VANDERBURGH COUNTY

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

DECEMBER 29, 2004

The Vanderburgh County Board of Commissioners met in session this 29^th day of December, 2004 at 9:04 a.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 29^th. Introductions are as follows, to my right, Tammy McKinney, Superintendent; Kevin Winternheimer, County Attorney; Commissioner Mosby. To my left, Commissioner Crouch; Auditor, Bill Fluty; and Recording Secretary, Madelyn Grayson. Please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance.

(The Pledge of Allegiance was given.)

President Fanello: I believe our Mayor has something that he wants to say.

Jonathan Weinzapfel: All these folks must have known I was going to present keys to the city this morning. So, it’s good to see everybody here. Being this is the last meeting of 2004, I wanted to do something special. I know it’s a small token of my appreciation as Mayor of the city, and I think the genuine appreciation of the people of Vanderburgh County for the work that Commissioners David Mosby and Catherine Fanello have performed over the last four years. I think our community is better off because of your service. I think you’ve made some wonderful contributions, and I want to wish you the best of luck in all your future endeavors. But, with that, I do have keys to the city. I just want to add, Commissioner Crouch, I look forward to working with you over the next two years.

Commissioner Crouch: And you too.

Jonathan Weinzapfel: Thank you.

President Fanello: Thank you, Mayor. And, just real quickly, and if everybody will just bear with me for a second. I would like to take this opportunity, and the board would like to take this opportunity to thank two employees in our office, Ms. Tammy McKinney and Patty White...these, Patty Avery now. These two individuals have been extremely loyal, and have been extremely dedicated to working for Vanderburgh County, and we certainly do appreciate everything that you’ve done. I do want to just real quickly read the inscription. This is a clock that you can set on your desk, wherever you may end up.

“Presented to Tammy McKinney, Patty Avery for dedicated service and commitment to excellence. We thank you, Vanderburgh County Board of Commissioners.”

Thanks for bearing with us through that.

President Fanello: Right now I need approval of the December 20, 2004 minutes

Commissioner Mosby: So moved.

Commissioner Crouch: Second.

President Fanello: So ordered.

President Fanello: Our first discussion item, we’re going to veer from the agenda here, since we have so many people, but, the first thing that I’m going to take care of is Sherman Greer, who’s here from Emergency Management. He’s got a couple of proclamations that we need to take care of.

Sherman Greer: Before you, you have the proclamation, I think the proclamation for the snow emergency was signed already, but to rescind that declaration we needed your signature on the proclamation that I have in front of you at this time.

President Fanello: I guess, I just need a motion to rescind the snow emergency.

Commissioner Mosby: Motion to rescind.

Commissioner Crouch: Second.

President Fanello: So ordered. Thank you, Sherman. Thank you for everything that you did last week. I also want to take the opportunity right now to thank Dennis Hudnall. The Highway Department did an outstanding job. Everybody at the Highway Garage did an outstanding job. I know, Sherman, that you and your crew at Emergency Management also were very active. So, thank you.

Sherman Greer: The Sheriff’s Department helped out a lot also, by getting as many people off the streets that we possibly could.

President Fanello: They had Christmas shopping to do.

Sherman Greer: Priorities. Thank you.

President Fanello: Thank you. I think Madelyn will need a copy of that for the record.

President Fanello: Now, if it pleases the board, I would like to move up on the agenda, since we do have so many people here, who I’m sure need to get back to work, the ordinance concerning the registration of apprentices. I guess, I would look to the board as for direction on how they want to proceed. If you would like to hear any more information from anyone? Or if you have any questions of anyone at this time? Commissioner Crouch?

Commissioner Crouch: If anyone has any new information, I think the board should hear it at this time.

President Fanello: Commissioner Mosby, is that your wish as well?

Commissioner Mosby: Yeah, that’s fine.

President Fanello: I would like to, since we, obviously, cannot let everyone speak, I would like, if you could, quickly, appoint somebody from each side, and I imagine Bill Pedtke do you want to speak for the home builders? Is that alright with everyone?

Unidentified: Yes.

President Fanello: Okay, and we’ll have Jennifer with the building trades. Okay, Mr. Pedtke.

Bill Pedtke: President Fanello, Commissioners Mosby and Crouch, thank you for the opportunity to be heard on this issue. My name is Bill Pedtke, I’m here for the Southwestern Indiana Builders Association. We represent about 400 companies, and about 18,000 employees in our three county jurisdiction. I know what you’re thinking, great, we finally got these meetings on t.v. and there’s nobody at home to watch. At the last two meetings we spoke in opposition to this proposal because it mandates only one program as the method of achieving our goals. I reiterate today that our goals for Vanderburgh County should be to have reliable building policies, including effective training for apprentices. Our goals should not be to require our employers to register their workers with a federal bureau. The quality of construction in Vanderburgh County is second to none in Indiana. We know this from our vast experience in working with building professionals and officials all over the state. Keep in mind, please, that Vanderburgh County is already the most regulated county in Indiana for construction. Requiring the BAT certification, and only the BAT certification, would add to these regulations, and that doesn’t attract business and growth to our county. Doing business in Vanderburgh County won’t get better and it won’t get easier, it will get tougher, and it will get more complicated. Over the last week I’ve had many Vanderburgh County business owners tell me that one of the toughest tasks they have in owning and operating a small building related business, is finding qualified workers and keeping them. They tell me that this would get even tougher now with this new regulation. On a regular basis I get phone calls from future Vanderburgh residents, who are planning to move to the area. Their number one question is how much does it cost to build per square foot? They want to know how much they can afford. I can honestly say that no one has ever called my office to ask, in which federal bureau are your apprentices registered? Vanderburgh County residents deserve safety, afford ability, and accountability, and they’re getting it, because the system we have now is working. To propose that we need to add a BAT requirement, is to suggest that it’s not good enough, that our builders already are meeting the requirements set forth in the licensing ordinance, and that it would be not good enough that the licensed contractors are required to pull permits to do work in our county. It’s not good enough that the Building Commissioner and his inspectors refuse to accept work if it doesn’t, if it does not comply with the building code. More to the point, that it’s not good enough that apprentices are required to pass the county’s exam before becoming journeymen. We believe that these provide the needed assurances that construction here is the highest quality. So, the point really is, is that the system we have now is working. The apprentice training programs that exist today are working. In fact, we would submit, the quality of construction in Vanderburgh County has excelled over the years, without requiring BAT certification. To the extent of our research, no other county in Indiana requires the BAT certification for their apprentice training program. I was able to get some important information about the BAT program off the website for the Department of Labor. This information makes clear that BAT is meant to be optional. Requiring BAT would overstep the intent of the program. See this handout, in the very first line it describes the BAT program is voluntary. In the same sentence it further describes the BAT program as “industry-driven”. Requiring BAT certification would not be voluntary, nor industry-driven. Later in the same paragraph it says government plays a “support role”. If the county mandates the BAT, government becomes much more than a support role, it becomes a regulator. We support the efforts to set a standard for apprentice training programs, but as we’ve said from the very beginning, we refuse to believe that taking away all other options is the best way to handle this. If you refer back to the website print out that I gave you just now, the reverse side of that sheet is a copy of the standards for BAT certification. If you notice, these requirements are almost identical to the alternate requirements that we suggested be incorporated into the proposal. Specifically included are supervised on-the-job training, required hours of class room instruction, and periodic checks on progress. It’s the same. At the last two Commission meetings, the major criticisms of our alternate requirements were; there’s no way to prevent an individual from entering an apprentice program and then dropping out. Well, we’re open to ideas that will work. Right now, as I understand BAT, that won’t, BAT won’t prevent this either. The second thing was the program participants would be policing themselves. Well, not exactly, competing companies would be judging their peers for program compliance, much like the examining boards operate today, that we already have. The third is interesting, the county doesn’t have the time and money to audit or investigate possible problems in programs. Well, at last week’s meeting, with the “piggyback” ordinance, I suggested that we change the “shall” to a “may”, to give the Building Commissioner discretion to not waste resources to investigate thousands of licensed individuals on hundreds of job sites across the county. We heard that this is not a problem. We heard that the Building Commissioner says that he follows up with every complaint anyway. Later in the same meeting, and later today, I’ll bet, on the agenda, we supported an increase in the permit and licensor fees. It’s just difficult to get people to understand how we can afford the resources to investigate licensing complaints about individuals on all our job sites, but with the increased fees, we still don’t have the resources for the Building Commissioner to request, review, and refer records for the programs. In the end I keep coming back to the same issue, why are we rushing to adopt something that will remove all other viable options? If this is such a great idea now, won’t it be a great idea after we’ve had a chance to review other possibilities and their ramifications? Let’s not be so myopic to think that when you come to Vanderburgh County there is only one way. We ask that you vote no on this proposal as it reads currently, or at least take the time to find an agreement that addresses the needs of one party, without creating such a burden for the others. In short, we prefer to have it right, not right now.

President Fanello: Are there any questions for Mr. Pedtke? Thank you ,Bill.

