VANDERBURGH COUNTY

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

DECEMBER 23, 2002

The Vanderburgh County Board of Commissioners met in session this 23^rd day of December, 2002 at 5:34 p.m. in Room 307 of the Civic Center Complex with President Catherine Fanello presiding.

President Fanello: Call to order Vanderburgh County Board of Commissioner meeting, December 23^rd.

President Fanello: Introductions are as follows, to my right, Tammy McKinney, Superintendent; County Attorney, Kevin Winternheimer; Commissioner Mosby. To my left, Commissioner Mourdock; Bill Fluty, County Auditor Elect; and Recording Secretary, Madelyn Grayson. Please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance.

President Fanello: I would like to suspend our normal course of business here for a few minutes while we take a few minutes to recognize our out going Commissioner Mourdock. We have some things for you tonight. I would just like to say a few words, and then if Commissioner Mosby would like to say anything. I want to say it’s been a pleasure serving with you the past two years. You have taught me a lot. I know we’ve had differing opinions, and differing philosophies, but it certainly has been a pleasure to learn from you for the past two years.

Commissioner Mourdock: Well, thank you. That’s...I’m surprised. Whenever I hear suspend the normal things, I’m always getting ready.

President Fanello: Commissioner Mosby, did you have anything?

Commissioner Mosby: I would echo the sentiments of Commissioner Fanello, and thank you for all that you have done for us, I guess, since we got elected in 2000, took office in 2001. It was a learning experience, coming from the city, and quite the different job. I’ve had people ask me that, but I do appreciate everything you did to help us through.

Commissioner Mourdock: Well, thank you.

President Fanello: I would like to read a proclamation first:

“Whereas Richard Mourdock has served Vanderburgh County as a member of the Board of Commissioners since 1993; Whereas he has in his capacity as a member of the Board of Commissioners participated in decisions which have benefitted the residents of Vanderburgh County through projects such as the construction of the Centre, and the creation of the Welfare to Work Program; and whereas he has represented this board on committees and commission such as the Area Plan Commission and Evansville ARC with both commitment and distinction. Be it resolved this 23^rd day of December, 2002 that the Board of Commissioners wishes him well in his future endeavors and hereby honors him for his years of service to Vanderburgh County and it’s citizens by declaring this day Richard Mourdock Day in Vanderburgh County.”

We have a little plaque to give you, well, actually, we have several things to give you. All from the office. If you would like to read your–

Commissioner Mourdock: Sure, I’m overwhelmed here. Thank you very much. I have several plaques at home where Mourdock isn’t spelled correctly. So, this one will have a special meaning, that the other “o” is in Mourdock. So, I appreciate that. So, thank you very much.

President Fanello: I’m going to let you go ahead and open this. We’ve got about three gifts here for you.

Commissioner Mourdock: I noticed in the policy we’re going to go over today, on page 43, gifts–

President Fanello: Gifts–

Commissioner Mourdock: –and gratuities. Ah–

President Fanello: We know you’ll be setting up an office somewhere–

Commissioner Mourdock: I will indeed.

President Fanello: –I’m sure.

Commissioner Mourdock: Well, thank you very much for the very nice desk set. That is really classy.

President Fanello: And we did go ahead and have it inscribed for you.

Commissioner Mourdock: Well, thank you. I’m truly touched.

President Fanello: And the girls in the office have picked this out for you.

Commissioner Mourdock: You guys went overboard here. For those of you who can’t see it in the back of the room, it’s a thing on leadership.

President Fanello: I thought it was, we thought it was perfect for you, since it mentioned goals, and you’re always talking about goals.

Commissioner Mourdock: It is. It is. A leader with goals. So, thank you very much.

President Fanello: Then, we have one more thing for you, for you to hang in your office–

Commissioner Mourdock: My wife isn’t this generous at Christmas.

President Fanello: It comes with a certificate. It’s signed by the Indiana State Senate. This flag was flown over the Indiana State Capital on November 26, 2002 in honor of Richard Mourdock, Vanderburgh County Commissioner, in recognition of his retirement and commemorating his outstanding community service. It’s signed by Senator Thomas Weese.

Commissioner Mourdock: Well, thank you very much.

President Fanello: A flag to hang in your office.

Commissioner Mourdock: About an hour ago in this room, I was meeting with someone, and I said when I was speechless the best thing for me to do was just sit back and shut up. I only end up making a fool of myself, and that’s probably what I’ll do here, but this is very unexpected that you would do all this, and truly appreciated. Thank you all very much. It has been an interesting 415 meetings thus far on Monday nights in this room. I hope that along the way, at some point, I’ve offered a little, oh, something more than stubbornness, I hope, but a little bit of creativity, and, maybe a little bit of intellect, even, if I may, maybe go overboard there. I really have come to appreciate all the folks who work in government. Not just here in the Commission office, but in all of county government, because I know when I first came in to the office, I had certain, shall we say, preconceived notions of all those folks who work in government, and what motivates them, or what didn’t motivate them, and over the last eight years I’ve learned a lot; number one, you shouldn’t have preconceived notions, because there’s that old thing about walking a mile in someone else’s shoes. So, I’ve learned a lot from this, and ,quite honestly, and I’ll say this without apology, I don’t know where my political career will go from here, but I hope to do other things. Maybe even statewide. As all of you know, I had that opportunity this past year, and came very, very close, but in politics close doesn’t count for much, except to set you in a good position for something in the future. So, whatever comes, will come. If it doesn’t, that’s okay too. If we do have some success down the road, what I’ve learned here, and, well, counting next week, 416 meetings, I will try to put to good service. I will carry the memories of all the nights here, the hard ones, the easy ones, those nights when we banged heads, and those nights that went by very quickly, I’ll keep them all in mind. I’m grateful for the experience.

President Fanello: You’re welcome.

Commissioner Mourdock: Thank you all who are here.

President Fanello: You might want to open that up, and be very careful with it.

Commissioner Mourdock: Oh, that is really (Inaudible). That is really, really nice.

