The Vanderburgh County Board of Commissioners met in session this 8th day of February at 5:39 p.m. in the Commissioners' Hearing Room of the Civic Center Complex with President Bettye Lou Jerrel presiding.     Introductions and Pledge of Allegiance President Jerrel: I'd like to call the Vanderburgh County Commissioners' meeting to order and welcome all of you. If you'll bear with me just a minute I would like to introduce to you the people up front. On my far right is Tony Greubel, and he is our Superintendent of County Buildings; Joe Harrison, Jr., County Attorney, is next to him; Commissioner Pat Tuley is on my right; far left, Charlene Timmons, is the Recording Secretary; Suzanne Crouch, County Auditor; Richard Mourdock, County Commissioner; and my name is Bettye Lou Jerrel and I would ask you to join me in the Pledge of Allegiance.     Approval of minutes President Jerrel: Thank you very much. The first item on our agenda tonight is, it looks like a long agenda, but generally we move along pretty rapidly, the approval of the minutes of our previous meeting. Is there a motion? Commissioner Mourdock: I'll move approval of the Commission minutes from February 1, 1999. Commissioner Tuley: Second. President Jerrel: So ordered.     Cedric Hustace - Rendering of The Centre in Progress President Jerrel: The next item on the agenda we have a special guest who has something that he would like to show us. At this time I would like to ask Cedric Hustace to come forward.  Cedric Hustace: Commissioners, thank you very much for having me here tonight. What I'm going to present for you to look at is something I've done about the new, wonderful convention center that we're going to have. I figured that once the center was built you would never be able to see it under construction, so this painting is under construction and don't judge a book by its cover. Here is the Vanderburgh Auditorium. President Jerrel: Oh, that's lovely. Commissioner Tuley: Wow, man. Commissioner Mourdock: That is sharp.  President Jerrel: That's wonderful. We get a lot of calls from people saying what's that going to be up there at the top and how much did you leave and so on and so on. Cedric Hustace: If you look really carefully you can see the Commissioners' names! This image will be available for Vanderburgh County to use in any promotional activities that you may want to use it for. Also, when the auditorium is completed I plan to do another painting of the auditorium from the same perspective but in operation. Commissioner Mourdock: That's super. Commissioner Tuley: Great, great. Commissioner Mourdock: That sign that says road closed, could that be opening soon?  Cedric Hustace: It will be gone in the next painting. Commissioner Mourdock: Alright, alright. Thank you, Cedric, that's very nice. Commissioner Tuley: Very nice. President Jerrel: Thank you very much. Cedric Hustace: I have a print of this for each of you. Commissioner Tuley: Oh, thank you. Commissioner Mourdock: I'm curious, did you do that from a photo or did you sit out there on Martin Luther King? Cedric Hustace: Well, sketching it not from a photo is the old fashioned way and I've done that a lot, but usually trying to avoid getting hit by traffic, that's usually a photograph.  President Jerrel: Thank you. Thank you very, very much. Commissioner Tuley: It's really nice. President Jerrel: Those are the nice things that happen at this meeting. Commissioner Mourdock: Yeah, right. It's rare.      Jerry Bryan - City/County Purchasing Director President Jerrel: The next item on our agenda is Jerry Bryan, Director of the Purchasing Department. Jerry Bryan: I'm Jerry Bryan, the City/County Purchasing Director. I'm requesting that the Board of County Commissioners allow us to request a bid and advertise VC99-15, the jail management application. This was given...the specs, there are 16 pages, was given to us by Bill Cottun and his people. It is an integrated computer package. It will tie the cash accounting, the medical information, the FBI software, the Fire Department and Central Dispatch together. We're going to advertise this week and send the bids out for an opening date of March 8th. President Jerrel: Okay, this is...is this VC99-15? Jerry Bryan: Yes, ma'am. Commissioner Mourdock: Right. President Jerrel: Alright, and I asked the question earlier, there may be after you get this amount back there may be a necessity to go before Council. Jerry Bryan: That's alright. President Jerrel: Yeah, for anything to happen it will have to be that way. Jerry Bryan: Okay. Commissioner Mourdock: Just to clarify, and I'm sure this was the case, but the Data Board has kept up with this one and all the software applications? President Jerrel: Yes. Commissioner Mourdock: Okay, I'll move approval of the request to bid and advertise VC99-15.  Commissioner Tuley: Second. President Jerrel: So ordered. Jerry Bryan: Okay, the next item on the agenda is the opening of the bids for VC99-02. These are the shirts and hats for Burdette Park. We have one envelope and two boxes, Joe.  President Jerrel: Is there a motion to open the bids? Commissioner Mourdock: So moved. Commissioner Tuley: Second. President Jerrel: So ordered. Joe Harrison, Jr.: Again, these bids were submitted on the basis of quotes or invitation, is that correct? You'll be providing us with those copies? Jerry Bryan: I'll be providing you with the bidders and the quotation and the package. Joe Harrison, Jr.: Okay, thank you. President Jerrel: We'll just go ahead and take those after we continue. Joe Harrison, Jr.: That's fine.     Presentation by Torian, Hofmann & Dillow Insurance Agency President Jerrel: The next item on our agenda is the presentation by Torian, Hofmann & Dillow, the presenters are Bob Dillow and Greg Hofmann. They are our agents of record for insurance.  Bob Dillow: Good evening. I am Bob Dillow. My partner, Greg Hofmann, just passed to each of the Commissioners a copy of our 1999 insurance proposal. Again, as an insurance agent I will try to be brief. It's hard sometimes for us to do, but I know how busy you are. If you would turn to the second page I have summarized the features of the renewal insurance program on the second page. The first item of importance is that we have negotiated a two year contract. The insurance premiums as you will see later are substantially lower and we now have a two year contract so we can guarantee no mater what happens with your claims this year your premiums will not go up next year. Coverage, as you can see in item two, this is significant. You have been on a claims made type of insurance program which has made it very difficult to shop insurance at each renewal. The insurance company this year has changed all lines of coverage except the public officials liability coverage to an occurrence form. We've done that by charging within this insurance renewal a two year prior acts coverage to cover claims that might be brought during this policy period from prior policy years and we will continue to do that until it is no longer necessary to have any prior acts coverage for prior year's claims. So our ability to shop insurance in the future will be much easier under the occurrence form of coverage. Item number three, the sexual/physical abuse exclusion that was common in virtually all insurance contracts and is still to this day has been eliminated from your insurance coverage. So if there is a claim alleging sexual or physical abuse we have the full weight of this policy to defend you now. Commissioner Mourdock: Bob, does that include for example sexual harassment lawsuit? Bob Dillow: Yes. Commissioner Mourdock: So it's not just the physical abuse issue? Bob Dillow: But not particularly from here. You've had that coverage. Commissioner Mourdock: Okay, I thought we did. Bob Dillow: You've had that. Commissioner Mourdock: Okay. Bob Dillow: Okay, now item number four, we have consolidated the number of insurance companies that have been providing coverage for the county, Northland in particular which has been the primary carrier replaced the coverage that had previously been with Lloyds of London. This allowed us to streamline the policy language into what is referred in the insurance industry as the easy to read form of insurance. It is still not easy to read, but it is closer than the past. Allianz continues to provide the property coverage, Midwest Employers is continuing as the worker's compensation company. Your loss fund, item number 5, over a two year period the amount that you would have to pay out of the loss fund before insurance company dollars take in place has been reduced by $497,798. Your two year total loss fund has dropped from $1,265,298 to $767,500. That's a significant change in your insurance coverage to the better. Number six, the worker's compensation used to be a separate loss