| | Back | Home | Email | Search | Weather | | |||||||||||||||||
|
Board of Commissioners December 26, 2001 The Vanderburgh County Board of Commissioners
met in session this 26th day of December, 2001, at 12:04 p.m.
in Room 307 of the Civic Center Complex with President David Mosby presiding.
President Mosby: Call to order the
Board of Commissioners meeting of Vanderburgh County for December 26, 2001.
President Mosby: In attendance today we have Superintendent of Buildings, Tammy McKinney; Counselor, Phil Hayes; Commissioner Fanello; myself; Commissioner Mourdock; Chief Deputy Auditor, Bill Fluty; and Madelyn Grayson, Recording Secretary. Everybody please stand and say the Pledge. (The Pledge was given.)
President Mosby: Motion to approve the minutes? Commissioner Fanello: So moved. Commissioner Mourdock: Second. President Mosby: I have a motion and
a second. So ordered.
President Mosby: Cheryl Musgrave. I don't see Cheryl. Commissioner Fanello: I don't think she is going to be here. I think we just need to go ahead and make the appointments. President Mosby: Okay. Commissioner Mourdock: I understand there are two appointments for the, yeah, I don't get the acronym, PTABOA, I can't think of what all it stands for. It's Board of Review, but at any rate, those appointments are to be a Mr. Richard Althaus, and Jim Knauff. Commissioner Fanello: Jim Knauff is, Knauff is the Republican appointment, and the Democrat appointment, I'm recommending Arthur Aarstad. President Mosby: Who was the other guy? Commissioner Mourdock: I thought it was Richard Althaus. Commissioner Fanello: Don't even know who that? President Mosby: Who's Richard Althaus? Tammy McKinney: Wasn't the one that was up for was Kraig Nance? Is that not right? Commissioner Fanello: Well, all of them are up for reappointment. Tammy McKinney: Oh, okay. President Mosby: Is Althaus ours? Commissioner Mourdock: I thought he was yours. I had received a call from Cheryl saying that, and I normally do this, she just gives me a call as to who is being considered, and I thought she had spoken with you about- Commissioner Fanello: No. No, I mean, our, we get a Democrat, as I understand, a Democrat appointment and a Republican appointment. I am recommending, I'll make a motion for Jim Knauff and Arthur Aarstad. Commissioner Mourdock: Second. President Mosby: So ordered.
President Mosby: Sheriff. Brad Ellsworth: Yes? President Mosby: Safe House lease. Brad Ellsworth: Am I supposed to speak to that? President Mosby: I don't know. Is there any questions? Philip Hayes: I think that we had just received the explanation of what the Consumer Price Index would amount to. I see in the audience, Mr. Delucio, who's the legal counsel for the landlord, Ms. Hart. I appreciate him coming over. Do you want to explain the nature of the increases that you believe are called for under the lease, Marco? Marco Delucio: Yes. Good afternoon, my name is Marco Delucio. I am here on behalf of Mary Hart, the owner of the Safe House building. A couple of years ago we negotiated a, basically, a one year lease with two, one year options. The lease payments were $3,000 a month for the first two years of the lease. The lease has a third year option, which by the terms of the lease has to be exercised by December 28th, and I don't know that we are particularly sticklers for time on that, but if the lease is exercised during the third year, it is subject to Consumer Price Index increase. That is based upon the Consumer Price Index for the first month of the lease, which was March of 2000, and what the Consumer Price Index would be in February of 2002. Speaking with Mr. Hayes, he asked that I run through the calculations, and since the February CPI is not available, we took the most recent CPI index available, which was November, and calculated that the monthly increase, if we were to utilize the November CPI, would be a roughly $108 a month. I wouldn't anticipate that there is going to be a significant change in that, although there probably will be a variance, and I do note that the November CPI Index dropped a couple of tenths of a point. So, it may be even less. That's what we, that's how we calculated what the rent would be. We won't know that for sure, probably until the middle of March. Philip Hayes: If the Sheriff has any comments or issues concerning any of the landlords responsibilities that we have. I mean, I know we've pretty well reduced this proposition to a net, net, net, net situation, but I understand we had some maintenance situations with the roof. Some of that was insured, some of it wasn't. I don't know if there are any issues whatsoever with the landlord at this time that need to be spoken to. Brad Ellsworth: Not being a contractor, there are things that certainly we've paid for that, something to the tune of $11,000 for termite control and prevention out of User Fees, which was absorbed by us. Putting metal fire escapes on the building as opposed to the wooden ones. You know, if it was up to me, I would like to take that into consideration. I think that we've done more than our fair share of upgrades to the building to bring that up to some kind of standard. So, I'm not, I mean, I think we're doing more than our fair, more than what the Consumer Price Index on improvements to the building on a monthly fee. I didn't negotiate the lease, so. I don't know if that helps. It's just- Marco Delucio: I would only point out that the lease, Mr. Hayes is correct, is a triple net lease, and the lease did not increase in price during the first two years. So, I think, and we've not received notice to make any repairs, but as I understand and have read the lease, it is a triple net, and all maintenance and up keep responsibilities are on the county. Commissioner Mourdock: If we, in fact, exercise and provide notice, what is the term, Marco? Is it just one more year? Or is that binding us into additional years beyond that next 12 months? Marco Delucio: It's just one year. From March of 2002 to the end of February 2003. Commissioner Mourdock: If we were to add a year to that lease, would your client be amenable to negotiating as part of our cost for it the things the Sheriff has already mentioned? Marco Delucio: I sincerely doubt that she would be amenable to incurring any expenses associated with that building. I haven't spoken to her about that, but I think it's always been on a triple net basis, and I doubt very much whether Mrs. Hart would change that position. Commissioner Mourdock: So, even if we were to extend the term of the lease beyond next year? I mean, if we exercise on this, signed up for one more year, for any additional time beyond that year that we might be willing, and obviously I'm just one Commissioner here, that we might be willing to do, none of the consideration, or there would be no consideration given for improvements we've made? Marco Delucio: I can't say never, and I haven't spoken to her about it, but I doubt it. I'm not sure, as you know, Mrs. Hart's husband died about a year ago, two years ago now, and so I don't know what her financial where with all is, but I doubt that it's significant enough that she could afford to make significant improvements to the building. Commissioner Mourdock: Okay. Brad Ellsworth: One thing you might ask...Sheriff, Brad Ellsworth, is with us making the improvements, maybe that negotiation would be us to ask, would you relieve the Consumer Price increase in the rent based on improvements we make if we go for the two years opposed to one year? Maybe not add, reimburse us for the improvements we're doing, but at least not raise the rent on us. We're not getting anything for that increase in the rent, I can tell you that. Commissioner Mourdock: Yeah. That's a fair question, Marco. Do you want to field that one? Marco Delucio: It is a fair question. As I recall when this lease was negotiated, my recollection is that we wanted to have a three year lease, and the county wanted to have a one year lease, and kind of ended up with a three year, with a one year lease with two one year options with the CPI. Whether or not she would be willing to forego the CPI increase in consideration for the extension of the year, I don't know as I stand here right now. I could only ask her. It would be a fair question to ask. Commissioner Fanello: Sounds fair to me. Commissioner Mourdock: Do you want to report back to us next week then, Marco? Marco Delucio: Do you want me to ask her whether, are we talking in terms of a two year extension of the lease at the same rental rate, is that? Commissioner Mourdock: Let me just make a motion here and we'll see if this fits. I would move that we execute the one year addition as called for in the lease, and that we act to include another one year on to that lease, on the condition that the lease payments remain at $3,000 per month. Commissioner Fanello: I'll second that motion. Commissioner Mourdock: The reason why is because, as the Sheriff said, we've put those other costs into it. President Mosby: I have a motion and a second. So ordered. Marco Delucio: I'll report back to you. Commissioner Mourdock: Okay. President Mosby: Thank you.
