| | Back | Home | Email | Search | Weather | | |||||||||||||
|
Board of Commissioners April 30, 2001 The Vanderburgh County Board of Commissioners
met in session this 30th day of April 2001 at 6:16 p.m. in Room
307 of the Civic Center Complex with President Mosby presiding.
President Mosby: I would like to call
to order the Board of Commissioners meeting of Vanderburgh County for April
30, 2001. We have present tonight Tammy Mc Kinney, Superintendent of Buildings;
Counselor, Phil Hayes; Commissioner Fanello; myself, Commissioner Mosby;
Commissioner Mourdock; Auditor, Suzanne Crouch; and Recording Secretary,
Madelyn Grayson. I understand that it is the County Engineer's birthday
tonight, so if he would stand and lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance.
I could have asked this group to sing to you.
President Mosby: Do I have a motion to approve the minutes? Commissioner Mourdock: I will make a motion. Commissioner Fanello: Second. President Mosby: I have a motion and
a second. So ordered.
President Mosby: Dennis Woehler. I see that you are with us tonight (inaudible). Dennis Woehler: Commissioners, thank
you for giving me the opportunity to speak. Just, last week I was supposed
to have been here, I would like to apologize. I called and left a message,
unfortunately from my car phone (inaudible) the office and I left a message
for Tammy at ten minutes till six, but that is not a good time to leave
it. Actually, I was kind of disappointed that Commissioner Mosby's cell
phone wasn't listed in the directory. For the record, (inaudible).
President Mosby: I was going to say, you are the only one (inaudible). Dennis Woehler: I just wanted to recap real quick here, since the first of the year when ONB became agents, if my calculations are correct, I believe (inaudible) been doing business now at the Civic Center for (inaudible). For the biggest part it was administrative issues, met with your capable Auditor, Ms. Crouch, a couple of times and we have ironed out a lot of administrative things, which, hopefully, have made things run a lot smoother. I can't say enough about what Madelyn and her new counterpart Charlene have done. Any of you who get a chance to stop by and thank them, they are the biggest reason why things run as smoothly as they do. With that, I will get down to the couple of items that I wanted to mention here this evening. First of all, we negotiated a renewal with American United Life on your life insurance, and I gave you all a copy in advance so that, basically, they have agreed to a two year rate guarantee with no increase in premium. Normally, you know, as your groups census changes and ages, they like to increase those premiums, but your experience has been pretty good. They are going to hold their rates for another two years. Then the other item on the agenda was the Anthem Refund Agreement, and assuming that, I'm assuming you all are familiar with that, last year you received a refund in the neighborhood of $25,000. Now, this year you are going to double that, the refund. I was hoping to have a check by this evening to present you, it should be here any day, the refund amount available was $51,574.00. Now, just to update you, the reason for that refund agreement is that your experience compared to the premiums you pay has been reasonable. They always retain about a third of what is your money in a contingency plan, and they pay you interest on it, but that is for claims that may have been incurred but not yet paid. Now, should you ever discontinue the plan, whatever is left in that fund after that specified period of time they save it for, will be yours. They don't keep it, you don't have to surrender it if you change companies. I'm certain it is always nice for the county to get money back. I know that you all, I have also met with Teri Lukeman, and we are beginning to work on the preliminary numbers for the 2002 budget, and my understanding is that they need to be here by the 16th, and they will be. We will make every effort to provide you the most cost effective plans possible, without sacrificing the quality of care for the county's employees. I know that you all have a tremendous workload trying to run the county, and we know it is not always easy, so we will do our part and do our best to at least help keep health coverage from being one of your problems. That's all I have for this evening, thank you. Commissioner Fanello: Thank you, Dennis. President Mosby: Thank you very much. Dennis Woehler: I should mention that I also used some of Mr. Hayes' time in this transition. Philip Hayes: That's why I was asking, did it do us any good? Dennis Woehler: Yes, I think everything is under control. President Mosby: Okay, good. Commissioner Mourdock: Do we need to formally take action as to whether or not we look to that $51,000 as a refund, or that we roll it over in some other way? Just kind of reading the footnote here. Suzanne Crouch: Historically it's been deposited into the General Fund. Commissioner Mourdock: Okay. Since there were several options given on the piece of paper that you provided us then, I would move that we go ahead and plan on receiving that check and roll it into the General Fund as recommended by the Auditor. Commissioner Fanello: Second. President Mosby: I have a motion and a second. So ordered. Is there any other questions for Dennis? You can come back next week if you've got more money. Dennis Woehler: Alright. President Mosby: We take checks at
every meeting.
President Mosby: Marvaline Prince. Marvaline Prince: Here from the Indiana Legal Services on behalf of Mr. James Blincoe, Jr., poor relief hearing. Is Mr. Mosby going to be here? Philip Hayes: The relief hearing won't be conducted here. The law as I understand it, Marvaline, requires that the County Attorney set up and conduct a hearing- Marvaline Prince: You can appoint a hearing officer. Philip Hayes: Yes, and that ordinarily,
the County Attorney has been doing that job.
Marvaline Prince: Okay, so when are we going to do that? Commissioner Mourdock: Let me do it formally- Philip Hayes: I will defer to the board- Commissioner Mourdock: -I will move that we assign the County Attorney as the hearing officer in this case. Commissioner Fanello: Second. President Mosby: I have a motion and a second. So ordered. Commissioner Mourdock: I would move that the County Attorney schedule a convenient date with the petitioner and report back to this board next week. Commissioner Fanello: Second. Commissioner Mourdock: So with that- Marvaline Prince: So, when do we want to do that, Mr. Hayes? Philip Hayes: I will contact the Trustee in question here, the Perry Township Trustees Office, and get times from him. Would you want to give me any times? Marvaline Prince: Tuesday or Thursday is okay. Philip Hayes: Okay. President Mosby: Tuesday being tomorrow, that might be a little (inaudible). Commissioner Fanello: That is a little soon. Philip Hayes: Tuesdays or Thursdays is what you- Marvaline Prince: I think that you do have a certain amount of time to do this if you appoint a hearing officer. Philip Hayes: I will want to dispose of this as quickly as we can. Marvaline Prince: I think so. Philip Hayes: You and I have already spoken on it, and we have made some mediation efforts to try and get it clarified, for example, we got the medical...because it does relate to medical information and that kind of thing, then I would prefer to.. I think, that it would be more appropriate to speak to you privately on that- Marvaline Prince: I think so too. Philip Hayes: -rather than here on the record. I think that is an exception that we can follow. Marvaline Prince: Okay. Philip Hayes: I will contact the Trustee tomorrow to get a schedule on that and then get back with you. Marvaline Prince: Okay, do you know where the hearing, the meeting is going to be held? Philip Hayes: We can hold it at a time and place convenient to you. Do you have facilities at your office? Marvaline Prince: Yes. Philip Hayes: Is that convenient for your client? Marvaline Prince: We could do it in the law library. Philip Hayes: We can do it there then, and I will contact the Trustee and clarify his schedule and we will get with you. Marvaline Prince: Okay, thanks. Philip Hayes: You bet. Marvaline Prince: Thank you folks. Philip Hayes: Thank you.