Jennifer Keppler: Good morning. I’m Jennifer Keppler. I’m one of the counsels for the building trades, and I appreciate the opportunity to be in front of you today and speak to the board again about this issue, and also to reaffirm the building trades position that the ordinance, as originally proposed, is what the building trades would like to see the Commissioners pass here today. The building trades proposed this ordinance with an eye toward correcting existing abuses of the licensing and permitting requirements here in Vanderburgh County. Mr. Pedtke just got through telling you that the system is working, and that’s simply not the case. That has been, there have been many abuses witnessed by the building trades, and we wouldn’t be here today if the system were working. We brought this ordinance, or proposed this ordinance, in particular to remedy situations where companies are using apprentices as cheap labor, and essentially exploiting them for their own good, not training them, calling them apprentices, but not training them. Essentially, discarding them after they have used them to the best of their ability. The building trades brought this before the Commissioners in an effort to get a set of regulations saying that if you’re calling people, or workers, apprentices, they really should be apprentices, and they should be trained as such. The only way to accomplish that, the only viable option for accomplishing that and assuring the quality and the integrity of the training that these so called apprentices are receiving, is to mandate the BAT. It’s universally recognized as the standard for the training of apprentices. It’s easily enforceable. It’s got pre-set requirements, and everything else that has been proposed to date is simply too vague. Now, Mr. Pedtke just got through telling us again, something of a dichotomy, that the requirements that they’ve offered are essentially the same as BAT, and that what they have to offer is a viable solution, and if that’s the case, there’s no reason not to pass BAT as a requirement. BAT is there as a reference point, and would be enforceable for the county. At my last appearance here, I went through the virtues of the BAT, and those include ensuring the quality of apprentices and ease of enforcement. I don’t want to repeat myself here today, but the building trades still believes that the only way to accomplish that goal of getting quality workers and to remedying existing abuses is to enforce BAT. Contrary to what was said today, the building trades didn’t arrive at this BAT language lightly or overnight, or just come up with it on a whim. This has been on the works, or in the works since February of this year, where we had brought it up before the licensing and disciplinary board, where we have had efforts at drafting an ordinance months in advance. This has gone through a good deal of thought. In the spirit of conciliation, the building trades brought this issue, and sat down and discussed this issue with the home builders, and offered them a solution that would give them time to be compliant with BAT, which they say that, essentially, they could do if they’re already meeting those requirements. But, that was rejected unanimously by the home builders, and now we’re at an impasse, we’re at a position where it’s BAT or what the home builders want. We’ve made efforts to conciliate that, but have heard nothing essentially, or have made no headway in coming to a negotiation. I think it’s important to note, because I don’t think that it’s been sufficiently addressed, is that this ordinance as proposed only requires, only mandates requirements for individuals with masters licenses employing apprentices. This is only going to affect electrical, plumbing, HVAC, and sheet metal workers, as I’m sure Mr. Lehman can attest to. This isn’t going to be broader than that, and I think there’s been some misconceptions in the home builders, among the home builders that this is going to mandate more requirements than it actually does. I also think it’s important to reiterate that we still haven’t, we don’t have any tangible evidence that this is going to detrimentally affect, financially, the home builders out there. In fact, if the program’s adequately train their apprentices, as they say they are, the costs are going to be minimal, because they’re already meeting the requirements of BAT. It’s just a matter of paperwork and compliance. But, the benefit, in contrast, of having the BAT out there, is you’re going to ensure that there are qualified, experienced, well-trained and safe workers, safe apprentices, which is going to benefit the county exponentially. If the ordinance is adopted by the Commissioners, as it’s been proposed by the building trades, you’re going to get that benefit. Thank you.

President Fanello: Thank you, Jennifer. Are there any questions for Jennifer at this time?

Jennifer Keppler: Thank you.

President Fanello: Thank you.

Unidentified: How many counties are–

President Fanello: Sir, sir, I can’t have you speaking from the audience, because we can’t get it on record, and I’ve got to maintain some kind of order in here. We have too many people. So, right now I’m going to ask Roger Lehman to come forward. Roger, I don’t know if you have any new information that you would like to add at this time.

Roger Lehman: I did provide a copy, it looks like this, except it doesn’t have the pink on it that I received from the ABC, which is Associated Building Contractors of Indiana, relative to their apprenticeship program. Part of the concern in this program was the cost, and I thought the thing to do, if I could find it and get it in time, would be to look at what others are doing. This is from Indianapolis. If you look at the front page there, they, ABC is certified in 14 trades, they train in six different locations, and they are, as it states, all Bureau of Apprenticeship Training approved. In the second paragraph it talks about some of the requirements. In the third paragraph it talks about the cost for an apprentice working for a non-member company, that would be somebody that does not belong to the ABC, the cost would be about $1,600 per year. I thought maybe one of the folks from the IAC or PHCC could tell what the cost would be here for member/non-member participants. Then, the last paragraph talks about the 8,000 hours and so on and so forth. In this case they would not only receive their apprenticeship approval, but they would also receive an associates degree from Vincennes University, because they do take some of the general education requirements through the community college program. On the second page, it gives minimum qualifications. Some of the comments were made about the publishing of wage scales and so on, and if you look at the right hand lower box where it says wages of apprentices, down at the bottom, it shows the percentage of journeyman’s rate based on the apprentices, and shows an increasing scale as they go through the program. It does not state what the scale has to be, it just states this is the ABC’s proposal, and they’re BAT approved method of doing their apprenticeship program, and how the people that participate pay for that. Then, the last page is the actual application form, and shows the fees. For a member company it’s $500 per semester, a non-member, $675. A one time enrollment fee of $100, a textbook fee of $100 per year. And a hands on fee of $75 per semester. So, these are some actual costs that are involved in the process. I think that’s important. I would like to state, one more time, that this only affects the mechanical trades. It does not affect the excavating, carpentry, dry walling, and the miscellaneous construction trades that the ordinance does not require apprenticeship programs for. We only require them for electrical, HVAC, refrigeration, and steam fitting.

President Fanello: So, if you’re a member of the ABC, then the ABC is BAT certified?

Roger Lehman: Their program is BAT certified.

President Fanello: Their program is BAT certified?

Roger Lehman: Right. Correct. I also spoke with a local company that has an in-house program, and asked them about their costs. For a company to run their own program would involve additional labor, based on the reporting requirements of the BAT. This person said that if an individual company had their own in-house BAT approved training program, that if they had five or more students, they probably would have to have an additional employee to do their record keeping and so on. The programs that we’re discussing here are two existing programs, the IAC and the PHCC, which already do some of the reporting, and they can speak to that maybe better than I can. But, at any rate, the issue with the fee increases, that primarily is for technology to allow us to do our jobs more efficiently, as was stated, and I don’t want to reiterate all those issues concerning the fee increases, but we are working with the same staff we had 20 years ago, and doing almost twice as much work. So, we really need some way to monitor the apprenticeship programs, and in my estimation, the only reasonable approach, at this point in time, is the BAT process, which is probably being met in most, in almost every fashion, by the existing programs. But, the programs that exist now, without that monitoring, are reliant solely upon their training committees, because again we don’t have the opportunity to monitor, you know, the activities of each individual program. So, having said that, we would recommend that the BAT program be the program that is required at this time. And would recommend you approve the ordinance as submitted.

President Fanello: Okay, thank you, Roger. Are there any questions for Roger? I guess, I would look for direction from the board as to how you would like to proceed?

Commissioner Crouch: Roger had suggested that perhaps someone might want to respond to his figures on the costs.

President Fanello: Bill, do you have any information regarding that?

Bill Pedtke: I don’t have it.

President Fanello: Okay, I’m going to let one–

Bill Pedtke: He’s from the program.

President Fanello: Okay, if you’re from the program, okay.

Jim Rexing: I thank you for hearing me. Good morning.

President Fanello: You’re welcome, Jim.

Jim Rexing: Again, my name is Jim Rexing. I’m speaking on behalf of the independent electrical contractors. Just a few things, to make some comments about some things that were just recently said. The person, the lady that was representing the building trades, and let me clarify something, it seems that over the years “building trades” has become the norm of a term that is used by the unions to refer to their trades. Keep in mind that when they say “building trades” are in support of this, or “building trades” are not in support of that, they’re not speaking for all of the building trades. Building trades also include independent contractors. They do not own that term. So, when you hear building trades, please keep in mind that they do not speak for us. We’ve talked about abuses, I really didn’t want to get into that today, I have examples of abuses within our existing programs that is happening with our opposition here today that are touting this high and mighty BAT certification as the only way to administer a program. I would really prefer not to get into that, but I can show you abuses on the other side that makes no sense to me that you would tout a BAT certification, and do some of the things that are happening within those programs. The costs, if you want to look at bare costs, you know, this is not a good comparison, I don’t think. The cost of $1,600 that Roger just spoke about from ABC to administer, you know, a BAT program per pupil, right now we have all volunteer staff, and that’s how we hold our costs down. We’re spending about $800, so, you’re going to double the cost. But, that’s really not the big issue, I’m hoping that you all got my e-mail that I sent over the weekend. I think it explained some very definite issues that, I mean there’s issue after issue we could talk about, but, I think, one issue that I explained in that e-mail was that my calculations, and this is based on some pretty good research within our industry, we didn’t pull these numbers out of the air, my calculation is that if we go BAT only, if our program is required to do BAT, because of the wage scale averaging that we have to do, there’s always been a differential between residential wages and industrial and commercial. I think rightfully so. What that does is it let’s the guys that want to be in that niche of residential to stay only in that market and hold housing costs down. It’s a good thing for our community. One thing that I haven’t really mentioned in public is the fact that we have been, for 20 years, administering this program, and we have had it open to the public. We right now, we’ve had several people from Gibbs Die Casting, Whirlpool, Bristol Myers attend our program, and they don’t have any intention to be in the construction electrical field. But, they want that information. They want that classroom curriculum. We right now have a person from the Evansville Traffic Department that’s in our program. If it goes BAT, that’s gone. We cannot offer that to those people. I think it’s a community service that would be lost. Roger’s comments about the other trades not being affected, that’s true right now, but, you know, as things continue to mushroom, as things continue to get more restrictive, what could happen down the road is you could see that there could be a proposal made that other trades initiate apprentice programs. Like we’ve said before, we’re the only one’s in the state that I know of that even require an apprentice program to work in the city/county. You know, I can take my people to, with my masters license, in Marion County, and I can take my people up there and work. That’s what free enterprise is all about. We’re so restrictive here already that it’s ridiculous. You know, he said that it wouldn’t affect the other trades, but, like I say, down the road, it can, because other trades can be required to initiate apprentice programs. If they do, then BAT is going to be the norm, and the same situation just rolls to them. I think I gave you pretty good, hard numbers in that e-mail that, based on my calculations, and these aren’t, like I say, pulled out of the air, I did some research on this, that because of the wage increase that would be required, because of the provisions within a BAT, that just on the electrical costs, labor only, for a 2,500 square foot home in this county, for the average home, would be over $700 increase. We’ve heard from builders that are saying $700 is a lot of money within a home. In talking to Bill Pedtke, and I’m not going to state exact numbers, but I think Bill can correct me here if I’m wrong, but I think just that cost, and if it doesn’t, and I can’t speak for HVAC people, because, you know, I don’t know how exactly this is going to affect their costs, but I’m sure that this is going to do some similar situation to the HVAC trades. So, you know, you could have another trade seeing the same situation. You know, if you start raising the cost of a home $1,500, I think in talking to Bill that you have probably, they keep up on this very well, I think they can tell you that it’s going to put probably 700 to 800 people, in our county, out of that house. It’s going to make, that amount of money is going to make it not affordable for that amount of people. There’s very strict criteria that the home builders look at, trying to make home building affordable for the community, and that’s why they’re on top of that, and that’s why they can state that. So, you know, that can’t be good for the community. I can’t see how that, how BAT, and BAT, it’s no different than, as far as the curriculum, classroom curriculum, you know, it’s nothing different than what, we’re using BAT curriculum. A curriculum that’s approved by the Department of Labor. The only thing BAT is a monitoring media. It just makes you responsible to the Department of Labor. I don’t want to go on and on here, but, I guess, to summarize, I guess, in light of the fact that we have the most restrictive requirements anywhere that I’ve run across, and I’m pretty sure anywhere in a three state area that I’ve been, and Roger has said for years that he feels like our tradesmen here are second to none. In light that we have that situation, in light that there is absolutely no evidence, no evidence that making programs BAT will make a better work, will make for better workmanship or put better tradesmen out there in the field, there is absolutely no evidence of that. In light of the evidence that I’ve given you concerning the increased costs, and in light of the fact that I know, with good faith effort, alternate standards can be implemented to the license and disciplinary board standards. You know, what’s really kind of awesome about this whole thing is that everybody keeps speaking for the license and disciplinary board, and we haven’t heard any of their members speak here at any of these meetings. Actually, when this was presented to the licensing and disciplinary board, and I’ll have to disagree with the February date, I was at a meeting and I would say it was September when this was first presented to the licensing and disciplinary board for a vote. They actually were told later by an attorney that they were not, they couldn’t legally vote on this. It was actually a very split vote, it was a 3-2 vote, and they did not have a full quorum that day. So, there was a lot of discussion there. There was a lot of, this wasn’t a cut and dried issue with, you know, if someone tells you the licensing and disciplinary board said, yes, we want to do this. That’s not true. That is absolutely not true. So, with all that said, I’m just urging you that you either take the alternate standards that were presented to you on the 13^th of this month, send them back to the attorney to have them implemented legally within the ordinance, along with BAT, or to, please, delay a vote on this matter until we can have further discussion.