President Mosby: Next item, the United contract. In your packet, I believe everybody's got the changes that United has faxed down. There has been a lot of conversation with Craig Burgess and United Consulting. Conversation with the County Council. I think everybody is aware of the concerns that they had. Everybody should have gotten a copy of United Consulting contract concerns A through T. I met with Jim Raben, Phil Hoy and Ed Bassemier last week on Tuesday, and had conversation with Troy Tornatta and Lloyd Winnecke on the Friday before, and they had conversation with United on Saturday, and then Councilman Raben and Bassemier and Hoy had conversation with United for about two hours on Tuesday. What you've got in your packet is what we came to agreement on. They had wanted several changes made, and we were able to successfully complete all the changes, basically, except for the ones that deal with scope and cost, and that being because we don't have a negotiated scope yet of services, so it's hard to come up with a cost. It's in your packet, and it's here for us to pass as an addendum to amend the contract to satisfy the Council's needs. Commissioner Fanello: That scope of service really depends on the Council either ratifying a $35 million budget, or increasing the budget based on what we saw last week. So, that is really dependent on that, correct? President Mosby: Yes. Commissioner Fanello: On there passing their budget. Commissioner Mourdock: Just as a suggestion, and I know this things been bantered back and forth like a ping pong ball here for awhile. President Mosby: That's mild. Commissioner Mourdock: That's mild, yes. I agree, that's mild. I would suggest that if we have the entire contract revised with this language that you are saying is mutually agreed between this board and the contractor, and the Council have a chance to look at that in it's final form, before we act, we might have the chance to end the ping pong game and just have this thing done once and for all. President Mosby: The majority of this is their language. This is what they discussed with Craig Burgess on the phone. The only items that you will find that are not referenced in here, probably are the one's where you get to M, O, P and Q and then T. The reason they are not addressed in here, and that was a conversation that I had with the County Council, is because they are the compensation for added services, compensations for, you know, fees. Some of them spell out fees. If you'll notice then, excuse me I've got a cold, but if you'll notice in what United and Mike Claytor and them presented to us the other day, I believe, the fees go down a little bit, and that was negotiated with the architects too. The only thing that you will basically find, and this is a lot of their language, and we did discuss T, which was the one that said we would like a paragraph located somewhere that states any and all funding changes related to this project requires approval from the County Council. The reason that's not in here is because we had conversation with them and myself and I told them, I said, you know, there is a lot of meetings that we come to every week that we do change orders, and we can't wait a month- Commissioner Mourdock: Yeah. President Mosby: -for you guys to have a meeting to do a change order. So, I think what we are going to end up doing there, on T, is that when we get a final scope of services, and if it's $35 million or if it's $40 million, we will put in there anything over and above the final scope of services and cost will come back to the Council. To just say any and all, I told them, I said there is no way that we can wait for you to have a meeting, you know, to change what might be a $50,000 change order. Commissioner Mourdock: This document that you gave me the other day is what I think originated with Jeff Ahlers and the Council. President Mosby: Right. That's this one they wanted answered. Commissioner Mourdock: Okay. Has Ahlers seen this specific language that you've given us this morning? President Mosby: I don't know if it's been sent over to him yet or not. Commissioner Mourdock: That's my point. If this language is being done in reaction to what he drafted here, again, to quit the game of ping pong, it seems to me that it would be wise to let him review it, see if this meets what his concerns were in the drafting of this strict language. If it is, fine. If it's not let's fix it before we do another amendment. Commissioner Fanello: I understand what you are saying, Richard. Just a thought here, and I think Ahlers has had discussion with, I guess, with Raben and them after they had their conference call- President Mosby: Yeah. Commissioner Fanello: -so I think he knows what's coming down. My concern is what Councilman Raben said last week that, you know, he wanted to see in writing that the Commission is going to make the changes that the Council had concerns about. You know, they have a meeting, I believe, coming up on January 2nd, which they are going to, I believe, take up maybe the appropriation again, or something. President Mosby: I don't think they had time to advertise. Commissioner Fanello: Oh, okay. President Mosby: I'm not sure. This is what they wanted passed before next week. Commissioner Fanello: Exactly, and that was kind of my point. I want to show the Council that, yes, we have addressed their concerns. We are willing to address their concerns, and we're not denying them any of their language. So, I think in the spirit of bipartisanship, to get this passed would be a good thing. I don't think there is anything in here after reading it. I know Phil's read it also. I don't think, I think it really addresses everything pretty clearly, so. Commissioner Mourdock: Well, go ahead and make your motion here. Commissioner Fanello: I mean, I really don't know how we could address it any more clear. I mean, they gave us their concerns that, you know, they had us delete, they just said strike several things, and those things were stricken like they wanted. I think everything has been addressed. Commissioner Mourdock: But there are a couple of things here that aren't addressed here- Commissioner Fanello: And they can't be until the Council sets a budget. Or ratifies their current budget. President Mosby: I told, I mean, it was obvious some of these concerns that they had, I mean, cannot be addressed yet. You know, they wanted a whole clean copy, and I told them until we decide on a scope and a project amount, you can't address some of these. So, there is going to be another addendum to this as soon as we get a scope of services to do what they want N, O, P and Q. Commissioner Mourdock: Uh-huh. President Mosby: Basically, so there will be a, I said, you know, we'll address that. It's on the sheet that Mike Claytor passed out the other day. I mean, architect and engineering fees are addressed. Basic, you know, services are addressed. So, when we pick a scenario then we can address their concerns there. Then there will be a specific amount put in there not to exceed, and we can address the other parts of it, so. Commissioner Mourdock: Well, given that, and, again- President Mosby: And T. Commissioner Mourdock: -this is the language that I still need to have better defined, that null and void term that was thrown around when the Council acted as it did on the other one, this amendment as titled is basically recognizing that, that October 22nd contract still exists. I'm not certain that it does. I just want to make sure that if we are going to do this, we've got everybody on board from the beginning. President Mosby: I would tend to say the Council has recognized it because this is where they are getting their questions. I mean, they are going through this contract with a fine tooth comb. I mean, they are- Commissioner Mourdock: That's true. They are doing that. President Mosby: -yeah, I mean, they are coming up with questions on, you know, I mean, one of these questions addresses the amount of benefits that United pays their people. I mean, they are going through it, I mean, so I'm going to guess that they are recognizing the contract. Commissioner Mourdock: Which is a not I'd made when they were here that night, when United was here in October, one of the things we talked about was to make sure that we took out of the contract their cost of living adjustments for their professional fees, and I don't see that here and I don't know that that was otherwise modified. Commissioner Fanello: That was because, I know Phil passed that along to me months ago. So, that was, remember that amendment? President Mosby: That has been passed. Philip Hayes: That addendum. Commissioner Fanello: Uh-huh. Commissioner Mourdock: Well- President Mosby: And I told- Commissioner Mourdock: -I understand what you're trying to do. I understand you want to send a positive sign and I respect that to the Council. I think that's positive. I think we are making more progress than previously we had been with the Council, and I fully believe that. So, do what you want to do. Commissioner Fanello: I'm going to make a motion to pass the amendments according to what the Council wanted changed, and make the motion based that this does address all of the Council's concerns, not all of them, except for the one's that have to do with the scope of services, so. Commissioner Mourdock: That makes my point. Commissioner Fanello: Depending on the Council passing their budget. I know that when, at the end of the Council meeting last week they brought that up, and I think they are supposed to take up that discussion on January 2nd, I think is their meeting. So, all of their other concerns outside of the actual scope of services has been addressed here. So, I'm going to make a motion to pass this amendment. Commissioner Mourdock: Again, I applaud both of you for trying to work with the Council, but I still have that concern, so I will pass because I think it's still leaving us a little bit more bantering here, which I wish to avoid. President Mosby: Well, after another six months of work, I'm going to second that. So- Madelyn Grayson: Excuse me, can we- President Mosby: Sure, motion- Madelyn Grayson: -sign the, I don't have an original document. Can we just sign this faxed document tonight? Or today? President Mosby: Sure. I don't see why not. Motion and a second. So ordered. It passes. I don't see why we can't sign that and then just have copies made, sent over to all the Council members. Commissioner Fanello: Uh-huh. President Mosby: So, and send it to
Counselor Ahlers. I know he is very, I think he wrote the majority of this,
but anyhow we will get it over to him. They wanted it done by the 2nd,
and I told him we would pass it today.
