I just talked to Frank and he is not going to be available tonight or through the weekend due to being out of town.

We did have a pretty good conversation and here is what was said.

The water dept took out a bond (loan) from a bonding company he said in the 80s and has a 12k monthly payment on it. Five percent interest. It seems it has about 10 years left. I'm not sure if we are in arrears but he says we can't prepay without a penalty. A grant to pay it off would likely involve prepayment penalties. But 5% is not so bad and if we can have enough income I can't see any problem with continuing that. Ragsdale likely will require a standpipe as it doesn't have enough pressure at the fire

hydrants. We do have a booster pump but it doesn't solve the problem.

To understand the background information would require a complete written water dept financial statement which we as the public don't have or at least have not been made aware of. To gain support for a rate increase should make this mandatory.

We discussed a possible minimum water and sewage bill for properties that have their water shut off and he (and likely the city) is of the opinion that banks, heirs and investors could not care less what happens to the vacant properties. And wouldn't be likely to pay anything. I reminded him that from my experience with bank owned properties the first thing that is done is to be sure the electricity is on so the sump pump will run and the basement not flood into the furnace and water heater. And that water according to our city is supposed to go to the sewage plant by ordinance. This should not be. Seep (basement) water should find it's way to the storm sewers or ditches. Banks, heirs and investors do care what happens to their properties and likely will pay if forced to. This prod to keep a house occupied really should be used. I suggested this four years ago but it was ignored. These buildings if run down and affecting values of surrounding buildings and houses are in violation of a Neighborhood Distressed Properties Act now State Law which allows the city to rehab or maintain and bill the property owner on his tax bills for the work. There are probably other ways to collect too and it seems so much better than allowing something to rot down completely and the only remedy is to demolish it. (At city expense). Likely would help to keep our population up too.

The $750 water tap in fee is to cover costs as we apparently lost a bit doing them for $125. Vincennes is $350. The city is likely wanting to keep the option to veto allowing a trailer in even if Area Planning is willing to issue a permit.

I suspect the big"tap in" fee is part of this thinking.

I might be wrong but I think we gave up that option when we signed on to the County Master Plan of the Area Planning Commission. I think there are investors wanting lots to sit trailers on so this could have big consequences either way. To me we need more people in town to share utilities, pay taxes, use local businesses, send more kids to our schools and possibly become permanent residents.

Frank does care about the community and I think he can be an outstanding councilperson.

Ron Ackman