fund. It has now been combined into one general loss fund that encompasses automobile, liability and worker's compensation. Number seven, clash coverage, that's a fancy term for a per occurrence deductible. Under your new insurance policy if there is a claim that involves multiple worker's compensation, possibly multiple bodily injury claims, under your prior policy you had a separate self insured retention limit for each situation. We now have one self insured retention limit that will apply to that common occurrence situation. Your deductible on worker's compensation is explained in item number eight. It used to be $250,000 per claim. Under our renewal policy that has been reduced to $100,000. Number nine, we've been battling the claims administration company, Willis Corroon, who has done a phenomenal job of handling claims, but we've disagreed with their billing procedure since taking over the responsibility of the county's insurance in 1997 and succeeded this year in gaining what is known as a fixed cost claims management program. Instead of the auditable program whereby at the end of the year they bill us for the exact amount of claims that they've handled during the year we now have a guarantee up front that this is the only fee they will charge specifically for these claims unless there is requirement to attend trials, etc., for the policy period. That's estimated by Willis Corroon over a two year period to be an $18,000 savings over their current program. Commissioner Mourdock: That's just based on the last several years of history with what their actual cost has been? Bob Dillow: Yes, plus we obtained competitive bids. Commissioner Mourdock: Okay. Bob Dillow: And required them to sharpen their pencils this year over what they had done in the past. Number ten, we just wanted to point out that the insurance company recognizes the advances that you have made with the professional loss control services. You've used them wisely and sent them to various portions of the county to review your procedures and their reports back to the insurance company were very important in us obtaining reduced rates this year. They are impressed enough with what is going on, our new program will involve more visits than last year as well as additional services. Number 11 simply is saying your property values have been increased by roughly $3 million. The new total limit of property coverage is $72,979,705. Number 12 is the only negative in the presentation. We're not aware of the ability to buy at any affordable price coverage for the Y2K exposure, so because it has not been an exclusion on your previous policies we are alerting you that it is going to be an exclusion on this year's policy. If you turn the page you will see your own report on compliance for Y2K. We and the insurance company believe that you've done what is required to do to be as compliant as possible in this issue.  Commissioner Mourdock: If I may just ask a question, this may not be of you, Bob, as much as just within our own Board. Where would our greatest exposure be on Y2K? Would it be in the court system? President Jerrel: We...if you'll look at the last paragraph these were deemed the most exposure, on the first page. The Proval Assessor's application is now Y2K compliant. Court View 2000 application and hardware are all new and they're in line. The Recorder has new software and hardware. PDS financial will be in line the third quarter of this year and the jail package will be replaced, I put that in before we voted, but it will be replaced in 1999 and the RFQ will go to Purchasing this month and be installed in late spring. 911 is not directly our responsibility, I mean it's a joint one, but that is all being reworked, too, so those are our greatest levels of exposure and they are all covered, plus all of the computers have already been examined. Commissioner Mourdock: They're covered here, not by insurance? President Jerrel: Right. Commissioner Mourdock: It's interesting that no one is offering the coverage. I figured it would be there, but at some great price. Bob Dillow: There is some coverage depending upon the company available, but it is at an extremely expensive price to obtain. Commissioner Mourdock: If you can afford to pay it you definitely need it, I guess is what that is saying.  President Jerrel: The last paragraph over on the other page...or next to the last, I haven't told the County Attorney this yet, but I want you to write a letter and I thought...it doesn't really affect us in a lot of ways, but we have that one problem with those two trucks that are newly purchased trucks, so I thought maybe we might take a look at those vehicles and see if there is any embeddedships that would result in something shutting down because of the necessity of servicing. I would think not with new ones, but you can't tell. But anyway, I just thought we could do a letter to go to any of our recently purchased vehicles.  Bob Dillow: Regarding those two trucks, the representative from Navistar was either going to be examining those trucks on the 8th and the 9th or the 9th and the 10th, so that is very imminent and we will hear their report soon as to what they think can be done if anything to repair those trucks. On my proposal there is...behind the Y2K letter there is a very nice colored graph prepared by the underwriters at PENCO. Please call us at any time if you want to discuss the details of that graph, but it explains the deductible, the self insured retention limit per line. It lets you know when the per occurrence deductible comes into play. It tells you how much direct liability coverage you have by area before you go back into your aggregate excess liability policy. That's complicated even for us, but this is an excellent graph and it's part of your presentation. Any time you have a question please call us. I have tabbed with a yellow tab the premium cost summary. In essence there in summary, the cost of the PENCO program this year is $474,266 as presented without options. With the increase in coverage, the reduction in the self insured retention limit on worker's compensation and the reduction of the loss fund this premium savings including the claims management fee, audits, is $72,522 less than last year's program. Again, we're offering a two year policy to guarantee this for two years. We have one recommendation. For $20,500 we can take the $100,000 self insured retention limit that applies to the general liability, the errors and omissions and the automobile liability and reduce it from $100,000 to $50,000. We think that is a very good buy. Just one claim that would hit those limits you would be $30,000 ahead. Honestly, it has not happened, but on a county this size I believe it is inevitable, so during this soft market when we can obtain this type of coverage we're recommending that you consider that. So simply do you want to save 70 some thousand dollars this year or $50,000? Our recommendation is $50,000. In summary, before you decide that, just as a point of information since becoming the county agents on February of `97 we have now reduced the pure insurance premiums while increasing coverage every year by $104,000.  President Jerrel: Is it clear what the recommendation is? Clear enough to discuss it? It actually will reduce our original...our loss at the initial time and cost us an additional $20,000.  Commissioner Mourdock: I understand what it will cost us in dollars. Say again what the dollars are applied to, Bob. Bob Dillow: Your deductible on a per occurrence claim or any automobile liability claim, an errors and omissions claim or a general liability claim right now your out-of-pocket expense per claim is $100,000 and we want to reduce that to $50,000. Commissioner Mourdock: Well, I would just add in support, now that it's clarified, I would note on Saturday when I was going through my packet there were five automobile reports, five accidents reported by county vehicles in the one packet.  President Jerrel: All but one was a one car. Brad Ellsworth: All my group? Commissioner Mourdock: Yes, yes, I believe. In fairness, that's not from one week or something, but that was five accidents from, I think, December 3rd. Several of them were weather related, but they are still an accident, so I think given what we're looking at there and the number of vehicle miles we have each year I think that's probably a wise lesson. President Jerrel: Four of them were one car accidents.  Commissioner Mourdock: Right, yes. President Jerrel: Is there a motion? Did you have a question, Pat? Commissioner Tuley: No. I was sitting forward because I assumed that was a motion. Commissioner Mourdock: That wasn't formal, but I'll move that we accept the program as presented with the $20,500 addition. Commissioner Tuley: Second. President Jerrel: So ordered. Thank you very much. Bob Dillow: Thank you. Commissioner Mourdock: Thank you. Joe Harrison, Jr.: Can I ask you one question, Bob? When would that take effect? Bob Dillow: February 1.  