF ANIMALS
(A) In addition to all applicable State laws regarding the ethical treatment of animals, this section requires that all animals permitted in the Town be provided with adequate food, water and shelter. The shelter must be of a size that the animal can heat the enclosed space with its own body heat, while also providing fresh air for adequate ventilation. The sheltering area for the animal must provide protection from adverse weather conditions (heat, cold, wind, rain & snow) and must allow the animal to remain completely dry.
(B) If tied, the animal must have a comfortable buckle collar or harness (no chains, ropes, choke collars, pinch collars or similar devices are permitted) and a tie-out length of at least 15' is required. The tie-out must allow the animal access to its food, water and shelter and must provide that animal space to lie outside of puddles, mud and excrement.
(C) Proper care must be provided to protect animals from internal and external parasites and veterinary care must be provided to treat injured and sick animals.
Carthage Town Council
Ordinance No. - 2012
Page 6
11. DETERMINATION OF DANGEROUS/VICIOUS ANIMAL
(A) Upon the Town's receipt of a sworn complaint or bite report, the incident shall be investigated by the Carthage 'Police Department to determine whether the animal involved fits the criteria of dangerous/vicious. Law enforcement personnel may also initiate investigations when there is information leading them to believe that an animal may be dangerous or vicious.
(C) If sufficient evidence exists to declare an animal dangerous/vicious, the owner shall be required to obtain liability insurance specific to that animal, to have the animal securely confmed while on the owner's premises and to be in their immediate restraint, by way of a leash, when off of the owner's premises.
12. PENALTIES
(A) Violations of paragraph 4 shall result in a fine of $25.00 and the requirement of an immediate rabies vaccination.
(B) Violations of paragraphs 2,3,5,6, 7,8, and 9 shall result in a fine of $25.00 for the first offense and $50.00 for the second and each subsequent offense.
(C) Violations of paragraphs 10 and 11 shall result in a fine of $50.00 for the first offense and $100.00 for the second offense, in addition, the animal may be seized. Animals seized under paragraph 10 shall be held for re-adoption, while animals seized under paragraph 11 shall be ordered humanely euthanized.
(D) Failure to pay any violation to the town within fourteen (14) days of receipt of the violation shall result in a doubling of the fine amount.
(E) Failure to pay any violation within thirty (30) days of receipt of the violation shall result in the Town seeking enforcement of the violation and penalty by way of a court appearance before the Circuit or Superior Court of Rush County, Indiana, at which the Town will seek a judgment for the payment for the violation and all costs and fees, including attorney fees, in so proceeding.
Section 2.
This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and adoption, and proper publication required by law, if any, whichever is later.
[The remainder of this page left blank intentionally]
Carthage Town Council
Ordinance No. - 2012
Page 7
All of which is PASSED, ADOPTED, AND ORDAINED by the Town Council of the Town of Carthage, Indiana, on this __ day of , 2012.
IN FAVOR: NOT IN FAVOR:
Bill Armstrong, President Bill Armstrong, President
Marsha Dyer Marsha Dyer
Shannon Spence Shannon Spence
Rachel Brown Rachel Brown
James Calvert James Calvert
ATTEST:
Linda McMahan, Clerk-Treasurer
February 27, 2012
Rush County Commissioner's Meeting Audio Files
Meeting Opening, Health Dept. Vehicle Title
Surveyor, Solid Waste, Faith Community Church
ECDC - Eastern Indiana Developement District, Alleged Embezzlement, Grant Money
ECDC - Wind Farms - "silent period" for Rush County wind farms,
*Wind farm contracts extending west of State Road 3?
Barada - Arlington School Alleys
County Attorney - Milroy Property, Drainage Payments, RMH Mortgage
Barnes - Roof, 3rd Floor Historical
Barnes - Rushville Masons offer county $1,000 for city block on 7th St. in Rushville
February 18, 2012
Society and Freedom
Have you ever thought about how much control you have on your own life? You get up each morning, turn on your light so you can see, then pull out your clothes that are made in China. Next you get in your car and stop at the gas station or buy breakfast at some fast food place.
After you work all week you get your check with all the appropriate taxes taken out. Then to the grocery store for your household. You've managed to pay out money for lights, clothes, car expenses, food, social security, and unemployment taxes. You've just paid your first set of taxes on Social security and Unemployment. Now, when you need to collect on either, you will pay a second set of taxes.