President Mosby: Any other group or individual wishing to address the board? Mr. Shireman. Mark Shireman: I had a list that I responded to, and I cleaned it up a little bit into one piece of paper. I hope you all got that. It was A through E with the questions. Commissioner Fanello: (Inaudible. Mike not on.) Mark Shireman: Yes. Commissioner Mourdock: Is that the legal sized one? Mark Shireman: Let me get you a better looking copy. Commissioner Mourdock: Is that the same thing as this? President Mosby: Yeah. Commissioner Mourdock: I have that, but then I got this on my desk. President Mosby: Yeah, this- Madelyn Grayson: Mark, do you have an extra one for the record also? Mark Shireman: Yes. Madelyn Grayson: Thank you. Mark Shireman: I sure hope so. Commissioner Mourdock: Now I'm more confused. This is this. President Mosby: I'm confused too. Commissioner Mourdock: Okay, this goes with this. Mark Shireman: All I wanted to say was, this is a proposed set of amendments for our contract. If there is any questions, let me know. Do you have a clean copy there, David? I've got one left. Commissioner Mourdock: David, this is an original. I'll give this one to you and then I'll swap you that one. President Mosby: Swap me this one? Commissioner Mourdock: This is a fax. That is the original. I think- Mark Shireman: The back page should have the five questions, A through E. President Mosby: Yeah. Commissioner Mourdock: That one does, this one doesn't. Mark Shireman: The top two answer those. President Mosby: That one doesn't? You don't have the back page. Commissioner Fanello: These address the points A through E? Mark Shireman: Yes. Do you have the back page on that, Richard? Commissioner Mourdock: Well, I had it here when I walked in the room, and it's disappeared. President Mosby: There it is. Mark Shireman: If there is any questions, I would be happy to answer those. I hope you've had a chance to look through that. Commissioner Fanello: And, Phil, you've looked through this one? Philip Hayes: I've looked through that, yes. I've talked to Mr. Shireman. I spoke to Mr. Shireman last week, and he had furnished language on that. Commissioner Mourdock: I presume we don't need to act on this at the moment? What we are doing with Council on the 2nd. Or do we? Commissioner Fanello: I don't think...because really they asked for clarif....they didn't ask for anything, any language to actually be changed yet. I mean, their concerns on B and C were monetary concerns, which would be addressed at the same time that they did their budget on the whole project. So, I think what we need to do is just pass this along to Ahlers and all the Council members and let him read the clarification on about three of these points here. Commissioner Mourdock: Okay. I'll move then that we pass a copy of Mr. Shireman's letter on to the Council. Commissioner Fanello: Second. Mark Shireman: Okay, thank you. President Mosby: Thank you. Motion
and a second, so ordered. Any other group or individual wishing to address
the board? Seeing none. Department Head reports.
President Mosby: Is John here today? Commissioner Fanello: I think he is on vacation this week. Philip Hayes: He submitted his written report. President Mosby: No John Stoll.
President Mosby: County Highway. We have Rick Dickinson from the County Highway today. I believe we have their hand out. Is there any questions for Rick? Commissioner Mourdock: I gave Rick a couple questions earlier, but also just a note, I know it's everyone's lovely duty this time of year, but we seem to have a lot of deer laying along the road up in Darmstadt. I got two calls on one off Mt. Pleasant just west of 41. Then there is one on Darmstadt Road just south of Mt. Pleasant. Rick Dickinson: On the way up here I heard them calling about two deer. I don't know whether that is one, but I'll check. Commissioner Mourdock: Okay. One of them was wrapped in a tarp. It's a messy scene. Messy scene. Philip Hayes: (Inaudible. Mike not on.) Rick Dickinson: Doesn't the Town of Darmstadt take care of their own deer? Or do we go up and get them? Commissioner Mourdock: These are actually just outside the Town limits. Rick Dickinson: Oh, so they aren't in Darmstadt. Commissioner Mourdock: Yeah. President Mosby: Is there any other questions? I seen this in our packets, this dig safe week from BMB Pipelines. This needs to be forwarded to Rick and Ralph and them. It's talking about digging petroleum lines. Call before you dig, so I would say forward this to the garage and John Stoll. That would be the appropriate place. Any other questions? Seeing none. Merry Christmas. Rick Dickinson: You too. Commissioner Mourdock: Before we go, is Ralph working at all this week, Rick? Rick Dickinson: Yes. Commissioner Mourdock: Have him give me a call so I can talk to him about that one on Sensmeier Road. Rick Dickinson: (Inaudible. Away from mike.) Commissioner Mourdock: Okay. Thank
you.
President Mosby: County Attorney. Philip Hayes: We have the proposed copy for the 2002 Resolution on meeting dates. We've looked at it and reviewed it, and it was passed to me and requested that if there were any changes that were to be done, and then they wanted the copy to the Commissioners by December 26th, today, so that this can be ready for signatures. I have no changes to the Resolution that I'm aware of. Commissioner Fanello: I passed some changes along to Tammy. I think what we are going to do is the meeting time at 5:30. I think we discussed that in our last meeting. Philip Hayes: Okay. Commissioner Fanello: So, move everything back a half hour. President Mosby: (Inaudible. Mike not on.) Commissioner Mourdock: No, that's fine. That's what we've done until this year was 5:30. Works for me. President Mosby: (Inaudible. Mike not on.) Commissioner Mourdock: Duly noted. Philip Hayes: The second change then- Commissioner Fanello: Yeah, and I guess under, also in there is a Rezoning and Drainage time, so those would- Philip Hayes: Drop back a half hour? Commissioner Fanello: Yes, uh-huh. Do we need to make a motion to that effect? Commissioner Mourdock: Yeah, we definitely need to pass that as a Resolution. President Mosby: Well, do we need to amend this first. Commissioner Mourdock: Yes. Madelyn Grayson: I'll have that prepared for your first meeting in 2002. Commissioner Mourdock: Okay, with those amendments? Then we can act on it then. Commissioner Fanello: So, I'll make a motion. Do we need to make a motion then? Okay. Commissioner Mourdock: We'll sign it next year. President Mosby: We need to make a motion to advertise, and then a motion to, I guess, a motion to change it to 5:30 and 6:30. Commissioner Fanello: Oh, that's right, because- President Mosby: Make a motion to advertise. Commissioner Fanello: -our first meeting will be at 5:30. Commissioner Mourdock: Okay, I'll do it here and we'll be done with it. I'll move then that we advertise posting the meeting dates for 2002, with the only revision from this text in front of us being that the Commissioners meetings will meet at 5:30 p.m., and Rezonings will be, actually, I think we need to leave Rezonings at 7:00, because I think they've been advertised separately. Do you know yet, Brad? They normally do their own advertising. So, I would suggest we leave that one as is for the moment. President Mosby: Okay the Rezoning. Commissioner Fanello: Second. President Mosby: I have a motion and a second. So ordered. Madelyn Grayson: The only thing is, the very first meeting in January has already been advertised for 6:00. President Mosby: Okay. Commissioner Mourdock: Okay. Madelyn Grayson: After that we can do the 5:30. Commissioner Mourdock: Okay. So, we'll be here early next week and late the week after. Madelyn Grayson: It's the 7th. President Mosby: The 7th. (Inaudible) meet next week. Any other comments by the County Attorney? Philip Hayes: No, not to address this Resolution. President Mosby: Okay. Philip Hayes: We have no other report. President Mosby: Okay.