President Fanello: I thought that would be a nice addition to your office also.

Commissioner Mourdock: Yes, it will be. So, thank you very much.

President Fanello: You’re welcome.

President Fanello: And now we’ll get back to normal business.

Commissioner Mourdock: I’m going to squeak things here for just a minute before we start getting back to business.

Bill Fluty: You can put that together later.

President Fanello: You wouldn’t be in a hurry to get out of here, would you, Bill? Our first item on the agenda is approval of the December 16^th minutes.

Commissioner Mosby: So moved.

Commissioner Mourdock: Second.

President Fanello: So ordered.

President Fanello: Next item, County Attorney opening of bids for Old Courthouse bathroom renovations. Thank you, Mayor.

Kevin Winternheimer: Are there any bids from the audience on any of the projects tonight? Seeing none. Starting with the Old Courthouse, the first bidder is Deig Brothers Lumber Construction Company, Inc. of Evansville. The base bid number one, $95,627; alternate number one, it’s an add of $4,810; alternate number two, an add of $914; alternate number three is a deduct of $2,500; and alternate number four is a deduct of $6,000. The next bid is from Key Construction Company, Inc. of Evansville. Base bid number one, $94,900; alternate number one, $5,070; alternate number two, $900; alternate number three, $4,900; and alternate number four, $7,000. The next bidder is Accurate Underground Utilities, Inc. of Evansville. Is there a bid sheet in there? Oh, okay. Base bid, $104,813; alternate number one, $3,900; alternate number two, $1,470; number three, $12,060; and number four, $4,000. Next bid is from William H. Smith Construction Company, Inc. of Evansville. Base bid, $106,000; alternate number one, $5,227; number two, $1,650; number three, $11,892; and number four, $3,737. The next bid is from ARC Construction Company, Inc. of Evansville. Base bid, $107,350; alternate number one, $2,855; number two, $1,000; number three, $5,715; and number four, $7,975. The next bid is from Empire Contractors, Inc. of Evansville. Base bid, $98,270; alternate number one, $3,997; number two, $800; number three, $10,280; and number four, $6,800. We have one more. Last one is from Lictenberger Construction, Inc. of Evansville. Base bid, $80,752; alternate number one, $3,850; number two, $889; number three, $3,895; and number four, $4,954. That’s all the bids we have on that project.

Commissioner Mourdock: I would move that we take the bids under advisement.

Commissioner Mosby: Second.

President Fanello: So ordered.

President Fanello: Next item is open quotes for Graff Road culvert number 673 replacement.

Commissioner Mourdock: I’ll move we open the bids.

Commissioner Mosby: Second.

President Fanello: So ordered.

Commissioner Mourdock: Are there any bids here to yet turn in for the Graff Road project? Seeing none.

Kevin Winternheimer: The first one is from Blankenberger Brothers, Inc. of Cynthiana, Indiana. Let me find it, their total quote, and it’s an itemized bid. I’ll just read the totals, $22,555. The next one is from Deig Brothers Lumber and Construction Company, Inc. Their total, $20,762. The next bid is from Koberstein Trucking, Inc. of Princeton, Indiana. Their total quote, $24,600. The next bid is from CCC of Evansville, Inc. Their total, $19,971.99. We have one more. The last bid is from Accurate Underground Utilities, Inc. of Evansville. Their total, $22,014. That’s all the bids we have on that one.

Madelyn Grayson: May we make a quick tape change.

Commissioner Mosby: Motion, yeah.

(Tape Changed)

Commissioner Mosby: Motion to take bids under advisement.

Commissioner Mourdock: Second.

President Fanello: So ordered.

President Fanello: The next item is open quotes for Schillinger Road culvert #1226 replacement.

Commissioner Mourdock: And I’ll move the opening of bids. Anyone from the audience to submit a bid? There are none coming forward.

Commissioner Mosby: Second.

President Fanello: So ordered.

Kevin Winternheimer: The first bid is from Blankenberger Brothers, Inc. of Cynthiana, Indiana and their total is $18,889.50. The next bid is from Deig Brothers Lumber and Construction Company, Inc. of Evansville, their total $23,534. The next bid is from Koberstein Trucking, Inc. of Princeton, Indiana, their total $22,990. The next bid is from CCC of Evansville, Inc. Their total is $17,394.64. The last bid is from Accurate Underground Utilities, Inc. of Evansville. Their total is $18,602. And that’s all the bids we had.

Commissioner Mosby: Motion to take bids under advisement.

Commissioner Mourdock: Second.

President Fanello: So ordered.

President Fanello: The next item is the final reading of GASB34 ordinance Capital Asset Policy.

Commissioner Mourdock: And seeing no one in the audience who wishes to comment about this ordinance, this is the final reading, so I would move that we act to codify an ordinance establishing a capital asset policy for Vanderburgh County, Indiana otherwise known as the Governmental Accounting Standard Board Statement Number 34.

Commissioner Mosby: Second.

President Fanello: So ordered.

Commissioner Mourdock: We need a roll call.

President Fanello: Roll call vote. Commissioner Mourdock?

Commissioner Mourdock: Yes.

President Fanello: Commissioner Mosby?

Commissioner Mosby: Aye.

President Fanello: And I vote yes.

President Fanello: Next item is discussion of the personnel policy. I think what we need to do tonight is we need to maybe try and make some decisions on a couple of things. Mainly like vacation, sick, personal time. I just went through and made some notes that Baker & Daniels had noted in their letter about our policy, so I didn’t know if anybody has any questions and where they want to start. Kevin and I kind of talked about them before the meeting.

Commissioner Mourdock: Which page are you on?

President Fanello: Well, I’ve just got the letter with me. I didn’t go through and write down the page numbers. The first one was drug testing and what they did in the policy is kind of tighten up our language on drug testing and I think the question that we need to answer is are we going to perform pre-employment drug and alcohol testing for all applicants? Because the way it was worded in our current policy it wasn’t very clear.