The government collects all year, from all who earn money. The beginning of the year we report them and either get money back or pay more. The government has used everyone's money for investing all year. They don't pay us interest on the overpaid money which was a loan from us. Is this right?
Long ago we made our own clothes grew our own food and cooked our own meals. Some U.S. companies made gasoline for tractors or cars. Entertainment meant a "family" good time, maybe singing at the piano and enjoying each others company. The fireplace was a gathering place for the family. We stayed warm and had good times. Families were close and friendships were real. Most everyone pitched in to help a friend in need.
Where is our society and what freedoms are left for us? The government is continually making money from the sweat off our backs. Let's take control of our lives. The dictionary defines freedom as the state of being free, liberty.
P. Monka
February 16, 2012
The Rush County Commissioners held a meeting on Monday. It was very informative, especially the portion about the wind farms in Rush county that have been reported by out-of-county newspapers. Even though no local media has covered this, the Citizen's Journal is collecting information that only raises more questions. Hopefully we will be able to determine what is planned for us as residents of Rush county.
Meeting Opening, Surveyor, EMA
Are wind farms coming to Rush County?
February 10, 2012
I was asked last week, what was the mission statement of the Citizen's Journal. It is simply a platform to convey information about our local government to the citizens that they serve. This in turn, may hopefully spur much needed conversations and ideas that will make our communities a better place to live.
I have spent the last few years going to meetings and studying the way local government works in order to understand how the policies that are made, impact our lives. The information on local meetings was not easily available and to some degree, some agencies are still not making the meeting minutes available in a convenient and precise manner. Many government officials will tell you that the minutes are all written and available at the offices. Have you ever looked through the minutes of past meetings? Did you know that it was common protocol for the county commissioners to meeting daily? Even though they met daily, the minutes never contained much detail. A few liquor licenses were issued or sewers needed repaired, but very little content. Today, our elected bodies have many topics to address and much more government from the top to deal with. This all adds to policies and mandates that affect each one of us, but the information is never delivered. In the Soviet Union, the U.S.S.R. had a state run newspaper, Pravda, that delivered the state's message to the people the soviets controlled. Information, and the lack of information, can work in the same manner.
All of our elected officials, from the president to the township trustee have individual duties to perform for the people they serve. Every office is valuable in the operation of our government. This is the way our government is set up. It is a reflection that the source of government is it's people, that government should work from the bottom up, not the top down. The plan to eliminate the township positions will remove a connection, and further distance the people from the government. The trustees should perform all the duties that were originally assigned to them. The duties that have been stripped away by the other levels of government.
Likewise no citizen is more important than the other. Each has their individual role in our society. Their roles should never be used to obtain special rights or privileges from the government. Our Declaration of Independence says that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,… This can never be an overused statement. God gave us rights, man can only give permission. No agency should grant a separate group of citizens, privileges or permission, based on the amount of possessions they own.
At the last Board of Zoning Appeals meeting an entrepreneur asked permission from the BZA board to allow her to open a beauty shop. After the board was satisfied that she would never be able to hire anyone else, grow her business, take walk in clients or have regulars hours of operation the permission was granted. Not on the location where she was going to operate, but on her person. This should be a wake up call for everyone. Our local government is not only using zoning laws to control our property, they are also using it to control each individual person. How many people know this is happening?
There have been several reports in out-of-county newspapers that outline the construction of over 50 wind turbines in Rush county starting in 2012 and completing in 2013. I asked the BZA board about this. The board said no one has made application to them for permits or variances. How is this being reported by other newspapers and not the local media? What is the status of the wind farms proposed in Rush county? Can we live on a "no comment" mentality?
I don't know if this passes as a mission statement. After reading this and other articles that I've written, you, as a reader, are more aware of my position on local government and the agencies that operate within it. How many of you know where your elected officials stand?
John Saxon
January 30, 2012 - Rush County Commissioner's Meeting
New contracts with Milroy, Carthage and Raleigh EMS were signed.
Highway, Barnes Report on Roof
APC approves mobile homes only for ag ground owners of 10 acres or more.
If You Have To Ask, The Answer is NO! - Sound Files Underlined
Mobile homes and people who live in them have not been welcomed in Rush county since 2007. Commissioner Ken Masters even admits that since that time, the commissioners have disallowed them, in anyplace. Now it seems the commissioners have seen an error in their ways. But not totally and not for everyone. With a change in the zoning ordinance, Bill Todd now says "trailers" will be allowed on farms in the A-1 or A-1R areas. Not on parcels of less than 10 acres, but on the larger parcels.