President Mosby: Phil Lawrence. Phil Lawrence: Good evening. Before I do the award for the County computer upgrade, I would like to indulge this board. I got a call from Ralph Kissinger on Friday to put together specifications for a step in van for the County Highway. We have put together the specs, and would like, with your permission, to advertise for this vehicle. President Mosby: Yeah, I was going
to say-
Ralph Kissinger: I'm Ralph Kissinger, County Highway. This is for the Cumulative Bridge, and there is a line item already set for a step van to be purchased this year, and we just put together the specs for it to be purchased. I gave them to Phil and asked him if he wouldn't mind putting that bid package together for us. Commissioner Mourdock: What are you defining as a step van? Ralph Kissinger: That is a utility, sort of like the Waterworks is using. The utility vans which are a large van body with roll up doors in the back. Commissioner Mourdock: Okay, that explains it. Phil Lawrence: We propose to advertise May 3rd and 10th , open the bids on the 21st. Commissioner Fanello: I will move approval for advertisement. Commissioner Mourdock: Another question, do we have one of those now? Ralph Kissinger: Inaudible. Commissioner Mourdock: Have we ever had one of those? Ralph Kissinger: No, the bridge crew is kind of unique in that they have to carry so many different tools to work- Commissioner Mourdock: You need to come to the mike. Ralph Kissinger: I'm sorry. It is a unique situation with the bridge crew, and what they carry so many tools to work on the bridges and different things that they can store most of it in the vans and have it there instead of driving three or four trucks out, they can get out in one truck, and then have their dump truck, and their tractor or backhoe or whatever they are using for the day, they don't have as many, they can carry their generator, their welder, all of this stuff can be carried in one unit that way. Commissioner Fanello: You did say that it was in the budget for this year? Ralph Kissinger: Yes, there is a line item in the budget that calls for a step van. Commissioner Mourdock: This is the first time that I have heard of it, obviously. Catherine, you made the motion, I am going to sit here on this one, so, David, it is up to you. Commissioner Fanello: Well, if it is in the budget, I don't have a problem with it, so I will move approval for permission to advertise. Ralph Kissinger: It is in the Cumulative Bridge budget for the year- President Mosby: For the year 2001? Ralph Kissinger: Yes. President Mosby: If it's in the budget, I don't, second. You made the motion? Commissioner Fanello: Yes. President Mosby: Second. I have a motion and a second. So ordered. Phil Lawrence: Mr. Clifford Thomas is here to address the computer upgrade. Clifford Thomas: My name is Clifford Thomas, I work for the Computer Services Department, and I am currently assigned as Project Manager for Project 42-00, the Public Safety Application and Hardware Upgrade/Replacement Project. In 1997, the existing Public Safety Application vendor notified the city and county that the existing Public Safety product family line would cease, and customers would need to migrate to the vendors other product line. The vendor has since changed their market strategy and is in the process of moving their product to a compatible client server environment. The National Crime Information Center (NCIC) informed the law enforcement community that their services would be moving to a client server environment. The Indiana Data and Communications Services (IDACS) is currently moving to a client server solution at this time. The necessity of communicating with these federal and state agencies requires Evansville and Vanderburgh to assess their systems and word processes, which in the near future will be a client server format. On Monday, February 28, 2000, the first organizational meeting for the Public Safety Project was convened. At that meeting, 36 individuals volunteered their time to participate in this project. These members represent the Police Department, the joint Dispatch Center, the Fire Department, Suburban Fire, Emergency Management Agency, the County Assessor's Office, the County Clerk of Court, the County Prosecutor's Office, the County Sheriff's Office and Computer Services. The project team developed a scope of work and project objectives. An extensive search by the team resulted in 35 vendors who indicated that they were seriously interested in addressing the city and county's Public Safety Information Technology needs. Over 12 months of work have resulted in a Request for Information, extensive research on the volumes of information received and a Request for Proposal. The RFP was recently posted on the Internet and advertised in the local newspaper for a hardware and software solution. On Monday, April 9, 2001, 13 responses from RFP CE-2001-05 were opened and read into the minutes of the Board of Public Works. Those documents were turned over to the Project Executive Committee for evaluation. The Project Executive Committee has completed their evaluation and has requested that I present their findings. The following are those results. D.M. Data and CDW Government, Inc. presented letters declining to submit a proposal. In the evaluation of the RFP, there are 381 technical questions worth 1143 points. There are 70 questions that are required to be compliant. Matrix Integration, Inc., that vendor submitted a proposal of two thousand two, excuse me, $292,055 for hardware only. No other vendors submitted a hardware only proposal. Interact, vendor did not follow instructions as detailed in section one, paragraph five, item four, and answered the technical questions with responses other than those indicated in the RFP. Recommend declining for improper response. Maximus Justice Solutions, vendor submitted a proposal, but did not offer a solution on a Computer Aided Dispatch Module. Computer Aided Dispatch is the 911 program and is key to this project. They have no Public Safety baseline product and offered to write programs for the remaining modules. Recommend declining due to lack of an established product. Vision Air, Inc., scored 1049 out of 1143 and met 67 out of 70 compliance questions. Recommend declining as non responsive. Product is unable to capture and hold calls until resources are available to dispatch. This is a key factor in the operation of CAD. PSSI scored 1066 out of 1143 and met 66 out of 70 compliance questions. Recommend declining as non responsive. The vendor takes exception to running SQL. SQL is a data base engine known as Simple Query Language, the committee has set that as a standard for this project. Indico scored 1087 out of 1143 and met 68 out of 70 compliance questions. Recommend declining as non responsive. Vendor takes exception to section four, paragraph N, items five and six. Emgeritech scored 1094 out of 1143 and met 68 out of 70 compliance questions. Recommend declining as non responsive. Vendor unable to cross reference multiple CAD events. Global Dispatch scored 1099 out of 1143 and met 70 out of 70 compliance questions. Recommend declining. Vendor has a Citrix solution for Mobile Field Reporting which does not meet with the current radio plan. Vendor requires monthly fees based on how many log ins to the Records module and the Pawnshop module. Tiburon, which is the current IT vendor, scored 1108 out of 1143 and met 70 out of 70 compliance questions. Recommend declining. Product is incomplete. It is currently in Beta test mode. That has been confirmed by the sales representative and one of their top Beta test clients. Pamet Systems scored 1128 out of 1143 and met 67 out of 70 compliance questions. Recommend declining as non responsive. The vendor has less than ten persons working their help desk, and their CAD product does not meet the January 1998 live date requirement. OSSI scored 1128 out of 1143 and met 70 out of 70 compliance questions. The Project Executive Committee seeks approval to negotiate terms of the RFP. The Committee requests to seek terms for the software portion and part of the hardware portion of the RFP with OSSI, Open Software Solutions Incorporated, of Greensboro, North Carolina. The Committee also requests to seek terms for the remaining hardware portion of the RFP with Matrix Integration of Jasper, Indiana. Commissioner Fanello: Okay, a couple
questions here. First of all, is this project funded on the city and county
side?
Clifford Thomas: I don't have any information on the total funding amount- Commissioner Fanello: Is (inaudible) here? President Mosby: Yeah. Commissioner Mourdock: Is it in SCT's budget? Clifford Thomas: No, sir. Commissioner Mourdock: I would presume- Clifford Thomas: No sir, it's not. Commissioner Mourdock: -it's not. Eric Williams: Eric Williams, Sheriff's Office, also a participating member of the Executive Review Board. Commissioner Fanello: Is it funded on the city and county side? Eric Williams: There is some partial funding from the city, it is my understanding that there is no funding from the county at this point. Commissioner Fanello: Okay. So, I would assume that somebody will be going to ask for some funding. Eric Williams: Exactly. That is the information that the Sheriff's Office submitted to this board and the Council at several different occasions, pretty much detailing the process we are going to take, and the inability to ask Council for funding without knowledge of what the funding requirements would be. Commissioner Mourdock: So are you looking to set this up as a budget item for the coming year then? Eric Williams: It is going to be a timing issue, in negotiations and your actions, obviously, and it is going to be a cooperative effort, obviously, with the city and their funding ability. It's a must do project. When that happens, that is yet to be seen. Commissioner Fanello: A couple more questions. On the city side and county side, have the County Attorney's reviewed all of the bids? Eric Williams: I can't speak for- Philip Hayes: The answer is no. There has been no bid reviews from the county side. On the city side, and Clifford, I think, that you communicated to me, Mr. Winterheimer's been handling this with you on the city attorney staff. Clifford Thomas: At this point the Executive Committee has reviewed the proposals that were sent in. Philip Hayes: What about Kevin Winterheimer, the attorney? Clifford Thomas: We have not come to a conclusion other than that the only vendor which is so far qualified is OSSI. We are requesting from this board to step in to negotiations to get a firm bid, to bring back to the legal departments for review. Once again, we have to know exactly how much, exactly what it is, at that point we can then bring it to the legal department for their review. Philip Hayes: Okay, maybe I'm not being clear. We had discussed the bifurcation of the hardware and software piece, and so having discussed that and learned that this was not a software only request, I consulted with Mr. Winterheimer. Have you consulted with him? As of last week, I had asked you to give him a call. Clifford Thomas: I spoke with him at 4:30 on Friday. Philip Hayes: Okay. Clifford Thomas: He gave me- Philip Hayes: That is what your e-mail
meant?