Commissioner Mourdock: Routinely we have been doing that, haven’t we?

President Fanello: Okay. I just...we just...I just want to make sure that we state that in the policy clearly.

Commissioner Mourdock: Yeah, I think for liability purposes if nothing else I think we need to go ahead and do that for all employees.

President Fanello: Okay. Oh, it said our current policy had stated employees and job applicants may be asked to undergo a drug test. And they’re saying that we just need to make a decision, but you’re saying, okay. The next item was the non-exempt and exempt employees and I know I’ve had several questions since I’ve been here over the past couple of years about comp time and overtime. I think, Richard, one of your comments was directed towards the letter. They had suggested that we tighten up our policy on comp time and that we make some decisions about that. I’m not exactly sure what procedures you want to put in place, but I think you had suggested that somebody be kind of the lead person on keeping track of that, maybe submitting the comp time to the Auditor’s Office or something like that.

Commissioner Mourdock: That’s right. There were actually two parts to my comment. That was one in that I know, and maybe, Bill, as Auditor Elect and as Chief Deputy Auditor wishes to speak to this, but I think we have to make sure we do a better job in standardizing what all the departments are doing to make sure the Auditor’s job is simpler. The other comment I had, at least in the language that they had submitted, they said, and I am looking for the page here, I think it was 17.

President Fanello: Yes, page 17.

Commissioner Mourdock: Um, regarding compensatory time they say in lieu of overtime pay, the person will be given priority with respect to extra work assignments. Those words just, and, Kevin, maybe you can help us with that, but given priority with respect to extra work assignments sounds like opening the door for some charges of favoritism or something else. I just wonder if there isn’t some language that we can put in place that otherwise takes away charges that you might otherwise be faced saying that somebody was getting favored treatment over someone else.

Kevin Winternheimer: I think all they meant by this was they were using the carrot method saying, you know, if you do it the way we want to do it then if we want you to take comp time instead of overtime that we’ll look favored upon certain assignments. You’re certainly not required to do that. I think that merely a suggestion as one of the carrot type offerings to get you to do what the county wanted you to do.

President Fanello: Because if we are going to allow them comp time in lieu of overtime or something we need to have them sign an agreement with us that they’ll accept comp time instead of overtime pay and I think they did include a copy of the agreement at the end of the new policy which is something I don’t think we had before.

Bill Fluty: Before when they got their new policy book they also signed a page that they have read it and understood that and I think the comp time was stated in there that they would get comp time rather than overtime pay.

President Fanello: They think we need to have a specific page addressing that and they wanted to tighten up that language. So I guess–

Commissioner Mourdock: Before we leave the subject, Kevin, attorneys are good at reading sentences three or four different ways. Do you read that in any way as I do, that it poses a bit of risk to a manager? I mean, those words:

“Will be given priority with respect to extra work assignments.”

That just somehow seems to me that it’s a bit of a potential trap. Do you not read it that way at all?

Kevin Winternheimer: I didn’t read it that way when I read it. You know, whatever criteria that we use the department heads or elected officials will obviously give, if it is available, certain work to certain individuals. What criteria they use, they’re suggesting here it’s if you go along with our policy of using comp time instead of being paid for it they’re going to use that. I didn’t see the big trap that you were looking for.

Commissioner Mourdock: I’m not looking for one.

Kevin Winternheimer: I know, it’s just that you noticed–

Commissioner Mourdock: Yeah, okay.

President Fanello: That’s something, I guess, that we can think about over the next. I mean, we’re not going to pass this tonight. This is just to bring up things that Kevin can research and decide on. I guess we’re in favor of the departments turning in their comp time to the Auditor’s Office. Is that...was your suggestion, Commissioner Mourdock?

Bill Fluty: Currently offices do turn in the time, comp time, to the office. Many offices, not all. Through the KRONOS timekeeping system it comes through automatically. Some offices participate, but not all.

President Fanello: Right, I think we would probably want to take the step to require all offices–

Commissioner Mourdock: Exactly.

President Fanello: –to submit that time. Commissioner Mosby, is that okay with you?

Commissioner Mosby: That’s fine.

President Fanello: Okay.

Kevin Winternheimer: I don’t know if you wanted to go a little step further and have a statement in there, unless I missed it, that if you do work extra time the department head or elected official is encouraged to schedule that off time for the employee in lieu of banking it or if you wanted to set a bank limit or that kind of thing. You know, I’m saying those are additional issues you may want to just think about.

Commissioner Mourdock: The bank limit I think is something that very differently needs to be considered because I know that over the years that I’ve been here that has consistently been a problem when number one it wasn’t tracked as accurately as it might have been. I think we’re getting better with it every year, but then we also have people claiming lots of comp time that probably goes over the range of reasonableness, so if we could establish some sort of bank that would be a huge help.

President Fanello: Okay, we can be thinking about that over the next few. The next thing that I noticed that I think we need to clean up is the wording of the vacation, sick and personal time. Baker & Daniels noticed some inconsistencies first of all of how the sick leave was handled when a person was terminated, but also I have a very...I think it is very confusing the way we have it worded in there about the vacation and sick and personal time, how it is awarded. I think it is page 28. Actually, page 29. It says new employees hired on or before June 15^th will receive five working days of vacation to be used during the calendar year. Employees hired on or after June 16^th will receive ten working days of vacation at the beginning of the next calendar year and may use five of these days after they complete six months of employment. I almost think I’m working an algebra equation in there. I think it would be better and Kevin and I talked about this, I mean my suggestion is, you know, we pro-rate the vacation, sick and personal time on a monthly basis. That’s, I think, the way we’ve gone in our union contracts and that seems to be a very consistent method because it almost looks like in certain situations they get some vacation time up front and then you have a problem whenever they resign that they have overused their vacation or sick time. I know that has happened in a couple of offices. As Baker & Daniels noted I think the policy has been to dock an employee’s paycheck, their last paycheck, but that is not a proper legal procedure, so I would suggest we pro-rate it on a monthly basis.

