A Spotlight On Ethics
The June 5th meeting of the Dayton Town Council ended with one member having a spotlight on his ethics, reported WLFI. A Fiscal Plan which was prepared to inform the council, townspeople, and real estate developers of the viability of a proposal to develop a neighborhood of only 110 homes priced in a range of $275,000 to $400,000 was presented to the council in May. The Fiscal Plan is a prescribed step in the course of annexation, zoning, and development approval. The council voted 4-1 in favor of accepting the Fiscal Plan.
Council member Ron Koehler was the only one to vote against it. He has been against the annexation since it was first brought up months ago. He provided a slew of yard signs which read "Stop the Annexation" and ensured that they were plentiful on properties owned by his family. Or, is he only against annexation by the current developers, a group of county residents he has known for over a dozen years?
The following letter says Koehler has applied to buy land where the proposed annexation would be. "It is certainly inappropriate for a town council member to be offering. In fact, it was an offer to buy property that's under contract." noted Ryan Munden, representing the developers.
This information is provided as a public service, and as a challenge to those who suggest, with no evidence of any sort other than hearsay, that the other four council members are colluding with landowners and developers. Think very carefully of the source of such information, and especially consider the lack of proof. Or, if you know of such written or hidden video camera evidence, please educate the rest of us.
To: M &C Development, LLC
From: Nancy G. Mills, President, Jan Inc.
I thought you might be interested in some detail of a conversation I had with Mr. Ron Koehler in late February.
I was contacted by Mr. Koehler regarding the proposed land sale of approximately 55 acres of land held by Jan Inc. Mr. Koehler had several issues that he discussed with me on this proposed development. They were as follows:
1. The number of house that are proposed to be built on this land. He expressed his concern that this was too many houses for the acreage. He wanted to see homes built on one acre plus or minus lots.
2. He wanted me to know that M & C Development was not going to be building all of the homes in the proposed development. He said Dayton did not want a subdivision that looks like the subdivision that looked like the one behind the Wal-Mart on Veterans' Memorial Parkway.
3. Mr. Koehler wanted to know if we would entertain an offer to purchase the land for someone
other than M & C Development. He indicated that he had several investors that were interested
in putting together a proposal.
I told Mr. Koehler that the family had looked at the proposed development and we felt it would be a nice addition to Dayton. The homes would be quality homes and even if there were other builders there would be certain standards that the homes must meet.
I was a surprised by his comment regarding some investors wanting to put together a proposal. This land has been farm ground for years and other than the proposal to develop the land ten plus years ago no one has contacted Jan Inc about their interest in selling the land.
I told Mr. Koehler that the 55 acres was under contract and we would be honoring that contract. If he wanted to put together a proposal for the rest of the land we would be open to any reasonable offer.
After my conversation with Mr. Koehler I did contact our Broker, Mr. Alan Orr, to inform him that I was contacted by Mr., Koehler and fill him in on the conversation. I also discussed this with my youngest brother. His comment was isn't that a conflict of interest?
After attending the hearing in Dayton and thought about his comment and thought I should inform you about the phone conversation I had with Mr. Koehler. I am wondering if Mr. Koehler has his own agenda for this land and that is why he is fighting it so hard.
Nancy. G. Mills