President Mosby: Superintendent of County Buildings. Tammy McKinney: I just have a couple of things. I wanted to give the Commissioners an update on a meeting that I had a couple of weeks ago with the Grant Writer for the Old Courthouse. I gave her a copy of the Task Force Study, and she is reviewing everything, basically, to see what we're qualified for as far as grants. Then she is going to get back with me before, and she doesn't want a contract until she knows there is something actually to go after. For her, to make it worth her while and our while. So, I'm just waiting back to hear from her. The second thing I have is, I find out something new everyday that comes with my job, and I never thought about this, but the telephone in the Courthouse elevator doesn't ring to anywhere. It has to ring to a person 24 hours a day. Unless it's going to ring to me 24 hours a day, I suggest that we hire an answering service. Which Dover Elevators, that's who service the elevators, they provide that. It costs $15 a month. Then they answer it 24 hours a day. Commissioner Fanello: Is that what this is? Tammy McKinney: Yeah, right. I gave a copy to Phil just for him to review and make sure- Commissioner Fanello: Uh-huh. Tammy McKinney: -everything was fine. Since we already do business with Dover, I would like to stay with them. Commissioner Mourdock: Do they do
all of the elevators in this building too? Because this is (Inaudible.
Talking over each other.)
Tammy McKinney: That's Building Authority, but- Commissioner Mourdock: Yeah, okay. Tammy McKinney: -is in charge of these elevators. Commissioner Mourdock: I think Zeller does them here. Tammy McKinney: I just know they take care of mine over at the Old Courthouse. President Mosby: Call the jail? Commissioner Mourdock: Call the jail? Save $15 a month? Brad Ellsworth: Call the jail. We're there 24 hours a day. Tammy McKinney: Do they know how to...if someone is stuck in the elevator, can they talk them through it? Brad Ellsworth: It would be tough for them. I only hire the best. Commissioner Mourdock: They can call the elevator company at that point. We can make sure they've got that number posted next to the phone out there. Brad Ellsworth: If you want to do that, we'll do that, and put a memo out to our people with a set of instructions. Commissioner Fanello: (Inaudible. Mike not on.) President Mosby: That's not- Commissioner Mourdock: Works for me. I'll move then that we direct all calls from the elevator in the Old Courthouse to the number designated by the Sheriff. Commissioner Fanello: Second. Tammy McKinney: Just as long as it's not mine, that's fine. Brad Ellsworth: That's going to be in the memo to forward them to you. Tammy McKinney: I tried to explain to Dennis Wilson, that chances are someone being in there, you know, past basic working hours is going to be very limited, so. President Mosby: Can't we designate 911? I mean, just got a problem, no. Tammy McKinney: Okay, Brad, I'll get with you. President Mosby: We had a motion and a second to direct calls to the number provided by the Sheriff. So ordered. Commissioner Mourdock: Before we leave the Old Courthouse, Tammy, did you have anything else specifically in your report? You had mentioned to me just before the start of the meeting that we've had a couple of- Tammy McKinney: My Christmas morning started with a burglar, a break in at the Old Courthouse. Commissioner Mourdock: I'm wondering if we ought not schedule, if we don't already have one scheduled, an Executive Session just to talk about what we can do security wise. Because there has been a couple of instances over there lately, and maybe we need to - Tammy McKinney: There were two in December. Same office, same window- Commissioner Mourdock: Do we have an- Tammy McKinney: -probably the same person. Commissioner Mourdock: -Executive Session scheduled? President Mosby: Well, I did talk to the maintenance man over there yesterday- Tammy McKinney: Uh-huh. President Mosby: --Larry, he is going to look into doing a couple of things. So, he's supposed to get back with me today. Tammy McKinney: Then I'm checking, I'm checking on some things that we can do security wise and stay within the historic preservation part of it. Commissioner Mourdock: Next time we have an Executive Session, just make us aware of whatever that is and we can talk about it there. President Mosby: Okay. Commissioner Mourdock: We don't need to schedule one exclusively for this. Tammy McKinney: Okay. That's fine. Commissioner Fanello: Since we're talking about the Old Courthouse, this might be a good time. We talked last time about drafting a letter to the Council asking them for their funding commitments for the Old Courthouse. So, I've come up with a draft of a letter, and basically what it does is just outline about three highlights from the Task Force presentation, and just says how we've been having space allocations meetings this year, and we're trying to address space concerns and we were just asking them for a commitment for the Old Courthouse so that we might move some government offices over there. Commissioner Mourdock: The letter looks good. I'll move approval of the letter. Commissioner Fanello: Thank you. Second. President Mosby: I have a motion and
a second to approve the letter for the Old Courthouse to be sent over to
the County Council for their review and suggestions. So ordered. Did you
have any other comments?
President Mosby: Burdette Park, Gary. Gary Hohman: Yes, Gary Hohman, Burdette Park. I have a couple of items for you today. We have adopted a tentative lease agreement that had been given to Mr. Lawrence for his review regarding the potential lease of the concession items, the concession stands at Burdette Park. He has had that for a couple of days, and also has it, will be presenting it back to us to further evaluate. I will also have for you at your, possibly, next meeting a five year listing of the receipts that has transpired in our concession facilities at Burdette. You also have our work report. If there is any questions regarding the work report, I will answer any questions you have regarding it. Commissioner Fanello: Have you also given a copy of the lease to Counselor Hayes? Gary Hohman: I'm not for sure whether Mr. Lawrence- Commissioner Fanello: You probably need to go ahead and give him a copy and let him review it. Gary Hohman: I have a copy here. Philip Hayes: Okay. Gary Hohman: The last item that I have, I would like to on behalf of the staff and management at Burdette, would like to wish each and everyone here a safe, joyous and prosperous New Year. President Mosby: Thank you. Same to
you all. Any questions for Gary?
Commissioner Mourdock: The Ozone Officer and Soil and Water reports are in the file. So, I would move approval of those reports. Commissioner Fanello: Second. President Mosby: I have a motion and
a second. So ordered.
President Mosby: Consent Items. Commissioner Fanello: There probably is one change to the Consent Items based on the Travel Requests sent up by the County Assessor. Since we already made our Board Appointments, there will be one change on that, so. President Mosby: I noticed that too. Commissioner Fanello: So. President Mosby: We appointed him- Commissioner Mourdock: So you are going to put this gentleman- Commissioner Fanello: Arthur Aarstad, instead of Kraig Nance. President Mosby: Right. Commissioner Fanello: Yeah. President Mosby: It should read; Kris Seger, James Knauff, Arthur Aarstad, and Paul Farmer. Commissioner Mourdock: Okay. Commissioner Fanello: With that in mind, I will move approval of the Consent Items. Commissioner Mourdock: Second. President Mosby: I have a motion and
a second to approve Consent Items. So ordered. With changes as amended.