Kevin Winternheimer: That is the way the city does it in case you’re curious, but they’ve being doing it that way for years and years. I think for over 20 years. They were doing it that way when I started. You are at point whatever the numerical point is days per month that works out to two weeks a year. As you go up your steps it increases.

Commissioner Mourdock: In that first point day of vacation is after your first month?

President Fanello: Uh-huh.

Kevin Winternheimer: Yes.

Commissioner Mourdock: So you don’t get anything during the first month.

President Fanello: Not the first month, after the first month of your hire date.

Commissioner Mourdock: I agree.

Commissioner Mosby: I agree.

President Fanello: Okay. In military leave they had a couple of questions about, first of all our former policy did not include all branches of service that said reserves or the national guard. so they have changed the language to include all branches of service, and the second issue was the health insurance. Our wording says that we will pay for the employee’s health insurance during his entire military leave, and they said that’s really kind of an unusual policy and wanted to know if that was the way we wanted to keep doing it or if we wanted to do it any different, because under federal law you are only required to pay...to offer them health insurance for 18 months.

Commissioner Mourdock: And that’s reserved for...or that’s offered to those who are in active duty or in the reserve?

President Fanello: Yes. In fact, they actual...let me go back here.

Commissioner Mourdock: And we’re required to do it for 18 months?

President Fanello: He said federal law only requires employees to provide health insurance for the first 18 months of military leave. Moreover, after 30 days the employer may begin charging the employee the full premium plus a two percent administrative fee. After 18 months the employee experiences a qualifying event and is eligible for COBRA. He wasn’t sure that we, you know, we really wanted to pay the full health insurance while they were on their full term of military leave of absence. He thought that might be strapping us financially.

Commissioner Mourdock: You may well disagree with me on this one. Even though we are required to do it for 18 months given the service that people do in the reserves I don’t have a problem with that. In fact, would be willing even to take it maybe to two years. I doubt that we would incur that very often. I think whenever we’ve had people on reserve duty I don’t know that it has ever even approached a year, let alone 18 months, but I would be comfortable even up to two years because the service they provide.

President Fanello: And I’m just bringing it up just so that we get it clarified because they just want to make sure that we understood the law and if we wanted clarify it any further. So you’re saying two years?

Commissioner Mourdock: I would be comfortable with two years.

President Fanello: Commissioner Mosby, any thoughts?

Commissioner Mosby: (Inaudible.)

President Fanello: Okay. Um, I don’t think there was any...I mean, they added a lot of...or kind of tightened up language on several policies such as the sexual harassment policy, e-mail policy. I mean, employees are going to be informed in the personnel handbook that, you know, e-mails are not private and they may be monitored by anyone in the county. Their supervisor, department head, elected official or whatever. I think they have also put some strong language in there about workplace violence and employee conduct. They went through and simplified the language on that also. So I guess those were kind of my issues as I read it. Things that I thought we need to discuss, if anybody has anything else.

Commissioner Mourdock: You and I had swapped some e-mail on one issue regarding alcohol use.

President Fanello: Yes.

Commissioner Mourdock: Those who drive vehicles and I have looked back through this and couldn’t find that. Did that not have muster?

President Fanello: This is the same copy. We haven’t changed anything yet, so I don’t know.

Commissioner Mourdock: Okay, so they did not include a new striked up version with that suggested language?

President Fanello: That’s the same version. We don’t have a new version yet.

Commissioner Mourdock: Okay.

President Fanello: I wanted to wait until we got here tonight to talk about it.

Commissioner Mourdock: Okay, well that just to avoid problems that have occurred in the past regarding county employees who consume alcohol and then drive a county vehicle my suggestion would be that we put some hourly limit to say that, and pick a number, no county employee shall drink anything for 12 hours in advance of driving a vehicle. I know from a prosecutorial sense that if someone is caught they are going to look at what their blood alcohol is, and for different people depending on what they’ve consumed that could show them intoxicated, it might not, but to me that’s not good enough. It’s just the fact that they have been consuming alcohol before they got in that vehicle, I would like to say that if we know they’ve done that within 12 hours prior to driving that vehicle they are subject to termination.

President Fanello: Kevin, do you have any thoughts on that?

Kevin Winternheimer: No, and I talked to...not to Greg Utkin, but to his associate and said that I thought the Commissioners would consider that and he said that would be at your discretion and they could certainly put that in if that is what you wanted to go with.

Commissioner Mourdock: Well, it would make some decisions a lot more clear cut when people have in fact done that. They’ve done it in the past and I suspect they’ll do it again. The answer well, I only had one beer, doesn’t carry muster at that point. It’s a matter of when, not how much. It’s a lot easier to make termination decisions based on that kind of ironclad simple policy than on a blood alcohol content that nobody passed.

President Fanello: I don’t have any problem with that. Commissioner Mosby, do you have any thoughts?

Commissioner Mosby: Yeah, I just need to think about it. It’s not that I have a problem with it. I guess my concern is–

Kevin Winternheimer: I don’t know how, I’m not the medical person and I don’t know how fast the body dissipates if you’re going to ask me those kind of questions, whether 12 hours or you’re asking the wrong person. That information is available, but I don’t know what the appropriate time period would be.

Commissioner Mourdock: The reason I picked 12 hours is that is what the FAA uses. I mean, I know there is one set of rules and regulations used by a government agency, not a state agency certainly, but they have a 12 hour limitation. Fortunately, we don’t have county employees flying 767's.

President Fanello: That’s a good thing. Well, we can think about it over the week and maybe you can get with Kevin, Commissioner Mosby, if you’ve got any thoughts on that. Other than that I don’t have any other comments unless anyone else does. Alright, so, Kevin–

Kevin Winternheimer: Did you want to discuss the roll over aspect–

President Fanello: Oh, that’s right, vacation time and I have mentioned this before. I am not in favor of employees losing their vacation at the end of the year because I think if they have earned it during the year but something has come up and they haven’t taken it, the office has been too busy, or maybe they couldn’t afford to take a vacation I don’t think it is fair that they lose that vacation at the end of the year. That’s my personal viewpoint. They have earned it and I think they deserve it and I think it should roll over.