President Fanello: I have a couple of questions.

Jim Rexing: Certainly.

President Fanello: When you said that your program already meets BAT standards, then–

Jim Rexing: No.

President Fanello: Your program does not meet–

Jim Rexing: Our curriculum–

President Fanello: Your curriculum.

Jim Rexing: –is approved for a BAT program. In other words, we’re teaching, in the classroom right now, we’re teaching our people everything that they would be taught if we went to BAT. It’s all the other provisions, yes, our curriculum is approved by the Department of Labor–

President Fanello: Then what are the restrictive provisions that you’re worried about? And how does the alternate programs differ from that? Are the alternates lower in standards then?

Jim Rexing: The alternates don’t include all of the provisions, all the requirements of a BAT, and for one, a wage scale. The wage scale, when you start averaging wage scales, you take that differential, you know, between the residential and the commercial work, and you bring that together, and, basically, what you’ve done is, you know, you’ve made it more costly for the residential people.

President Fanello: Well, why don’t you explain that, because when I got on the website yesterday, trying to research all of these, it doesn’t say anything in there about mandatory increased wages. So, explain–

Jim Rexing: Okay, I did not bring the BAT standards with me.

President Fanello: –your interpretation.

Jim Rexing: I think I have someone here that has, and I can pull that page. No, not that. If you would bear with me.

President Fanello: There was a summary in there.

Jim Rexing: Would you like me to read it? Or would you like to see it?

President Fanello: Sure, why don’t you go ahead and read the pertinent parts.

Jim Rexing: Okay, here, this is under apprentice wage progression. We don’t have any problem with having a, you know, a wage scale, per se. But, the way it has to be determined, I mean, we don’t have a problem with the apprentices being paid some kind of progressive scale, but, because of the way that it has to be set up is what raises the residential costs.

President Fanello: And, what, at that point, then what way does it have to be set up that bothers you?

Jim Rexing: Okay, it says;

“The progressive wage schedule shall be an increasing percentage of the wage rate as established in the following; the sponsor shall, at the same time each year, survey the actual wage rate of first year journeyman electricians employed by participating contractors–“

In other words, within this program.

“–during the previous twelve months and establish an average wage rate. The sponsor shall notify the registration agency–“

Which would be the Department of Labor.

“–of this new average wage rate. Each apprentice wage rate shall be a percentage of the established average wage rate of first year journeyman electricians employed by the sponsor. Increases shall be based on satisfactory completion of both hours worked and appropriate period of related and supplemental instruction. In no case shall the starting wages of apprentices be less than required by the Federal Labor Standards Act.”

It goes on to say that a first year apprentice, within his first hours of training will earn 40% of that established journeyman rate. In his second 1,000 hours, 45%. It goes up, basically, each semester, or each 1,000 hours, until it reaches 85%, and then when he completes the program he would have to be a paid journeyman scale. That average journeyman scale.

President Fanello: So, it’s not telling you what....I’m asking these questions, because I’m just making sure that I understand correctly.

Jim Rexing: Oh, it’s not–

President Fanello: It’s not telling you what you have to pay, it’s saying it’s based on averages.

Jim Rexing: Yes.

President Fanello: It’s based on a progressive scale, based on averages.

Jim Rexing: Right. I mean, let’s use two hypothetical numbers here and say that, you know, one, the average residential contractors out there are paying their people $15 an hour, $18 an hour, whatever, and the average contractor that’s doing commercial/industrial work is paying their people $25 an hour. You average that together and that’s your wage. So, basically what it amounts to is after that, after that averaging is all said and done, then those residential guys are going to go to $20 an hour. That’s the scenario that I gave you in the e-mail that raises that cost.

President Fanello: Thank you, Jim. Does anybody else have any questions for Jim?

Jim Rexing: Are there any other questions?

Jennifer Keppler: May I make a rebuttal?

President Fanello: Yes, because I do want to hear....because I’ve heard conflicting stories about the wages, and that is a point that I’m interested in.

Jennifer Keppler: I’m bringing Mike Falkenstein with me. He is the head of the Plumbers apprenticeship program. He can speak a little better to the costs and that sort of thing, but I did want to answer a couple of legal issues that were brought up. The wages are not set by BAT. There’s a regulation, a specific federal regulation, 29CFR29.5, that requires only that a progressive scale of wages is implemented, and the only wage setting requirement is that minimum wage be paid. That’s it. In certain situation, such as a prevailing wage, obviously, a higher wage is required to be paid, but the regulations themselves don’t require any specific wage, just a proportional share. So, I just wanted to clarify that wages should not be an issue under BAT, only minimum wage is required under BAT. The other thing that I wanted to clarify is that there’s been a good bit of talk about how Vanderburgh County is the most regulated county around, and I just wanted to point out that there is already an apprenticeship ordinance on the books, here in Vanderburgh County, and also in the city. This, what the building trades has proposed is simply a mechanism for enforcement, and also some stricter guidelines to rectify some of the abuses that I had talked about earlier. I just wanted to clarify that as well. I’m going to let Mike talk a little bit about the plumbers apprenticeship program.

President Fanello: Thank you.

Jennifer Keppler: Thank you.

Mike Falkenstein: Good morning. I would just like to make a few comments that were made earlier, or correct a few comments about BAT being an added cost to a program. If you already have an existing training program in place, there is no additional cost. They were talking about having to add on additional staff if they had five apprentices. We have 175 apprentices and 1,300 journeyman doing additional training yearly with two people on board. It’s not an additional cost. BAT does not set the standards, BAT does not set the curriculum. You submit the curriculum to the BAT, and your standards, and how you want to run your program and get it approved. We run a building trades, BAT approved, and a residential BAT approved, with totally different scales and rates and training. All approved by the BAT. So, there is no additional cost to that. I would gladly answer any questions you might have.

President Fanello: Does anybody have any questions? Thank you. I appreciate that. I’m cautious about letting too many people speak. I don’t know, Jim, do you have any comment that you want to add?

Jim Rexing: I understand what he’s saying with a code residential program and a commercial program, or whatever you want to call it. If you want to set up two programs, have, you know, two sets of teachers, two administration situations, that type of thing, it can be done. Then the wage variance that I talked about can be held to a minimal, but there again, you know, you have, you know, more administration. These figures that I’ve seen, and I’ve seen some others in the background here of how they do this careful calculations of pennies per man hour that it costs to administer these programs. In our situation, like I say, we are a volunteer staff, we’re all, the board of directors we’re all in IEC and all master electricians that are overseeing this program. We could not, the additional work could not be done by us. We have businesses to conduct, so we would have to definitely hire an administrator. I think I stated that in the e-mail. That additional cost, you know, we calculated to be between $20,000 and $25,000 a year, based on speaking with other people that do run BAT programs. I just don’t know what else to say, I think, you know, within that e-mail when you’re talking about raising, you know, the prices of a home, why do, you know, why should we have the community support these standards. It’s so easy to come up with some standards that would be so credible, and would be able to be so accountable to our local authorities. I would like to say, you know, here we see everybody but the licensing and disciplinary board, which are the people which have the final say, and that can actually pull a program or approve a program. Unfortunately, you know, and I hate to say this, but when we started out, you know, a month or so ago with these alternate standards, we had the full support of Roger Lehman. Roger is a very fair person. Everyone works well with Roger. He’s a fantastic Building Commissioner, and all of a sudden we saw politics play in. All of a sudden the heat was coming down on Roger. We don’t want this. I’m sorry, and I’m sorry to have to bring this out, but, you know, the Building Commissioner is the most knowledgeable about this situation. He was in full support of our alternates when we first started. Now through all the pressure that’s being put on him by others and people in this room, he has basically went 180 on us. I’m certainly sorry that happened, because I think we lost some fairness there. That’s all I have to say.

President Fanello: Thank you, Jim.

Unidentified: (Inaudible. Not at mic.)

President Fanello: Okay, you do? Okay, this is the last, unless we have any more new information, I think we’re going to end it with this right here.

John Peninger: Commissioners, my name is John Peninger. I am a home builder, and I sit on the Building and Roofing Board. We speak about all the layers of regulations that we have. Our board oversees very few complaints. We’re the preliminary board which passes all the complaints on up to the Roofing and Disciplinary Board. We see very little. I have a problem with the assertion that there are many, many abuses. Yes, there is always abuses, but one amplification of a point that I would like to mention about Jim’s point was the minute, or apparent minute costs of raising a home ½ of a percent, 3/4 of a percent, which is what $1,500 would be. That doesn’t sound like a whole lot, but it would knock a lot of people out of the home buying market. It will knock out the entry level people. Those people are so close to buying or not buying that $1,500, $2,000 will prohibit them from purchasing their first new home. Or first existing home. National 2004 statistics, and this is just one that I’ve been able to memorize, when a home is sold, it perpetuates in the resale of someone else’s home between 2.6 and 3.3 turns. Turns is not the terminology that the home builders, National Home Builders, uses but, when that entry level person is knocked out of a purchase, the owner of the entry home cannot buy a move up home. That move up cannot buy the larger home that they will finally raise their family in. So, we’re talking not just one home, or 800 homes per year in the county, we’re talking possibly three. Every time a person buys a new home, they put new carpet in, they put new drapes in, they rehab their house which adds income to our retail, which pays the income and that cycles through our economy. Commissioners, as you add a little layer, and that reminds me of the Di-Tech guy who has this stack of papers, he moves one layer from the top sheet of that commercial, it’s just one sheet, but you start adding one sheet to the stack of that, and it removes a certain number and that prohibits two to three times that number of people that will be brought into and remain and turned over in our county. Don’t do this, please.

