Notes from the field:
Meeting of Land Owners 4/27/03 & 4/28/03

May 8, 2003

On April 27, 2003, Lilly invited landowners on Davis Road and west of Meridian Road to a meeting at the High School about their upcoming plans for expansion in Greenfield. On April 28, they made a similar presentation to landowners along Meridian Road Lilly presented layouts of the present facility and work in progress. They said their current "asset base" in Greenfield would grow from $300 million to $400 million. However, they did not present a layout or details of the improvements which comprise the “$125 million” Expansion nor a project time line for each of those improvements.

But, upon investigation, records at the State Building Commission show that without having acquired Davis or Meridian Roads, Lilly obtained permits for Security Console G229 in Greenfield consisting of 1,925 square feet on August 14, 2002 and a 24,000 square foot office building for Plant, Engineering and Maintenance G210 in Greenfield on April 9, 2003.

The Problem - "SECURITY"

The problem, Lilly says, is that as a result of the tragedy of September 11, 2001, local government emergency plans and corporate plans for security have come into focus. David O’Donnell, Facilities Manager of the Greenfield Plant, referred to the USA Today April 18, 2003 article headlining potential lax corporate security at some private-sector firms. However, the article does not indicate Lilly was among those who were lax. O'Donnell continued that Senior Management had given them a challenge to “achieve security” – not just in Greenfield, but also Clinton and the Corporate Center.

Contrary though to Mr. O’Donnell’s implication of 9/11 in Lilly's reasoning to close the road, Lilly already knew by at least 1998 if not before that they wanted to close Davis Road to complete their vision for the “Golden Rectangle” in Greenfield. That desire was made known at Lilly headquarters in 1998 by a Lilly executive. For reasons other than 9/11, Lilly clearly has long wanted to close at least Davis Road. Therefore, they would surely commission an architectural study with this in mind.

Further evidence of obfuscation appears in O'Donnell's reply to questioning during the November 2002, Good Neighbor Meeting held by Lilly at their facility for adjacent landowners. Asked directly by a landowner if roads would be closed O'Donnell replied, "no". O’Donnell now denies that he failed to reveal the road closing. This owner replied at the April 27, 2003 meeting, “Now you say [this] plan was on board since 2000?”

The Solution - OUR ROADS

Mr. O’Donnell had in hand a bound color security study by HOK, an international architectural firm which he implied was prepared after 9/11. It is not clear when this study was commissioned, begun or completed. We asked to put it on the Web, but that was declined. He held the bound study up at a distance and pointed to a page illustrating fence options from split rail at the bottom of the page to a 20' high “gestapo” fence at the top of the page, and he said “Of course, we wouldn’t put in a 20" high fence”.

However, the USA Today article speaks of “tougher security fence, emergency drills, control of unescorted visitors, visitor screening, searching incoming deliveries and scrutiny of bags, special communication links with the FBI and Homeland Security, cutting the usage of certain chemicals, keeping squad cars around, improved exterior lighting and computer monitored security patrol”. Even though the article highlighted the vulnerability of chemical facilities where huge quantities of chemicals are made and stored, there was no suggestion of closing roads adjacent to corporate facilities. Later in the meeting, it was suggested by the landowners that if the choice were a 20' high fence or closing the road, the high fence would be better than closing the roads.

Mr. O’Donnell then moved into his discussion of the proposed plan to park employees out to a distant parking lot on the west side of Meridian and put a single entrance on Meridian. Explaining the desire for a single entrance on Meridian, he said that they now have a porous plant site with several entries. He held up and described a drawing from the HOK architectural study illustrating concentric zones of increasing security. He implied this plan was part of their proposal, but he never explained why this plan of concentric zones could only be accomplished by taking our roads. Further, he did not explain why, with over 1,650 acres at their disposal, the proposed single entrance could only be on Meridian Road. Nor did he explain why they cannot currently move to a single entrance design, perhaps by constructing tunnels under or overpasses over the present roads at less cost than the value of the roads to the community.

For perimeter protection it was suggested - without reply - that it would seem they might just be moving the problem farther out. One might wonder if the more remote the perimeter, the more resources required to secure it with perhaps diminishing success. Lilly will always have a perimeter and a security problem. Closing the roads will not change that. In a world of choices, it would seem Lilly would rather have their perimeter be a public road along a remote farm field that can be surveilled and patrolled over a perimeter abutting a future subdivision that might have far more security implications.