Commissioner Mourdock: My comment on that is vacations are given almost as a health policy. I mean, we want people to take time away from the job. On those rare instances, and I’ll use the highway garage as an easy example, if we got some employee out there that was planning on using his vacation here during the last five or six days and all of a sudden we get a bunch of snowfall and we need every person out there then in that case, obviously, we need the person working and I don’t mind paying for him, paying for that vacation on that kind of basis. But I know what will happen because there are a lot of people who would rather take the money than take the time and they just work the hours and then bank the vacation time and take it in a check and I don’t think in the long run that is good for us. So on those almost emergency basis I am okay with that. We’ve had one come through like, as you know, quite recently where it was exactly that situation, but I think as a blanket policy if you say we’ll pay your vacation if you don’t use it you’re going to find out that you’re going to pay for a lot of vacation that never gets used.

President Fanello: I’m not saying pay, I’m just saying they can roll over maybe so many days and you have a limit on how many days they can roll over.

Commissioner Mourdock: And they have to roll them over immediately? In other words they can’t carry 2002 vacation into 2006?

President Fanello: Right, they could maybe roll over...like say they didn’t get to take three days in 2002 and maybe you let them roll those three days over to 2003, but maybe you just have a limit on the number that they can accumulate.

Commissioner Mourdock: And if you are talking something like three days that’s not as big an issue. I can live with three days, but when we have people with two and three weeks I’ll guarantee you they’re going to be banking two or three weeks. Again, I don’t think that’s the purpose of vacation, so if you’re saying you want to the policy to read that it is three days–

President Fanello: I’m picking a number out of the air, but I think you could have a limit on the maximum amount that you let them roll over.

Commissioner Mourdock: Well, I could support three days and additional days for that kind of emergency type situation I described.

Commissioner Mosby: I would support something like that if they didn’t have any comp time on the books, but I mean we’re already trying to curb comp time right now. In the union contracts we’re trying to put a limit on it as to what kind of liability this county is already incurring. I would say we do something similar...in the Fire Department over in the city that if you have no comp time in your bank you can convert a vacation day. So I would say an employee could convert three days and put 24 hours over into his bank if he wanted to, to be taken at some point in time, but I would only do it in the case that you didn’t have comp time. But if somebody has got 450 hours of comp time in their bank I can’t see letting them start to accumulate vacation days because all you’re doing is putting this county at more of liability. I would go for some converted time if somebody wanted to convert vacation over to comp.

President Fanello: Maybe Kevin could check it out and maybe we could bat around some language or something. I just know we have one person in our office who is losing four days this year, so there has just been time she hasn’t been able to take it.

Bill Fluty: Let me comment on that. For eight years I have been involved with accruals for the county. We’ve implemented the KRONOS timekeeping system so I am very familiar with why we do certain things different ways and the vacation and why there is an argument. You’ve got a case for why you would like to and I think there are many cases out there why it does...why it is disruptive to an office to change the policy that we have on vacation and to carry overtime. We actually have comp that we carry over now which is a liability which we actually do a total on at the end of the year. We actually do a sick bank total liability accrual that is turned into the State Board of Accounts to tell us how much we do owe if things come to a head. In the Auditor’s Office we have 25 people and they are required to take their time and they have all met that requirement for the years that I’ve been there. It’s a scheduling issue, it’s a management issue and we seem to be able to complete it. We have many people with six weeks vacations. If they would carry more vacation into the next year it would just...sooner or later there is going to be a new problem. We know what we have know, but it’s going to create a new problem trying to let those people off in that time and then that banked time is another issue. Where is the money going to come from when we do buy them out?

President Fanello: Well, that’s why I’m saying you have a limit.

Bill Fluty: If you would like that sometime I could be involved in those discussions because we actually do keep track of the vacation, sick, comp and personal time now and we do actually pro-rate those times as we come out as many offices do. I think Eric is one of the best that the Sheriff is keeping their time and he might have some comments on vacation.

Madelyn Grayson: May I make a quick tape change?

President Fanello: Sure.

(Tape Changed)

Eric Williams: Chief Deputy Williams, Sheriffs office. As an office that has an excess of 260 employees, I would just ask that if we could get copies of that, and maybe sit down with you all to give you some input as to the ramifications that some of those decisions on the management of an office of that size, with the resources we have available is. It’s been tough to get where we’re at. We’re not opposed to changes, or looking at anything you’re talking about, but we would like to at least be a part of that conversation with you all, as you make those decisions, because they will have pretty far reaching impact on our operation.

President Fanello: I guess, I don’t, I don’t understand, because to me it’s a stroke of a keystroke on a keyboard, keeping track of stuff, but, I mean–

Eric Williams: You haven’t seen our keyboards.

Commissioner Mourdock: Yeah.

Bill Fluty: Currently, right now, our KRONOS system is set up to not allow anything coming forward. That’s a programming change. Then our software where we do the payroll, which is Ultipro, which is another software change. That would be a programming change also. We have programmed both sets not to do what you’re asking to do. Not that they couldn’t be changed, but there is, it’s a tumbling effect. It’s just not saying we do this now. We actually, the Sheriff has a personnel policy book of their own, which they follow. Which is somewhat different than the policy you’re looking at right now. Superior Court has a policy, Circuit Court has a policy, and you also have three or four union contracts. So, each change you make, it tumbles.

President Fanello: So, why do we have so many...I mean, I can understand why the Sheriff Department has a different policy, because they have some state statute things, probably, that they follow, but why do all these other people have different policies?