Joe Harrison, Jr.: Okay, of this year? Bob Dillow: Retroactive February 1, 1999. Joe Harrison, Jr.: Is that for one year or two? Bob Dillow: Guaranteed for two years. Thank you. President Jerrel: Thank you. Commissioner Tuley: Thanks.     Final acceptance - Old State Road Barrett Law project President Jerrel: Item E is the final acceptance of the Old State Road sewer Barrett Law project. You all are getting a lesson 101 of what happens at a Commissioners' meeting. We're moving along though.  John Stoll: The memo you have outlines the final costs of the Old State sewer. The construction cost was $103,662.25, the engineering fees were $10,000 to Easley Engineering and the legal fees $1,337.75 for a grand total of $115,000. This project is scheduled to be accepted by the Sewer Department tomorrow, so it is recommended that these final costs and the project be accepted. President Jerrel: Is there a motion to that effect? Commissioner Mourdock: I'm curious, we may have a couple folks here in the audience to talk to the issue, I think. Anyone here on the Barrett Law for Old State Road? That not being the case, I just wanted to be sure, I will move that we go ahead with the project totals as submitted by the County Engineer. Commissioner Tuley: Second. President Jerrel: So ordered. Joe Harrison, Jr.: And that's an acceptance of the project. Commissioner Mourdock: Right. President Jerrel: Yes. Joe Harrison, Jr.: You might want to make that one more if you don't mind. Commissioner Mourdock: Okay, I amend the motion to formally accept the cost associated with Old State Road Barrett Law project. Joe Harrison, Jr.: And the project itself. Commissioner Mourdock: And the project itself. Commissioner Tuley: Second. President Jerrel: So ordered. Thank you.     Schlensker Road speed limit reduction request President Jerrel: The next item on the agenda is the Schlensker Road speed limit and Mr. Ziemer is here. Ted Ziemer: Thank you very much, Madam President and members of the County Commission. My name is Ted Ziemer and I am representing Don Dees, the General Manager of Production and Quality of Toyota and other interested parties seeking a reduction of the speed limit on Schlensker Road from 45 miles per hour to 30 miles per hour. Let me say that I think we'll be just about the same time as the insurance people were and if we're successful I plan to go out and do a painting of the new speed limit sign which I will present to you. Joe Harrison, Jr.: That's great. Commissioner Mourdock: Just as long as it isn't the one he had that said road closed, Ted.  Ted Ziemer: What I have just passed out to you is a drawing which shows various roadways out in McCutchanville and at the northernmost portion of this drawing is Schlensker Road. You'll see it then in relation to the other roads in the area and I am going to comment on that a little bit more later. Schlensker Road is 1.6 miles long running from Browning Road on the west to Petersburg on the east. Now, you may feel a little bit of deja vu about this point regarding a request to reduce speed limits out there because in April of 1997 this same issue was before you. However, as I review the minutes of that meeting it appears that the prime, almost in fact 100 percent of the emphasis was placed on how a reduction in speed limit on Schlensker Road might affect the progress and management of a development being done by a developer in that area. Also, as I noted in those minutes there was about zero percent of emphasis given to the desire of the neighbors to have a reduction in the speed limit for their safety and the safety of their children and their guests. So I wish you could put that behind you, and maybe you can, that's April of `97. That's almost two years ago and let's think about the safety of the neighbors that I represent. Until about February of 1997 Schlensker Road was posted with a 30 miles per hour speed limit. I'll give you copies of that. It's a photo showing that it is posted at 30 miles per hour. Sometime in February of 1997 another sign was put up on Schlensker Road and this time it was posted at 45 miles per hour. I'm giving you a picture of that. Now, I don't know why it was changed. I do know that apparently there was never an ordinance creating a 30 mile per hour speed limit, though for a considerable amount of time the signs were out there indicating that it was a 30 mile per hour speed limit. Also, if you look at these two photos you get a pretty good initial picture of the hilly topography that exists going from west to east on Schlensker Road. I've got another group of photos that I want to share with you and you can look at these. In the order that I am giving you these photos they run from west to east. That is from Browning Road to Petersburg Road and then coming back again showing you views as you would come out of various subdivisions located on Schlensker Road. The first one is Valley View Subdivision at Honeysuckle looking east, the next one is Brownwood looking east. You can see that hill there. You can hardly pull out of there if a car was coming 45 miles per hour over that hill. The next one is Astoria Hill looking east, then Sycamore Hills looking east, then we turn around and come back the other way with Sycamore Hills looking west, Astoria looking west, and Brownwood and finally Valley View or Honeysuckle looking west up to the stop sign at Browning Road. Again, these very, I think, eloquently show the hilly topography that exists in this area. I want to then give you a drawing which shows in kind of narrative form the north and south sides of Schlensker Road indicating where the cuts are for driveways or subdivision on each side of that road, indicating the approximate mileage going from Browning Road towards Petersburg Road that you are when you hit any one of these cuts, the name of the person that lives at those respective cuts. You'll see in total if you were to add that, and you don't have to do that now I'll do it for you, there are 18 cuts on the north side of the road and these include a cut for Valley View Subdivision which has 25 lots in it and then there is a cut for McCutchan Road which has numerous residences on either side on the north...on the east and west sides of that road which runs north off of Schlensker Road. Then there are 20 cuts on the south side of Schlensker and these include a cut for Brownwood Subdivision which has 15 lots, a cut for Astoria Subdivision which has five lots and another cut for Sycamore Hills Subdivision which has 27 lots. So we've got a lot of cuts and even more residences that empty onto Schlensker Road and create the traffic problem that the neighbors are concerned with in that area. Finally, the last thing I have to give you I'll give to the President the original signed copy of a petition by the neighbors in the area and there are 203 signatures on that petition and those represent people living in about 132 residences in the area. I'm not going to read the petition to you or the preamble to the petition, but I do want to, I guess, read the fourth paragraph of it because this is what the neighbors are so concerned about. Due to the numerous hills and curves along the 1.6 mile stretch of Schlensker Road between Browning at its west terminus and Old Petersburg Road on its east terminus and 35 driveway or road cuts onto Schlensker Road, four of which are for subdivisions containing a total of 82 lots and one of which is for McCutchan Road, a speed limit in excess of 30 miles per hour is dangerous and unsafe to us and others as drivers on Schlensker Road, to our children who use Schlensker Road to access school buses and to us and others as walkers and bicyclists along Schlensker Road. These individuals are requesting that the speed limit be reduced from 45 miles per hour to 30 miles per hour. A 45 miles per hour speed limit invites people to drive 50 or 55 miles per hour. People tend to drive five miles over the speed limit and many people drive more than that. A speed test that might be conducted by Urban Transportation Study would probably indicate that, so we feel very strongly that the speed limit ought to be reduced to 30 miles per hour in the hope that would keep people driving at no more than 35 or 40 miles per hour in the area. Many residents out there bought their homes when it was posted for 30 miles per hour and they were very shocked when the reposting was done in 1997 to show that, in fact, it is 45 miles per hour. Traffic on the road is heavy and it is getting heavier all the time. It's not only used by those individuals who live and access directly onto the road, but it is becoming more and more of an east/west access