Specifically, Lilly proposes to ask the County for Meridian Road from the railroad bed on Meridian to Meridian Acres subdivision – then to ask the City for the road from the railroad bed to US 40. By the time they have acquired the rest of Meridian Road, it will make the City portion relatively useless to anyone but Lilly.

Further, closing Meridian Road is their proposed solution to the perceived vulnerability of gas lines and oil storage which Lilly elected to locate too close, in their view, to the Meridian Road perimeter. When asked about moving these lines, Mr. O’Donnell’s reply was that, “it would cost a lot of money”. When asked what that cost would be so that we could compare that cost with the value of these roads to the people, he had no idea. Although asked these many direct questions about optional solutions to closing the roads, they provided no answers.

The Stick - INEFFECTUAL VEILED THREATS

O’Donnell said although there is no plan to move the present facility, in order for Senior Management to give us consideration for the future $125 million expansion, we need to put security in “most attractive light.” “Unless there is improved security, we don’t know what will happen in the future.”

However, Lilly's Greenfield Laboratories facility is the only Lilly facility that does toxicology in Indiana, and the only Lilly facility that does animal studies in the United States according to Mark Saltzgaver, Lilly Facilities Manager. Further, Lilly has already designed, engineered and obtained a permit from the State for two buildings for the future expansion without any assurance of the road closing. And, they have also obtained formal tax abatement resolutions from the County Council. Lilly's actions alone belie their words: expansion appears inevitable with or without roads.

The Carrot - ECONOMIC BENEFIT TO COUNTY

Lilly’s property tax payments in 2002 were 3% of the total County. Since Lilly says they are here to stay in Greenfield, the present 3% payment will not change regardless of the decision about the roads.

When asked about a tax abatement on these upcoming facilities for Lilly, O’Donnell said the tax abatement would be only for personal property not realty. However, this may be a misunderstanding because the County Council approved a tax abatement for Lilly on new improvements - buildings - and certain equipment which will allow them to ask for an abatement for each building and to pay no taxes when the building and certain equipment come on line and phase in the tax payment over 10 years.

By the time Lilly is finished with the entire improvement it could easily be 15 years or more from now before they would pay 100% property taxes on some new buildings. Step One, a building would have to be completed - on Lilly’s schedule. Step Two, the building would be assessed - which takes time. Then after all this occurs, there would be no payment of taxes on that completed building and certain equipment for the first year and the taxes on that building would not go to 100% until 10 years from the first year’s tax liability – sometime, perhaps years from now. Each building as it comes on line would go through the same process.

Saltzgaver, was asked if he would personally guarantee an economic benefit to the County – in writing if we give Lilly the roads. His answer was that we should look at the history – Lilly and Greenfield. However, Lilly’s history has changed. The history of Lilly was no layoffs and profitable years. But now, according to the Greenfield Daily Reporter, April 23, 2003, there have been job cuts and earnings declines, just like the rest of them. This is a new Lilly.

In Indianapolis, the City did cartwheels for United including tax abatements, and that is over. Hancock County could face the same end. Due to "circumstances beyond their control" - some of their growth projections could change and dramatically. However, our roads will be gone with certainty. They want ownership of the roads in exchange for our hope for something of marginal and uncertain value.

IMMEDIATE EFFECTS

Property Value

What happens to the value of properties - homes and farms - along the borders – even from the cloud of this road closing possibility? Lilly says their corporate real estate group has commissioned a study. They have appraised adjacent landowner properties with and without closure. It is now understood that the study is to be by Greg and Michael Lady of Indianapolis. One should ask do they do a considerable amount of work for Lilly, and do they hope to enjoy more in the future?

Concern about diminishing land values was high and most vocally expressed by the Meridian Road landowners. One participant said – Lilly is “building an empire - putting money in its pocket, but ruining home values of adjacent landowners and others that would be affected by a road closing - Lilly gets betterment of their facility but leaves citizens on [the] losing end”.

Disrupted Lives

Dead end issues were a very high focus of both groups, with concerns being:

• Total loss of convenience and ease of going to town frequently during one day and other nearby destinations for them and for their children’s activities - an important reason for their original purchase. Driving distances of up to 5 times the mileage and time for owners to achieve the numerous events of daily living which often necessitate (especially in families with children) - several trips a day to town and nearby facilities.
  