Eric Williams: Eric Williams, Chief Deputy in the Sheriff’s office again. That’s one thing that we would like to participate in that, because in those areas that there is no reason for us to be different, we would like to be the same as everybody else. It’s happened over time, and we’ve got a policy book that’s three times as big as the county’s, in general. There’s some things we do because of statute, and because of the merit system, and those things, but there’s a lot of things that we’ve just done out of past practice, that if we could get those to meld back together where it makes sense, because I know everytime that we have a retirement–

President Fanello: Uh-huh.

Eric Williams: –or somebody leaves, it’s a nightmare dealing with the Auditor’s office. No fault of theirs or ours, it’s just three different contracts, a deputy’s policy, civilian policy, it all needs to get melded together somehow.

President Fanello: So, you’re interested in setting down and maybe coming, being part of this policy.

Eric Williams: Myself, and our personnel director would be happy–

President Fanello: Okay.

Eric Williams: –to do anything we could to help make sense of this.

President Fanello: I didn’t realize there were so many policies out there.

Bill Fluty: True, but we’ve, we do have this down pretty well now.

Eric Williams: Right now, we have it to a science.

President Fanello: Well–

Eric Williams: That’s why you’ve scared me.

Bill Fluty: In all these issues–

Eric Williams: (Inaudible) in place.

President Fanello: Well, I don’t see the purpose of us having four or five different personnel policies out there. Not only does this, is that bad for the departments, it’s also bad for the County Attorney if a liability situation ends up, and he’s got to go back and interpret three or four or five different personnel policies.

Eric Williams: Agreed upon. That’s, I think Dave Mosby, in our contract negotiations are striving very hard...we’ve had three distinctly different contracts with employees working side by side, under the same union, with different rules and regulations, just because of how their contract was negotiated. Those are things we’re trying to get straightened back out. It is a mess.

President Fanello: Okay. Well, it’s sounds like we need to check out what other things are out there, and see if we can’t get one uniform policy. Is there a written policy over in the courts?

Bill Fluty: They do have a written policy.

President Fanello: Okay.

Commissioner Mourdock: At least one.

President Fanello: If not more. I think we probably need to, Kevin, if we could, maybe, get a hold of those, and take a look at those, because I did not realize that the courts had their own policy.

Kevin Winternheimer: I believe also, at one time, we were looking at, and I’m not asking for a decision tonight, but whether you were going to allow credit for people to work in the Trustee’s office or other governmental units. So, just keep that in the back of your mind–

President Fanello: Okay.

Kevin Winternheimer: –as one of those areas that you, is out there, if you want to consider it. You’re certainly not required to, but–

President Fanello: Right.

Kevin Winternheimer: –you may.

Commissioner Mourdock: That is a good point, because you need a basis of consistency. We’ve had that come up for the benefits–

President Fanello: Uh-huh.

Commissioner Mourdock: –for the Trustees offices, quite recently. We need to make sure there’s a pattern of consistency for however those people hop from job to job, as we all know they are prone to do.

President Fanello: Well–

Kevin Winternheimer: Then lastly, whoever in your office is losing those four days, it seems like that’s a management request. They certainly should be allowed to carry those over, if management is telling them they have to be at work and can’t take their vacation, I don’t know, just a thought.

Commissioner Mourdock: Okay.

President Fanello: My thought too. I guess, we’ll check out the other policies over the next week or so, and tighten up this language, and come back with a formal policy after the first of the year.

Commissioner Mourdock: Okay.

Kevin Winternheimer: One last thing, Bill, do you have those court personnel policies? Do you have a copy of that somewhere?

Bill Fluty: I believe I do.

Kevin Winternheimer: Okay. If you could have someone make me a copy, and I’ll take a look at that. Because I was not aware that was out there either.

Bill Fluty: They are very similar to the policies we have. It’s not that far off.

President Fanello: Well, there’s just...I think it would be better if we just have one document. I think everybody would be happy.

President Fanello: Okay, next item is precinct re-numbering.

Kevin Winternheimer: Yes. As we discussed last meeting, it was proposed to, if I can find my notes. Let me get them in the right order here. To renumber so that the wards have sequential precincts. It was proposed that renaming precinct 1-16 as 1-11, because there, currently, does not exist a 1-11, because we had moved that back in November. To rename precinct 2-17 as 2-6. Same thing there. I talked to, who was it? I talked to someone up at the state election office last week, and they said, no, if you’re just renaming precincts, you can do that at any time. They didn’t see a problem, if that’s what you want to do. Just notify them of what you’re doing. I emphasize we are not changing any boundaries or anything like that. It will necessitate that City Council go back and re-do their ordinance, because when they established the councilmatic districts, they do not currently have a 1-11 or a 2-6, because they shifted those to other wards, and just left them blank.

Commissioner Mourdock: Okay.

Kevin Winternheimer: So, it’s your prerogative, if you want to do this, that’s fine. They will go back and change their ordinance. I guess, with the coming election, if you want to do it, now’s the time.

Commissioner Mourdock: Yeah.

Kevin Winternheimer: So–

Commissioner Mourdock: I would thereby move that we rename precinct 1-16 to be 1-11, and that we also rename 2-17 to be precinct 2-6.

Commissioner Mosby: Second.

President Fanello: So ordered.

Madelyn Grayson: Kevin, is there paperwork to be signed?

Kevin Winternheimer: I’ve got all kinds of copies.

Madelyn Grayson: Thank you.

President Fanello: Next item is representation letter for Clifton Gunderson. I talked with Kevin about this last week, and he believes the County Auditor should sign that letter. It needs to be signed before we can get our final report. So, I think, Tammy did deliver one down to the Auditor’s office, but I think she’s been out. So, Bill, if you could maybe bring that to her attention when she comes back. We do need that right away, so we can get our final report.

President Fanello: Is there anyone else in the audience wishing to address the board at this time?

President Fanello: Old Business.