President Mosby: Meetings scheduled. Scheduled meetings? I guess our first meeting will be January 7th, yeah. Commissioner Mourdock: I don't know that we've formally acted, but it is the Board's intention to have me continue on Area Plan. So, I will go ahead to that meeting on whatever the first Wednesday is, the 2nd. Commissioner Fanello: Do we want to go ahead and make that Board Appointment? President Mosby: I thought we made that appointment. Commissioner Fanello: Did we already make that? Commissioner Mourdock: Okay. I didn't recall whether we did. Okay. President Mosby: I'm not running against you. So, we'll have, any other meetings? Did we need to schedule an Executive Session for any reason? Commissioner Mourdock: I don't know that we need one specifically for the subject of a moment ago, but just next time we do have one, let's add that to the agenda. President Mosby: Okay. Any other scheduled
meetings?
President Mosby: Old Business? New Business? Commissioner Fanello: Do you want to talk about? President Mosby: That's fine. Commissioner Fanello: Was this put out by you, Richard? Commissioner Mourdock: No, the Sheriff brought that. Philip Hayes: (Inaudible. Mike not on.) Commissioner Fanello: (Inaudible. Mike not on.) That's something that Tammy and Madelyn need to- Philip Hayes: Get together on. Commissioner Fanello: -yeah, get together and check on the Rezoning meeting. Okay, there was some conversation Friday, I got a call from news reporter, Susan Taylor, about the operations being included in the presentation last week. I just want to clear up something. First of all, the comment that was quoted in the newspaper was taken out of context, and not accurate in it's entirety. Commissioner Mourdock: Was that the one where you called us idiots? Commissioner Fanello: Yes, it was. Commissioner Mourdock: Thank you for clarifying. Commissioner Fanello: You know, whenever you see a quote in the newspaper that has a slash in the middle of it, you know a news reporter has taken something out of context, so. I would appreciate it if the news paper in the future would maybe not do those kinds of things. Second of all, and I apologize if it came out the wrong way, but that's not the way it was said or intended to be meant. Paul Hatfield: Do you want to repeat that so that she gets it right this time? Commissioner Fanello: Yeah, what I'm going to start doing, this is what I'm going to start doing. I'm going to start carrying a tape recorder with me. That will clear up all concerns. I went and bought a little small one. So, and I'll warn everybody before I tape record the conversation. Going off of the PMSI study, and I went back to review it because of the comments made, and really I was totally, really the comments made went over my head because I was confused about what the concern was. It looks like PMSI through their study had always included the Sheriff's offices downstairs, so I'm not really sure where the concern is coming from. If it's coming from the Sheriff's Command Post, I know we had discussion about that at the beginning of this year about possibly incorporating that operation into the facility and cutting down on operational costs. So, I guess, Richard, if you would like to clarify that, but I know I went through the PMSI study again and have some reference pages for us to look at that they did take into consideration all of the Sheriff's operations downstairs. Which really, clerical wise, aren't that large. Maybe the Sheriff might want to clarify it. Because really this is, this is the Sheriff's concern here, this really isn't our concern. Our concern is to provide a jail, but then we also have to look at what efficient operations will be and save the county as much money as possible. So, I think the Sheriff can probably answer those questions much more thoroughly than I can. If we can clarify really what the issue is here, because I'm not sure I really understand what the issue is. Commissioner Mourdock: Let me take a shot at it then since you mentioned my name first. The point that I think could have been made, should have been made at the meeting by Crowe Chizek, that was not made, was for the, what was it 448 beds or 484, whatever the minimal scenario was. When they described that as the "bare bones" jail, it was certainly my understanding, at that point, that what they were talking about was just that, a "bare bones" 448 bed jail, period, without a lot of ancillary offices or anything else going with it. Certainly, I have looked through, and did look through well before that meeting, the whatever they call that 264 draft- Brad Ellsworth: Program- Commissioner Mourdock: -yeah, program report, and I had seen in there the different administrative offices that were laid out, but when they used the phrase "bare bones", or whatever the equivalent was, I thought that truly was "bare bones". Apparently, it was not. If I had thought to ask the question at the time, I would have. Because, I think, as both of you were, I assume both of you were somewhat suffering sticker shock at the moment at seeing the numbers that were coming through- Commissioner Fanello: I think that was your comment, wasn't it? Sticker shock? Commissioner Mourdock: -that's why when they kept talking about "bare bones", I thought it really was "bare bones". Commissioner Fanello: Well, and I think, I mean, we would have to realize that, you know, especially if the jail wasn't in the back 40, that if it's going to be off-site, obviously, all of the Sheriff's operations need to be in that facility. I mean- Commissioner Mourdock: I don't know that I would necessarily draw those two things together. I will add just my personal observation, and I've not spoken to any Councilman about this, but in seeing the numbers that were laid out the other day, to me the question of location has just been answered. I think with the numbers that you have there, pre-land cost, it dictates that the jail beyond this property, in some manner or fashion. I think with the operating costs that were put out, for any of those scenarios, pre-transportation costs, in other words, pre the additional cost of transporting people from wherever that jail is to here, I think that makes putting the jail anywhere other than here a non-starter. That's my opinion. Commissioner Fanello: I don't disagree with you on that at all. I guess, just working, I guess, I'm assuming that everybody was working off the same page, which was we've talked about all the same things about the operations, and I think, you know, we're working through the PMSI study. You know, this was a study that was done and paid for, so and it has some merit in that respect. So, I guess, I'm assuming that everybody is on the same page. Then whenever we talk about putting a jail anywhere, we are automatically assuming that operations are going to be with that jail. Commissioner Mourdock: Well, you know the old saying- Commissioner Fanello: I mean, obviously,-- Commissioner Mourdock: -you know what you do when you assume. Commissioner Fanello: -I mean, I am just looking at the $100,000 document that was sitting in my office when I walked in on January 2nd, so. Commissioner Mourdock: But a lot of time has gone by since January. Commissioner Fanello: Uh-huh. Commissioner Mourdock: Again, I can't speak for any of the Councilman, I don't know what they were assuming. Commissioner Fanello: Uh-huh. Commissioner Mourdock: But, again, my read, and even I think in my own mind when I heard the big numbers, when the all inclusive projects, when I heard those numbers sitting there, certainly, I was not thinking the Sheriff's offices would not be in that specifically, but if someone would have asked me, I would have looked at those numbers and said, yeah, I guess it is. When I heard the presentation the "bare bones" jail, just 448 beds, rock bottom, as simple as you can make it, this is what it is. That implied to me that it was just 448 beds. Obviously, that was not the case- Commissioner Fanello: I mean, I don't- Commissioner Mourdock: -as presented by Crowe Chizek. Commissioner Fanello: -I guess, I don't- Brad Ellsworth: Would the courtroom have shocked you too? I don't know, because I've been in those meetings. Commissioner Mourdock: That's a great question. No, the courtroom wouldn't have shocked me, I guess, as much, although, I don't know, in good conscience, Brad, yeah, when they said 448 beds "bare bones" and kept emphasizing that, maybe I wouldn't have thought of that either. If it came to one to the other, I think all of us would assume, and I think, Catherine, you were quoted as saying when the cuts need to be made, you know, it may be the Sheriff's offices that are the first thing. Certainly, one of the last things I would want to see cut would be the additional court space we've spoken of- Brad Ellsworth: Right. Commissioner Mourdock: -and to see just one court room, to me, doesn't begin to deal with the problems we have in that area. Brad Ellsworth: Right. Commissioner Mourdock: So, all this comes under that big word we were throwing around a few moments ago, which is the scope. Hopefully, we can better define the scope as a result of that presentation, which was positive, by and large, and I think gave everybody a better sense of where the dollars are and what we need to spend. The bottom line is that the 1979 court case doesn't really talk about court room space, it doesn't talk about