President Fanello: Thank you, John. Okay, do the Commissioners have any questions for anyone? Any questions, Commissioner Mosby? I guess, that I would look to the board for direction in how they would like to proceed.

Commissioner Crouch: Madam President?

President Fanello: Yes.

Commissioner Crouch: In the ten years that I have sat on this board, eight years as County Auditor, and two years as County Commissioner, I have rarely seen an issue that has divided the people that are affected so strongly. This has been before this Commission for two weeks, and I think that we need sufficient time for the two sides to come to a compromise that will continue to guarantee affordable and quality housing here in Vanderburgh County and the City of Evansville. I would like to make a motion that we defer this until after the first of the year.

President Fanello: Commissioner Mosby?

Commissioner Mosby: I’m not going to second the motion.

President Fanello: I will look to direction from you.

Commissioner Mosby: I will make a motion to adopt the new apprenticeship, registration of apprenticeship ordinance that we have that adds the letter (f). The original document that we’re working with does not have (f) under 15.36. So, I would make a motion that we adopt the ordinance that adds letter (f) to the registration of apprenticeships.

President Fanello: And the letter (f) gives?

Commissioner Mosby: The letter (f), if anybody is not familiar with it, says that;

“Apprenticeship programs not registered with the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Apprenticeship Training (“BAT”), but actively operating in Vanderburgh County, Indiana prior to the date of the final passage of this ordinance shall be permitted until July 1, 2006–“

which in turn will give 18 months for people to operate and become approved by, and registered with the BAT. I would make a motion that we adopt this as a working document, and go with the 12-04 as amended.

President Fanello: Okay. Before I vote, I would just say that I have taken a lot of time to research this issue. I’ve spoken with people on both sides. I’ve spoken with attorneys. I’ve spoken with city officials. I’ve spoken with Roger. I do not feel that we’re doing anything too restrictive here. If you have a curriculum in place that is, you know, following standards, and you have a good curriculum in place, this should be no hardship on your program. I’ll ask for order in the room please. I mean, these are my feelings after researching it, and I haven’t heard any knew information that gets me to believe otherwise. That’s not to say that in the future alternate programs could not be added to this ordinance. But, when the Building Commissioner tells me he has no resources, and city officials tell me they have no resources to monitor alternative programs, we have no choice. I think what everyone is trying to do here is set down some minimum standards, and some way to enforce standards. Right now anybody that has a program, there is no way to monitor that program. We do not know how things are working. All it takes is one really bad abuse to leave a bad taste in people’s mouths. Some abuses have happened. That’s not to say that the majority of those in this community don’t give us quality projects, because they do. We have a lot of quality projects in this community. But, we have had some abuses, and, unfortunately, we’ve had some people come in out of town and abuse what happens in this county. I think all we’re doing here is setting down some minimum standards, and as we move forward there is nothing to say that alternates cannot be added in the future, because they could be. I think that that’s something that you should continue to explore with the Building Commissioner and with city officials as they move forward on this. So, I will second Commissioner Mosby’s motion.

Kevin Winternheimer: We’ll need a roll call vote.

President Fanello: Okay. Roll call.

Kevin Winternheimer: This is just on the motion to amend to add the subsection (f) to 15.36.160.

President Fanello: Okay. So, first off we’ll take a roll call vote on the motion to add the 18 month provision. Commissioner Crouch?

Commissioner Crouch: No.

President Fanello: Commissioner Mosby?

Commissioner Mosby: Yes.

President Fanello: I vote yes. Now, we will need a motion to pass the ordinance as amended. Commissioner Crouch?

Commissioner Mosby: I will make–

President Fanello: Oh, I’m sorry.

Kevin Winternheimer: You need a motion.

Commissioner Mosby: I will make a motion to adopt CO.12-04 as amended with the letter (f) in section 15.36.160.

Commissioner Crouch: I’ll second for the vote.

President Fanello: For the vote. And, roll call vote, Commissioner Crouch?

Commissioner Crouch: The one thing that was said, I just want to make a brief statement before my vote, is that if both standards are the same, why don’t we pass the BAT? My position is, if both standards are the same, why don’t we have them both? I have to vote no.

President Fanello: And, I’ll say that if they are the same, then there shouldn’t be...there’s always going to be issues when new standards are put in place, but I do not feel, from my research, that there’s anything here that’s restrictive. I don’t find where, there’s nothing to substantiate the dollar amount of costs that have been talked about. I guess, it will be a wait and see approach, and as things come up, ordinances can always be changed in the future. So, I will second, or say yes on the roll call vote. Commissioner Mosby?

Commissioner Mosby: I just want to say, after having dialogue with several people, numerous people, and talking with Roger late last night, and I understand where Roger is coming from, and it seems to me like that Roger is adamant that he have something to work with. A uniform process to work with that is setting a standard to help him. The one thing I think I’ve heard more than anything is that if we had more time we could work with this, you know, to give us a little more time and I think we could work this out. I would encourage that. I definitely would encourage both sides to have dialogue, and to try to work this out. I think, in the end, the general public is the one that is going to benefit from the quality of product that this county has to offer. That is the reason that I wanted to insert (f) into this amendment, which gives everybody in this room 18 months to now work with Roger and to work together. I’ve seen this community come together before. This community can come together again. I think if both sides, over the next 18 months will work together, and work with Roger, we could have an ordinance that everybody could live with. If not, then it’s not seen to be that a way, then you always have the opportunity to come back to this Commission. I will vote yes.

President Fanello: So, the amendment passes. I do thank everybody for their comments and their participation in this discussion.

Bill Fluty: Catherine, we need to change tapes.

(Tape Change)

President Fanello: Roger, did you want to go ahead, we’ll go ahead and take these other ordinances that we have on here.

Roger Lehman: I think we don’t have any issues with any of the other three. So, if we were to go ahead, I would recommend–

President Fanello: The first one on the agenda is the second reading of county code regarding exemption from building and construction fee schedule. Do I have a motion to pass on second reading?

Commissioner Mosby: Motion to approve.

Commissioner Crouch: Second.

President Fanello: So ordered. Roll call vote. Commissioner Crouch?

Commissioner Crouch: Yes.

Bill Fluty: Can you wait a minute, we won’t pick this up on the, we might not pick this up on the tape.

President Fanello: Commissioner Mosby?

Commissioner Mosby: Aye.

President Fanello: And I vote yes. That ordinance does pass.

President Fanello: The next one that Roger has on the agenda is the second reading of an ordinance concerning fees of the Building Commissioner’s office. Do I have a motion to pass?

Commissioner Mosby: Motion to accept, and call the roll.

Commissioner Crouch: Second.

President Fanello: So ordered. Commissioner Crouch?

Commissioner Crouch: Yes.

President Fanello: Commissioner Mosby?

Commissioner Mosby: Yes.

President Fanello: And I vote yes. Thank you, Roger.

Roger Lehman: Was there one more? Was that all of them?

President Fanello: Yes.

Roger Lehman: Okay, thank you.

President Fanello: That’s it. Thank you.

Roger Lehman: Thank you all very much for your time and effort on this.

President Fanello: The next item on the–

Kevin Winternheimer: (Inaudible).

Commissioner Mosby: No, we did it last week.

Kevin Winternheimer: Oh, we did it last week. Okay. That was the second one.

President Fanello: The next item on the agenda is discussion of the second floor break room, and Dave Rector was just here. There he is.

Commissioner Mosby: I think we ought to close the door.

Dave Rector: Did you say we’re next?

President Fanello: You’re next.

Dave Rector: Dave Rector, Building Authority. I have complied with your request, last week I think it was, to talk with the judges regarding, perhaps, their continued need of that space where Human Relations is located now, and could they forego that at this time, and expand in to there later when the old jail goes, etcetera. At that time I think I had also given you drawings of the second and third floor, the difference in the square footage. Human Relations now has about 1,400 square feet, the second floor proposed renovation gives them about 1,175 square feet. Using the third floor gives 860, so, as you can see there’s quite a reduction. Another thought since that point that came up, and I don’t know how it would be viewed or accepted, is at the east end of the second floor, that void space outside the Election Office, is maybe converting that into a break room. That might be bigger than what we were talking about down here. But, with that, I think we’re back to where we are. We need a decision. Judge Heldt and Judge Niemeier are here to address their thoughts on it. Once again, we’re holding up construction at this point–

President Fanello: Right.

Dave Rector: –and we need to do something one way or the other.

President Fanello: Okay, does the board, would you like to hear from Judge Heldt and Judge Niemeier?

Commissioner Mosby: Dave, how much room, if we went to the end of the second floor, how much room, have you measured it to see how much square footage would be there?

Dave Rector: It’s a reduced space from what they have on the second floor now, but it’s bigger than what they would have had out in that foyer area of the second floor. Maybe a little more convenient being at that end where the predominance of the people are, where you have the Auditor, Treasurer, all the assessors, and we could set it up, I think, with an aluminum store front entry with all the break room tables in there, and the vending machines. Not as desirable as it is now, but, I mean, the whole issue is, we’ve got four walls, so much square feet, and we’re full and expanding.

Commissioner Mosby: Oh, I totally understand that.

President Fanello: And the cost on that was?

Dave Rector: It would be less than what we were going to do...I think the $10,000 estimate to do down here would be less than that, because we would be constructing one less wall.

President Fanello: Any more questions for Dave?

Commissioner Crouch: Dave, help me out, I’m sorry I missed the beginning of what you said.

Dave Rector: Sure.

Commissioner Crouch: You’re talking about doing what on the second floor down by the Election Office?

Dave Rector: Another proposed option for a break room replacement would be at the east end, that void area at the dead end of the hallway. We could close that off and make that a break room.

Commissioner Crouch: It would be smaller than currently what they have?

Dave Rector: Than the current break room, yes.

Commissioner Mosby: I guess, I would like to hear what Madelyn has to say.

Madelyn Grayson: I just have one piece of new information. I did receive an e-mail from Judge Niemeier. I had asked him about the conversation that he’d had with Dave Rector, and he explained to me, I fully understand that he’s been waiting a long time for this space, and they do need this space that would be provided with Human Relations in order to get the second courtroom. That is pretty much the sole reason for them moving over here. But, in addition to that, we’d asked Mayor Weinzapfel to re-examine, possibly temporarily moving Human Relations either to the Old Courthouse or another location, until the Sheriff’s administration area would be vacant, possibly next November. Mayor Weinzapfel was here this morning, he had not responded to my e-mail, he hadn’t had a chance, he didn’t really indicate whether he was for or against that, but if there’s any way that we could have a little bit of time to see if he would even consider doing that, that would be the only other option that I see at this point. Other than the option that Mr. Rector just explained. But, they do use that area outside the Election Office to, when the inspectors come to pick up their packets, that’s where they set up everything in the hallway. I know that’s twice a year, but that’s an area that is used for that type of purpose. So, if we could have some time to at least see what the Mayor’s opinion is on that. I did get a chance to talk to him briefly this morning, but he did not indicate how he felt about that.