Commissioner Mourdock: One brief bit of Old Business. This is a good night to do this, I think, given all of the things on the back wall here. We have been looking for members that we needed to appoint to the Old Courthouse Advisory Committee. I was approached by someone who’s got a great interest in old buildings, old architecture. Actually has studied architecture a little bit in Europe. Has a lot of interest in interior design. A degree in landscape design, and has been looking for a way to do some public involvement. If this were not two weeks from, or one week from my last meeting, I wouldn’t be making this recommendation, but I would humbly put before you the name of Marilyn Mourdock, who would like to be on the Old Courthouse Advisory Committee. So, and for those in the audience, it is a non-paying, non-compensatory board. I know she’s interested, and she asked if I could make such an appointment. Given that my time is about to run out, I thought it appropriate.

Commissioner Mosby: I will happily second that.

President Fanello: Did you make the motion?

Commissioner Mourdock: I move that we appoint Marilyn Mourdock to the Old Courthouse Advisory Board.

President Fanello: And you seconded. I say so ordered. We still need two more appointments. Thank you, Richard.

President Fanello: New Business, the Mayor brought over a letter to the Governor, that he is sending to the Governor regarding I-69, and just urging him to make the decision this year. Which we only have a few more days. He wanted to know if we would be interested in sending a letter also. So, if that’s the wish of this board, we can certainly draft a letter this week.

Commissioner Mourdock: Most assuredly. A thought I had along those lines the other day that, obviously, will carry past the first of the year, but I’ll offer it up anyway. The Governor is currently doing a lot with his Energize Indiana Plan. I’m trying to do some things on the economy. Obviously, that’s a good thing to do. I’m wondering if the various County Commissioners, along that route, went together to declare, basically, like a economic development pact along that I-69 corridor. If that wouldn’t also help send a message to the Governor as to the need for not just the route, but the direct route. To do something like that doesn’t mean that it would require a great deal other than a sense of cooperation, perhaps, that those counties and, basically, I think it would be Vanderburgh, Warrick, Gibson, Pike, Martin, Greene, Davies, and Monroe, could have their Commissioners, or representatives of their Commissions meet to establish some ground rules to try to deem it an economic development zone. That would fit with the Governor’s Economic Development Plan. It would also help make the point of what that road could do. So, I’ll leave that thought for you to consider. In the meantime, I would move that we sign the letter in agreement with the Mayor.

Commissioner Mosby: Do we have to write one, or just sign it?

President Fanello: No, we would have to draft one.

Commissioner Mourdock: Oh.

President Fanello: He’s already actually written one.

Commissioner Mosby: I’ll second the motion to draft a letter.

President Fanello: Okay. So ordered. If there’s no other New Business, we’ll move on to department head reports.

President Fanello: County Engineer.

John Stoll: First item I’ve got is in regard to the Mt. Pleasant Road Project. We’ve received counter offers on two parcels. On the first parcel, it was parcel number 25. The owner is Don Mc Camish, and he has requested a $700 increase, from $5,225 to $5,925. It’s requested that be approved. He will sign off on all the documents subject to that increased offer.

Commissioner Mosby: I’ll make a motion to accept his offer.

Commissioner Mourdock: Second.

President Fanello: So ordered.

John Stoll: The second parcel is also owned by Don Mc Camish. It’s parcel number 26. He is requesting an increase of $1,000 from $6,025 to $7,025. Here again, it’s requested that it be approved. He has agreed that he’ll sign off on all the right-of-way, subject to that increase.

Commissioner Mosby: Make a motion to accept.

Commissioner Mourdock: Second.

President Fanello: So ordered.

John Stoll: Next I went through the quotes that we opened up this evening on Graff Road and on Schillinger Road, and on Graff Road I request that it be awarded to CCC of Evansville for the amount of $19,971.99. I went through their bid, and all the paperwork was there, and all the math totaled up correctly on the itemized proposal.

Commissioner Mosby: Motion to accept CCC on Graff Road.

Commissioner Mourdock: Second.

President Fanello: So ordered.

John Stoll: Also on Schillinger Road, it’s also requested that CCC of Evansville be given that project. That’s for the amount of $17,394.64.

Commissioner Mosby: Motion to accept CCC’s bid on Schillinger Road.

Commissioner Mourdock: Second, and, John, is that where the slope was failing? On Schillinger?

John Stoll: No, that’s Sensmeier where the slope was failing.

Commissioner Mourdock: Oh, okay.

John Stoll: Next I have the right-of-way acquisition agreements with Bernardin Lochumueller and Associates for section three of Lynch Road. This would take care of the remainder of the right-of-way we need for the project from the interchange out to the county line. This agreement amount is for $89,000, and it’s requested this be approved.

Commissioner Mosby: Motion to accept.

Commissioner Mourdock: Second.

President Fanello: So ordered.

John Stoll: I did have Kevin review those agreements some time ago. There were some changes, but those were incorporated. The changes Kevin recommended were incorporated into the agreements.

President Fanello: While you’re talking about Lynch Road, last Friday the Redevelopment Commission met, and Kevin is checking on the procedures for us to move forward in using the surplus funds for the construction. So, he should be able to get back with us in the next week or so about that. Then the Redevelopment Commission would meet right after the first of the year.

John Stoll: Next I’ve got a change order on Burkhardt Road. This is the final change order on the project, and it’s for an increase of $15,508. The reason for this change order is due to the fact that there was old concrete pavement on Old Boonville Highway that was covered up with asphalt. Since the job was bid according to INDOT specs, INDOT specs dictate that concrete pavement has a specific pay item. That’s what caused the increase. So, it’s requested this be approved.

Commissioner Mosby: Motion to approve.

Commissioner Mourdock: Second.

President Fanello: So ordered.

John Stoll: Last I would like to request that we hire Bernardin Lochumueller and Associates for the construction inspection on University Parkway. This needs to be done by consultant, because we don’t have sufficient in-house staff to do the project. Since Bernardin Lochmueller designed it, they’ve got quite a bit of familiarity with the project.

Commissioner Mosby: Motion to accept Bernardin Lochmueller.

Commissioner Mourdock: Second.

President Fanello: So ordered.

John Stoll: That’s all I have.

President Fanello: Alright. Thank you, Kevin, or, no, you’re not Kevin, you’re John.