Sheriff space, it talks about jail space. That is why I thought their 448 bed number based on. Commissioner Fanello: I understand where you are coming on on that point, but I think at this point in time when we have the opportunity, when we know we have to build a jail, it's our responsibility to take this opportunity to cut costs wherever we can cut costs and merge operations wherever we can merge operations. I mean, that only makes good business sense. Sheriff, you might want to go ahead and expand on just, you know, the comments. Brad Ellsworth: I mean, I don't have a lot of people downstairs. I've probably got at total of myself, a couple of administrative people, the civil processors are in there, probably nine people that work outside the jail part. Of course, we've got inadequate office space up in the jail for what we do up there. You know, I think I've got the three lieutenants that share, you know, an office that is not much bigger than about four of these podiums together. You know, those are actually cells that they have converted, I have no offices really in the jail other than...you all have been up there, so it's not any...see what the inadequacies are. As we were going through this programming, like I said, what we were trying to look at in the programming, in adding that is, if we have this three prong project, you know, let's at least program early what would the difference be, and then, you know, I'm going to jump around here a little bit and say, you know, in the first program, the office that they have for the Sheriff has a bathroom in it. Well, that's, you know, I read that and I thought, I don't really, it's in there, I told Susan, I hate to keep referring to her, because, but I said, at least give me a chance to pull that out myself and say I don't want a bathroom in the Sheriff's office. I think that's what we had...it's early, it's a draft. We're going over that, but if we don't look ahead and say would it be feasible if we go off-site, or if we put it back here to pull in if we're paying $10,800 a month in rent out there on Highway 41 to the Airport, would it then be feasible and could we down the road cut, you know, or at least save money by adding 8,000 square feet, you know, to this, and save money that way in the future operational costs? Commissioner Fanello: While you are on the Sheriff Command Post, you have 111 deputies, is that, how many deputies? Brad Ellsworth: 105 total deputies. That's sworn personnel. Commissioner Fanello: 105 deputies, now because I think the newspaper was a little misleading. 105 deputies aren't going to have desks within the Sheriff's department, I mean, it's just like the Police Department, those officers don't have desks. Brad Ellsworth: It reported 250 employees, and that's real close to what I have, but all of those don't have office space. Commissioner Fanello: Yeah. Brad Ellsworth: Some guys work out of a briefcase and carry them out to squad cars, and they drive their car in and not all those cars park there at any one...and it's also a three shift operation. I think, I'm not sure if the article referred to parking for that many employees, but they are not all there at one time. So, you are really talking about, usually, around a third at one time that are on the parking lot at any given time. So, it's not as expansive as you might think. Like I said, a lot of people work out of a briefcase. They come in for a roll call, and then they are not back in there for eight or ten hours to, you know, put their stuff away in a locker and leave. I mean, it's something, I thought it was something to look at, you know, in the programming stage and then be able to pull it out if we, if the space, you know, if it doesn't fit on here then that's an area to pull out, and we keep paying rent. If we go off-site then it might make sense, plus the added, you know, things like adding security. Would it be better to have, if there is an attempted escape or something, your deputy is working right there. Plus for supervision, I mean, I can tell you during the day when I'm trying to travel around to Community Corrections and then drive out to the Command Post and then downtown where most of my calls come in, you know, it would be a lot easier to walk down the hall and do those inspections from my upper staff and myself. So, I know that's not worth the rent, but I'm just trying to look ahead. Commissioner Fanello: Well, and I- Brad Ellsworth: The lease is due here in the next, I think, in the next two years too. So, it was just a timing thing. Commissioner Mourdock: The flip side of that too, and a lot of times when you deal with government, as much as I like to think of the word business-like, meaning government should always function like a business, there are parts of this that are hard to put a dollar figure to. One of which was exemplified in a conversation I had the other day with somebody that said, well, if they move the, if they close the Sheriff's Command Post and put everybody downtown near the Civic Center, what does that do to response time out in the northern part of the county? One of the arguments made when the Sheriff's Command Post was established out at the airport was it was going to cut down response time into the northern part of the county. So, you know, I don't know how we measure those things. I know how we do it with AMR because it's part of their contract- Commissioner Fanello: Uh-huh. Commissioner Mourdock: -but it's an issue that's hard to put a dollar figure on. Brad Ellsworth: You know what, I don't have a Command Post on the west side- Commissioner Fanello: Or the east side. Brad Ellsworth: -and we do staggered, early cars and staggered officers coming in so that we can get that coverage. We also have it broken into zones, so there is a car that comes out and covers while the rest are coming in to report for roll call, there is other officers out there. So, that's not...it hasn't been a huge issue for me because we've gotten around that...our building being out there. Like I said, most of our runs are mostly generated on the west side. The far west side. (Inaudible. Talking over each other.) Because the Mosby's live out there. President Mosby: Is that out there where you live on Broadway? Is that where it's generated at? Brad Ellsworth: Just give them the address. Well, we don't have much east side left. Commissioner Mourdock: Yeah. Brad Ellsworth: So- Commissioner Mourdock: I understand, but the fact that it has been an issue of late maybe says we're set up now that it doesn't need to be an issue. Brad Ellsworth: The building is wonderful, and I don't want people to think that that building isn't serving our needs out there. It's just, like I said, it's a leased building. I think that when your lease is coming new, you look at that, and see do we want to continue, or is there a better way to do it. I just, you know, I thought that was the more responsible thing was look and say, is this something we can include? Commissioner Mourdock: The other way this thing, I think, became somewhat of a factor as a result of the meeting the other day was, if there's enough floor space dedicated to the Sheriff's purposes and even the "bare bones" approach as they brought it to us, it begs the question if it were simply a "bare bones" jail without all of that additional space, what would the hard dollar cost be? And what would the operating cost be differently? Because, I think it was Councilman Raben who pointed out that the $39, what was it $38 or $39 a bed figure that was easy to calculate in that, that number certainly is going to change if, in fact, the jail unit would not be there. Or, I'm sorry, if the Sheriff's units were not there. Logic says to me, that number would go up, because your space has got to be cheaper to operate than what the jail space is. Brad Ellsworth: I think there would be, you know, I mean that jail secure space has to be more per square foot than- Commissioner Mourdock: Exactly. Brad Ellsworth: -I don't know, maybe Mark Shireman, he might have left, would be more than just the drywall. As much my employees want to get out, they don't break through the walls to get out. Commissioner Mourdock: That's my point too. If in fact those costs are higher, and already we are above $35 on a couple of those scenarios, then we need to take another look and see what that would do taking them out. So, again, I think this is a good discussion to have, and, again, the meeting the other day was, I think, beneficial that it caused some of these to take place. So, I don't know if you've approached United at this point or Crowe Chizek to try to see how we could break those numbers out, but I think it's something worth doing. Commissioner Fanello: I guess this is still going over my head. When you say a "bare bones" jail, what do you see being included in that? Even if the jail was sitting out back there, you would still have to have people in the jail, operating the jail. Brad Ellsworth: And some offices (Inaudible. Talking over each other.) Commissioner Fanello: Yeah, so I don't know, does it make sense to break that up? Or, you know, and still be- Commissioner Mourdock: That's a good question. I don't know the answer, but, again, I'm telling you what my impression was, and , I think, from the impression of several Councilman, or at least the one I read quoted in the newspaper, he thought, as I thought, that it was strictly