Commissioner Crouch: Madame President, why don’t we move on with the agenda and ask Mrs. Grayson and Mr. Rector to go down to the Mayor’s office and see if you can get some kind of response to that request, if he’s available.

Dave Rector: I think also maybe in deference to the Judges, because I know they do have court this morning, do you want to hear from them, so it can free them up to get away?

Commissioner Crouch: Sure.

President Fanello: Sure, while you’re checking.

Commissioner Crouch: Because it had been proposed, or it had been asked if that space, since the Judges–

Dave Rector: And I’ll run down and try to catch the Mayor.

Commissioner Crouch: –or the courts are getting more space than anyone is currently, if that space could be foregone until we can have other space available, so, that we don’t have to deny our county employees a break room.

Dave Rector: I’ll run down and try to catch the Mayor and see. He’s got multiple decisions around that, and how do we pay for that. Then, does he want to use the vacated Sheriff’s space for Human Relations, at that point, instead of EPD. This thing is just a domino effect, and it just keeps moving.

President Fanello: I would just add, the only problem with moving offices to the Old Courthouse right now, it’s not completed, the renovations are going on over there won’t be completed until the spring of 2005, and it would probably be a little bit more costly option. So, at this point.

Dave Rector: Tremendously so. The other option though with C.K. Newsome that we’d talked about, how does he view that? That was less expensive than the Old Courthouse.

President Fanello: Why don’t you check on the item as requested by Commissioner Crouch, and while you’re doing that, Judge Niemeier can offer his viewpoints.

Brett Niemeier: Brett Niemeier, Juvenile Court Judge. To answer your question, Suzanne, the primary reason why juvenile court has long sought a new facility is so that we can expand from one courtroom to two. That’s an absolute must. You know, juvenile court has not had an expansion since this Civic Center was built. We are busting at the seams. We’re working late on many, many occasions, after everyone else leaves the Civic Center, and that’s simply to try to move cases for the general public. You know, that’s what the move is all about. It isn’t so that I have a better office, as a matter of fact, my office is probably going to be smaller. It’s not about our employees having access to break rooms, because right now we don’t have any break rooms in our part of the Civic Center. What this is about is serving the general public better. The only way that we can do that is to have two courtrooms. The only way I can have two courtrooms is to have the space that’s currently being occupied by Human Relations. If that was taken away from us, then we would be cut back to having to re-design the project to have one courtroom, and quite frankly why are you going to be spending a million dollars to give me the exact same thing I have right now? I mean, that would just be a waste of taxpayers’ money. So, I mean, I certainly don’t want to step on anybody’s toes, taking away a break room, but my concern is about the public at large, and how we best serve them. I think that it has to be done by allowing juvenile court to have this entire area, so we can meet all the needs of the public.

President Fanello: What part would we not be completing? I may have missed it, whenever you said it, but if we were to just break off that section there and left Human Relations there, what part would we not be completing at this point?

Brett Niemeier: Well, we would have to totally re-design the project. Right now that area contains, I believe, four offices for the probation department, also two restrooms for drug testing, and also an office for our Youth Service Bureau, who we contract with to do our drug testing, then a small conference room, which is in the back of a courtroom. So, if we take away all those offices, then, obviously, we would have to put those off to someplace else, and the only place we could put those offices, would be in the area right now that’s been designed as our second courtroom. So, again, we would be back to having only one courtroom, and why are we going to spend this kind of money for just having one court room again? Any other questions?

President Fanello: Any questions for Judge Niemeier? Thank you, Judge.

Brett Niemeier: Thank you.

Dave Rector: Do you want us to just go and see if we can catch Jonathan?

President Fanello: Right, we’ll go ahead on down the agenda, and we’ll see if you can catch the Mayor.

President Fanello: The last item on the discussion item, Commissioner Crouch, I didn’t know if you had spoken with your new Commissioners and had decided who to appoint to Area Plan.

Commissioner Crouch: I apologize.

President Fanello: I assume you’re going to have, their first meeting is on the fifth, so I assume your Commission is going to have a meeting?

Commissioner Crouch: Yes, and, in fact, if it pleases the Commission, I would like permission to notify the media that our first meeting will be on January 4^th, which is a Tuesday at 4:30.

President Fanello: Okay.

Commissioner Mosby: Permission to advertise.

President Fanello: Okay.

Commissioner Crouch: Second.

President Fanello: So ordered. So, you’ll be able to meet that requirement.

President Fanello: Is there anyone in the audience wishing to address the board at this time? Seeing none.

President Fanello: Old business, the election equipment audit, I was in contact with John Nuerris from Sys.Test last week, and he tried to contact the Clerk’s office to set up a time to come in this week, but was informed that they were all out on holiday this week. So, his goal is to talk with you, Commissioner Crouch, and the new County Clerk, and be in here, hopefully, next week and start the audit. Is there any other old business?

President Fanello: New business?

President Fanello: Department head reports, County Engineer.

Pat Seib: Good morning, Patrick Seib. This isn’t the County Engineer. First, I have a street acceptance request for Stone Creek Subdivision, Section Five. This is located up off Seib Road and Kansas Road. The street acceptance is for 911' of Clippinger Road, 168' of Newport Drive, and 44' of Mooring Road. It is requested that these streets be accepted for maintenance. They were built in general conformance with the approved plans.

Commissioner Mosby: Motion to accept.

Commissioner Crouch: Second.

President Fanello: So ordered.

Pat Seib: Second, I have a storm sewer acceptance request for Stone Creek Subdivision, Section Five. The storm sewer acceptance is for 693' of off right-of-way reinforced concrete pipe and drainage structures. It is requested that this storm sewer be accepted for maintenance. The storm sewer was constructed in general conformance with the approved plans.

Commissioner Mosby: Motion to accept.

Commissioner Crouch: Second.

President Fanello: So ordered.

Pat Seib: Third, I have a recommendation for approval of Hawthorne Estates Subdivision road plans, with the exception of road number six, the northern entrance of the subdivision. This subdivision is located on Seib Road, just north of Eagle Crossing Subdivision. Once the sight distance issues are resolved at this intersection, road number six will be brought back for approval at a later date.

Commissioner Mosby: Motion to accept.

Commissioner Crouch: Second.

President Fanello: So ordered.

Pat Seib: Fourth, I have a recommendation for approval of the Schutte Road improvement plans for Eagle Village apartments, subject to any additional requirements by INDOT. The development is located at the southeast corner of Schutte Road and the Lloyd Expressway. The improvements include widening the existing road to accommodate a northbound right turn lane, and a southbound left turn lane, and resurfacing the road along the length of the development’s frontage.

Commissioner Mosby: Motion to accept.

Commissioner Crouch: Second.

President Fanello: So ordered.

Pat Seib: Are there any other questions?

President Fanello: I don’t think so.

Pat Seib: Thank you.

President Fanello: Thank you, Pat.

President Fanello: County Highway.

Dennis Hudnall: Good morning, Dennis Hudnall, County Highway. First of all, I just have a report on the snow a little bit here. We continue to remove snow, but we are facing other problems. As the snow melts, the water is collecting on the roads, and it has nowhere to go because we’ve stacked the snow up on each side of the road. So, at the present time we’re trying to cut bleeders to the drains in order to divert this water away from the road surface. But, we have a lot of road surface, about 560 miles to be exact. So, we’re going to continue to remove snow in these subdivisions and cut these bleeders to try to get the water to run away from the roads. I think they made good progress since last Wednesday. They’ve worked endlessly to try to get every road. We’ve had a lot of positive comments, as well as negative comments on how well we’ve done. Overall, I think, the positive outweighs the negative. But, what I would like for the Commissioners to understand is that there’s just some nooks and crannies that’s in this county that a 30' truck cannot get in and get out. I’ve had 16 vehicles stuck that we couldn’t tell where the road began and the ditches were on each side. Once a truck that is loaded with 22,000 pounds, or 22 tons of salt and sand get off the road, they’re stuck. Now, that truck is out of commission, and what we must do is get a wrecker and we’re down. If that wrecker is not available, we might be down for four hours. That four hours I’m not removing anything off the road. So, we’ve faced a lot of hazards. We’ve faced a lot vehicles sitting on the road, but, overall, our roads are in good shape in the county. I hope you agree. I know you all have driven them, but we continue to get calls, people are understanding, and we’re getting them as they call them. Another thing, do you have any questions on the snow removal?

Commissioner Crouch: Did you have an opportunity to check on Bartels Road?

Dennis Hudnall: I went to Bartels, the car is still, he’s still got it stuck in the way. I really can’t get up the hill with any of my trucks. I could get the front part of it, but not what he’s talking about. Mark Taylor and I drove up there as soon as I talked to you yesterday, and we couldn’t hardly get up the hill. So, it’s one of those roads that’s very difficult to get. Now, I’ve got small trucks, but when these trucks were ordered, in the name of saving the county money, we did not get four wheel drives. So, I’ve got truck 14, 15....13,14 and 15 that are not four wheel drives. It should have been thought of when those trucks were ordered, that you’re going to get the small trucks in the nooks and crannies. These small trucks have been stuck more than anything I ever had. Now, the new truck that we just ordered that the Commissioners here have okayed, and we’re waiting to come in is a four wheel drive. I wish it was in at this snow, we could have used it a bit. But, there’s certain things that we just can’t do with a snow that’s 22 inches deep. We can only push it so far.

Commissioner Crouch: How are the subdivisions? I know that–

Dennis Hudnall: We’re working on the subdivisions right now. What impedes us in the subdivisions is you see people feverishly shoveling out their driveways, and then a county truck comes along and throws four feet of snow in the front of it where they still can’t get out. So, you know, you’re either going to clean the road and fill their driveway up, or leave the road alone, and let them continue to shovel. So, as they call, like Sashoni Drive, they called just a while ago, I’ve got trucks out there in Sashoni and all the subdivisions. It’s more manageable now because we did have our melt. So, this is one of those things, you’re damned if you do, and damned if you don’t. But, I assure you, we’re doing everything we can to make everybody happy in the county.