Clifford Thomas: Yes, it is. Philip Hayes: Okay. Clifford Thomas: I spoke with him on Friday, he advised me in this brief that I have here today, and made some suggestions and pointed out some requirements that I need to put into this document for presentation today. Philip Hayes: Okay. That is what I was looking for, and I thought your e-mail meant that I was going to see an opinion from him, but, basically, he's worked on this presentation you've made tonight and that is distributed here- Clifford Thomas: Yes, sir, that is correct. Philip Hayes: -with you, is that right? Okay. Does he recommend, as far as the legal departments then, this conclusion that you made that this be brought back for review, and how did you phrase it exactly? Clifford Thomas: We are seeking approval to negotiate terms of the RFP, to bring it down to the exact dollars and cents, the exact pieces and parts that are needed, so that it is a firm proposal that fits the city and county's needs, and is agreed to by the vendor. Philip Hayes: As far as the commitment that this body would be making if they adopt your request tonight, in couching it in the manner of trying to negotiate to get to firm, this body will not be obligated in any fashion with this respondent? Clifford Thomas: This body will not be obligated in any fashion, sir. That would not- Philip Hayes: Consequently the county will not be? Clifford Thomas: That is correct, sir. Philip Hayes: That is the intent that we had, I think, Mr. Winterheimer and I in talking about being able to go through this, because of the separation and the two parts of the proposal, software and hardware. Clifford Thomas: That is correct, sir. There will be no obligation. Philip Hayes: Okay. Commissioner Mourdock: Words have meaning, and I am confused by some of the meanings here. Philip Hayes: Yeah, Commissioner Mourdock: In the document you've provided us ,Cliff, you used that phrase where you say the bid was non responsive or, let me find one specifically here, recommended declining, is non responsive, non responsive. Normally, that is the kind of language that is used with the bid, but, in fact, really what you have presented to us sounds like, don't be offended by this, sounds like a, almost a glorified budget estimate. Now that you have gone through a bunch of vendors, you've got some sort of range to work from, and now you are looking to be able to put the full RFP together based on the information that you've already gained. Is that correct? You just said putting a proposal together. Philip Hayes: Well- Commissioner Fanello: That is the only thing that is confusing me is the different language here. I am confused because you are saying bids, then you are saying RFP. Clifford Thomas: We have submitted a request for proposal. Commissioner Fanello: Uh-huh. Clifford Thomas: We have received those proposals. Commissioner Fanello: So, these are RFP's? Clifford Thomas: I was advised to go back and remove the word bid from the document- Commissioner Mourdock: Absolutely. Clifford Thomas: -I attempted to do that, and if I misspoke, then my apologies. Philip Hayes: The document being this document that we have- Clifford Thomas: Correct. Commissioner Fanello: I just want to make sure so there's- Philip Hayes: We will clarify this to make sure that we are on point here. Commissioner Fanello: -no confusion. Clifford Thomas: I would love to be on the same page with everyone. Philip Hayes: Okay. Commissioner Fanello: If you can get there, you would be the first. Do you have any other questions? Commissioner Mourdock: I would just make the comment that given the size of the money that is involved here, I know that there is a lot of work that has gone into this, it looks to me like the type of thing that needs to be established as a line item in the budget for next year. I don't know how the two vendors you've cited, how forward thinking they are in putting out these numbers that far in advance, or what other negotiations may be needed, but I don't know that, at this point, given where we are budget wise, that we can do much more than that. Commissioner Fanello: I guess, all that you are looking for tonight ,though, is just to seek negotiations , right? Clifford Thomas: Correct. Eric Williams: I think that the Executive Committee has pretty much determined that of all of the responses that we received, the OSSI response met the needs that this county and city needed. We would like to pursue working with them to fine tune the price so that we have some number to take to the financial bodies. So this is what we need. Commissioner Mourdock: But that is somewhat in reverse of what we normally do, and what, I think, that legally we have to do, which is before we bid a project that we have to have the money- Eric Williams: Right, and that's why we didn't use the language bid, it was a proposal- Commissioner Mourdock: Right, okay. Eric Williams: -that the problem... and this was the issue that we faced with this project from the beginning to end, is that we have tried to communicate with everybody and to keep people abreast of what was going on through Data Board meetings and through letters, that this is where we are at, but there was no way to go to the financial body and say could you- Commissioner Mourdock: Right. Eric Williams: -give us a million dollars just to set aside because we might need that. Nobody wanted to hear that. They wanted to know what are you going to be asking us for. Suzanne Crouch: Do you all legally now have to go out for bid once you get a ball park figure? Eric Williams: That is debatable. I think that will be left, that answer will be left to the attorneys. There are several opinions that say no, because this is a very specialized piece of software. It is not something that anybody could sell us. Commissioner Fanello: There is a provision in the statute for that, so- Eric Williams: Exactly. Commissioner Fanello: -normally, I think, what is it over- Commissioner Mourdock: $75,000. Commissioner Fanello: -$75,000? In special situations- Eric Williams: Those are questions that the legal counsel will have to answer, we just want to get to the point where we can sit down at a table with this vendor now and say, now here's what we really need, here's how we want it to work, you know, maybe we need a little less of that and a little more of this. Commissioner Mourdock: I guess I'm okay with going forward with those discussions with the vendor, providing that there is absolute clarity so that the vendor knows this is not a funded project at this point, and they realize that this may lead to nothing down the road. I wouldn't want to have them show up later and say, oh, well, you had firm numbers and therefore there was some intent here that is beyond what we are thinking. Eric Williams: If any of the vendors thought that this was a funded project, then they were misinformed and weren't paying attention. It has been made clear to everybody that at this point and time, this project has not been funded, other than that the city has put aside some money in reserve for this project. Specific amounts, I don't know, and how they have put that in their line items, I don't know that either. So, there are no specific dollars for this from them. Commissioner Fanello: So are they aware that there are potential, that it might go out for bid, though, that- Philip Hayes: Or- Eric Williams: I think that they have been a part of this all along, and every vendor has been very clear on what we were doing and how we were going about this, because of the nature of the project. Philip Hayes: For the record, you've consulted on the city side with Mr. Winterheimer. I know, on the county side you have consulted with me and we've spent time in conference about this, and at the time that we did that, I think, that it was pretty clear that we weren't, that is to say that the Public Safety Sector and SCT wasn't sure what kind of money we were even talking about. We didn't know where it was going to go. This is $2 million, basically, so that is the top end of the range that you thought. From the legal standpoint, I think, unless you feel that we are in absolute need of moving in the next week or so, that, I think, that it would be appropriate to meet again with Winterheimer and be able to bring back to both the city side and the county side a firm position with regard to whether or not we are obligated, if we begin these negotiations. So, from that stand point, I think, that it would be appropriate if we held back for, I know that we've got a busy schedule next week, but, Eric, what...and you want to be able to make for the budget, for being able to get to the budget this year, so, what kind of time are we looking at that we can spend going over that issue and then getting a determination here? Eric Williams: Obviously, we feel that it is very, very important- Philip Hayes: I know you have. Eric Williams: -that you have a comfort level with this project- Philip Hayes: Yeah. Eric Williams: -because it is a very costly project in the scope of things. It comes at a time when there are a lot of large projects on the burner, obviously, but this is one that is critical to us and Public Safety, you know, we will make do with what you tell us. If the direction that we are going to get is that this is going to need to be a 2002 budget request, you know, we are in the process of working our 2002 budget requests right now. We would need some direction, and, I assume, that the process of doing firm negotiations with OSSI to derive a firm price of what we are looking for will be a considerable undertaking. Commissioner Mourdock: I think that what I hear Phil saying is that if there were a document presented to this board, something that you had, basically, as a letter of agreement between this board and, I guess, inherently, the city and the several vendors here that you are choosing, that we just have some memorandum of understanding stating we are going to have these discussions to lead us to this point to help define the numbers, and you, the vendors, understand that there is no solid commitment for funding at this time. Eric Williams: If that is something that legal counsel could prepare for us, I don't think that anybody would have a problem with that. Commissioner Fanello: I don't have
a problem, I mean, I am for the project, there is no question about that,
but I don't have any problem with, you know, maybe a -
Philip Hayes: Based on the gross numbers, I mean, the memorialization is that the city side of this is about a million one, the county side is about eight eighty, and so we are going to have to do it in conjunction with them. In speaking to Mr. Winterheimer last week, at some length, and then, I think, the week prior to that time...Clifford, do you know if he has conferred with the Board of Works at any length while this was in preparation? Clifford Thomas: I don't know if he has consulted with them at any length? Philip Hayes: Okay. Clifford Thomas: This morning they seemed to be in concurrence, but that was just a perception on my part. Philip Hayes: What did they do to tickle that perception? How did they get that in the record? Clifford Thomas: They said we did a very- Philip Hayes: Hell of a job. Clifford Thomas: -good job with the amount of work- Philip Hayes: Nice job. Clifford Thomas: -that was here. They made the motion to task it. Philip Hayes: Okay, so by motion this morning that was done? Okay. Well, I can report back to the body before agenda time, and I will have a conference with him and see where we are. Commissioner Mourdock: I will formally move that we- Philip Hayes: If we can do that? Commissioner Mourdock: -direct the County Attorney, then, to work on a discussion draft that will allow us to know clearly what our objectives are, and to have the vendors clearly state their understanding as to our budget limitations. Commissioner Fanello: I will second. Philip Hayes: Is that the kind of thing that you had from the Board of Works? Clifford Thomas: We had no indication of that from the Board of Works, no. Philip Hayes: Okay. Commissioner Mourdock: It can be a bipartisan thing instead of a tripartisan thing, if necessary, if the city has already signed off on it, but that's okay. Clifford Thomas: I think that it would be in the best interest of everybody if everybody understands that- Commissioner Mourdock: Absolutely. Clifford Thomas: -and agrees to that. Commissioner Fanello: I mean, really, in all actuality, we did that a couple of times on the city side in the Controller's Office, I mean, we drew up some types of things for the legal department to look at, as far as understanding them. Eric Williams: I would add that this has been a very trying project as far as this process, in trying to get answers from all of the concerned entities on what direction to go, what process to follow, or what procedures need to be adhered to. I can speak on behalf of the group that we have done our best to keep people informed, and done our best to try and follow the rules and keep things going in an orderly fashion, but sometimes you just have to do what you gotta do to get to this point, and here we've ended up. President Mosby: I have a motion and
a second. So ordered. Any other questions? Seeing none. Thank you.