between Petersburg Road and Browning Road. That's going to increase as there is further development at the north end of Petersburg Road, near the east end of Schlensker and also on McCutchan Road. The road is extremely hilly, contains sharp curves and it is variously posted at 30 and 35 miles per hour for the curves and then there is another advisory marking near the west end of Schlensker that says, you know, for the cut coming up here slow down to 35 miles per hour, so what you, in fact, get if you drive down Schlensker Road you start out at 45 and then you drop down to 35 and then you go back to 45, then you drop down to 30 miles an hour for the curves that are there. It doesn't make any sense. Safe traffic along the entire length of Schlensker Road would be 30 miles per hour. If you went out there and measured sight distance from the many individual residence curb cuts that exist in the area you would find that because of the proximity of the hills to those residences there is often less than 100 foot of sight distance when those people try to pull out of their driveways onto Schlensker Road. If you take a look at the map again that I gave you you'll see that there isn't much sense in making Schlensker Road...or having it be 45 miles per hour when you look at the speed limit of other roads in the area. Petersburg Road running from Highway 57 all the way...well, I guess, all the way to the end of it, certainly past Schlensker Road, is posted at 35 miles per hour. It's a wider road than Schlensker, it doesn't contain the hills that Schlensker does and its curves are more gentle. I don't think there is a curve on Petersburg Road that has a slow down below 35 because there is curve ahead. Of course, those kinds of curves do exist on Schlensker. Whetstone Road running from Highway 57 to Petersburg Road is posted at 30 miles per hour. I've driven that two or three times in the last month just to really take a look at it compared to Schlensker. It has only one hill that goes gently up and a gentle curve. I can't imagine...I think it is probably correctly posted, but why should Schlensker be 45 miles per hour when Whetstone is 30. You can see that on the drawing the posting of other roadways in that area. Now, we're going to hear probably, and I know that it's true that if we do speed studies out on Schlensker Road and measure or test how fast people drive along there we're going to find that people are driving at more than 45 miles per hour which, of course, upsets my clients very much and then when we apply the 85th percentile that INDOT and EUTS likes to use they're going to say that really the recommended speed limit for Schlensker is 45 miles per hour. I don't want to quarrel, I'm certainly not a traffic engineer and I'm not going to quarrel with how those studies are done though they do seem to me as a layman to reward high speed. The higher the speed is in that area then apparently the higher the speed limit will be. They don't seem to me to take in much consideration of the topography in the area. A suggestion might be made that the people who are exceeding the speed limit out there are some of the very people who are asking for this decrease in speed limit. I don't know if that is the case or not. Some of the people who signed this petition don't directly live on Schlensker Road, they live up at North Pointe Subdivision, some of them live on Browning Road, some of them live over on Petersburg Road, but they are people who as a matter of common practice use Schlensker Road as an east/west artery in that area. I don't know that these are the people that are exceeding the speed limit on the...of course, 45 is the limit right now, so it's a little hard for them to exceed it. What we want to see is the speed limit reduced to 30 miles per hour and then we would like the Sheriff to be out there on a regular basis and to ticket as many of the people that are going over 30 miles per hour as possible, even five miles over 30 miles per hour. That's the way, of course, to establish the speed limit in an area that will be meaningful and that will produce safety for the children, and the neighbors, and the folks I represent who live out there. We'll hear another suggestion that there haven't been any accidents reported at this speed limit and all I can say to that is that is wonderful. Let's hope there never are, but I don't know that we ought to wait until we have an accident to say, oh, maybe we should lower the speed limit. And then another comment might be that somehow county liability is better protected if we follow the standards established by INDOT and I suspect that is probably true if you never exceed the standards established by INDOT, but I can't imagine, and I wish the insurance people hadn't left so quick, that we would have any additional liability simply because we had the speed limit lower and, in fact, safer than might be recommended by an INDOT study. Now, there are a number of folks...I guess everybody here that would like to see this speed limit reduced would you please stand up. Okay, these are some of the individuals who have signed the petition and now I would like to call on Don Dees who is a neighbor in the area and he has some comments he would like to make. Don.  Don Dees: Good evening. On behalf of the 200 people that live along Schlensker I would like to thank you for letting us talk tonight. Really just to keep this very brief we have sent a petition around, as Ted said, and we got over 200 people to sign that we would like to reduce the speed limit to 30 miles per hour. Many stories that people might tell tonight about almost getting hit when they are walking down Schlensker Road or riding a bike down Schlensker Road or getting mail out of their mailbox or pulling out of their driveway or subdivision. I would like to just share with you my own experience. We started building a house on Schlensker Road about a year and a half ago and the speed limit was 30 miles per hour and while we were building the house it changed to 45 miles per hour. We just moved in in June of `98 and during that time we've had...my wife or I have had three occurrences where we almost got hit pulling out of our subdivision onto Schlensker Road. I'm just really afraid that somebody is going to get killed on that road. Not only my subdivision, but there are actually some that are even worse than mine, but we just really would like you to consider our request for 30 miles per hour. I would like to ask Laura Blankenship to discuss one of her situations and you can hear from her what happened with her and she can help lay credence to our petition. Thank you. President Jerrel: You want to give us your name? Laura Blankenship: Yeah, my name is Laura Blankenship. To whom it may concern, I would like the speed limit on Schlensker Road to be reduced back to 30 miles per hour. I would like it reduced because a lot of people's safety is at stake. There are a lot of heavier vehicles that drive on this road like semi trucks and gravel trucks because there is a lot of construction going on. You know, building houses and stuff. I almost got hit by one of those on my bicycle in the summer. That's not a very fun experience, so my sister, she has almost gotten hit before and it's not fair. That's why I think it should be reduced back to 35...30 miles per hour. Thank you. Ted Ziemer: Thank you. Thank you very much. Are there any other neighbors that have something different that they would like to tell?  Unidentified: Yes, I have a-- Ted Ziemer: Come up here, please. Commissioner Mourdock: For our minutes, please state your name, too. Steve Uhm: Hi, I'm Steve Uhm. I live on McCutchan Road just almost to Baseline. I'm probably a mile and a half from where these people are talking about. My oldest son was hit about six years ago by a car going 55 in a 45. The guy said he didn't even see him. The hills are bad. We have to run across the road to the mailbox, the little hill we live on. If you're not running across the road you'll get run over. People don't have time, going over the speed limit I have the feeling, to make it to the mailbox in time. I've noticed a lot of license plates on the cars. The cars really aren't from Evansville. A lot of them are from 26, the Princeton area I guess. So there are a lot of people doing over the 45 mile per hour speed limit, but 45 is too fast, so we need to try to get something done. Thank you.  Pat Cato: My name is Pat Cato and we live on one of the worst subdivision, I guess, because we come out with two hills coming down. There are two basic issues. One, when we pull out of our road onto Schlensker cars coming over this hill or over this hill cannot see our road and it has been amazing in the length of time that someone hasn't been hit. I guess my biggest fear, being a former educator, is that there is a school bus that stops exactly at the bottom of that hill and I know the Blankenship girls ride that bus and we have a number of children now in our subdivision who ride that bus and if the bus is there and a car is coming over either hill you cannot see the bus. Each time it comes I get real nervous, so I think if for no other reason the safety of our children is most important.  