Commissioner Crouch: A suggestion, in the future, can we get an answering machine or voice mail? I know that I called out over the weekend several times to the County Highway Garage, and it just rang and rang and rang. I didn’t know if perhaps, or an answering machine, or an answering service so that, you know, so that people can at least, you know, get some kind of–

Dennis Hudnall: Well, there is an answering machine on one that people leave there, like they call in sick or whatever. It’s a certain number that they call. It’s not the 577 number, but we can get an answering machine out there. We were out there all the time, except for Christmas Day.

Commissioner Crouch: This was Sunday, you know, when I called you at home.

Dennis Hudnall: Yeah.

Commissioner Crouch: But, I just thought that for in the future that might be good for when–

Dennis Hudnall: Well, not all the time do we call the people in the office, you know, we call the crews in and then the supervisor goes out with the crews. So, I could either do it two ways, I could call office personnel in to answer the phones while they’re out on the road, or get that answering machine.

Commissioner Crouch: I think the answering machine would be sufficient.

Dennis Hudnall: It probably would be cheaper. The only other thing I have is, my weekly report didn’t make it up here, but I do have a copy for everyone. If you have any questions.

President Fanello: Thank you, Dennis.

Dennis Hudnall: There’s one other thing that I would like to add, I want to thank the Commissioners for 2004, for their support of the County Highway. We’ve done some good things out there, and that’s through the help of the Commissioners. They okayed for us to get new equipment. So, by providing all of those things, and the support, we’re able to do our job. Really it’s made management look good out there. I just want to thank you for your support.

President Fanello: Thank you, Dennis.

Commissioner Mosby: I’m going to take this opportunity to thank you. Mainly for everything you’ve did over the past two, or three, or four years, but in being with Dennis last Thursday, and knowing what you guys were going through, and tell Mark and Chris and Dave Hudson, I think they did a tremendous job. One recommendation, I think Dennis will back me up that I would say the Commissioners need to look at, is that you might want to get some kind of written agreement with the towing company to have priority put on some of the equipment that they’re having break down. I know I went to Seminary Road for Dennis, and two guys had sat on Seminary Road for like eight hours waiting for a tow truck. We had a truck sit up on 57 for 7 ½ hours, and then, you know, weren’t towed until later. Well, I don’t have anybody that wants to go that far to get your truck. Or I don’t have a truck big enough to pick up your truck. I mean, I was at the fire house and talked to them, I guess, the last time at midnight, went out there at 6:30 the next morning, and still had four trucks, one laid over on Peerless Road, one on Seminary, one on 57, and one on Mill. All these trucks are broke down and we can’t get wreckers. Fortunately, Tri-State was good enough, on the spur of the moment, to give me two trucks, and went to Seminary and 57, (Inaudible) over on Peerless, but that is one recommendation that I would make to the Commissioners, when they sign a towing contract, that the people that bid on this will give you a priority. You know, they say we can’t get to your trucks because the roads are bad. We can’t clear the roads because our trucks are stuck. I mean, so, let’s face it, until you give us some help, you know, I mean, and we were trying to pull them out ourselves and hanging up other trucks, which, you know, created a problem. This is just things that you’ll go through. But, you know, I don’t want Dennis and them to be blamed, because I seen what they were going through after 24 hours of being out there. It wasn’t a good situation when you get 22 ½ inches of snow, I think these guys did a tremendous job, did the best they could. I just want to thank you. Thank Mark, David and Chris.

Dennis Hudnall: Sure will. Thanks for the comments. Another thing they might look at too, I know that the wrecker services, Hamrick, Tri-State, Ride Out, we were trying to get anyone that we could, because our mission was to get snow off the road. I really didn’t care what wrecker pulled them out at that point. It’s because we’re in an emergency situation here, people is depending on us to get our, to get the snow off the road, to get them out and get them mobile. The handicap was, and it’s kind of frustrating when you’ve got four of them stuck at the same time, and this is not a detriment to my people that was driving these trucks, there is times where you can’t tell where the road begins. To get off of the road, it just looks like one big playing field, a white one. It’s very easy to get off the road. They done the best they could. So, thanks for your understanding. We’ll improve each time, but I hope we don’t have another one of these for a hundred years.

Commissioner Crouch: Thank you for your suggestion. I think that’s a good one.

President Fanello: Thank you, Dennis.

Dennis Hudnall: Thank you.

President Fanello: Now, everybody is back, we’ll move back up to the break room issue.

Dave Rector: I’m not sure how we explain the Mayor’s comments. He was in a meeting. We interrupted him briefly. He had not had a chance to see Madelyn’s e-mail with the request to consider temporarily relocating them outside of the building, so we caught him cold. I think it’s fair to say the Mayor is a bit frustrated with where we’re going with this too, and I think his response was, basically, do what you have to do, but my preference is I want Human Relations in this building. Would you, do you got anything else?

Madelyn Grayson: Yes, his preference is to keep it here in the building. He said, but do what you have to do. If it’s going to be a temporary change anyway, I don’t, I mean, I know we keep throwing things out here, I don’t know if Human Relations wouldn’t consider a temporary move to the third floor break room, even though it’s smaller if they knew that it would only be for ten, eleven months, and they could get a bigger space. It’s just that that second floor room is the only place that the Assessor’s have to go, not in addition to being a break room and a lunch room for the second floor employees, that is a working conference room that is the only one in existence on the second floor for the township assessor’s to take taxpayers for their meetings that they have with them.

President Fanello: If we’re not going to take the second floor break room, I’m not going to be in favor of taking anybody’s break room, because that’s not fair. Because then we’re going to have people on the third floor come to us and say, we want our break room.

Madelyn Grayson: Well, I mean, the option was possibly the third floor break room and then converting room 318 into a small break room for the third floor employees. That was an option presented last week. Even though it’s smaller square footage–

Dave Rector: We looked at that, creating another lounge down there, and another break room. We could do that, can do that, you’ll lose 318 as a meeting room for the Civic Center. It’s all trade off options.

President Fanello: Right.

Dave Rector: I’m not sure that this board can decide to move Human Relations out to leased space, because then you’re committing–

President Fanello: I’m not going to make that decision.

Dave Rector: –the city to an expense for their department. I appreciate Jonathan’s comment to do what we’ve got to do, but I’m not so sure that you all can decide to do that for them.

President Fanello: The point about the Old Courthouse is it’s not ready. I mean, we can’t move anybody over there. It would cost additional money, but we couldn’t even move anybody to the Old Courthouse until at least next summer, after the renovations are done.

Dave Rector: Yeah, it would take several months.

President Fanello: Right.

Dave Rector: We would have to design the space and then build the space out. The Old Courthouse, though desirable for all of us, we would like to see it used, isn’t a quick fix.

President Fanello: Right, not at this point in time.

Dave Rector: The only way it could be a quick fix is if you just go in and have this huge room and everybody just sits there. I think you said Jon Jennings space is now available, but there’s no build out there, it’s just a big room. Once again, you’re committing the Mayor to moving a city department and paying another lease cost.

Commissioner Mosby: I don’t think we can do that. They pay 80% of that.

President Fanello: I think we need to find the least cost alternative right now, until other, because there are going to be other changes in the building. There will have to be in the future because of the space requirements needed.

Dave Rector: Yeah, I don’t know, we’ve talked this issue a number of times, we don’t know how it’s going to be funded, but when the old jail goes, there going to be tremendous renovation take place in the Civic Center. At that time we can readdress these issues. They are going to have to now, I mean, we just didn’t expect this to come up then.

President Fanello: Right. Right. So, I would look to how the board wants to proceed, because we’ve got something under construction right now, and that’s costing the taxpayers money as well. I certainly understand the viewpoint of the employees. Commissioner Crouch?

Stephanie Pruett: I would like to say something. The assessors, I mean, we are busting at the seams as well, and we’ve desperately needed space for a long time. If that second floor break room was going to be considered for any office space, it should be considered for us. However, that is the only place we have to go for training, for meetings with taxpayers. We pull blue prints, we go down there and pull them out and let taxpayers look at them, discuss things with them. If you take away that second floor break room, we’re not going to have anywhere to go that’s going to be convenient to where we’re located. If this is temporary, and the courts can’t, even though they are getting a larger space, if they can’t reduce the size of space that they’re wanting for the Health Department, the third floor break room could easily be converted for the Human Relations, and then room 318 be used for the third floor break room.

President Fanello: What’s the cost involved in that? I mean, what’s the cost in comparison to what we’re doing?

Dave Rector: Well, the issue really around the third floor and doing that, it’s probably not anymore than what we’re doing on the second floor. It’s the square footage reduction. You’re going from 1,400 square feet to 860, instead of 1,175.

Stephanie Pruett: It’s temporary.

Commissioner Mosby: Yeah, but you still can’t expect them to go down that far.

President Fanello: No, we can’t expect them to reduce it by that much. That’s just not fair.

Stephanie Pruett: I measured that third floor break room, and it came in at around 1,000 square feet.

Dave Rector: I guess, the CAD drawings must not reflect that accurately then. All I can tell you is what the building drawings reflect.

Commissioner Mosby: You say the end of the hall is bigger than the other part?

Dave Rector: Not bigger than the existing break room.

Commissioner Mosby: No, no.

Dave Rector: Bigger than trying to do something out in the corridor, with the traffic coming back and forth from the courts building, through the second floor, and the space would be available to try to put something in there. I’m just offering that as an alternate. You know, some space for a small break room for them to still be able to use.

Commissioner Mosby: I mean, and that’s cheaper than going the other route?

Dave Rector: Than moving them off-site?

Commissioner Mosby: No.

Dave Rector: Which route, David?

Commissioner Mosby: You were talking about the other break room in the atrium.

Dave Rector: Yes, that would be less.

Commissioner Mosby: It’s cheaper to go to the end of the hall?

Dave Rector: Yes.

Commissioner Mosby: I mean, I would be open to that, going to the end of the hall. I mean, at least we’ll still have a break room. If you need to look at documents you can use 318, it’s a conference room, it’s open to anybody.

President Fanello: And what’s this room number over here. I mean, that room is pretty large.

Dave Rector: 303.

Commissioner Mosby: 303 is always open.

President Fanello: It does have a really long conference table with chairs in it, and a coffee machine. It’s a very large room.

Stephanie Pruett: Is that going to interfere with when filings, people file to run for an office, you know, that’s where everybody gathers. Is that going to interfere with our break room–

President Fanello: Well, our first service is to the taxpayers, not people running for office.

Stephanie Pruett: Well, also, well, the Election Office, it’s always cluttered with voting machines, and when people are coming down to get their equipment for their voting location. I mean, there’s always people down there. Is that going to interfere?

Dave Rector: This may be something that the new board wants to address more immediately, is the Election Office was one that was proposed to relocate.