President Mosby: Phyllis Donahue. Phyllis Donahue: I am Phyllis Donahue, Welfare to Work Committee. President Mosby: I believe you are back here, I know what you... Commissioner Fanello: Okay. I know that we are back here to vote on the allocation for this year, and I still have a couple of questions on this memo that you gave us. Or maybe one big question. When you say that you have money left from each of these years, is that just county money that you are talking about? Phyllis Donahue: Yes, this is totally funded through the- Commissioner Fanello: Okay, everything's done- Phyllis Donahue: -Riverboat- Commissioner Fanello: -I just wanted to make sure on that, since I wasn't real..then I have a problem with the numbers, because they don't match up to anything that I have looked at, so, I don't know if we can defer this another week until I set up a meeting with you, and we go over these numbers, but they don't- Commissioner Mourdock: Are we back to the difference between the unencumbered?-- Commissioner Fanello: No, we are not back to that at all. I went back, and I actually wanted to bring this up under New Business, but I went back and tracked the Riverboat Funding since 1997, and I've got some big questions and a real problem with this years budget. So, I don't know if we want to take it up now, or if we want to wait until New Business but- Commissioner Mourdock: But is it issues that go beyond the Welfare to Work?- Commissioner Fanello: Yes. Commissioner Mourdock: -Infrastructure and?- Commissioner Fanello: Economic Development, yes. Commissioner Mourdock: It doesn't matter to me. I mean, we could do it now- Commissioner Fanello: Because, I can't agree to this until I know exactly where these numbers are coming from, because they don't match anything that I have looked at. President Mosby: I would say that we make a motion- Commissioner Fanello: How much money that- President Mosby: -to hold this until- Commissioner Fanello: -as far as how much money you say you have left. Suzanne Crouch: This might be helpful, or it might not. This is a sheet on monies that are currently available to spend out of those line items, either encumbered money- Commissioner Fanello: Yeah. Suzanne Crouch: -or budgeted money. Commissioner Fanello: That's fine, but I've got something a little bit more detailed than that, that I have a problem with this years budget. So, based on past history. Suzanne Crouch: Specifically? Commissioner Fanello: I mean, do we want to bring this up now? Commissioner Mourdock: Sure, let's go ahead. Commissioner Fanello: Okay, let's just take...I hate to make you stand up for this, Phyllis, did you want to go ahead- President Mosby: Yeah. Commissioner Fanello: -and sit down? This is a little more detailed than just Welfare to Work. Okay, let's start with Economic Development, and I want to go through and kind of explain what I have done here. The column you see is all the figures that I think the balance should be when we get down to the 2001 adjusted budget. If we look at the 1997 actual budget, we have $635,256 appropriated for that budget. 1997 expenditures were $193,279, which left us with a balance of $441,977, then we go to the next years budget, 1998, and we have $500,000, which is what were agreed upon in each account, but our actual budget becomes $941,977, which is actually the balance left over plus the current years budget. Now, when I asked that question before, I was told that the monies didn't roll over unless there was a P.O. Suzanne Crouch: Or a letter. Commissioner Fanello: Or a letter. Suzanne Crouch: A contract. Commissioner Fanello: Okay, so, are you telling me that each year that this money rolled over that there was a letter or some type of project- Suzanne Crouch: That is correct. Commissioner Fanello: -going on? Suzanne Crouch: We encumber money based upon a contract, a letter, or a P.O., and that has to be submitted by the department that is requesting the encumbrance in order for us to hold that money. Commissioner Fanello: Okay, then I want to see the P.O.'s and the letters for each of those years, because, quite frankly, when I asked someone else today I was told that this is the first year that the money hasn't rolled over. Suzanne Crouch: I guess, that's what I don't understand, when you say rolled over. Commissioner Fanello: Well, when you take the end of the year balance- Suzanne Crouch: Uh-huh. Commissioner Fanello: -let's just take, for example, on the city side, the Riverboat money rolls over every year, it does not lapse. Commissioner Mourdock: What do you mean by rolls over? Do you mean- Suzanne Crouch: Because- Commissioner Mourdock: -encumbered? Commissioner Fanello: The unencumbered balance at the end of prior year rolling over- Suzanne Crouch: But, I believe that on the city, I might be mistaken, but that is a separate fund. Commissioner Fanello: Yeah, they are a separate fund, but what I am- Suzanne Crouch: With us, it is not. Commissioner Fanello: -what I am talking about here is each year we see that the money was carried forward, and are you telling me that there were P.O.'s each year for these amounts? Commissioner Mourdock: Or letters. Commissioner Fanello: Or letters. Suzanne Crouch: Or contracts. Commissioner Fanello: Okay, then I'm going to have to see them, because I don't know...that doesn't make any sense to me, to be honest with you. President Mosby: What happened at the end of the year 2001? Are you saying- Suzanne Crouch: At the end of this year? Commissioner Fanello: Or the end of 2000? President Mosby: Alright, the end of 2000, are you saying that nobody sent you a letter and nobody asked- Suzanne Crouch: Commissioners send letters- President Mosby: Did, I'm asking about- Suzanne Crouch: -to encumber Riverboat. President Mosby: -what happened, did that not happen? Suzanne Crouch: Yes, we encumbered money in those accounts. President Mosby: Okay, then how come the $831,000 is gone? Your report, if you get to end of this, according to her figures, says that we have $721,000, exactly the amount that was left at the end of 12/31/2000 is gone. Suzanne Crouch: There are P.O.'s , a lot of times, that are released, throughout the year. Commissioner Fanello: So you're telling me...let's just go through this, because I am going to have to go to your financial report too, because I don't even know where you get the cash balance for the Riverboat. That doesn't add up to anything I can tie my figures to, but you can explain it. So, you are telling me that at the end of 1997, when there was $441,997 left, that you had P.O.'s or letters for that $441,000 to carry over to the next year? Suzanne Crouch: I don't have my numbers in front of me, but if that was encumbered money, then, yes- Commissioner Fanello: Okay, I looked at the 199...I went over to Sandie Deig's office today, and looked at the 1999 year ending ledger, and there were no encumbrances at the end of 1999, yet all of that money rolled over. Suzanne Crouch: I don't know what report you were looking at, but there are encumbrances- Commissioner Fanello: The expenditure ledger. Suzanne Crouch: -to roll that money over. Commissioner Fanello: The expenditure ledger, I mean, we looked at it, Sandie and I looked at it, I mean, I'm not approaching this like I know what I am talking about, I am just asking- Suzanne Crouch: Right, but expenditures wouldn't necessarily show encumbrances, because expenditures is money that is spent- Commissioner Fanello: -I'm not talking about expenditures, I am talking about, when I went to the 12/31/1999 ledger, there was, let me look, you actually showed $548,452 in the Economic Development account at the end of 1999, okay, when I go to look at the 1/1/2000 budget, there are not encumbrances for that amount, but the amount rolls over. If there were encumbrances for it, it is going to have to be in the encumbrance column. Suzanne Crouch: Uh-huh. Do you know what, why don't we get together tomorrow? Because, I don't know specifically what report you are looking at- Commissioner Fanello: The monthly expenditure report. I mean, that's my question, is when I go through the Economic Development, the Welfare to Work, and the Infrastructure and Drainage, each year, the prior years balance rolls over, but there is not P.O.'s to go with it, so that tells me that somehow the amount is rolled over- Suzanne Crouch: If the P.O. hadn't been released from a prior year. Commissioner Fanello: Okay, but, are you telling me that each of these years we had that many million dollars worth of project outstanding in Riverboat? Suzanne Crouch: We have had a lot of road projects- Commissioner Fanello: So at the end of '97, we had $441,977 in P.O.'s. At the end of '98, we had $370,801. At the end of '99 we had $552,594, and at the end of 2000, obviously, this is the first year it happened, so the money didn't roll over. So, you are telling me that each of those years we had P.O.'s for all- Suzanne Crouch: We had P.O.'s and contracts. Yes, in fact, in the General Fund, I don't know how the city does, if they even encumber much money, but in the General Fund we- Commissioner Fanello: I would need to know what projects they relate to, because I sure as heck haven't seen any of them going on. Commissioner Mourdock: Burkhardt Road, primarily. Commissioner Fanello: Under the Infrastructure? Suzanne Crouch: Why don't I get that information- Commissioner Fanello: Okay, and then I will need to know, exactly, when you say cash balance at the beginning of the year in the Riverboat was $2.1 million dollars, exactly, where- Suzanne Crouch: What County Council did, and I would have to pull the minutes, I believe it was in 1996, that the legislation required that Riverboat money be General Fund money- Commissioner Fanello: Uh-huh. Suzanne Crouch: -and it could not be separated out. That is state statue, so what the Council did at their meeting, is they decided that they never wanted to over spend what they anticipated their revenues to be- Commissioner Fanello: Uh-huh. Suzanne Crouch: -so, the first year, there was no money set in for the budget. Then each year on the financial statement, that $2.1 million were actually 2000 revenues from last year. That is the actual revenue, so they budgeted $1.5 million- Commissioner Fanello: Uh-huh. Suzanne Crouch: -and then they have the monies that is left over to spend. That way it is a very conservative approach, but that way they never spend more than what they want the revenues to come in- Commissioner Fanello: So you're really not, you're not deducting any of the encumbrances out- Suzanne Crouch: No, because the General Fund- Commissioner Fanello: -of the Riverboat, you are deducting them out of the General Fund. Suzanne Crouch: -encompasses...correct. Commissioner Fanello: That's fine, but that still doesn't explain all my questions on what all these P.O.'s could possibly be. Suzanne Crouch: Well, why don't I get a detail to you on all of those P.O.'s. Commissioner Fanello: Okay, that would be good. Suzanne Crouch: We could sit down, then if you have any more questions, we can get more information. Commissioner Fanello: Okay. So, in answer to the Welfare to Work, I am going to have to sit down with you and go over your figures, because- Phyllis Donahue: Inaudible. Commissioner Fanello: Okay. Phyllis Donahue: Inaudible. Commissioner Mourdock: Just- Commissioner Fanello: Let me just say this, so at the end of December 31, 2000, there were no projects to encumber this $831,000 to? Suzanne Crouch: The Commissioners- Commissioner Fanello: Richard? Suzanne Crouch: -submit the letters, so if they submitted a letter for those particular projects, then that is what we encumbered for. Commissioner Fanello: So we just- Suzanne Crouch: I don't encumber the money. Commissioner Fanello: I am asking, I mean, were there no projects to encumber $831,587.96 to? Under Economic Development? President Mosby: I mean, it is obvious that we weren't here, so. Commissioner Mourdock: Pardon me? President Mosby: It's obvious that we weren't here. Commissioner Fanello: Under Infrastructure and Drainage, I mean, there were no projects to encumber $777,318.26 to? I mean, it just seems funny to me that every year before that there were projects to encumber over, I don't know how many millions of dollars, and all of a sudden at the end of 2000, there is no projects to encumber it to. President Mosby: I guess that is my problem, because it is the first year out of, since 1997- Commissioner Fanello: That all of the monies weren't encumbered. President Mosby: -you can go down through here and look at that, and then all of a sudden in the year 2001, everything is gone. You know, we are talking, we are not talking a half a million dollars, we are talking- Commissioner Fanello: About $1.8 million. President Mosby: Yeah, $1.8 million that just fell by the wayside. (Tape Flip) President Mosby: If you tell me that in 1997,1998,1999 and 2000, that Bettye Lou Jerrel sent you a letter and asked you to roll that over, but she didn't in 2001, I will believe it. Suzanne Crouch: I'm sorry, and your point? President Mosby: Politics. Commissioner Fanello: The point is, is that this is political. President Mosby: It is political. Commissioner Fanello: At the end of every year you had projects to encumber to, and all of a sudden at the end of December 31, 2000, we lost $1.8 million. President Mosby: Yeah, so I would just like to see the letters- Suzanne Crouch: You didn't lose the money- President Mosby: Well, no, we didn't lose it. I'm sure the County Council still has- Commissioner Fanello: I mean, according to your unappropriated- President Mosby: -you are telling me that all of the money that is not encumbered, or asked to be saved, goes back to the General Fund. So, that money, that $1.8 million should show up in the County Council budget, somewhere in the General Fund. Suzanne Crouch: Unappropriated monies. Commissioner Fanello: So, that is probably the money you used to set aside for the jail project, and under the Riverboat we only have $610,000 unappropriated left. Suzanne Crouch: That is what it is every year. Commissioner Fanello: Not according to this, Suzanne, I can't agree with it, I mean, I am going to have to see all the P.O.'s and the letters that you are talking about. I just can't believe that at the end of December 31, 2000, we all of a sudden didn't have $1.8 million worth of projects to encumber anything to, but every year before that we had projects and P.O.'s or projects to encumber this money to. I mean, that doesn't make any sense. I mean, logically, President Mosby: If there was any money that wasn't encumbered or didn't get rebudgeted, I would like to see that too, I would like to see how much it was. Just through '97 through 2000, how much money actually didn't roll over. Commissioner Fanello: I mean, I have a real problem with this. Commissioner Mourdock: Money that did roll over? President Mosby: Didn't roll over. Commissioner Mourdock: Say that again, didn't? President Mosby: Did not. Commissioner Mourdock: Okay. President Mosby: If there is money that did not roll over, and it actually went back into the General Fund to the County Council- Suzanne Crouch: Unappropriated money? President Mosby: -unappropriated money.
