The Jefferson County Board of Commissioners voted Sept. 4 to accept a settlement the agenda described as the Chafo settlement agreement, resolving state- and federal-court claims tied to an enforcement action over an alleged commercial shooting range. County counsel told commissioners the agreement provides for a $125,000 payment and mutual dismissals of the related lawsuits.

County Attorney (unnamed) told the board the settlement "outlines payment of $125,000 as full and final settlement of all claims held by the Jefferson County Planning Commission in the state court action." He said the county will execute a satisfaction of the judgment currently entered in state court and that the parties have agreed the state-court injunction prohibiting operation of commercial shooting ranges will survive dismissal of the state-court case. The attorney said the agreement relies on the definition of “shooting range” in the county’s Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) and that the UDO allows incidental shooting on private property.

Under the terms reported by the county attorney, the property owners named in the agreement have represented they have remedied the alleged violations and that structures on the property are not used as a commercial shooting range. The attorney said an outbuilding referenced in the enforcement action has since received a building permit and is now in compliance. He said the settling parties also agreed to mutual releases of claims originating from this enforcement action, and that the agreement reserves the right to seek attorney fees, expenses or costs if there is a future violation of the continuous enforcement order or injunction.

The attorney said the executed settlement is governed by Indiana law and that federal-court counsel for the county — identified in the meeting as Mr. Low — reviewed the documents. The county attorney said the settlement anticipates filing a satisfaction of judgment and mutual dismissals in both state and federal court to effectuate the agreement, and that the document was executed on Aug. 15, 2020, according to the copy the county provided.

Commissioner A moved to accept the settlement agreement and release; Commissioner B seconded. The board proceeded with a voice vote and the chair called the ayes. There were no recorded nay votes in the meeting transcript.

Discussion recorded in the meeting focused on the substantive terms identified above; no additional motions or conditions were added during the commissioners’ action. The county attorney indicated standard contract provisions (nonadmission of liability, severability, indemnification and further assurance clauses) are included in the written agreement.

The board did not provide additional public-comment testimony on this agenda item during the meeting. Next steps described by county staff were to have the proper satisfaction and mutual-dismissal documents filed in the respective courts.

Ending: The board approved acceptance of the settlement and instructed staff to execute the paperwork to effectuate the satisfaction of judgment and dismissals described in the agreement.