Ted Ziemer: Okay, thank you. Oh, sure you may. Terry Raley: Commissioners, Joe, my name is Terry Raley, my wife Judy. We live on the halfway point where everybody gets up cruising speed. We live on the corner of McCutchan and Schlensker. Years ago there used to be a two-way stop sign out there. It sort of slowed things down a bit. You're talking 40 or 45, well I've seen them fly through there 50 and 60 miles per hour. We do have a lot of children in the area now where we didn't years ago. Residential subdivision, you know, it's growing like crazy. As this gentleman said, a lot of the cars that are coming through there are coming off 41 off Baseline and cutting over to I64 where we didn't used to have that. I'll go one step further, I would like to see that two-way stop sign put back on Schlensker and McCutchan because about the time they hit that going east and west they're at cruising speed and there are a lot of children out there now and we've lost two pets. I would really like to see the two-way stop sign put back up, but it has gotten a lot worse the last several years. Ted Ziemer: Thank you all very much, and I think what you hear here is that, you know, you hear 55 and 60 and that's because the speed is set so high at 45. People do tend to drive faster than the speed limit, but when Sheriff Ellsworth gets out there and tickets some of these people-- Brad Ellsworth: Tomorrow! Ted Ziemer: --that's going to change, too. Tomorrow, why don't we wait until the speed limit sign gets up and that will be a little bit, but if it is posted 30 then people are only driving 35 perhaps or 40 and then they get a ticket we'll ensure safety out there, so we're respectfully asking that you adopt a resolution or an ordinance...to adopt a resolution to adopt an ordinance to reduce the speed limit on Schlensker Road from 45 miles per hour to 30 miles per hour. Thank you, do you have any questions? Commissioner Mourdock: I have several questions, I went back to our minutes...or I shouldn't say minutes, my notes of the meeting from April of 1997 and they are far from complete, but there was a brief discussion as to reasons why we might not do that. Many of the issues were the ones that you raised here as far as possible liability issues and things like that, but we do happen to have Rose Zigenfus from EUTS here, John Stoll, the County Engineer, is here and Sheriff Ellsworth is here and I would just ask any or all of them if they know of any reason why we ought not do this either by statute or any other reason. Rose.  Rose Zigenfus: Commissioners, I'm Rose Zigenfus. I have a memo that I have put together before you with regard to speed study. Have you seen it, have you taken a look at it? It's attached to the project update.  President Jerrel: There isn't anything, a project update. Commissioner Mourdock: I don't believe we have it, Rose. President Jerrel: Oh, well then it is in my folder, my EUTS folder. That's a black envelope on top of my desk. You want to go ahead and explain that? Rose Zigenfus: We had gotten a call from John Stoll and he asked us to take a look at the speed on Schlensker Road. Recalling what we had done two years ago I pulled those records and we pulled some new counts from the various sections along Schlensker Road. What we found is that the 85th percentile speed that Ted was talking about they are doing, west of Honeysuckle they're driving at 50 miles an hour like they were in `97. East of Honeysuckle they are also doing 50 miles an hour. East of Castlebrook they are doing 49 miles an hour. At 3065 Schlensker they are doing 49 miles an hour. At west McCutchan they are doing 46 miles an hour. At the Astoria Sub, eastbound they are doing 48 and for westbound they are doing 34. Along with that, because Ted had come in to see us as well and he referenced the speed limits, posted speed limits on Petersburg Road we pulled our speed data from 1998 and we have some data from November 16th of `98 and even with the speed limit set at 35 miles an hour the 85th percentile speed is 48.7 south of Boonville-New Harmony Road, 45.6 south of Boonville...keep in mind these are northbound/southbound numbers. North of Boonville-New Harmony Road it is 47.2 and north of Boonville-New Harmony Road for the northbound just coming out of the intersection it registered 39.2. The Indiana Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices suggests that you not lower speed limits more than five to seven miles below the 85th percentile as a guide. Unidentified: Why? Rose Zigenfus: Because driving is an information decision task and that drivers-- Commissioner Mourdock: Say that again, Rose. Rose Zigenfus: Driving is an information decision action task in that drivers gather information from the feel of the road, from its displays and from the roadway and the use of their knowledge and skills, and the expectancies to make decisions so most driver's activities are performed automatically with how safe they feel on the road. If you lower it to 35 they're still, I'm afraid, unless Brad is out there all the time, they're still going to be doing in excess of 40 miles an hour. It's proven that they disregard unreasonable speed limits. If they feel safe doing 45 they're going to continue to do that no matter what the speed limit is, what the posted speed limit is. I've put this all in my memo and I am sorry that you didn't get a chance to review it. President Jerrel: Rose, when did you send the memo? Rose Zigenfus: Friday.  President Jerrel: Well, Tony is in there looking. I haven't seen the memo either.  Commissioner Mourdock: Yeah, I know I have not seen it in my package.  Rose Zigenfus: I sent it down with a copy of my project update.  President Jerrel: Oh, okay. Well, it came in and we didn't get it. Usually, and this is new. We really appreciate Rose being here because we had asked that she make a report to us once a month, but if we can have it in time for him to get it in the packets. Rose Zigenfus: Which is when? President Jerrel: Well, it should be early enough so that...usually people send them in the middle of the week, whatever they want in. Rose Zigenfus: Okay. President Jerrel: I'll just pass this so you can each read it. Commissioner Mourdock: Okay, so recapping a bit what you said, Rose, and don't let me put words in your mouth here, but by the road guide or whatever the state publishes, whatever it is called, they're simply saying that you shouldn't go below the 85 percent or below the 85 percent of the posted because people are going to drive the way they want to drive anyway and even if you put that speed limit out there they're still going to keep doing it unless you've got someone sitting there with a radar unit enforcing it? Rose Zigenfus: And that is what we've found on Petersburg Road. It is posted 35. It's flat, it's straight and they are doing close to 50 and it's posted 35.  Commissioner Mourdock: Does that make an argument to raise the speed limit then on Old Petersburg? Rose Zigenfus: Yes, it does, actually that is what it tells us. Commissioner Mourdock: Does it make common...let me rephrase that because I'm not sure that applies in this building all the time. If Old Petersburg Road is at 35 is there any way that we can justify keeping Schlensker at 45, posted at 45, given the terrain difference, given the widths of the road, given the entry onto the road? Rose Zigenfus: I would recommend if the 85th percentile is doing in excess of 45 within the guidelines of the Indiana Manual on Uniform Traffic Devices they suggest that if you are of the mind set to lower it that you not go below five to seven miles below the 85th percentile. So in this case you would be looking at a 40 mile an hour speed limit for a posted speed. Commissioner Mourdock: Okay. Commissioner Tuley: Is it not in our county that the suggested speed limit unless posted otherwise is 45? How was that arrived out? Rose Zigenfus: I really don't know. Commissioner Tuley: So that may be part of the problem. That may have been done years ago and I don't know what the basis of it was, but we've experienced an awful lot more growth in the county than what we used to. (Inaudible comments made from audience.) Commissioner Tuley: I understand, but what was the basis of the old...I mean, where did we come up with 45? Meaning maybe 45 may not be the speed limit we want to use as our basis to deduct from. That may be too fast.  