Commissioner Fanello: That's why I went to Sandie Deig's office to see if she had any of the prior years end of year monthly, or year-to-date ledge reports, and that's when I got my question answered that, no there were not P.O.'s outstanding at the end of '99, and yet that money was still rolled over, and you talk about a letter of encumbrance, do those letters come from the Commissioners? Suzanne Crouch: Yes, the Commissioners encumber the- Commissioner Fanello: Okay, but they don't have to relate to any certain projects? Suzanne Crouch: Oh, yes they do. They have to relate to specific projects, and specific line items. That is correct. Commissioner Fanello: That is why I would like to see every years P.O.'s, letters of encumbrances, and anything that showed that that money was encumbered and why all of a sudden at the end of December 31, 2000, we did not have $1.8 million worth of projects to encumber any money to. President Mosby: I mean, I was told by the County Council that it always rolled over, or that it was encumbered. Suzanne Crouch: If it's encumbered. President Mosby: If it's encumbered, then it rolls over? Commissioner Mourdock: That would just mean that it wasn't encumbered- Commissioner Fanello: Exactly, it wasn't encumbered, that is obvious, but- President Mosby: I was told by County Council that the Riverboat money, the $500,000 each year was always taken into the next year. Suzanne Crouch: If it's encumbered- President Mosby: Not by a P.O. or an encumbrance, you know, then we go to the Council and ask about that in January or the first of February and they say, oh, no, it don't work that way. Well, prior history, seems like it works that way, up till the year 2000. Commissioner Fanello: I just want to know, I may be totally- President Mosby: 2001, it didn't work that way. Commissioner Fanello: -wrong here, but I just want to know what is going on, because that does not match anything that has happened before. I can't believe that we didn't have any projects under Economic Development at the end of last year to encumber money to. That totally floors me. President Mosby: You made a motion to hold- Commissioner Fanello: Motion to hold for one week until I set up a meeting with Gary Heck. President Mosby: A motion and a second. So ordered. Commissioner Fanello: I just want to make sure that they have the right, that we have the money to fund their project. Phyllis Donahue: Inaudible. Do you want me to call him? Commissioner Fanello: Do you have his number, real quick? Phyllis Donahue: 428-(inaudible) Commissioner Fanello: I will give him a call tomorrow morning. I will be out of town on Wednesday, but- Phyllis Donahue: I'm not sure (inaudible). Unidentified: Extension 12. Commissioner Fanello: -okay. Commissioner Mourdock: You realize, the requests they are making is, basically, just the percentages- Commissioner Fanello: The percentage
allocation for this year, yes, I realize that, but, I just want to make
sure that the prior years numbers are correct. Not from their...basically,
that we have the right numbers on our side.
President Mosby: Any other group or individual wishing to address the board? Jill Marcrum: I will jump on that one. I'm back. President Mosby: Okay. Jill Marcrum: Jill Marcrum, President of the Evansville Bar Association. When we were here last, Commissioner Mourdock had some questions, and I've been trying to (inaudible). Basically, as I recall, there were two issues that we needed to fill in some gaps on, and what we have tried to do is create an addendum that, hopefully, gives you the information that you are looking for. The first issue was night court, and we had two primary sources of information that we utilized for our addendum here this evening. Commissioner Fanello: Boy, that's a big addendum. Jill Marcrum: It is bigger than the actual report, yes. We worked hard on it. The first is a survey that was done by telephone, in person type of thing, conducted by individuals, and that is included in there. The second is that we obtained information from the National Center for State Courts, and that is basically a national repository for information regarding state courts. Basically, what we learned, with respect to night court, is that there is only one court, that we are aware of, in the country that runs a true night court, or second shift. They actually run 24 hours, and that is in New York City, and that is only for criminal arraignments. So, they have 24 hours a day, they have judges available for criminal arraignments. There are studies...appendices one, two and three are...consist of information that we received from the National Center for State Courts, and they give you some information as to what other courts have done, studies that have been done, and based on that information, as well as our survey, basically, New York City was the only court that we found that did hold a night court. We did find many courts that do what we do, which is extended hours courts. Primarily those areas were traffic court, arraignments, well, I should say mostly traffic court, a little small claims, and, basically, similar to what we do. There were some jurisdictions that tried jury trials, Indianapolis, Marion County, in particular, tried it, decided against it. There are several other jurisdictions throughout the country that have tried it, done studies, and those studies were not implemented because they felt that they were not cost effective. There were various reasons why they didn't. One of the reasons that Marion County's failed was a major security risk. The, basically, that is the gist of the study. The first three pages is our summary, followed up by the studies from the other jurisdictions. The other thing that was brought up, and, hopefully, we have covered it better this time. Basically, I guess, the study of the night court also brought...some of the studies included, in the appendices, brought to issue that the ideal, at least based on a national level, court room to judges is one to one. We studied within our state various counties that were affected, and what we tried to do was focus on a couple of different things. We looked at the counties that were comparable in size, and, basically, we looked...the counties that are ranked third through eleventh, which would include Vanderburgh County, and then we also included Posey County, Warrick County, and Gibson County, because they are the surrounding counties that are contingent to Vanderburgh County. We also included Vigo County, or Terre Haute, because that is the closest large city, so we tried to include something that is comparable. Basically, what that study shows is no matter what size county that you are looking at, be it something that is a little bit bigger, something that is close to our size of a county, or something that is substantially smaller, we are significantly lower percentage wise in court room per judicial officer. I would be happy to answer any questions you might have. I know that you just received this information. I did want to share it with you. I also want to say that the Bar Association is happy to come back and answer any questions that you might have on this or the previous report that we submitted to you, and if there is any way that we can help you in the future, we would be glad to do that. Commissioner Mourdock: Jill, a couple of things. Jill Marcrum: Sure. Commissioner Mourdock: First of all, you referred to the several questions that I asked, going back to my notes of that night- Jill Marcrum: Was there one I missed again? Commissioner Mourdock: Well, I had several, I had what are the proper ratios of judiciary personnel to courtrooms? I think that you dealt with that one a little bit. Jill Marcrum: The studies show one to one. Commissioner Mourdock: I asked to report on the ratio of judicial officers to courtrooms. The use of night court, and general recommendations for processes to improve the systems. Jill Marcrum: Processes, well, and maybe I don't understand what you mean by processes to improve the system. Commissioner Mourdock: It means whatever it takes to make it work better. Jill Marcrum: More courtrooms. You know, you brought up the rotation of the Judges, and I can tell you that if we stopped rotating, you would see how drastically we need the additional courtrooms. Commissioner Mourdock: Why is it...I hear you say that, I know you say it in good faith, but there are only two counties, I think, in all of Indiana that don't rotate- Jill Marcrum: Let me give you an example- Commissioner Mourdock: -or that do rotate. Jill Marcrum: Correct. Commissioner Mourdock: When PMSI was here, their expert was telling us that was one of the things that they thought was causing the problem. Jill Marcrum: Okay. Commissioner Mourdock: Are 90 counties right and two are wrong? Jill Marcrum: If you look at, and I think that it is Appendix two, what looks like this, okay? There are 20 footnotes, because each...some...Monroe County is a perfect example, they have one Circuit Court and seven Circuit Court Judges, they have no Superior Court Judges. Each county has a little twist, a little turn, a little tweak that they do, so it is difficult to say that they are right, we are wrong, or we are right, they are wrong. I agree, I only know of one other county that rotates like we do, but the way our system is set up, it enables us to juggle the courtrooms in the most efficient manner. If we did not rotate, okay, then Judge Pigman, Judge Bowers, Judge Knight, Judge Trockman, Judge Tornatta and Judge Lloyd would each say, I need a courtroom so that I can schedule my matters. Commissioner Mourdock: They seem to be saying that now, though, you just said that the ratio is one to one. Jill Marcrum: Right. Commissioner Mourdock: The ideal ratio. Jill Marcrum: That is correct, but the purpose behind rotating the Judges is not for courtroom use, the purpose...there is a lot of reasons why the Judges rotate, okay, and if you want to look at whether or not we have too many Judges, the way the case load study says is that we are just right in the number of Judges. If you don't like the way the judges- Commissioner Mourdock: I'm sorry, say that again. The case load shows that we are just right in the number of Judges, is that what you said? Jill Marcrum: The weighted case load study, the Supreme Court did what they called a weighted case load study, and from that study they said, you, you over here, this county, you have too many judges, you need to take some of this county's work and, I will be frank with you, a lot of the counties were concerned about all of this juggling, I am going to have to come over and do your work, you are going to have to...Vanderburgh County, they left alone because we have the right number of judicial officers for the number of cases that we are handling. The Supreme Court of Indiana, based on their study says, that we have the right number of judicial officers. Now, the question is, where are we going to hear these cases? If you want to talk about...rotation and courtroom space are two separate issues, okay- Commissioner Mourdock: No, I don't believe they are separate issues, and- Jill Marcrum: Well, they are because- Commissioner Mourdock: -pardon my layman's opinion, here, but that is what I mean by processes. Jill Marcrum: Okay. Commissioner Mourdock: We are looking...the three of us who are novices to the court system, look at this whole problem as a space problem, not in the courtrooms, but over here in the jails. Whatever we can do to change things there- Jill Marcrum: But, see-