This ordinance is directed at mobile homes. However, it also includes travel trailers. Scenario: Do you live on maybe 5 acres and you have friends or family coming to visit this summer and maybe you thought it would be a good idea to let them stay in your 20 ft. Shasta travel trailer? Think again!
If you're not rich enough to afford 10 acres, you still don't have the right to own or let you relative live in a mobile home. The county commissioners, the APC and Bill Todd are still working to maintain separate classes of citizens in the county by using these county zoning ordinances that are written for the very privileged. This new ordinance will allow a large landowner to set a mobile home for a relative or hired hand for a period of two years. So let's see, if you're not related to a large landowner, or if you are elderly and wanted to live next to your family on less than 10 acres, you're out of luck.
I questioned the three commissioners about their opinion in creating separate classes of landowners or citizens with an ordinance like this. I was informed by the county attorney, Leigh Mourning, that my question was not appropriate because two of the commissioners are up for re-election this year and its not appropriate to put them on the spot. What? Is a citizen of Rush County not allowed to question the public servants of the county? Will their opinions tarnish their reputations and keep the voters from re-electing them to office?
This latest zoning ordinance presented by Bill Todd to the county commissioners keeps everything on track to control and take away property rights from a certain portion of Rush County's population. Do you want chickens? Do you want rabbits? Do you want to use a travel trailer? Do you want your relative to live in a mobile home next to you? Do you want to ask the commissioners a question? Unless you have 10 or more acres, the answer is NO.
Old Arlington school site alleys being vacated so it can be sold
County Commissioners make way for Masons to acquire city lot at 7th and Perkins St.
John Saxon
January 27, 2012
Rushville and Rush County Businesses and Jobs - Creating a Friendly Atmosphere
Folks who have lived in Rush county for forty years or more have seen a drastic decrease in both community population and local businesses. For the younger generation, Rushville and Rush County have just always been this way. No one can wave a magic wand, make everything perfect and have lots of businesses and jobs, but we have to look at the possibilities. One possible solution is Business Incubation. Business Incubators not only provide support for local businesses but also would provide resources to attract new start-up businesses to the area.
The ECDC is getting $65,000 of you money this year. To do what? Advertise the "shovel ready" site north of Rushville? Advertise the Cherry St. and 16 St. extensions, to where? It may sound good and be a genuine attempt to sell real estate and create more "jobs" by luring in a big factory or mega retail store, but maybe the ECDC needs to look at another asset that Rush county has, its people.
If the time comes where a big company looks at Rush county to relocate, chances are Rushville or Rush County will offer the company tax abatements as incentive to open its doors here. How many times are small businesses ever offered tax abatements or incentives to start up here? Yet these same folks, who are small business prospects and many times who are local citizens, are told to pick up the tab in the form of tax abatements offered to the big companies.
Another possibility is to take the $65,000 and support a business incubator system. I'm not saying it should be a permanently government funded program. Rather, funds could be used to launch a business incubator, initially, to help entrepreneurs establish their businesses. These fledgling businesses would gain the support, knowledge and training through the use of combined business assets and mentoring to establish prosperous ventures. We have both high school and college graduates every year from Rush County. How many of them leave the area because there are no jobs or opportunities for growth here? Give them the opportunity to start a business. Give them incentives and a chance to become employers.
Instead of being a real estate broker, the ECDC could be making contacts to other businesses, everywhere, to see what they need. Perhaps a business in Cleveland needed a call center for customer support. If the ECDC knew this information, perhaps it could work with the local business incubator, who has an interested entrepreneur, in creating a call center.
Businesses can be brought to the area. It can be done with support from the county government, its separate agencies and the local municipalities by creating a "business friendly, people friendly" environment. However, it will never be done with the current restrictions that are in place.
John Saxon
January 20, 2012
Rushville and Rush County Businesses and Jobs- What Are We Doing?
The main goal of this website is not only to shed light on the operations of our local county government and it's agencies, but also to generate fresh ideas to make Rushville and all of Rush County a better place for folks to live and provide for their families. It's often said that the smallest unit of government is the family. Since the implementation of comprehensive zoning in Rush County in the early 1970s, Rush County has lost 14.5% of its population. These "smallest units of government" were forced to leave by the larger unit's policies. The policies of county government not only made it difficult for businesses to survive in the county but also many of its residents.