Rose Zigenfus: Generally what we find, too, when we do speed studies like we did out on Lincoln Avenue in the city we find that the people that are driving the road, especially a road like Schlensker and I drive it, I live out there, if you feel comfortable doing more than what it is posted you're going to do it right or wrong and I have exceeded the limit. I hope Brad is not out there watching me some day, but I'm a little more sensitive to that issue at this point in time after listening to these people, but if you lower it too low then you create a false sense of security for those neighbors that are out there because if you lower it to 35 and people are still doing 45 and 50 and they think they're going to be doing less than that you create a false security for them.  Commissioner Tuley: I had a case...I'm sorry. President Jerrel: No, I just was going to ask, you kept referring to traffic devices. What are you talking about? Rose Zigenfus: We're talking about a manual that is published by the Indiana Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration. Traffic control devices are stop signs, traffic signals, speed limits, anything that controls the movement of traffic.  President Jerrel: I've driven that area twice, once just to become familiar with it and had someone showing it to me and then I went out there last weekend and I tried to go 45 miles an hour and if you go over those hills at 45 miles per hour you are putting yourself at risk. I don't understand why that is so hilly and 45 and, you know, there are all these surrounding different speed limits. I mean, I know you're not...I'm not putting that on you. Rose Zigenfus: Our data tells us that there are people going 60 and 70 on Schlensker Road in various segments. Commissioner Tuley: They're foolish. Unidentified: Not where the hills are.  President Jerrel: We're going to get them. Rose Zigenfus: Well, that's what our data shows. Commissioner Mourdock: I would suspect the answer to your question though, Bettye Lou, as why are there speed limits that vary so much is because of meetings like these. President Jerrel: Yeah. Commissioner Mourdock: I think we started out with a general code, as Pat is saying, but as time went on varying conditions caused people to come forward like this. If I could, I would like to go to Chief Ellsworth and John Stoll just to give them a chance also if they want to add something to this. For those of you who don't know John Stoll is the County Engineer who looks after all of our roads. John Stoll: One thing that I would like to add, if the speed limit is lowered, back in `97 when we looked at this issue the last time, we had one count that was done when the speed limit was posted 30 and it showed the 85th percentiles were still in the neighborhood of 45 miles per hour, so even when it was posted at 30 people were still going significantly over the speed limit, so it will take enforcement by the Sheriff's Department to make it happen if the speed limit is dropped. Commissioner Mourdock: Okay, thanks. Commissioner Tuley: Here is the Sheriff. Brad Ellsworth: I guess it's my turn. Brad Ellsworth and my presentation will be very generic not having done any research on the accidents and that. Probably some of those deputies, that's where they had their wreck if we had five! I agree with Rose, I think that people are going to travel at the speed they're comfortable with. We could write radar tickets all night long, we could put 100 deputies on the road every night and write traffic all night long. In fact, four or five miles over really surprises me. It is not uncommon and I wouldn't call it an unwritten rule that people write tickets starting at 15 miles over, that's the one you really write. If you look at the tickets from both EPD and the Sheriff's Department you see the majority of them written at 15 miles over the speed limit, so I think it's a predicament. Certainly we're for anything that is going to reduce accidents that cause us less work and cause somebody from being injured or being in pain, but if we do this on Schlensker I can go out and name you several hundred other miles of county roads to do it. I'm not against that and we'll certainly do the enforcement. The one thing that I would suggest and I'm probably going to hear that we've done that is to call us and let us know that you need extra patrols and what hours. Like I said, I'm probably going to hear a grumble saying we've done that a million times. We will provide as much extra patrol as we can. Certainly if we get a call for service, then we're going to have to break away and do that. We also acquired recently what is referred to as a smart trailer and if somebody will donate a yard or a driveway I'll have that brought out tomorrow. If you don't know what that is it's a radar gun mounted in a trailer that displays the speed in a nice big display and hopefully through some education these people will see how fast they are going and it also tells the actual speed limit of the road whether it is 30 or 45. We'll bring that out and put it up and we can also get a traffic count. I'm sure you have that equipment, but it will tell what was the highest speed of the day, the lowest, what time they are speeding and that, so we would be glad to provide that out there in someone's yard at least as a temporary fix to hopefully psychologically get these people thinking lower speeds than the higher ones.  Unidentified: I have a 22 foot wide concrete driveway along (inaudible). Brad Ellsworth: If you'll give me your address I'll have it in your driveway tomorrow. Unidentified: 2900...2100 Schlensker Road (inaudible). Brad Ellsworth: That's all I could add at this time. It's a problem all over and we get numerous requests for radar patrol and we can get out and do it, but we need the calls, but we can't be there 24 hours a day. If we could we could slow them down, but that's where we come from on there. I don't know of anything statutory and I don't know the answer. That's what we've always gone by was that it's 45 unless otherwise posted and that's one of those because we've always done it that way.  Commissioner Tuley: I don't know either, but I just think, too, that has probably been done at a time when we were really...when you're talking about some of these areas that were truly rural areas. I had occasion to be out there last week and be a passenger in a car going about 50 miles an hour going west across there. It's scared the you know what out of me. I don't know what the driver felt like because it's not safe. And why people do it... Brad Ellsworth: Shutte Road is the same way. I think it's lowered to 40, I believe, and maybe it is lowered to 35, but that's a bad one, too. We've certainly had wrecks there and it's a problem all over. I think a lot of the cuts is like what they're talking about. We're seeing a huge amount of cuts out there in the new subdivisions and the home sites that we've never seen before and it does make it dangerous.  Commissioner Mourdock: That's a key point, I think. I noted in my file here a few minutes ago when several of this group came forward last time the petition they brought forth had 106 signatures and I see this time it has 203. Yeah, that's in less than two years. Now does that mean they did better job in getting out and talking to the neighbors this time before you came in? Possibly, but I think it also reflects all the growth that has gone on out in that area.  Don Dees: Could I say something? President Jerrel: Uh-huh. Don Dees: First off I think that's a great idea with the trailer. I appreciate that. But just two points I would like to make with regards to one first with Rose's comments. I didn't write down the numbers, but it looks like on average Schlensker Road is about 45 mile an hour speed limit and the average that she talked about was about 45 miles an hour travel, so there is not really a plus to the speed limit with regards to the numbers that she put out, roughly speaking. With regard to Petersburg Road 35 mile an hour speed limit and close to 50 mile an hour speed was roughly the numbers she talked about so using the logic that Rose used 30 miles an hour would be logical on Schlensker to take it and people would probably drive 45 and some would probably get ticketed, but it doesn't make sense to leave 45 at Schlensker and it averages 45 where Petersburg is 35 and the average is almost 50. Do you understand what I am saying? You can see that there is a danger at Schlensker and even the drivers and her data is saying that, number one. The second point I would like to make is back to the Sheriff's comments about we typically don't ticket unless they're almost 15 miles an hour over the speed limit. Let's put the speed limit at 30 and let's ticket at 45 or even 40 or whatever. I would like it, obviously, the less for my children, but it doesn't make sense to leave the speed limit at 45 and to ticket at 60 and get somebody killed. That is not logical, so both points I would like to use as defense of our case that the speed limit should be lowered to 30 miles an hour. It's just logical.  