Dear Ms. Purtzer

I am very disappointed to receive your letters dated August 20, 2015 addressing the Blight Elimination Program (BEP) issues this late in the game. I cannot believe that after 3 months you are just now following up and indicating that there is a short time frame and problems. I voluntarily brought projects to you that I have no interest in except to assist the BEP process. Mr. Ron Beane and several of his associates, I think you were there, met with me in May and supposedly were going to take off from where I left off. You were going to contact the end users and take care of all the necessary arangements.

Our meeting was on May 7th and the following individuals were in attendance: George Lumley, Kimberly Moore, Ron Beane, June Maples, Jane Reel and Beth Purtzer. I received each of your emails concerning each property and began researching each property at that time. Several of the properties you submitted were “no sales” from the 2014 Tax Sale and we had to wait to see if the properties were redeemed or acquired by the County, which did not occur until July 2015.

The public announcement 7/29/2015 of the notice of successful application and notice of public hearing even listed these properties on Egmont and Dennison as part of the grant award.

The addresses listed on the Public Notice for the Hearing are addresses we are planning on submitting to IHCDA for approval as substitutes for our program for properties which have been dropped off for various reasons. It is a requirement of the program to have public hearings for all properties to be included in the program. We added these to our Public Hearing listing to expedite the process once the property is acquired by a Program Partner and approved by the state. The Blight Elimination Program is not a grant from the state. It is a reimbursement based program and all approved expenses are paid after review and approval from IHCDA.

You indicate that one of the problems is a lack of Program Partner and cite my email of May 21 2015. In that very Email I volunteer to be the program partner if you have no other. I do not understand this apparent lack of cooperation with your office and the public. Why do you wait three months and then start making excuses and pawn the grant program administrative work off on individual property end-users when the grant provided that specific funding?

You most certainly can become a Program Partner with the City for these properties and we would be glad to review the process necessary to achieve this. We currently have (2) Program Partners who are individual citizens, who are adjacent owners to the blighted properties. All of the documentation to become a Program Partner is compiled by our department. I included an information document with the letters to these individuals who according to you want to become Program Partners outlining the requirements from IHCDA. (copy attached) Once the Program Partner supplies us with the documentation needed to submit to the state, we begin the process. The Program Partner will have to sign several documents and agreements (provided by IHCDA, which we create for them) but other than these signatures, there is very little “administrative” work they need to do to become a Program Partner.

**In addition, In May I had Identified program partners for each property. Most were to be the end recipient of the property. It was your suggestion that rather than have multiple program partners that you would blanket these projects within another program partner – the Brownfields Corp. Why have you reversed this position this late in the game? Are the brownfields no longer interested in working with residents of the Howell community in fighting blight?

The Evansville Brownfields Corporation was not in attendance at the May meeting and has not been contacted by anyone regarding these properties. They are currently working with many adjacent owners across the city to help numerous neighborhoods clean up their areas.

You propose to the Zenthoffers that 2 of the lots be valued at $5,0000 in trade for other real-estate. This is ridicules because lots in this neighborhood are currently worthless liabilities. Two of the lots in my proposals, referenced in these letters were sold at the tax sale for $25.00 and are headed there again. The city has had to pay to pick up trash and limbs from these lots just to mow them for two years now. Lots are liabilities on these two streets and we are lucky that someone in the neighborhood is willing to take them out of the tax sale system and save the city and county the maintenance expense not to mention that they will also be generating tax revenues. These lots do not even join the Zenthoffer’s property, they only volunteered to assist there small community. If everyone in Evansville would step up like they have we would not have a blight problem. I don’t know the Zenthoffers but Noting the Purple Heart license plate on their vehicle indicates they support their country and city. How can you justify considering two lots no one wants worth $5000.? Please explain?

The $5,000 asking price information came directly from your May 21st email (see attached). My understanding from your email was that Mr. Zenthofer “will not move from his requested $5,000 sales price”. During the review of the emails and information you provided to us, we determined that Mr. Zenthofer was not only asking to acquire (2) properties but also asking that a property he currently owned (2837 Egmont) be included in the BEP and transferred to the adjacent owners. We felt it was a fair offer to ask him to forgo this purchase price for the (2) properties he is requesting and to assist him in the demolition of a blighted property he currently owns.

You indicate that getting title from Vanderburgh County is a time consuming problem. Vanderburgh County is actually a Collaborative participant in this program are they not? The original grant list them as contributing a ten percent local match to the state grant. The projects I have presented require the simplest of title transfers. We are not building a millionaire’s car lot here. Just because you haven’t done something a particular way before does not mean that you cannot. Based on our meeting in May, DMD, as the program manager was going to contact the County to make the title arrangement. I believe there was a county representative at the meeting. I do not understand why you are now asking the people, who stepped up to volunteer an end use to the property, to contact the County. The Funding for this legwork is in the grant, why are you now asking each individual participant to do this work?