Commissioner Mourdock: -to get more space in the jail, is part of the process. Jill Marcrum: I agree, but what you have to understand, is that part of the problem is civil cases. The problem with the court system just doesn't relate to criminal cases, it also relates to civil cases. Commissioner Mourdock: Agreed. Jill Marcrum: You can look at the jail, and, I think, that the Judges have made a lot of changes in the way they handle things to try to remedy that situation. They have two Judges doing criminal...well, I know that they have two Judges, two Superior Court Judges scheduling trials everyday, and they are scheduling trials, at least 60, so that on any given day... they are doing the best they can to move it. Now, are you saying we need more criminal divisions? That might be, that might be something that they need to look at, but if you are talking about.... and what I hear you saying, if we stopped the rotation, wouldn't it solve our problem? Commissioner Mourdock: That wasn't my suggestion, by the way, that was PMSI's, who- Jill Marcrum: Well- Commissioner Mourdock: -we hired- Jill Marcrum: -but that is what I hear you asking here today. I am telling you that if we stopped rotation this week, you would have mass disaster, because the ability to juggle courtrooms would die. Commissioner Mourdock: The inference was that because we rotate Judges, that attorneys, basically, shop their Judges a bit. They wait to see who is coming up in the cycle as far as when they- Jill Marcrum: I can tell you- Commissioner Mourdock: -do the filing, and that has to slow the process. Jill Marcrum: No, because I can tell you who the Judge is in every division next year. Commissioner Mourdock: Yeah, I know. Jill Marcrum: So, nobody waits- Commissioner Mourdock: So could every attorney. Jill Marcrum: -nobody looks. You can look, I can tell you today what cases I will be hearing each month this year, and everybody who is smart enough to go look at the calendar, can tell you that exact same thing. They are not waiting for anything. Now, they may wait to plea a case, plead a case out, and that may be what I hear you saying, but...and if you are asking the Bar Association to do a separate study, then that's really what you are talking about, because we did not...our concern was, there are certain problems within the courthouse, we don't have enough courtrooms. I may have free time, but I can't schedule something because we have 53% courtrooms, okay, compared to everybody...the closest county is 75%. Commissioner Mourdock: Let me break off the subject here for a little bit, just as Catherine had her thing to bring at the end or do at the middle, I am going to jump on up to the middle. Jill Marcrum: Sure, go ahead. Commissioner Mourdock: Last, whatever day it was, Tuesday, I think, I did sit in on the Building Authority's meeting. We had requested that they do the space review, and they are going to do that, and get back to us by June 1st. One of the things that we specifically asked for in that letter was to come up with, either three or five, I think- Commissioner Fanello: Five. Commissioner Mourdock: -five new additional courtrooms. What I think is going to happen, and I'm waiting to hear the screaming start, is that as soon as we get some preliminary report back from them, is to see how we can take the space that we presently have, not waiting for a judicial center, which is who knows when that will happen, but make some offices smaller, take space that is over there presently, take people, such as yourself, who are in a very small- Jill Marcrum: I was going to say, if you make my office smaller, I am in trouble. Commissioner Mourdock: No, no, no, no, no. Your case was the one I cited as the need to do something with, to improve the situation. I thought that you were going to say, if you make my office larger, I won't be back. Jill Marcrum: No. I was just trying to figure out where you were going to cut it out of my office. Commissioner Mourdock: No, no, no. That was one of the examples. Your office where you have four people working, is clearly unacceptable. We have started that process to see how we can find better office space over there, and also find more courtrooms over there. Please don't come back here when that floor plan, whatever it ends up being, starts to be implemented, and come back and complain and say, gee, the courtrooms are too small, because we are trying to deal with this. We will read through this...I also read The Summation, is that the Bar Association's newsletter? Jill Marcrum: Uh-huh, newsletter. Commissioner Mourdock: I wish I had it with me, because I would argue many of the points you made in that letter item by item. Jill Marcrum: Regarding night court? Commissioner Mourdock: I don't have it hear in front of me or I would. Pardon? Jill Marcrum: Which article? I write a monthly column, so. Commissioner Mourdock: It was probably a month ago that I saw it regarding your presentation here, and you basically said, we don't get it, is the way I read that article. I wasn't particularly pleased with much of what I read. Jill Marcrum: Well- Commissioner Mourdock: Be that as it may, we still continued down this process, and we are trying to find the space. Jill Marcrum: I appreciate that. First of all with respect to The Summation, I feel like it is my duty as President to relate to them my concerns. I had concerns. Commissioner Mourdock: I believe in the First Amendment, okay. Jill Marcrum: With respect to the process, again, we are talking about apples and oranges here, because what the Bar Association set out to do...now, you may want something else, and we will be happy to stop and take a look at that, but what the Bar Association set out to do, our goal was to look at the courthouse space, okay? If you look at the addendum, I would have to dig for copy of my report..yes, sir. The front of it says, the Report of the Evansville Bar Association Courthouse Action Committee, March 2001, Space Requirements for the Vanderburgh County Courts and Court Related Programs and Services. Okay, space requirements, that is what we focused on. We are talking about the physical building over there. Now, if you would like some input from the Bar Association about how our legal system in Vanderburgh County works, we would be happy to do that, and we would form a separate committee to do that. Commissioner Mourdock: I don't know that that needs a committee, that may need simply someone sitting down with me, which I will be more than happy to do, to have that explained. I have this question for you, though. Jill Marcrum: Sure. Commissioner Mourdock: What would the Bar Association be willing, where would you be willing to sacrifice to get more courtroom space, and more office space right now, within the current confines of what we have in that building? Who is willing to sacrifice? Jill Marcrum: Sacrifice what? Commissioner Mourdock: Whatever it takes. The process. Jill Marcrum: I will give up... I will share an office with two other magistrates for five more years, if we can get some more court- Commissioner Mourdock: Well, you share with three now. Jill Marcrum: -No, I only share with two. There is a court reporter that's...we have four people within 360 square feet. The Circuit Court magistrate has 220 square feet to himself. Now, we don't complain. I would live like that for five more years for more courtrooms. If that is what you are talking about sacrificing, absolutely- Commissioner Mourdock: Okay. Jill Marcrum: -I am willing to do it. I don't need a big, luxurious office. I don't...Terry and I bump chairs on a daily basis. We laugh about it. The Judges joke about, okay, I'm sneaking into the courtroom, you hesitated. We try to make do with what we have. What we have is slowing down our justice system, what we have prevents us from moving these people out of the jail. What we want to do as a Bar Association, who represents the public, not the Judges, not the attorneys, we represent the public, we want their cases to get through in a more efficient manner. Commissioner Mourdock: Please don't take this personally, again, I cited your specific example as why we need to do something, okay? Jill Marcrum: And I- Commissioner Mourdock: Let me turn it the other way, at the thought, the very thought that the law library be moved out of that building, we hear nothing but complaints, so reasons why we can't do that. That is the kind of sacrifice that I am talking about. Jill Marcrum: The law library is under the jurisdiction of Circuit Court, Judge Heldt. Commissioner Mourdock: No. I- Jill Marcrum: That is my information. Commissioner Mourdock: -well- Jill Marcrum: That was my information- Commissioner Mourdock: The County Commissioners, under the Indiana Constitution, are required, or have the obligation to provide courtroom space, I think, Phil, if I said that incorrectly, please correct me. Jill Marcrum: I think that is not what the statute said. Commissioner Mourdock: Yeah, it is our obligation to do that. That is county property over there, and if we need to utilize that particular room as courtroom space, or office space, or whatever, I think, that is our jurisdiction. If it is under someone else's jurisdiction, let's argue that for a minute, if it is under their jurisdiction, and they're claiming they need more space, then it would seem to me that might be a sacrifice that they could make. Jill Marcrum: That is something that you would have to talk with Judge Heldt about. I think, that one of the reasons why you have met with resistance with respect to the law library, is that that is something that the general public comes in and uses on a daily basis. Commissioner Mourdock: It is not the general public coming in here saying give us more courtroom space. Jill Marcrum: No, because the general public, until it is their son, their daughter, their case that is being delayed, they really don't care. Commissioner Mourdock: That's true. Jill Marcrum: That is why the Bar Association has stepped up. I don't take this personally, but, I think, that it is really important, Commissioner Mourdock, that you understand that the issue of rotation, and whether or not the Judges should rotate, is a process. If we need to study the legal process of our judicial system, then maybe, if that's the case, we will be happy to help you do that. What we set out to do when we formed this committee in June of last year, was to study the space needs. We feel like we've done that. Now, if there is something else that you want me to do, to take back to the Bar and say, oops, we left this out, they've realized that we didn't cover this, we would be more than happy to do that, because we are committed to this project. We have had almost 50 people working on this, and I apologize for not getting this to you sooner, but I just got the copies today, and I wanted to get them to you as soon as possible, because, you know, we can always come back and answer more questions. Commissioner Mourdock: Speaking as one Commissioner here, but, I think, for the other two, when the date that we gave Steve Utley to get back to us with his initial summation of the floor plan was June 1st, he told me on Tuesday that he would be able to meet that date. If he gets that back to us, we can get creative and start drawing some temporary walls or lines or whatever we need to do, and I suspect that is going to get us at least some more courtrooms. Jill Marcrum: And that- Commissioner Fanello: He is not just looking over there, he is looking at this building too. Jill Marcrum: That is my understanding. Commissioner Mourdock: That's right, because, that's right, for instance if the law library comes out of that building and it comes over here, you know, if you move one thing, all other things start to move. Jill Marcrum: Right, and to the- Commissioner Mourdock: So, we've been down that road- Jill Marcrum: -extent that the Bar Association can assist Steve Utley, or you, or anybody else in that regard, we would be more than happy to do it. Commissioner Fanello: When is the Health Department leaving? Commissioner Mourdock: Two years. Commissioner Fanello: Two years! Inaudible. Commissioner Mourdock: It will be closer to two years. Jill Marcrum: Any other questions? Thank you. President Mosby: Thank you. Jill Marcrum: I'm sorry, did you have something else? Commissioner Mourdock: Last comment, I was going to say, your one thing here, which I don't see at the minute, you talked about the only jurisdiction that has that night court is New York City, "Obviously this type of night court is not necessary in Vanderburgh County". Jill Marcrum: That is because it is for criminal arra- I'm sorry? Commissioner Mourdock: My thought is, that we could be second. Jill Marcrum: Well- Commissioner Mourdock: Just because it's only done in one place, doesn't mean that it's the wrong thing to do. Commissioner Fanello: Was that for- Jill Marcrum: Criminal arraignments only. In other words your get charged, you get arrested tonight, you get charged with possession- Commissioner Fanello: They aren't holding any trials?-- Jill Marcrum: -of marijuana, a felony- Commissioner Fanello: at night court? Jill Marcrum: -they are going to bring...no, they do not do any trials... they bring you in, I advise you of your charges, I advise you of your rights, and I set a bond for you. That is all that happens 24 hours a day in that courtroom. Commissioner Mourdock: Your earlier point about civil cases being what really tends to clog the system. Jill Marcrum: It is civil and...what I am saying is that it is civil and criminal- Commissioner Mourdock: Okay. Jill Marcrum: -and it's the trials. Commissioner Mourdock: Right. Jill Marcrum: A lot of the preliminary matters, especially in civil cases, are done within the courts chambers, or they are done in a conference room. You don't need...the Judges have finagled that so they don't need the courtroom for those things. Thank you. President Mosby: Thank you. Any other
group of individual wishing to address the board? Seeing none.
President Mosby: County Engineer. John Stoll: First I've got a recommendation to award contract number VC01-04-01, repair and repaving of various roads to JH Rudolph for the amount of $335,875.35. That's for the repaving of Oak Hill Road, Browning Road, and the intersection of Memory and Rode. Commissioner Mourdock: So moved. Commissioner Fanello: Second. President Mosby: I have a motion and a second. So ordered. John Stoll: Next, I've got a request for street plan approval for section four of Clear Creek Subdivision. This section of the subdivision is in the northwest part of that subdivision, this is located off of Mt. Pleasant Road. This was the section of the subdivision that was originally planned to tie into Old State Road, but you can see on that plan there that the connection out to Old State Road is crossed out. The developer is going to do a replatt of the subdivision to eliminate that connection. The reason that connection is being eliminated is because they were required to build a left turn lane on Old State Road into the subdivision, and once the right-of-way was researched out there, they found that there was insufficient right-of-way, to actually build that left turn lane, so that is why that road is being deleted. It is recommended that these plans be approved, subject to one condition and that is that on Big Hill Drive there, there is a substantial hill that they are cutting through... right now, mainly, and it slopes back, if they can get on to the adjacent properties, but if not, they are going to build retaining walls. In previous sections of this subdivision where they had retaining walls, the Homeowners Association was responsible for the long term maintenance of those. If they do build the retaining walls, it is recommended that the homeowners association be responsible for the retaining wall in this section as well. Commissioner Mourdock: Was the failure to build the left hand turn lane off, what did you say, Mt. Pleasant? John Stoll: Off of Old State. Commissioner Mourdock: Old State, was that for lack of right-of-way adjacent to their property? John Stoll: It was the existing right-of-way on Old State- Commissioner Mourdock: The county's existing right-of-way? John Stoll: Right. Commissioner Mourdock: Is it adjacent to their property? Might they have granted us that right-of-way and solved the problem? John Stoll: They only have access to this little strip here, they had a 60' lot is all they had. The problem lies on the lot immediately north of them, they only have a documented right-of-way of 24', so that is what put an end to that. Commissioner Mourdock: I will move approval as recommended by the County Engineer. Commissioner Fanello: Second. President Mosby: I have a motion and a second. So ordered. John Stoll: The next subdivision street plan approval I'm requesting is for Section One of Windham Hills Subdivision. This is located on Greenriver Road about a quarter to a half mile south of Kansas Road. This is on the west side of Greenriver. The area you see outlined in orange is Section One. The plans have been reviewed, it is recommended that they be approved. One thing that I wanted to point out was that the only improvements that will be done on Greenriver Road is a part of this space and subdivision is just a southbound, right turn, decell lane. They won't be doing all of the other left turn lanes, and all of the other striping changes, and widening of Greenriver Road. That will come back at a later date, with another section of the subdivision. Commissioner Mourdock: When they work on the east side of Greenriver? John Stoll: Correct. Actually, the first phase of their subdivision on the east side doesn't tie into Greenriver as well, so it will be, I believe, phase two of the east side before we see those plans come into play. Commissioner Mourdock: Move to approve. Commissioner Fanello: Second. President Mosby: I have a motion and a second. So ordered. Sign here? John Stoll: No, this one down here. That's all I have, unless you've got any questions. Thanks. President Mosby: Thank you, John. Philip Hayes: Oh, John. I was going to ask...we're merging here, just reporting, basically, we are getting the right-of-way described on the Grumpy Pal, Old State Road, the Kiwanis project for Darmstadt. I had spoken to... Commissioner Willner had called about it, and I had spoken to Jerry Atkinson and that but, I think, that we were waiting for their Surveyor to finish up his platt of survey on our right-of-way? John Stoll: Right, from what they had supplied us with originally, they just referenced the existing right-of-way for Old State, and the existing right-of-way for Campbell. From what we could find, several years ago, there was no defined existing right-of-way, so they needed to specifically define it through their document, the way I looked at it. Philip Hayes: Okay, I think, toward the middle of last week is when that inquiry was made, but, I think, that we have clarified that they are going to be describing that for us, and once they do, you can check it, and we can go ahead and make the conveyance by quit claim, correct? John Stoll: I would think so. Philip Hayes: Alright, very good.
Thanks.
President Mosby: County Highway, Ralph. Ralph Kissinger: Ralph Kissinger, County Highway. Mr. Mourdock, I didn't mean to spring that on you earlier. Eric Bentle, apparently, had a line item put in the budget for the Cumulative, I have trouble with that word, Cumulative Bridge to buy that step van. I did check with Carol Gorman, the bookkeeper, and there is a line in their for a utility step van in the budget. Commissioner Mourdock: I didn't mean to infer that that wasn't in there, I am just saying that I wasn't aware of it, hadn't heard of it, and whenever we are doing something differently, and I am not aware of it, I would like to know why. Ralph Kissinger: I understand, and in the future I will try to do that ahead of time with you. You have my reports, basically, today we finished the outer portion of St. Joe between Adler and Frontage, it's completed now, on the paving. The paving crew is going to either move to the closer to town section between Mohr and Orchard on St. Joe, or go ahead and start on Boonville-New Harmony. We are milling the bridges today and tomorrow, if the mill work gets finished, we will go ahead and start on Boonville-New Harmony with the base or the binder out there, and try and go ahead and get it taken care of since it is a heavily traveled route, and it is in bad shape. Other than that, I really don't have much this week, unless you have any more questions. President Mosby: I don't have any questions. Thanks a lot. Ralph Kissinger: Thank you.