Commissioner Mourdock: For the record, those last comments were from Mr. Dees.  Gary Blankenship: My name is Gary Blankenship and my daughter Laura spoke earlier. I do live on Schlensker, I just don't know the address! You know, I look around and I see a lot of educated people here. I don't have an education, and I hear a lot of statistics out of a lot of folks that were probably compiled by somebody at the Department of Transportation in Indianapolis. I work for the State of Indiana and I know how a lot of facts get compiled, but I also understand that there is a certain, as the County Attorney that you can probably reflect to this, there is a certain thing as natural law. I would be willing to take, and I think anyone in here, the Sheriff or any of you people, out there and walk the road and show you the skid marks and show you the tire tracks off the road and the number of times I have...I don't have the names and stuff, but the number of times that people have come in the middle night and go (knock, knock, knock) can I use your phone to call a tow truck because they've run off the road. I don't know what to say. I understand there is a lot of precedent and we want something and somebody else wants something. You get a new bicycle I want a new bicycle, but I'm going to tell you because I sit there on the bottom of the hill and think about those cars coming over and hitting a school bus.  Ted Ziemer: Thank you, I guess, one other comment. I feel very comfortable driving 90 miles an hour on the Lloyd Expressway, but anytime I go over 60 I get a ticket. So I don't know what that would do to the INDOT averages. I think it makes all the sense in the world, and really this is just echoing what Don Dees had to say, make this speed limit 30 miles an hour and perhaps people will drive 40 or 45 miles an hour and we'll give them a ticket if it is somewhere in that area and we'll get this down to a safe speed instead of having people go maybe 50 or 55 miles an hour. I only want to speak to the liability to this extent, INDOT may recommend, and maybe it's for a reason of uniformity or whatever, that you just follow their standard, but it doesn't take into account specific neighborhoods with specific problems and that's what we have here and the speed limit ought to be adjusted to suit those people, so we ask that you do reduce the speed limit to 30 miles an hour.  Commissioner Mourdock: Having heard all of these things, and like I think both of the other Commissioners having spent some time out on the road and taking a look at it, reviewing what we did in 1997 I have to agree. I think you have to look at all these on a case by case study or basis and I think we do run the risk of having everyone run in here, but, again, we're here to serve the public. Perhaps because politics is the art of compromise I want to be consistent as well with the other posted speed limits that are out there, but I think a 35 mile an hour speed limit is appropriate given the hilly conditions and given the line of sight issues. I personally, my opinion here this is not a motion, certainly still discussing it, but I would like to see us begin the process to move towards a 35 mile an hour limit for Schlensker.  President Jerrel: Do you have any thoughts on that?  Commissioner Tuley: Given...I still think 30 is appropriate. I realize that 35 is Petersburg and what have you. I think it's a much flatter, wider, safer road, 35 might not be appropriate for that, but I still think 35 is probably a little bit too high for Schlensker. I tend to agree with the people who live out there and drive it every day. Not to make light of your situation, but it did, it scared the you know what out of me going down that hill. Quite honestly, I asked the driver before we got all the way across there to please slow this car down, I don't like this. It was at noon and the driver drank milk for lunch because I had lunch with them, so they weren't driving it to just see what they could do they were driving it to make a point and they made their point very well with me. I'm inclined to think 30 is an appropriate speed limit. President Jerrel: Well, let me ask a question. Commissioner Mourdock: You can't pick 322! President Jerrel: No, I won't pick 322 ! I won't do that, I won't do that. Let me ask the question, this has to be developed. Are we in agreement that the speed limit should be reduced? Commissioner Mourdock: Yes. Commissioner Tuley: I heard two people say that. President Jerrel: I agree also. So we know we're going to reduce it. Should we be better served by reducing it to 30 or 35, that's the issue. We also have the Sheriff's Department, he is going to take that trailer out there tomorrow. I really would...I would like to see what you find out. I don't want you people to come back or, you know, wait for a decision or that sort of thing, but let's take a look at what your radar gun shows up and then let's...we're going to reduce it, is that fair enough for all of you that came up here tonight? We will reduce it and it will be reduced either to 30 or 35 miles an hour and we're going to get patrols out there. Let us have between now and Monday to have Brad give us that information. Is that reasonable? Brad Ellsworth: The trailer will have a psychological effect and probably slow them down. President Jerrel: I know. Brad Ellsworth: But that's good information. President Jerrel: It would be good information, but I don't want you to think you have to come back up to lobby us or anything because we're agreeing we're going to reduce it.  Commissioner Tuley: If we want to follow that line then what we ought to do formally tonight then is make a motion then to reduce it. Formalize that we are going to reduce it in the form of a motion and agree to it and we can decide if is 30 or 35 at next Monday night's meeting. I'm sorry, two weeks from now. There is no meeting next week. Commissioner Mourdock: Yeah, I was just going to say I think we need to put a date on it in the motion, but go ahead and make that as a motion and I will second. Mr. Raley has a comment. Terry Raley: If I may make a suggestion. Where you live you live at the base of the hill, correct?  Unidentified: Yeah, (inaudible). Terry Raley: Right. They're at a slowing down point. They're either coming over the hill and they've slowed down coming over the hill or they are slowing down to go over the hills. The Sheriff is more than welcome to use my drive, a clear shot on that straightaway going both ways. That's where the speed gets up to 50/55 miles an hour, not up by the hills. I don't know if that's an average Rose had on that speed.  Rose Zigenfus: (Inaudible comments made away from mike.) Terry Raley: But if you're going to clock somebody truly going at a normal speed 2900 Schlensker, right there on the corner of McCutchan and Schlensker Road would give you a better picture than getting at the base of the hill. President Jerrel: I'm prepared to vote tonight if you want to, but I also think it makes sense to see the effect of the Sheriff...yes, Don. Don Dees: Just one other comment, I would like to make one other suggestion. If we put the radar gun there now and do a speed, it's a 45 miles per hour speed limit, so you're going to get...you know, realistically you're probably going to be at 45 miles per hour to 50 miles an hour or somewhere in there. I don't know really what that is going to tell you other than what we already know now. One suggestion I would like to make is lower the speed limit to 30, put the signs up and then do the radar gun and see what it says and that would probably give you the best information and some new information. That would be my suggestion.  President Jerrel: Do you have a feeling? Commissioner Mourdock: Well, first of all if we were...we cannot vote tonight to take it to any speed limit because this is an ordinance and there is a process that you go through with a first reading, second reading and so on. President Jerrel: That's right. Commissioner Mourdock: I think Bettye Lou's comment is on point. I mean, if we can start slowing people down now that is certainly in everybody's best interest. So I would support what you said. No matter what, I think there is one thing that we all agree on, no matter what you put the speed limit sign at people are going to go over that to some degree. President Jerrel: We're giving them that...we're going to lower it and it may very well be 30 miles per hour, but I think what we're going to do right now is tell people that Schlensker Road is no longer a race track and we're getting it started, so we need a motion. Commissioner Mourdock: I'll move that we act to begin the process to reduce the speed limit on Schlensker Road subject to a review by the Sheriff's Department and by EUTS regarding some traffic studies. President Jerrel: And the neighbors...I would ask Don to come back and if everybody else wants to they would be more than welcome to, but we can communicate and with Mr. Ziemer.  