These policies continue to stifle the growth of any new business that may consider starting in the area. Recently, at a Board of Zoning Appeals meeting, a group asked the BZA to make zoning provisions in order for them to start a new small business in Rushville. The BZA granted their request, but included stipulations. They are now allowed to operate their new business for only two years, then they must come back to the BZA and ask for the BZA's permission to operate their business for another two years, still, under conditions.
One of the first things a small business owner does is build a business plan. This plan includes looking at overhead, salaries, equipment and other factors including depreciation. The U.S. tax code provides for depreciation longer than two years, but the Rush County Board of Zoning Appeals can't and won't guarantee that they will even allow this business to operate after the first two years. Is Rush County business friendly? Is Rush County people friendly? This is another example of why the Area Plan Commission and the Board of Zoning Appeals need overhauled.
The county contributes taxpayer money to the ECDC every year. How many jobs have these contribution created? This year, the county will give the ECDC another $65,000 of your money. All in the hopes of landing " a new factory", "colossal mega store" a "golden goose" that will open its doors and employ hundreds of people. If a big employer ever opens its doors here, it can just as quickly close, leaving its workforce to draw unemployment, food stamps, and welfare.
We already have both established and prospective new business owners who live here and we can create an atmosphere that is business friendly to attract others. Which kind of economic area is more likely to survive - two big businesses who employ three hundred people each, or 120 smaller businesses that employ five people each? The numbers of workers are the same. The difference is this, these small businesses would be local employers, and people who all ready live here and have roots here. They are not as likely to leave the area as a big "golden goose" if their business fails and the impact to the area economy is not as great.
There are proven methods of successful job and business creation that have been used in other areas, in the past. I'll follow-up this article with some of those ideas.
John Saxon
January 18, 2012
Are The Rush County Zoning Ordinances Lawful? - Sound Files Underlined
The Rush County Commissioners and Area Plan Director were questioned about the procedures the county uses to adopt or change a zoning ordinance. According to Indiana State Code:
IC 36-7-4-601
Zoning ordinance; powers and duties of legislative body
Sec. 601. (a) The legislative body having jurisdiction over the geographic area described in the zoning ordinance has exclusive authority to adopt a zoning ordinance under the 600 series.
Why is this code so important to the procedure that Rush County uses? The Rush County Commissioners are the legislative body that has exclusive authority over all of Rush County. Not the Town Boards of Carthage and Glenwood.
But they do things differently here in Rush County. The APC writes the proposed zoning ordinances, then forwards the proposal to the Town Boards of Carthage and Glenwood along with the County Commissioners. These are three separate governmental bodies, not having exclusive authority as outlined by the Indiana State Code but rather by the county government who gives the authority to Carthage and Glenwood. The Rush County commissioners have given away their representation of all the citizens of Rush County to the Town Boards of Carthage and Glenwood. These town boards not only have adoption power, but veto power as well, given to them by the Rush County Commissioners and APC Director Bill Todd. But it only gets worse. The Town of Glenwood is not located only in Rush County but Fayette county as well. This adoption procedure allows voters in Fayette county to elect into office, town board members who will have the authority, granted by the Rush County Commissioners, to approve and adopt zoning ordinances that affect the entire population of Rush County. This is absurd. Your county commissioners, Tom Barnes, Marvin Cole and Ken Masters have given away your voice and representation to a select group of voters and town board members, some of whom don't even live in Rush County. This closed network between the commissioners, town boards, APC board and its director, Bill Todd is one of the reasons Rush County is in the shape its in and needs to be changed.
John Saxon
January 17, 2012
Rush County Commissioner's Meeting - EMS, Draft Board, Zoning Ordinances
Monday's Rush County Commissioner's meeting dealt with many issues including agreements and disagreements about the Emergency Management Service protocols and contracts between the county fire and ambulance departments, Rush Memorial Hospital and Rush County.
Also during the meeting, Commissioner Tom Barnes informed the audience that the county was informed by the federal government that an appointment to head up the new draft board had to be selected.
Later, community watchdogs asked the commissioners about the procedures the commissioners use to adopt a new or changed zoning ordinance. The answer may surprise you. The following links are MP3 files of the January 17, 2012, Rush County Commissioner's Meeting.