President Fanello: County Highway.

Dennis Hudnall: Dennis Hudnall, County Highway. First of all I want to thank you all for coming out today. All the folks at the garage enjoyed talking to you. Look forward to seeing you again coming to the garage. I wish you a Merry Christmas.

President Fanello: Thank you, Dennis.

Commissioner Mosby: Thank you.

Dennis Hudnall: Besides that, I forgot my report on my desk. So, if you have any questions, I’ll try to answer them.

Commissioner Mosby: I did have one on the second...no, I’m just kidding.

President Fanello: Thank you, Dennis.

Dennis Hudnall: Have a Merry Christmas.

Commissioner Mourdock: I saw snowflakes out the window a few minutes ago. So, get ready. Really, I did.

President Fanello: County Attorney.

Commissioner Mosby: It was trying to do something.

Kevin Winternheimer: Just briefly. The gentleman, who’s name escapes me, from Mill Road Estates, came by and he dropped off a list of the property addresses, tax code numbers, and property owners, which will be extremely helpful. John, if we ever get a final rough estimate...you don’t have to tell me now, but just call me sometime, and we can, I will see what the estimated legal fees will be. I wanted a base figure on the project size, before I went out and got some quotes.

John Stoll: I did speak to Larry Burton, no Larry Alton and Don Burton about the project, and got the same paperwork. I told them that it will be probably the middle of January before I could get a chance to get the plans reviewed–

Kevin Winternheimer: Okay.

John Stoll: –and be able to finalize the cost estimates and everything. So, they are aware of it.

Kevin Winternheimer: Okay. So, just keep me posted on that.

John Stoll: Will do.

Kevin Winternheimer: The only other matter I have is, I don’t know if this was on the agenda last week or not, but it’s a contract with Verizon that the Central Dispatch people sent over. It’s, and forgive my ignorance on all this electronic stuff, but it’s for four end office trunks to the Verizon 911 selective router, and selective router and data base services. It says based upon an access line count of 160 something. The billing has been apparently $924.91 a month, and that has now dropped to $219.39. I have no problem with the contract language. This is something, from what I gather, it facilitates 911 service on the cell phones.

President Fanello: For the cell phones.

Kevin Winternheimer: Recommend approval.

Commissioner Mosby: Since it’s going down 700 bucks, I’ll make a motion we approve.

Commissioner Mourdock: Second.

President Fanello: So ordered.

Kevin Winternheimer: I have the document here for your signature. That’s all I have.

President Fanello: Alright.

President Fanello: Superintendent.

Tammy McKinney: I have one late, actually it’s not late, I just forgot to put it on the agenda, surplus, a couple of computers from the Election Office, that we need to add to the Consent. And, yes, you have some quit claim deeds to sign also.

President Fanello: Oh, thank you.

Tammy McKinney: Thanks, Madelyn.

President Fanello: On December 23^rd.

Commissioner Mourdock: I’ll move approval–

Tammy McKinney: That’s better than the 30^th.

Madelyn Grayson: I tried to avoid Rob, but he caught me.

President Fanello: You should have ran.

Commissioner Mourdock: I’ll move approval of adding the couple of computers from the Election Office to the surplus file, and move that we add that to the Consent Items.

Commissioner Mosby: Second.

President Fanello: So ordered.

President Fanello: Burdette Park.

Gary Hohman: Yes, Gary Hohman from Burdette Park. I know in Steve’s absence, on his behalf, I would like to extend, I know Steve’s best wishes to Mr. Mourdock on whatever future endeavors that he might pursue. I know it’s been a pleasure for me for the five years that I’ve been affiliated with county government to work with you, and feel like that your wisdom and judgement will be deeply missed.

Commissioner Mourdock: Well, thank you, Gary.

Gary Hohman: Also, the last item on behalf of the staff and management at Burdette, we would like to wish everyone a safe and happy holidays.

President Fanello: Thank you, Gary.

Commissioner Mourdock: Thank you.

Commissioner Mosby: Thank you, Gary.

Commissioner Mourdock: We have also in the file the Soil and Water Conservation District Report and I move we add that to the record.

Commissioner Mosby: Second.

President Fanello: So ordered.

Commissioner Mourdock: Dr. Alexandrovich was here, but she’s apparently left, and I don’t think we have a report for her.

President Fanello: Okay. I don’t think we have one in the file.

President Fanello: Any questions on the Consent Items?

Commissioner Mourdock: With the one addition then, I would move approval of the Consents.

Commissioner Mosby: Second.

President Fanello: So ordered. Motion to adjourn?

Commissioner Mourdock: So moved.

Commissioner Mosby: Second.

President Fanello: So ordered.

The meeting was adjourned at 6:36 p.m.

CONSENT ITEMS:

         Travel Requests: Health Department.

         Employment Changes:

         County Clerk                   Auditor                  Circuit Court

         Superior Court                Recorder               Center Assessor

         County Council               VCCC

         Requests for Service: Probate Court.

         Sheriff: Weekly Jail and Community Corrections Reports.

         Treasurer: Submit monthly report.

         Auditor:

         KRONOS Professional Service Hours for Upgrade in Sheriff Department.

         Co-Op Extension:

         2003 Contractual Service Agreement with Purdue Univeristy.

         Commissioners:

         Quit Claim Deeds from Commission Surplus Sale.

         Election Office: Submit Surplus Computers.

         Those in Attendance:

         Catherine Fanello           David W. Mosby             Richard E. Mourdock

         Kevin Winternheimer      Bill Fluty                          Tammy McKinney

         Madelyn Grayson           Eric Williams                   John Stoll

         Dennis Hudnall               Gary Hohman                 Others Unidentified

         Members of Media

         VANDERBURGH COUNTY

         BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

         Catherine Fanello, President

         David W. Mosby, Vice President

         Richard E. Mourdock, Member

         Recorded by Madelyn Grayson. Transcribed by Madelyn Grayson and Charlene Timmons.