The original application for this program required the City to match the requested dollar amount by 10%. This was achieved in various ways. One was for Vanderburgh County to waive the back property taxes. This is the only connection to this program that Vanderburgh County has. There is no process in the application for acquisition/transfer of properties from the county. DMD as well as individuals can certainly obtain title from Vanderburgh County according to state statute, which dictates time frame, process and other details. However, if DMD acquires a property for BEP, clearing the title is another matter. For example, DMD acquired several properties in 2014 from the 2013 “No Sale” list from the County and began quiet title action in October 2014. Quieting the title and subsequent transfer of the majority of the properties did not occur until June 2015, as a matter of fact one of them is still not complete. It’s the quieting (clearing) of the title that takes significant time.

At our meeting in may I volunteered to help in any way.  Why did you wait 3 months to contact me?

DMD manages multiple responsibilities which the BEP is only one. We are in the middle of our second bid group of properties for demolition and have been concentrating on these properties for the past several months. We have deadlines in place to expend our allotted funds and need to spend our time and resources on properties our Program Partners currently own that can be demolished soon. The state requires us to have 50% of our allotted Round One funds expended by October 26th, 2015 and 100% of the Round One funds must be expended by April 25th, 2016.

Did the Brownfields drop the ball on this project because it is not in one of their select areas or involving the right political connections. The brownfields are currently asking for a $1.7 million dollar check from the city to fund a land bank. This is the total blight fighting funding and initiative proposed by the Mayor. IF we cannot depend on the Brownfields to be a simple program partner for ten properties in the Howell community why would the city want to give them all our blight fighting resources, $1.7 million, just to spend without supervision?

The Evansville Brownfields Corp. (EBC) has never been contacted about the properties you refer to in Howell, nor was any representative of the organization present when we met in May. As a matter of fact, if the City Council decides to fund city-wide land banking as requested, the EBC could do far more than BEP for Howell and other neighborhoods within the city regardless of location, program partner, with less red tape, etc.

Please, as time is of the essence, respond ASAP. I will be available to meet with you or other members of DMD/Building commission to work out these roadblocks (that someone has placed) on Tuesday Thru Thursday this week. Email or call me.

Sincerely

George Lumley

Blight Volunteer

The City Budget Season is upon us. It is hard to comprehend that over one year ago, Mr. Hedden partner of the Umbaugh & Associates, CPA group suggested that our City institute a “Spending Plan”  The Winnecke Administration never presented from July of 2014 to now any specifics on that recommended “Spending Plan”.   we were supplied a tweet from the Mayors Chief of Staff,  Steve Scheafer that the “Spending Plan” was the 2016 proposed budget?

After reviewing the fiscal year ending June 30. 2015, the operational funds declined by $9 million dollars compared to a decline of $5.9 million  dollars for the same period ending June 30, 2014.  Obviously, we have had an approximate shortfall issue of $9.0 million  dollars which has proven to be the exact amount of overspending deficit the Administration has been recording over the last three years. an average of $9 million of deficient spending in the operational funds.

The composite of total spending in the the 2016 budget for the City is $205,000,000 and the revenue estimates are $209,000,000.  It appears that City have a surplus under the way.  In 2014 the Winnecke Administration estimated that our revenues to be $202,000,000 but we only collected $185,000,000, a  collection rate of 92% . In 2013, the estimates were $198,000,000 but we collected only $180,000,000, a collection rate of 91%. History has proven, between 90% to 92% collection rate should be expected. In review of our proposed budget as presented.   the actual revenues collected would be approximately $190,000,000 and the expenditures as presented are $205,000,000 a mere $15,000,000 out of balance budget.

Mayor Winnecke boosted that he spent $5 million dollars less than what the City Council authorized him to spend in 2014.  We should expect him to make the same claim in 2016.   Consequently,  City  Council  been patiently waiting for that “Spending Plan” that Mr. Schaefer’s tweeted that stated “it’s in our budget.”

Could an alternative “Spending Plan” actually could be a  “Revenue Enhancement Plan”?  Mr. Lloyd indicated to City Council that “Fees and Licenses” were going to be considered.   Could an increase in the County “Income Tax Rate” be up for consideration?

What a dreadful notion that Evansville could  follows the lead of Ft. Wayne and raise  the “County Option Tax Rate”.

Based on the above facts, that  City Council has much to consider concerning the 2016 City budget.

Respectfully Submitted,

John E. Friend, CPA

5th Ward City Council

© 2015 Microsoft Terms Privacy & cookies Developers English (United States)