Schroeder Insurance/ Meeting Opening
ECDC - Solid Waste - Clerk Report
Saxon - Zoning Ordinance Adoption Procedures
Masters - Comments and Closing
January 13, 2012
County Wide Mandates by Non-Elected Officials
Recently a family who had chickens that they used for an egg source and 4-H projects were ordered to get rid of their chickens or face a $100 per day fine imposed by the Rush County Area Plan Commission. This family lives in a rural area in Rush County.
A group of concerned Rush County residents are trying to change parts of the Rush County Zoning Ordinances. The current ordinance allows landowners of 11 acres or more the freedom to own livestock, fowl and small animals. The first acre is always excluded from the total and set aside for a house, well and septic. This in turn makes this group of landowners a separate class of privileged citizens. However the APC limits the ownership to one animal per acre. There is no difference between a chicken, lama, cow, elk, rabbit or any other animal. The limit is one animal per acre, except for Confined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) . For landowners who own less acreage, permission may be granted through a special exception only if the Area Plan Commission and the Board of Zoning Appeals grant the privilege, not the "right", to own animals. Then the landowner is still limited to one animal per acre.
The State of Indiana Regulates the care of animals through the Indiana State Board of Animal Health. We have written a proposed ordinance change based on the regulations of the ISBAH.
However, at a meeting with the Rush County Area Plan Commission, Executive Director, William Todd, we were informed that any change to the ordinance must be approved by the Town Boards of Carthage and Glenwood and the City of Rushville, the only three incorporated areas in the county, before it could be approved by the Rush County Commissioners. These three town boards are elected only by the citizens who live in their corporate limits. However, they are placed in the governing positions of the entire county. The three Town Boards who are locally elected, make self appointments to the BZA and APC boards. In turn, the town boards are the first level of government to approve any proposed changes effecting county citizens who never have a vote in their elections. If at any time, a town board refuses to approve a change, the proposed change fails to advance to the county commissioners. In essence, the citizens who live in Raleigh, Mays, Occident, Gings, Henderson, Milroy, Arlington, Homer, Moscow and all points between are at the mercy of the City of Rushville and the Town Boards of Carthage and Glenwood, who they never elected.
We don't see how this can be lawful. Many citizens of Rush County live under zoning ordinances that were put in place and are enforced by town board members who were never elected by the county citizens as a whole. We need your help in this matter. Call the County Commissioners, Tom Barnes (765-938-3391), Marvin Cole (765-629-2815) and Ken Masters (317-407-1041) the Area Plan Commission, Bill Todd (765-932-3090), the Town Boards of Carthage (765-565-6580) and Glenwood (765-679-5496), the Mayor of Rushville (765-932-3735), and the Rushville City Council and voice your objection to these county wide mandates by non-elected officials.
John Saxon
January 12, 2012
The Thumb On Top Of You
The County of Rush has had on the books since 1974, and revised in 2009, rules banning the rights of homeowners to enjoy animals or livestock. This last year an example was made of a family on 3 Mile Road. They were forced to get rid of food chickens and 4-H animals because of Rush County.
The county discriminates people with less than 11 acres. The first acre is for the house, well and septic. They collect money for special exceptions right and left. If you're willing to beg, then pay the appropriate fee, you can then, maybe, have your dream of enjoying your chickens, pigs, etc. on your land.
This is a quote from the Rush county Ordinance. "Zoning also derives from the belief that the individual landowner does not and cannot in todays complex technological society, fully understand how to make safe and efficient use of his.." How do you like those apples? Another quote, "The general trend in zoning has been to maintain certain rights of the individual, but to carefully control them in the hope that his development will not have adverse effects on the society around him". This isn't much better. Do you like being called an incapable sub life form, and someone who does not know how or what you want on your own land? The part that offends me most is that Rush County wants to control and limit rights we are granted by 'hard-fought-for freedoms'. They play good guy, bad guy while being only one entity.
A revised form of the Animal Ordinance has been submitted to Bill Todd. It was proposed so to loosen these controls and clarify the vague ones on the books that have to be interpreted by David Rogier. It was supposed to be discussed at the January 10 meeting. The matter isnt done yet. These are my thoughts to conclude this:
Animal Ordinance
It is lawful to keep, own or have custody of domestic or farm animals within Rush County as long as it doesn't intrude on another's health or safety. Rush County should not profit from the homeowners having animals or limiting the number of animals residing on private property, as to not limit life, liberty and happiness of the use of one's property. There will be no fees assessed to homeowners on animals that homeowners wish to enjoy on their own land. Absolutely no fees will be charged and sent to the County General fund. The rules and regulations of the higher government will take precedent over Rush County's rules and regulations.