President Mosby: County Attorney, do we have anything? Philip Hayes: No report. President Mosby: Okay.
President Mosby: Superintendent of County Buildings. Tammy McKinney: I have two late pink slips, and two late travel requests, and that is all I have. Commissioner Mourdock: Are those the ones that were on our desks? Tammy McKinney: Yes. Uh-huh. President Mosby: Okay. Tammy McKinney: The two late travel requests are from Health, and the two late pink slips, one is County Commission and one is County Council. Commissioner Fanello: Do we need to make a motion to accept those? Motion to accept the late consent items. Commissioner Mourdock: Motion to accept them and add them to the consent items- Commissioner Fanello: Add them to- Commissioner Mourdock: -let me add to that motion then, I got them out of order here a little bit, I also have two things that were not initially entered in the consent file that need to be, one of them is for the Center Township Assessor, one of their employees had a vehicle stolen and we had a reimbursement for mileage for a log, so I would move that that be entered. Also, what is the other thing? I guess, that was it. So, I will move that we enter that into the record. Commissioner Fanello: Second. President Mosby: I have a motion and a second to enter documents into the consent. So ordered. Commissioner Mourdock: I would move approval of the acceptance of the Burdette Park, Soil and Water Conservation,and Ozone Officers reports into the record. Commissioner Fanello: Second. President Mosby: I have a motion and a second. So ordered. Commissioner Mourdock: Move approval of the consent items. Commissioner Fanello: Second. President Mosby: Motion to accept consent and second. So ordered. Commissioner Mourdock: We do not have the form tonight, but I would move that we also, I guess, have prepared so we can enter them next week, a summary of our Executive Session minutes. That Executive Session began at 5:00 p.m. tonight, I almost said 5:00 a.m., it hasn't been quite that long, it ended at 6:00 p.m., and concerned outstanding legal matters against the county and a personnel issue. Commissioner Fanello: Second. President Mosby: I have a motion and
a second. So ordered.
President Mosby: Any Old Business? Commissioner Mourdock: Go ahead. Commissioner Fanello: I was going to...architect interview letters- Commissioner Mourdock: Yes. Commissioner Fanello: -I have a draft here of the letter, so , I guess, we just need to move to approve that. To send to all of the companies telling them what we talked about last week. Commissioner Mourdock: Per our discussion last week, so I would, Catherine gave me her draft, and I reviewed it, and I presume that you have seen my comments- Commissioner Fanello: Yeah, which they- Commissioner Mourdock: I would move- Commissioner Fanello: -were a couple of different comments. Commissioner Mourdock: -approval on signature of the architect's letter so that we could send it out then by fax in the morning to all of the six finalists. Commissioner Fanello: Second. President Mosby: I have a motion and a second. So ordered. Any other Old Business? Commissioner Fanello: Yes, I've got one thing. On April 9th when you and I voted on the incentive package for the Executive Inn, I understand, that you are going to the Council meeting on Wednesday, so it was suggested that we have a letter to give to the Council, just kind of letting them know that you and I had voted on that, and kind of an encouragement letter for them to vote as well, so, I have that, and I will move approval for that letter, if that's okay with you? President Mosby: Second. Motion and a second. So ordered. Commissioner Fanello: Oh, I do have one other thing. Oh, that's not Old Business, that's New Business, never mind. President Mosby: I don't know, under Old Business do we need to discuss anything else. I went to the meeting last week. Commissioner Mourdock: Pardon? President Mosby: I said, I went to
the Council meeting last week too. We will save all that.
President Mosby: Any New Business?
Commissioner Fanello: Yes. I met with Steve Owens from the Public Defender Office this afternoon, and, I don't know if this is where I'm supposed to bring this up at, but he has a voucher that he has been trying to get paid for reimbursement for a seminar that attorney Mike Cox attended in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Since this is related to the death penalty, the state will reimburse these costs at 50%, but he was having a problem getting it through because of the per diem rates per day, and which on one date they did actually go over, and he is going to, he kind of let this one slip through the cracks, but he told me that he is going to enforce the per diem rates per day, but he asked if we could get this one reimbursed. It is on the Public Defenders credit card, and I don't really have a problem with it, you guys can look at it if you want, but the state is reimbursing 50% of all those costs, so actually it is less than the per diem rate that we allow our employees per day. Commissioner Mourdock: On the form that we typically use, and I've thought of this a dozen times and never mentioned it at the meeting, we have the per diem blank, but we also have the hotel, food and those issues listed separately, do we not? Commissioner Fanello: Uh-huh, I think so. Commissioner Mourdock: Then why do we have per diem? I mean, it is not truly a per diem- Commissioner Fanello: I don't know, you tell me. I mean, the other thing that I was going to bring up was...that I know we had this discussion in the office, I did not realize that county employees only got reimbursed 28 cents per mile, which I think is probably the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. Suzanne Crouch: That is all by Council ordinance, the per diem. Commissioner Fanello: Then how come, that was going to be my question, then how come the Commissioners do an ordinance? I have a copy of an ordinance done by the Commissioners on per diem rates and travel. If the Council set that, how come we do an ordinance? Commissioner Mourdock: That's a good question. Is that specific to our budget? Commissioner Fanello: I don't know, I guess that was going to be my question, because I don't understand why we are not at least , and, I guess, we can take this to the Council, but why we don't even follow the state's policy? I mean, they reimburse at the federal rate. I mean, I'm not going to drive, I guess, I'm going to ask do we have county vehicles available? I'm not driving my new vehicle at 28 cents a mile. President Mosby: You got, what did you say, a '72 Crown Vic down there? Commissioner Fanello: Do you have that Jeep I can use? Do you have a Jeep I can use? Commissioner Mourdock: The '72 Crown Vic, you won't drive that when gas is $1.55, you want to drive it- President Mosby: Give us something that you are going to surplus out- Commissioner Fanello: I like that Jeep you drive, so I will take that, but anyway, Steve Owens was asking me if we could get this through, I don't have a problem with it, I don't see anything excessive on here, he is going to reinforce the $26 a day for meals, so I am going to move approval for this. President Mosby: Yeah, I guess, my question is if we signed off on this when he left, I mean, did we not obligate ourselves to pay it? I'm like you, we sign off on these things and they mark food, you know, gas, motels and we say, go. Commissioner Mourdock: That's right. President Mosby: I mean, it's like we've obligated to pay it already. Commissioner Fanello: Maybe we need to have on that form what the rates are, so that everybody- President Mosby: That's what I'm thinking. Commissioner Mourdock: Yeah, and it's almost simpler to have a just flat per diem rate and do, as a true per diem. It is something that we need to talk about, maybe, as we think towards the budgeting season. Commissioner Fanello: Uh-huh. Commissioner Mourdock: Because the way we do it now, we have those separate lines that seem not to really define what they intend to fund. Commissioner Fanello: Uh-huh. I guess, that was my question, if we do the ordinance, I wasn't sure what the Council did. I mean, we had an ordinance signed by the Commissioners, so, I wasn't sure what we could do to change that. President Mosby: I'm just thinking that we ought to have something that says mileage, hotel and per diem $26 a day, and be done with it. Commissioner Mourdock: It can be that
simple as long as it is simply clarified so, that is, someone goes to a
meeting, leaves here at 7:00, has a luncheon meeting as we did the other
day, that is actually part of the meeting, and then they come back home
and sleep in their own bed that night, are they getting $26? Those are
the kind of things-
Commissioner Fanello: I thought he said...well, this one, don't they get less than $26 if they are gone less than half the or- Commissioner Mourdock: I don't know, I would have to review it. Regarding to the specific one, I think that you are right, I think we have obligated ourselves, so, did you make a motion? Commissioner Fanello: Yes, motion to approve. Commissioner Mourdock: Second. President Mosby: I have a motion and a second. So ordered. Give that to Madelyn and, I guess, she can add that with the rest of them, and we can sign it. Commissioner Fanello: Then I have another thing under New Business, we have an opening on the Visitors and Convention Bureau Board, so I move to appoint Joe Vezzoso to that board. Commissioner Mourdock: Where is Mr. Vezosso working now? Commissioner Fanello: He is the manager of the Executive Inn. The new Executive Inn. Commissioner Mourdock: The new Executive Inn. Commissioner Fanello: Yes.
Commissioner Mourdock: I'm going to pass, because I see a bit of a conflict there. President Mosby: Second. I have a motion and a second. So ordered. Any other New Business? How come I can only second and you pass? There is something wrong here. Commissioner Mourdock: You don't have to. President Mosby: Do I have a motion to adjourn? Commissioner Fanello: Motion to adjourn. President Mosby: Second, no, I'm just kidding. Do you want to second. Commissioner Mourdock: Second. President Mosby: So ordered. The meeting was adjourned at 7:42
p.m.
CONSENT ITEMS:
Employment Changes:
Travel Requests:
Center Assessor:
Sheriff:
Superior Court:
THOSE IN ATTENDANCE:
APPROVAL:
______________________________
______________________________
______________________________
Recorded and Transcribed by Madelyn Grayson  |