those few offices you need for the actual running of the jail, plus 448 beds. Whatever that number is, is what we thought we were getting, and, obviously, it's something different than that. Brad Ellsworth: And if we led somebody to believe that, that's what I think I was quoted in the paper, I keep going back to that, is that we were trying to see...I know in the County Council meeting previous to the joint meeting, that I was talking about the decision we have to make about housing Federal and DOC inmates, and I said, you know, we need to decide are we going to bring the Sheriff Department's operations off the highway. I can get those minutes, but I fully remember saying that those are some of the decisions we can make very easily, or maybe not easily, but are we going to bring operations off the highway and into this complex also? So, they heard it, I know there was a lot of information to absorb here, but it wasn't- Commissioner Mourdock: But did Crowe Chizek include those numbers, Brad? I mean, did Crowe Chizek include the numbers in their operating costs, assuming that the Command Post was being shut down and all those people were being brought in? Brad Ellsworth: Probably so. Before they broke it down we didn't discuss with them the scenarios, so I'm not sure, you know, when they were going to break it down, we didn't have them say, they didn't meet with us and tell us what the three or four scenarios would be. Commissioner Mourdock: Okay. Was my assumption I stated here a minute ago correct? When they put the operating costs together for all of those scenarios, were they including any transportation costs additions? Brad Ellsworth: No, I don't think so. Commissioner Mourdock: So, that's like the land. It clearly wasn't in there. Brad Ellsworth: Right. That's what we tried to do is by adding that court space, you know, a court room and a place for the magistrates, and some court clerk space, if necessary, was that if we do go off-site, then that would make it necessary to cut down on that transportation as much as possible by doing initial hearings and as much video visitation in that building as the judges will allow. Or video arraignments, so that to cut down the number of people that...and I think it would be significant if the judiciary buy into that, into a magistrate or a judge going there and doing initial hearings and then using video arraignments for as much as possible, I think, it would cut our transportation down a lot. I can't put a hard dollar figure to that, but it's certainly something that we're starting to do numbers on. Commissioner Mourdock: The other thing, I think, that become obvious as a result of the Crowe Chizek numbers is should we be taking another look now at what Community Corrections is all about? Because, as we've stated in the original scope of 300 beds, you know, the kind of numbers that they laid out to us the other day, I would be amazed if, if I could favor Community Corrections staying in anywhere close to 300 numbers, the 300 number, or even if at all. I think Judge Heldt made the comment about leave it alone. If it couldn't be 300 beds, and I don't know if that's necessarily the answer of just leaving it alone, but that's a huge cost component. Brad Ellsworth: I know at one time we had, you know, we had talked about reducing it or limiting the scope to 150, and I think that is when the, some of the judges came in and spoke about that, and it is a, you know, it's perplexing. Commissioner Mourdock: We can only do what we can afford. The state is more and more across the state going to Day Reporting, as you've told us before, and I think that is the way we need to be thinking with that. Personally, I would like to see us go to something like 125 beds, with more Day Reporting, which I know Judge Heldt doesn't like, but I think there are other judges, in fact, I know there are other judges who would support something like that. Brad Ellsworth: I think at some point that definitive answer between the Commission and the Council is what somebody is just going to have to make the motion and say here's what we are doing, and that's it. (Inaudible) from there forward and whatever we get- Commissioner Fanello: I thought we did that. Brad Ellsworth: That was before the dollars came in. Commissioner Mourdock: Yeah, right. Dollars change everything, don't they? Maybe the most important lesson of the Crowe Chizek meeting is, in fact, that the numbers they presented, I think, now that people have had time to digest them, they are causing more questions, and maybe we ought to do another joint meeting or two just to work through all these. Because we are going to keep the process moving, as I was saying before, we've got to quit going back and forth with some of these issues and just deal with them all at one time, all in one place. President Mosby: Sounds interesting. Commissioner Fanello: I just wanted to, just because there was discussion about the number of jail beds at the joint meeting. I think somebody made the statement that they didn't feel like we needed that many, and, I guess, I keep referring back to the PMSI study, because it's bought and paid for, and it was done and everyone worked on it. They had two different scenarios there using the three bed per 1,000 and the four bed per 1,000, if we had any university or a major university. I mean, their beds range from 506 to 674, and then in the year 2020, they are estimating 690 beds needed. So, I don't see where we are that far off in what we're asking for. Then looking at Community Corrections, they had recommended a 225 bed Work Release Center, plus expansion capabilities of an additional 50 beds. So, I guess, I'm getting confused why we keep talking about the number of beds and there is so much confusion on that, when this was a study where everybody put their input into it, and these were the numbers that came out of the study, and why are we saying that some of these numbers are too high? Brad Ellsworth: I can tell you where the 500 came from. And, Richard, I know you two weren't there, but I don't know if Richard attended some of these meetings, but as the stakeholders went through that, and we were, you know, had the little models and going and putting them over each other and talking about cost savings, on the recommendation of Mr. Shetler, he thought, and everything that we talked about was make it expandable. Make it so that we can expand it. Do the core services so you can expand. It was his, really, his idea, I believe, at this time, and , Richard, if you were there help me, but he said this is something that, the 500 number, even though it was low, was something that politically you all could survive. And I don't mean survive, but that the public would accept a number of 500 going from the numbers we have now, knowing that you are probably going to have to expand in the future. I remember him saying that, but you can probably, I don't want to say get away with 500, that's probably not, but that would be politically acceptable to the public to go 500, knowing that you are going to have to add pods in the future. Commissioner Fanello: Well, I just want to make the point that all the numbers that have been proposed at this table, I know by myself and by Commissioner Mosby, pretty much follow, you know, the numbers in the study and what was recommended. So, I don't want people to forget that. I mean, United is looking at this study, and we're looking at this study, and, I mean, we are staying within the realm of what all the information that went into it. Commissioner Mourdock: And I do remember very well, Brad, the discussion you just referenced there. I do remember that word political being thrown around too and not feeling comfortable whenever that word is being thrown around. I didn't like it then either, but I think 500, 600 beds I don't personally have any problem with that. I think that's where we need to be. I think the question was derived, and I'm presuming here, and I'll label it that, but when Jim Raben asked that question, I think it was somewhat in response to the sticker shock in seeing the numbers, and realizing that we have to stick to some budgetary numbers. Commissioner Fanello: Uh-huh. Commissioner Mourdock: He was wondering if that, in light of the budgetary numbers, wasn't too high. Commissioner Fanello: Well, I just wanted to bring that up because I had gone back and kind of flipped through the study again to make sure I hadn't lost my mind. Commissioner Mourdock: I'll throw out one more here, and I know the Sheriff won't like this one, and probably you two won't either, but I said at one of the meetings after United was selected down the hallway here, I made the comment that I felt we needed somewhere, I think, the number I said then was 650-750 beds, and it showed up later in the minutes as saying I wanted a 650 to 750 bed new jail. Those are two different things. I did send a memo back asking those minutes to be corrected, because we have 268 beds, and if the budget dictates it, as such, that we had to add say another 400 beds with a new jail, plus the 268, we have the number of beds I was talking about. Now I know operationally that presents some different challenges, but I still think we have a resource in the old jail that could be used for women, juveniles or whatever, that otherwise is going to be space very expensive to convert and we are going to be paying for it