Commissioner Mosby: Right.

President Fanello: Right.

Commissioner Mosby: I mean, we have no elections–

Dave Rector: Before that gets done, maybe that’s the time now to say–

President Fanello: Right.

Commissioner Mosby: There’s no elections next year. So, we don’t have to worry about the Election Office. I mean, and, you know, everybody is going to be inconvenienced a little bit. I mean, you’re going to be inconvenienced without a break room, maybe the Election Office will be inconvenienced, I mean, as the judge said, they don’t even have a break room over in their building. So, I mean, it’s one of the things, we’ve got to have space. I understand their needs. I mean, I understand Judge Niemeier over here and getting the other judges more space over there to try to move cases through. I mean, I know it’s an inconvenience, but, at least, I would rather see you have a break room than no break room. If we can do this at a, you know, a reduced cost to what the other one is, at least we’ll have something.

Dave Rector: There’s not a good option.

Commissioner Mosby: There’s not a good option. The building is too small. I mean, put another floor on would be the best option, and that’s not an available option. We have to think about the taxpayers.

Dave Rector: We have talked, you know, in the expansion of building two more stories out here, an elevated two story over that. But, once again, these are things down the road–

President Fanello: And they cost money, and we don’t have a lot of money right now. So, we’ve got to make do with the best that we have, and try to find the best solution possible.

Commissioner Mosby: I think we’ve talked about the Election Office, Voters Registration both going over there, and then we could free up more space, and, you know, if it’s possible, take what we do now and expand in it a little bit, and you’ll have a bigger break room, and still have a break room on the second floor.

Dave Rector: This actually is probably a three year to five year expanding project before it’s all settled out again. You’re talking close to 35,000 square feet of additional space freed up when the old jail goes, and what decisions are going to be who occupies that space. We have proposals, but no firm decisions.

Commissioner Crouch: Is 318, you had mentioned that at the very beginning, 318 is that available for a break room for, to move the break room for the second floor up there?

Commissioner Mosby: I don’t think they want to be on the third floor. They’re wanting something on the second.

Dave Rector: It’s available. The only, it’s just your decision, do we lose 318 as a meeting room for the building? But it could be converted to a lounge and a small break room, a smaller break room. Then you’re going to address the needs of meetings, as an example, I think I said December had 20 meetings in there.

Commissioner Crouch: 318 is not acceptable?

Stephanie Pruett: I think we were talking about using 318 as a break room if they move Human Relations to the third floor break room, I mean, this third floor break room here. Then giving the third floor a break room in 318, and leaving the second floor break room as it is.

Commissioner Crouch: But, if for space purposes that’s not an option–

Stephanie Pruett: Right.

Commissioner Crouch: –is 318 agreeable for a break room for the second floor?

Stephanie Pruett: Well, we could use this third floor break room. I mean, we’re not saying we can’t come up here and use the third floor, it’s just the second floor is larger, and it’s convenient to the assessor’s, just being down the hall, also the courts building, they use our second floor break room since we have the catwalk attached to the second floor. Employees from the courthouse come over here all the time to use our break room. So, I mean, we understand, we know everybody needs space. I mean, there’s no doubt, but we’re not just fighting for our break room, also, just because the assessor’s have been asking for space for many years, and that is one place that we could go to, and we, you know, do our training down there for videos and blue prints, and now that’s being taken away from us. The third floor has three meeting places, 318, 307 and 303. So, any meetings that are held in 318 should not be a problem in going to one of the other meeting locations.

Commissioner Crouch: Right, but if the space for the lounge up here is not large enough for Human Relations, then, I guess, my question is, if we have to give up the second floor break room, say that’s a decision we make, then what would you all want to replace that?

Stephanie Pruett: I’m sure whatever option he comes up with will be fine.

Madelyn Grayson: I think I would prefer having 318 versus tables out in the hall.

Stephanie Pruett: I agree.

Commissioner Mosby: Now, keep in mind they are going to put a wall up there, and it’s going to be enclosed. So, I mean, I would say that’s your two options, they’ll enclose the end of the second floor, or you can come up to 318.

Commissioner Crouch: I would be happy for you all to work with Mr. Rector and come up with an option that you feel is the best in light of everything.

President Fanello: So, you’re saying in light of leaving the plans as originally–

Commissioner Crouch: I mean, it’s just not a good situation. There’s, I mean, it’s just not a good situation. I think that, unfortunately, our county employees are the one’s that are going to pay the price. Everyone, no one is going to be happy. Not everyone is going to be happy.

Madelyn Grayson: So, in the meantime, when they start construction on the second floor break room, if that’s the choice you make today, in the interim time we’ll just have to use the third floor existing break room–

President Fanello: Until another one is constructed, or you come up with...I think your two options are enclosing the end of the hall on the second floor, or converting 318.

Commissioner Crouch: Or the space, that common space by the courts. I guess, what I would like to see is you all get with Mr. Rector and come up with an option that you think is the next best thing to having the second floor break room.

Commissioner Mosby: How long will it take, Dave, to construct something? As soon as they decide?

Dave Rector: Actually the longest period of time will be lead time on the storefront system to enclose the end of the hallway. Because it’s an anodized, bronze aluminum store front system that probably has, with any indication of the doors at the Centre, they’ve been on order for ten weeks. So, I could immediately get the machines relocated, so at least they would still be there and functional. Then we would order the store front system, install that, that would be less than a week’s time, as soon as it came in. I could get everything ready, except for that.

Commissioner Mosby: How soon are you going to start on Human Relations?

Dave Rector: We’re waiting.

Commissioner Mosby: You’re waiting?

Dave Rector: We’ve already moved the water line in anticipation, thinking it was going to start three weeks ago. So, we’re ready to start now. I’ve got to get them up here quickly, or else we’re going to push out the construction schedule downstairs for the courts, which is scheduled for the first part of May. You know, it just comes back, we talked about dollars, taxpayers dollars, the delay in it. I know all of us are empathetic to all of these needs, but we’re trying to respond to how we spend the dollars. I can only advise you of what’s happening because of it.

Commissioner Mosby: I would make a motion to go on with the Human Relations relocation, and for you all to, as quick as possible, get him an answer of which way you would like to go, the end of the hall or 318, so he knows what to do. Then you’ll have a break room, and, hopefully, not a big break in the interim.

Commissioner Crouch: And–

Dave Rector: The big thing about going to 318, is moving those machines up to here then, and getting water to them for the coffee machine. We may have to forego the coffee machine there, because there’s not immediate available water. Both of these locations we talked about had immediate water available, that’s why I looked at those.

President Fanello: That’s why I think you need to look at the least cost alternative.

Dave Rector: If you want 318, yeah, that’s fine. If they want the end of the hallway, I would be happy to try to do what we can to replace in someway what they are losing.

Commissioner Mosby: I would just go ahead and approve whichever in my motion. Whichever they decide, I would, that would be involved in my motion.

Commissioner Crouch: And the Auditor made a suggestion, is it possible that we could even use the Election room for a temporary, you know, lunch room, break room? The Election Office, since there’s no election next year.

Dave Rector: If the desire is to use that end of the hallway for it. We could get the machines down there, and then open up the Election Office for a break area to sit down in, at least until the system came in.

Madelyn Grayson: I can shorten this a lot, because us three here are speaking on behalf of the employees and we would much rather prefer the end of the hallway by the Election Office, and keep something on the second floor as to coming up to 318.

President Fanello: Okay.

Madelyn Grayson: So, if you could just proceed with that.

President Fanello: I was going to say, I wouldn’t really want to personally make a decision for the Election Office without Susie Kirk having that input.

Dave Rector: We could check with her and get the machines down there, and see if she would mind if we open up the front part for a sit down area until the store front system comes in.

Commissioner Mosby: Then I’ll make my motion that we go ahead and go forward with Human Relations on the second floor, and work to make the break room at the end of the hall on the second floor.

Dave Rector: I can work with you on that.

Bill Fluty: Just a clarification, I was really suggesting that Human Relations move into the Election Office temporarily, since there is no election next year, and then there will be five months in the next year. They could use that space temporarily until the jail vacates, and then maybe they could move over there permanently.

President Fanello: I’m still not going to make–

Bill Fluty: That office is already set up for an office.

President Fanello: –that kind of decision without, and plus, I mean I don’t know where you’re going to move all the Election Office...isn’t there storage back there for all the machines?

Dave Rector: All the machines are in the back room.

President Fanello: Yeah, I think that’s stretching it, but–

Dave Rector: The front room would be available, I would think.

President Fanello: I wouldn’t want to make that decision for Susie Kirk.

Dave Rector: I mean, that office holder.

President Fanello: Yeah, I think Susie would have to be involved in on that. So, Commissioner Mosby your motion stands. Commissioner Crouch?

Commissioner Crouch: I’ll second it.

President Fanello: Okay, and I’ll say so ordered. Thank you.

Madelyn Grayson: Thank you.

Dave Rector: Thanks for all your help.

President Fanello: County Attorney.

Kevin Winternheimer: Yes, I have a little bit longer than usual report. Some year end last minute things trying to get done. But, first and foremost I would like to thank the Commissioners for letting me serve the residents of Vanderburgh County as County Attorney for a little over two and a half years. It’s been extremely challenging. The experience that I brought of 22 years with the city in, only to find out there was a lot about the county that I didn’t know, that I thought I did. That came to light for the first time when I got a call from the Coroner two days into the job wanting an outline of the privacy rights of a corpse, which I had no idea, had never dealt with with the city. So, what makes the legal profession rewarding is the fact that it’s challenging and you continue to learn. I did so in the last two and a half years, and I appreciate that opportunity. I also want to thank all of the department heads, those that are here and not here, you have a tremendous group of people in department heads and those working for them. The citizens of Vanderburgh County don’t realize what a great amount of expertise they have, and great workforce they have who work long and hard hours, and in most cases for very little pay. I particularly want to thank Bill and Madelyn. I worked quite a bit with them, and as far as the ordinances and resolutions. Bill, I hope you realize what a tremendous asset Madelyn is to your office. She was extremely and consistently helpful in everything, and trying to make this operation run. I wanted to particularly thank her. Now, on to some business that I have, I apologize for not getting this to you in advance. I mentioned at the last meeting that Sigecom had asked for a reduction in their performance bond on the basis that they are substantially complete in the construction of their cable network system. They said in a letter that that system was substantially complete back in June of 2000. I prepared this resolution. It’s CO.R-12-04-025, and since you did not get it in advance let me pass it down. It reads;

“A resolution approving a reduction in the performance bond for Sigecom. Whereas, Sigecom maintains a franchise agreement with Vanderburgh County providing for a performance bond of $50,000 to ensure the construction of a system according to the franchise agreement, Whereas, said franchise agreement provides for the reduction of the bond when the network construction is substantially complete, and Whereas, Sigecom represents that the system is substantially complete and was so on about June of 2000, requests that said bond be reduced to $25,000, as provided in said agreement. Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Board of Commissioners of Vanderburgh County and as follows, pursuant to the franchise agreement granted to Sigecom, and upon it’s representation that the network system is substantially complete, the Board of Commissioners approves a reduction in the franchise performance bond to the sum of $25,000.”