• Slower emergency responses of fire, ambulance, and police because of exponentially increased distances. Several cited specific instances where prompt emergency response was life saving to them or a neighbor.
  
• Unattractive entry approach to property via end of fenced dead ends.
  
• Isolation - feeling and appearance that they did not choose.
  
• Crime - With little traffic and no public surveillance along these long desolate roads there were concerns that criminals could conceal themselves.
  
• Snow removal and other road maintenance by County - lack of priority for those on dead ends.
  
• School bus turn around issues – Lilly said they spoke with the official responsible and will resolve.

Lilly's Response:

• Cul de sacs are often first to sell in subdivisions according to Ron Pritzke.
  However, it was pointed out that the Hancock County Ordinance limits subdivision cul de sacs to 1300' (which may change to 8 subdivision lots). Cul de sacs are now greatly restricted in length by most communities due to issues of accessibility of emergency services. The long dead end roads are totally different in character from cul de sacs in residential subdivisions in that in a subdivision there is cohesive occupancy and residential use throughout their length. These dead ends would be very long desolate country roads into dead ends to one or more properties. Owners made the point while they had options at purchase, they did not chose isolated property. As one of the Meridian residents pointed out “this is different” – not only would this proposed “dead end on Meridian be long” but “going away from town” - the wrong way.
  
• Lilly analogized the effect on landowners of the “land mass” Lilly would create at Meridian and Davis to the “land mass” of Mt. Comfort Airport.
  However, landowners pointed out that when the Airport was developed some years ago, the surrounding land was farm ground and not residences and subdivisions. Further, it is notable that Mt. Comfort Airport is a public facility funded by the public and available to the public, not comparable to private for - their - profit corporate interests as owner/user.
  
• Lilly also cited the acquisition of property for I-70 which resulted in dead ends without explaining the point.
  Note however, that this was for a public purpose of such magnitude that the government had the power of eminent domain, and the government ended up the owner and the people the users not a private corporation – owner/user.
  
• At the first meeting, some landowners at the end of Davis Road closest to 150 West found closure not objectionable because the actual dead end would be east of them and would lessen traffic, and they are close to 150W which is their artery.
  
• Storm Drainage and other surface water and drainage issues were brought up. In 2001 or before, the County Surveyor commissioned a study by Samuel Moore (now CTE) in Indianapolis at the expense of the County. This study has never culminated in any published results that the taxpayers who funded this study could review.

Compensation to Landowners

At the first meeting, a Davis Road landowner said “if Lilly brings in their representative as to the effect on value of my property, can we bring in ours for second opinion?” Lilly said he had a right to counter, and that “we want to be sure you not suffer damages” further that “Lilly as a good neighbor should make up damages”. At the meeting of Meridian Road landowners, many landowners said they would rather sell out to Lilly and move before their property was further devalued, Lilly suggested they come up with a plan.

Traffic

A traffic study for Lilly has been done by Walker Research (not the one in Indianapolis) about which we could find no background. We have since been told by Mark Saltzgaver, Facility Manager, that this is a national traffic survey company. Mr. Saltzgaver has agreed to furnish background of this company.

• Lilly says the traffic count was “about 90 an hour on both roads”. This traffic study was “done in July”. Participants asked whether kids would be going to soccer at City Park then. Note that school would be out in July and many families on vacation.
  
• According to Lilly, this study will be using traffic projections extrapolated to 2012 and show all intersections to be “A” or “B” and that “anything above” a “C” or “D” is “OK”. We asked for it to be published to the Web for all to see, and the answer was negative – that it is done on a special program.
  
• In regard to US 40, when asked how many cars will enter the one entrance off US 40, O’Donnell said that he didn’t know, but they have 800 employees, and they have flex hours. When asked what happens during Riley Days or a traffic accident on US 40 - and we no longer have 100 South, he suggested using 200 South.
  
• Lilly was asked about their one entrance evacuation plan in case of a disaster.

LEGAL PROCEDURE

It was explained that there is a required public notice and that the Commissioners must set a public hearing within 30 days of filing the Petition. When asked due to the level of public interest involved - whether the notice in the Greenfield Daily Reporter could be published in a more readable, larger font and more noticeable section in the paper than in the Legal Notices columns, Mr. Pritzke declined the request. Further, owners have expressed a desire for an evening hearing so that it would not interfere with their employment.

NOTE: emphasis indicates comments or events not addressed during the meeting