anyway. Brad Ellsworth: And I'm not in disagreement. We'll run whatever the county can afford and the Council and Commission ask us to run. Just as long as everybody is aware of, you know, like you said the operational costs and the hazards of the linear style and the, you know, I'm good with that. Give me the people to run it and I'll drive one more place to supervise or ask for the supervisors in place to do that. I agree. I'm just trying to get the most bang for our buck here when I make recommendations about bringing it under one roof or on one campus. President Mosby: And that's probably some answers that we can get from Crowe Chizek and United if we want to start breaking out different scenarios and see what the cost will be. Commissioner Mourdock: Well, we ended the meeting the other day by throwing the ball back on Council's court to ask them to verify where they are at number-wise. If they come back and say they are at $35 million or some number greater than $35 million, but still less than what the other options were, I think that is when we have to sit down and look at each one of these components and pull out the knife. President Mosby: Well, I agree. Money is going to be the big thing. There is no doubt. I think, like you said the other day, scope-wise depending on how many beds we build whether we can even ask the state and Feds to throw any money up. If there is no beds for them, you can't ask them for money. I think that is going to be one of the biggest things. Brad Ellsworth: The Feds won't talk to you until you come with a floor plan to show them you've got the beds. If we went up with a 329 bed, they wouldn't give us any money because they know we would kick them out a week down the road anyway. I'm not sure, you know, we are talking about building for the future, I think...and Henderson has a recently built jail. There is somebody here from Henderson, are they already expanding and adding a pod? Weren't they doing an expansion already? You know, build those core, if you've got the land, and pick a spot that has room for...and if you build the core services, and you can add those, the bed space is the cheapest space to add once it's over with. No question about it. I've gone to enough, you know, if you go to a million jails, they are going to tell you, make your core services and your offices and your support service, the beds are easy to add after that. So, that's just one thing to remember. So, if we do 448, be ready for expansion. Commissioner Mourdock: The two things I'm trying to focus on through this whole thing are, actually probably more than two, but one is 600 beds, because I think that's what we need. The other is trying to deal with the real courts problem, which is, I think, in part going to be addressed with some more court room space. You know, those two things. How can we get more court room space to move this thing through? We both, Brad and I, have sat through enough meetings to hear the comment, the nightmare scenario isn't building a 600 bed jail, it's building a 600 bed jail and a year later having it full. Unless we deal with the courts problem of back up and back log, and that's difficult for the Commissioners to do, and I don't care if it's three Democrats, three Republicans or a mixtures thereof, it's difficult to deal with the courts to make sure we're seeing good progress on this. President Mosby: Any other questions? Brad Ellsworth: Thank you. Let me add one thing, just about these spaces and beds...we talk about 500, 650, is remember Shetler did it and also the new program is that there are numbers that make more sense. So if it ends up at, you know, 525 instead of 500, and they go, oops, you know, how come they stuck 25 more beds in there? The pods are, you know, the size and square footage that it makes more sense and more financially feasible to add 25 beds or subtract. You know, it might be 495 instead of 500. Or it might be 525 if that space adds better. So, we all need to keep that in mind so nobody's saying, ooh, they said they were building this and then only built this, or they built something bigger. So, just one of those tidbits. Thank you. Commissioner Mourdock: Just so you know, Catherine, I wasn't offended to read I was an idiot. I've been called much worse. Commissioner Fanello: You're not an idiot, Richard. I don't think anybody around here is idiots. Everybody is asking very good questions, so. President Mosby: While we're under Old Business, I got a letter here from George Rehnquist and Jonathan Weinzapfel on the Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy Committee. I attended that out at USI the other day, and they are getting ready to put together the Board, and the Board is going to consist of the following; each County Council appoints three members and one Councilmember and one other elected official. So, the County Commission needs to appoint three members, one being a Commissioner, one being an elected official, or an employee of a government entity or a private citizen. So we need to make three appointments. They would like to have these by January 15th, because they intend to schedule their first meeting February 1st. So, one of us is going to end up serving on this committee, and then we need to appoint a private citizen and another elected official or employee of a government entity, so. Commissioner Mourdock: Do they have a published meeting date? Usually when people get appointed to the Board, that is the first question is when and how often do they meet? President Mosby: What did they say the other day? Quarterly, I think they are going to meet. The Board will meet. So, I think it would be safe to tell them that it's going to be quarterly, but the first meeting is scheduled for February 1st. Commissioner Mourdock: Okay. Depending on the schedule, I might be interested in doing that if this Board is wanting me to serve. Commissioner Mourdock: Okay. Let's,
like I said, that's something we need to come up with and the County Council
needs to do theirs too. Any other Old Business?
President Mosby: New Business? One thing I wanted to bring up real quickly that I had left out of my previous letter to the Governor when we were...there's a good reason why I did that. When we were asking the Governor not to raise the head tax on the boat...I won on that one like I did at the County Council, I went down the tubes. I am still in favor of dock side gaming, and that's one thing that I had intended to add to my letter, but I didn't, and, hopefully, I would like to present a letter today, and I would ask both Commissioners to join me, or one Commissioner, whatever, in asking the House and Senate to put this at the top of their agenda to be very, to let our boats be flexible in dock side gaming. To be short and sweet about it. Commissioner Mourdock: Okay, well, we all represent constituencies of some sort, and as you sense, I'm not going to favor this one. This one is a much easier one to call than that tax vote though. That one I had to really ponder for awhile. Just philosophically the problem I have with going with dock side gambling is every community in Indiana, the moment we go to dock side gambling, in my opinion, has a legitimate right to say, how come I don't get a casino now? There ought to be one in Vincennes, there ought to be one in French Lick, there ought to be one in Seymour. Because if you've taken away the dynamic of having the river and the whole idea of the riverboat, I think you've just really thrown the door open here to something that, number one, is unfair and unequal. Number two, to something that when it does happen, and that will happen, every community is going to have it's own casino. I still don't think it's in Indiana's best interest. President Mosby: I understand. The only reason I'm doing this is because you're very aware Illinois, you know, adopted dock side gaming- Commissioner Mourdock: Sure. President Mosby: -in '99 and it shown that we've had about a 12% decrease in the boat down here. Looking at our budget and the City's budget and everybody else's budget, I mean, there is a lot of money- Commissioner Mourdock: And a lot of experts will tell you the reason why Illinois was already seeing the decrease in the gambling was because the market is already saturated. I mean, they went to dock side themselves because their market was dropping. So, now we are using it as that reason as well. So, philosophically, we are just going to disagree on this one. President Mosby: I understand. Commissioner Fanello: I will support the letter. President Mosby: I bet it's not the last time though. Commissioner Mourdock: Probably not. President Mosby: I have a motion and a second. So ordered. With showing that Commissioner Mourdock voted no. I started to say abstained. Commissioner Mourdock: That's fine. President Mosby: Voted no. Any other New Business? Commissioner Mourdock: Motion to adjourn. President Mosby: I have a motion to adjourn. Commissioner Fanello: Second. President Mosby: Second. Commissioner Fanello: When do you want to start Drainage? President Mosby: We will start Drainage Board in ten minutes. The meeting was adjourned at 1:15
p.m.
CONSENT ITEMS:
Employment Changes:
Travel Requests:
Auditor:
County Clerk:
Sheriff:
Those in Attendance:
APPROVAL:
______________________________
______________________________
______________________________
Recorded and Transcribed by Madelyn Grayson.
|