I would make a recommendation that you approve this.

Commissioner Mosby: Motion to approve.

Commissioner Crouch: Second.

President Fanello: So ordered.

Kevin Winternheimer: Okay. The next item I have, we’ve been talking for a number of months about the resolution of the claim on the current Safe House. As you all recall, some time ago the detainees, one or more of them, caused damage to the property by managing to shake loose, or whatever, the water pipes on the property, causing damages to the premises. Our insurance carriers thoroughly investigated this, they found the extent of the damages to have a dollar value of $113,000, $88,000 of that is covered by the insurance, and $25,000 will need to be covered by our Self Insurance Fund. I give to you, or present to you a release agreement with Ms. Mary Hart, the owner of that structure authorizing the settlement and release of any claims that she has relative to that incident and that incident alone in the amount of $113,000. If she should happen to have any other claims for any other incidents, it would not be covered by this agreement. This covers the agreement where the premises were damaged by the damaging of the water pipes. I would ask for your approval of that.

Commissioner Mosby: Motion to approve release agreement.

Commissioner Crouch: Second.

President Fanello: So ordered.

Kevin Winternheimer: Next, I have four documents that were e-mailed to me late yesterday afternoon by Scott Peck. This is on the Mill Terrace Subdivision. One of them is entitled “certificate regarding execution of bonds”. Another one is “certificate regarding arbitrage and certain federal tax and other matters”. The third one is called “a bond purchase agreement”, and the last document, it’s just entitled, “United States of America” at the top, and is another bond document that needs to be approved by the Commissioners. Let me see if I can find the, the principal amount to be borrowed is $222,656.25. The interest rate on these bonds is 6.85%. Somewhere in here it outlines what the payments are going to be. Ahhh! The payments for all but one, all the owners out there elected 30 years, except for one person, they are going to be payments of $707 on May tenth of each year, commencing May 10, 2005, I believe. The other payment, I believe, is $831 for the 20 years, or approximately there about. That’s the calculations that they made. I ask for your approval of these four bond documents.

Commissioner Mosby: Motion to approve bond documents.

Commissioner Crouch: Second.

President Fanello: So ordered.

Kevin Winternheimer: I don’t know, do you have copies? If not, here are copies. Let’s see, okay we got the Sigecom, I believe that just about...and, Suzanne, if I understand right you’re going to have a meeting on January 4^th then at–

Commissioner Crouch: At 4:30.

Kevin Winternheimer: At 4:30. I guess, to formally ask for your approval of my resignation, effective January 4^th at 4:30, which I assume you’ll appoint a new County Attorney. I ask for your approval of that by vote.

Commissioner Mosby: Motion to approve resignation January 4^th, 4:30.

Kevin Winternheimer: Right.

Commissioner Crouch: Second.

President Fanello: So ordered.

Kevin Winternheimer: I believe that is all I have.

President Fanello: Alright. Kevin, I just want to say thank for everything that you’ve done. You’ve been an outstanding legal representative for this board.

Kevin Winternheimer: Thank you.

Commissioner Crouch: A couple of questions. Kevin, on the jail fire, and I noticed that Chief Deputy Williams is here, are we any closer to a settlement on that? Or getting close?

Kevin Winternheimer: Right now the Sheriff and the Chief Deputy and I met with our insurance representative, and right now that is being handled by the Building Authority’s insurance. We are hopeful that that will all be taken care of through the Building Authority. That’s where we stand on that.

Commissioner Crouch: Good. Then, the, I had sent an e-mail about a county employee who had a question how pay was going to be handled on 12/23, last Thursday when there was a state of emergency declared. How the county was going to handle pay to the employees. Whether that would be a paid holiday, or a paid day off?

Kevin Winternheimer: Yeah, that was quite an unusual set of circumstances. I guess, the bottom line comes out to be that that will be a decision for the County Commissioners to make. You have a number of options, you can go ahead and pay them for that, if that be your decision. Anybody that would have taken, in the case of the e-mail, a vacation day, you have a number of options there, you could give them an extra vacation day next year, or pay them, however you want to do it. I do not know what the city is going to do in that regard. I know that question was asked too. What I would suggest at this point is seeing what the city is going to do, try to make it somewhat equitable and fair for the employees. Obviously, I can see an employee complaining if they had to come in and worked, and were paid, and somebody did not come in and were still paid, that the employee that came in and worked would say, wait a minute, that’s not quite fair. If I came in and worked. So, you have a number of options, you may be granting extra vacation days or an extra personal day to make up for that if somebody came in and worked, or what have you. At this point I don’t have a good recommendation for you. I would suggest that the next Commissioners take that up and just see how they’re going to handle that. There are a lot of different alternatives that you have, and options that you have out there.

Commissioner Crouch: On the 23^rd, wasn’t the building closed? I mean, it was closed down wasn’t it?

Bill Fluty: Yes. I think it’s different than the 22^nd. The 23^rd people had scheduled vacation days–

Kevin Winternheimer: Right.

Bill Fluty: –and they’re asking now do they get another day, because there are employees that were off that day that didn’t have scheduled days. The building was closed.

Commissioner Crouch: I guess, the question is, in a state of emergency, if the building is closed, I mean, if we officially close the building because of a state of emergency, then how do we handle that pay to the employee? What you’re suggesting is we get with the city and see how they’re going to handle that?

Kevin Winternheimer: Yeah, I would think you might want to be somewhat consistent. I don’t have an answer for how the city is going to handle that, or is handling that. Whether they’re granting, you know, I don’t know what they’re doing, but there are a number of options that you would have. You should probably check with the city and see how they are going to handle it, and then take that up as soon as you can with the next set of Commissioners, and treat the employees with what you feel is the fair way of doing it.

Commissioner Crouch: Could the Auditor check on that with the city.

Bill Fluty: Yes, I’ve already asked that question to the city, and I don’t have an answer at this time.

President Fanello: Superintendent.

Tammy McKinney: I need to add, first of all, I need to add three late pink slips to the consent items. Do you want to vote on that?

President Fanello: We have three late pink slips.

Commissioner Mosby: Motion to approve.

Commissioner Crouch: Second.

President Fanello: So ordered.

Tammy McKinney: Then, with my report I need the Commissioners to sign just a deed of gift that just shows where we gave the jail bars to the museum. They just need that ,I think, basically, for their records.

President Fanello: Okay.

Commissioner Mosby: Motion to approve.

Commissioner Crouch: Second.

President Fanello: So ordered.

Tammy McKinney: Then, I think everyone got the letter where Rita Heathcotte is resigning from the Courthouse Foundation Board. So, Suzanne, you and the new Commissioners will need to appoint, and I have to look at the by-laws, but I think she was like the financial appointment. If you don’t have a copy of the by-laws I can get that for you.

Commissioner Crouch: That would be great, thanks.

Commissioner Mosby: Motion to accept resignation.

Commissioner Crouch: Second.

President Fanello: So ordered.

Tammy McKinney: That’s all I have.

President Fanello: Thank you, Tammy.

President Fanello: Burdette Park.

Steve Craig: Steve Craig, Manager of Burdette. Here is my worksheets. Bonita wasn’t her usual, efficient self. I guess, she couldn’t make it in. On the twenty-fourth and twenty-fifth, because of the state of emergency and because I thought the safety of the park was not what it should be for people to be using it, we did not let people have their rentals at the park. They’ve all been contacted and taken care of, but from my point of view it wasn’t presentable for the people to have their functions. So, the 23^rd, 24^th, and 25^th there was no rentals, but on the twenty-sixth we did get the buildings cleaned up enough, and I brought the people out there, and went to the buildings with them to make sure that they thought they were fine, and they did, and everything was fine. The park is back open, as well as it can be with the amount of snow we had. Other than that I’ve got my worksheets, if you have any questions, which I know you haven’t had time to look over them. But, it’s about the normal stuff, except for the cleaning up of the snow. At this time I would like to thank the Commissioners, and Kevin, Tammy, Patty, Madelyn, Bill for the support and help you’ve gave me at Burdette in the last couple of years.

Commissioner Mosby: Thank you.

President Fanello: Thank you, Steve, for all that you’ve done. You kept the park going, and it’s the best park we have in this county. The only park we have in the county, but–

Steve Craig: We’ve got two, but the other one is a little one.

President Fanello: –I’ll put it up against–

Steve Craig: Thank you very much.

President Fanello: Thank you.

Commissioner Mosby: Motion to accept Soil and Water and Ozone.

Commissioner Crouch: Second.

President Fanello: So ordered.

Commissioner Mosby: Motion to accept consents.

Commissioner Crouch: Second.

President Fanello: So ordered.

Commissioner Mosby: Then, I’ll just take this opportunity to thank all the department heads; Kevin, Tammy, Steve, John, Pat, Dennis, Chief Deputy Ellsworth for all your help over the past four years. Then Bill and Madelyn and Commissioner Crouch.

President Fanello: I would like to thank everybody for all their support as well, and good luck to the next Commission.

Commissioner Crouch: Thank you.

President Fanello: Do I have a second on that motion to adjourn?

Commissioner Crouch: Second.

President Fanello: So ordered.

(The meeting was adjourned at 10:56 a.m.)

CONSENT ITEMS

         Travel Requests: County Assessor (1)

         Employment Changes:

         County Assessor (1)       Burdette Park (3)            Commissioners (1)

         County Clerk (1)             DADS (1)

         County Clerk: Submit monthly report for October 2004.

         Those in Attendance:

         Catherine Fanello           David W. Mosby             Suzanne M. Crouch

         Bill Fluty                          Kevin Winternheimer      Tammy McKinney

         Madelyn Grayson           Jonathan Weinzapfel      Sherman Greer

         Roger Lehman                Bill Pedtke                      Jennifer Keppler

         Jim Rexing                      Mike Falkenstein            John Peninger

         Dave Rector                   Stephanie Pruett             Pat Seib

         Dennis Hudnall               Steve Craig                     Others Unidentified

         Members of Media

VANDERBURGH COUNTY

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

    (Not in office when minutes approved.)

Catherine Fanello, President

   (Not in office when minutes approved.)

David W. Mosby, Vice President

Suzanne M. Crouch, Member

(Recorded and transcribed by Madelyn Grayson)