Patty Monka
January 11, 2012
Rush County Poultry Meeting #2 - Sound files underlined
Tuesdays Poultry Meeting was held by Area Plan Director, Bill Todd and APC member, Jeff Slaton. No other APC or BZA board members were in attendance. Todd handed out regulation and restriction sheets that he had prepared for the audience attendees, but did not want to discuss the petition/proposal (below), signed by over 100 Rush County residents, because it had not been given to the APC before the meeting.
Three people in the audience who are sympathetic to the APCs position to control chicken and small animal owners were given the majority of the discussion time during the meeting to make recommendations for control. One of Mr. Todd's supporters said she had looked at Richmond's regulations that Todd had given her and she really liked them. Even though her group was greatly outnumbered at the meeting, her agreement with the countys position was favorable to Todd. Todd and his supporters continued their discussion on how they would regulate and limit the poultry and animal owners. Todd followed saying that changing the ordinance in Rushville would never happen and that animals were not allowed in Rushville. However, as a side note, at a BZA meeting in December of last year, Todd granted permission to a Rushville resident to keep and own horses in Rushville as long as he paid for a special exception.
Even though our proposed ordinance does not apply to Carthage, Glenwood or Rushville, because they are incorporated areas and they make their own ordinances, Todd informed the audience that the Towns of Carthage and Glenwood and the City of Rushville will be the governing bodies that will approve or deny any changes to the ordinances for the entire county. These governing bodies place controls on all of Rush Couny's citizens even though they do not represent all of Rush County, only the incorporated areas. The question was asked of what happens if the Carthage Town Board does not like chickens, Todd replied it wont pass.
The State of Indiana already has laws in place regulating the care of animals through the Indiana State Board of Animal Health, and the state does not limit or regulate the ownership of chickens and small animals. This meeting was held only to discuss how Rush County will continue to limit and over-regulate the ownership of poultry and small animals. These county regulations and ordinances will continue to be a method for the county government to create separate classes of citizens. Call Mr. Todd (765-932-3090), and the Rush County Commissioners, Tom Barnes (765-938-3391), Marvin Cole (765-629-2815) and Ken Masters (317-407-1041) and tell them to stop regulating and limiting poultry, small animals and their owners in Rush County.
January 6, 2012
Chicken and Small Animal Ordinance Update
At a Rush County Commissioners meeting held in November 2011, Commissioner Tom Barnes informed APC Director, Bill Todd that he had received several phone calls concerning an individuals right to own chickens, ducks, and other types of fowl. He suggested to Todd that the APC have a meeting with concerned citizens to discuss ways to change the current ordinances. The public APC meeting was held, but the only members of the APC that were in attendance were Mr. Todd and Paid Planner, David Rogier. No other APC board members found the consideration to the public, to attend. Todd and Rogier supplied the citizens with zoning ordinances used to control chicken ownership in surrounding counties and other municipalities as a suggestion to establish updated local control ordinances. Todd also invited the public to present the board with ideas of how to craft a new control ordinance. During a December County Commissioners meeting, Barnes told Todd that due to numerous phone calls, not only did the chicken issue need to be looked at, but also other livestock issues.
We believe that everyone who lives in the unincorporated areas of Rush County have the right to own chickens and small animals regardless of parcel size. We have put together the following ordinance sample. It is being carried around in a petition form to collect signatures and is being received and signed with overwhelming support by the public. The State of Indiana regulates the ownership and care of animals and livestock through the Indiana Sate Board of Animal Health. Rush County over-regulates this right to own through its prohibitive control ordinances. If you have not signed the ordinance but wish to, before it is presented to the County Commissioners, the Area Plan Commission and the Rush County Board of Zoning Appeals, contact us through this website and we will get the petition to you to sign.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Petition To Change Chicken and Small Animal Ordinance
We the undersigned citizens of Rush County, Indiana, petition the Rush County Commissioners, Rush County Area Plan Commission, Rush County Board of Zoning Appeals, and any other local governmental body or agency, to approve and adopt the following ordinance:
Backyard chickens, rabbits and other small animals.
The keeping of fowl, rabbits and other small animals to support personal sources of a sustainable food system by supplying an affordable, nutritious source of fresh eggs and other food products. The keeping of fowl, rabbits and other small animals to provide nitrogen-rich fertilizer and other useful by-products, chemical free pest control, weed control, personal enjoyment and companionship, life skills such as responsibility and animal care, and other valuable benefits.
This regulation is intended to make provisions for the possession and keeping of fowl, rabbits and other small animals, for the conveniences, nutritional needs and other uses, on any and all privately owned properties located in the unincorporated areas of Rush County, Indiana, regardless of parcel or lot size. This regulation excludes dogs and cats.
I. All animals must be cared for in accordance to the regulations set by the Indiana State Board of Animal Health.
II. All fowl, rabbits and other small animals shall be secured to the lot or property by a fence of substantial construction to contain the fowl, rabbits or small animals.
III. Excrement and waste from the fowl and other small animals shall not be allowed to contaminate any adjoining property, whether through natural acts such as weather, or the physical transportation of the excrement and waste to the adjoining properties.
IV. A structure within the area of containment shall be utilized to afford shelter for the fowl, rabbits and other small animals. The placement or construction of such shelter shall not require building permits or building inspections other than those required by the Indiana State Board of Animal Health.
V. The lot or containment area and shelter shall be maintained in an odor-free and sanitary condition as required by the Indiana State Board of Animal Health.
VI. It is understood that fowl and small animals make noise. However, unreasonable, perceptive fowl and small animal noise shall not be loud enough to be offensive.
This ordinance shall supercede and replace any prior existing ordinance pertaining to fowl, rabbits and other small animals contained in the Rush County Zoning Ordinances.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
January 4, 2012
No Matter What They Say, It's Business As Usual - Really?
The minutes that are taken during the public meetings never contain the actual words and phrases that are spoken. At best, the minutes are a quick interpretation of comments that are made, written hastily and loosely. This opens the way to “isn't that what was said” or “the minutes need changed to this because I said ….” or my favorite “are you sure you want the minutes say what you said or what you really should have said”. Meeting minutes are not intended to create a group of future liars, they are intended to take an accurate record of the event at a particular time. Until now, the only sources for information of the workings of local government that the citizens and residents of Rush County had were the handwritten notes by the County Auditor, the local newspaper and occasionally the former radio station.
I asked the County Commissioners last summer and again this fall to consider moving the meetings to a time in the evening when it would be easier for the citizens and residents to attend.* It never happened, citing that nobody would come or the commissioners, auditor and department heads had other things to do. Since the county has its own Information Technology Department, and since the commissioners wouldn't move the meetings to a constant or rotating time that would be more convenient for the public to attend, I repeatedly asked the commissioners, if the county would consider recording the meetings and posting them in an MP3 format on the county website so anyone who could not attend the meetings could at least, listen to them. County Commissioner, Tom Barnes said they would have their I.T. guy “look into it" and the County Auditor said the equipment to do this would cost the county $4000 and it was not in her budget. Needless to say, it never happened. Until now.
What your county elected officials didn't want to do because they felt it “cost too much” is now being done for around $45, not $4000. But that's the difference between the way government and a common citizen look at spending money to fix a problem. The need to spread the information to the citizens was always there, the government wouldn't take a “common sense" approach to do it in a cost effective manner. But why not? Was it really about the monetary cost or does the government only want to make the information available through its established channels? If so, this meant, once again, the public was left with the only antiquated sources of information and sometimes, misinformation, available. I'm not saying that I will be able to attend every meeting and post them to the website. I am not at the courthouse daily nor at every meeting. However, I will do my best to keep you informed.
John Saxon
* http://www.rushcounty.in.gov/documentFiles/430.pdf
NIGHT MEETINGS.
John Saxon questioned the commissioners if any discussion has been held to moving some of the meetings to the evenings. Tom Barnes stated that currently no plans have been made as history has already revealed this.
Saxon questioned if the commissioners would record the meetings so that they could be posted. It was responded that there are no plans.
Deborah Adams stated that she has researched the cost of a recording unit for the purpose recording of the minutes and making tabs of the history to allow easy research of a topic of discussion. Adams estimated the cost to be approximately $4,000.00 and she could not justify the expense.
January 3, 2012
Rush County Commissioner's Meeting
To help keep you informed of what the Rush County government officials are doing, the following links are MP3 files of the January 3, 2012, Rush County Commissioner's Meeting.
Commissioner Tom Barnes Comments
Milroy Property, Hodges Branch & A.D.A. Discussion
Copyright 2012
Content cannot be reproduced without permission.
The opinions expressed by the authors are exercised as Freedom of Speech and not necessarily the opinion of the website owner.