Ted Ziemer: I don't think it makes any difference what EUTS does, frankly. They're going to put their cables across the road and Rose is going to have exactly the same data that she has now. These people are here to tell you how concerned they are about their safety. President Jerrel: Right. Ted Ziemer: We really don't care about Rose's data. If we're going to have another meeting where we are going to consider Rose's data again, then I certainly want every one of these people to come back because they're here for their safety and not to try to follow some standard established by INDOT. So if we're saying that we're going to study this further then maybe we should come back again-- Commissioner Mourdock: No, that wasn't what the comment was, Ted. President Jerrel: No. Commissioner Mourdock: As you know-- Rose Zigenfus: My data...excuse me, my data is last Thursday and Friday and that's why it was late getting to you on Friday afternoon, so this is the most recent data that we've been able to pull together on Schlensker Road. Commissioner Mourdock: Okay, then I'll amend the motion slightly because I did say to include data from EUTS-- President Jerrel: Yeah, I think we want the Sheriff's Department. Commissioner Mourdock: I would move that this Board act to begin the process to reduce the speed limit on Schlensker Road with the final speed limit to be determined after discussions with the Sheriff's Department and the County Engineer as well to see what is most applicable. President Jerrel: Is there... Commissioner Tuley: I'm not going to second that. The reason I'm not going to second that to be honest with you is from the point of EUTS and everywhere else I don't know where five miles makes a difference, but to the people that live out there fives miles an hour does make a difference, so I'm not going to second the motion.  If you guys want to carry this for another couple of weeks that's fine, but-- President Jerrel: I said I'm prepared to vote tonight if you're comfortable. Commissioner Tuley: --my mind is set on 30 miles-- President Jerrel: You know, I mean, I am prepared to vote for the speed limit tonight. Commissioner Mourdock: Well, go ahead and make a motion then, Pat. I mean, I don't know quite what we're disagreeing on from the discussion. Commissioner Tuley: The only thing we're disagreeing on, and maybe we're not disagreeing on anything, okay? I'm not trying to be argumentative, but the people who live there who drive it every day who have kids that play out there and ride around and stuff feel 30 miles per hour is an appropriate speed given the information we were given tonight that people are going to speed no matter what we set it at, so why give them a five mile an hour cushion to start with, so let's go with 30. Commissioner Mourdock: Okay, let me just explain my rationale. Commissioner Tuley: Okay. Commissioner Mourdock: Is that there are more speed limits set at 35...I mean, there are some natural increments of speed limits, 35, 45, 55. Commissioner Tuley: Right. Commissioner Mourdock: By going to 30 it seems to me you're just kind of exacerbatingly the problem in that people don't know what the heck the speed limit is. Now, you can argue that and say, well, gee if it is 30 maybe that is going to slow them down that much further, but, again, we're all saying that isn't going to matter because people are still going to drive at whatever speed they drive and I am trying to be consistent with the other speed limits that we have out there.  Commissioner Tuley: Yeah, and the other argument could be...for discussion could be if they don't know what the speed limit is they're sure not going to know if we introduce a third speed limit. It's been 45, it has been 30 and now it is back to 45, so now we're going to give them 35 and nobody is going to know what the speed limit is on that particular road.  Commissioner Mourdock: Yeah, as I understand it it wasn't really 30, it was just posted at 30, but that's an academic point.  Commissioner Tuley: It wasn't legally posted at 30, but it was posted at 30. Commissioner Mourdock: Right. Commissioner Tuley: I don't know. Commissioner Mourdock: Make a motion, Pat. I mean, I'm willing to resolve this as well. I thought we were trying to head one direction, but let's see where we go. Commissioner Tuley: Well, you know, I still think no matter we do, if we put it down to 30 tonight the Sheriff stood...now I'm getting tongue tied...should go ahead and still take up the offer and put it out there and I know you have limited resources and stuff, but I think it sounds like there is a need to keep an eye on Schlensker and enforce the speed limit whatever it is. I'm inclined to believe it should be 30. I think there is a good case for it to be 30 and I'll move at this point that it be reduced to 30.  Commissioner Mourdock: Again, realizing this is starting the process by which we actually have the formal votes in the ordinance, I will second that motion. President Jerrel: Okay, and I'll say so ordered. You understand what was just said? We're going to initiate the process in two weeks to begin the ordinance and it has been approved at 30 miles per hour, but we're starting with the Sheriff's Department. I think that is the most effective instrument there is.  Ted Ziemer: Are you going to begin advertising based on this motion or is that...? Commissioner Mourdock: They need to have it drafted. Joe Harrison, Jr.: Well, no, there is...believe it or not, John has got the speed limit ordinance for us to consider this evening for this year. What he'll have to do is amend that tonight. The final reading could then be on the 22nd. I am assuming that is when it was going to be and then we'll have to publish that particular ordinance in whole after the final passage. Ted Ziemer: So then would I understand that based on this motion tonight that the ordinance that he has will be amended to change Schlensker to 30 miles per hour? Joe Harrison, Jr.: That will be added in a few minutes.  President Jerrel: And then that will follow a normal process of being published. Ted Ziemer: Would you advise that these very, very interested individuals be back here when you are going to finally do this? Joe Harrison, Jr.: I doubt it. I mean, I think to be honest with you they've...you've made a good presentation for them. Commissioner Mourdock: It's pretty well...yeah, it's cut and dry from this point. Just so you know, it's a happy coincidence for you because we update the speed limit ordinances once a year in the county, so you happen to be here the right night so that we can get this added on. President Jerrel: And you didn't even know that. Ted Ziemer: Well, thank you and you definitely get a painting. I'll get to work on it.    Rose Zigenfus - EUTS project update President Jerrel: Okay, moving on our agenda the next item on the agenda is the EUTS Director. Rose, I'm sorry that memo...you know, they get their materials earlier, but that's alright. I have passed them back and forth so when you speak to it it will all fit.  Rose Zigenfus: Make sense? President Jerrel: It will all make sense to everybody. Rose Zigenfus: Okay. You're asking for an update and I haven't been here to do an update in a long time so I really wasn't sure what all you wanted to hear tonight, so please give me some direction if this isn't exactly the road you wanted me to take, no pun intended there! Commissioner Mourdock: None taken. Rose Zigenfus: Green River Road corridor preservation initiative, we're calling the project that Commissioner Mourdock asked us to undertake with APC and the City and County Engineers. We had a meeting again last week to discuss the plan. A particular concern on this Green River Road corridor thing is the need for establishing frontage roads and the interconnection of large tracts of lands. Along with those two items the issue of median versus continuous turn lane in the segment from Morgan to Lynch was discussed and is being evaluated and whether or not we want to do that. As development continues north of Pigeon Creek the plan will address needed improvements of local collector facilities as well. They include, but are not limited to Heckel Road, Millersburg Road and Kansas similar to the Highway 41 corridor plan. So give me some feedback please on that plan and the next meeting will be sometime the last week of February. I think we've got one scheduled for the 23rd. Commissioner Mourdock: That's your normal monthly meeting? Rose Zigenfus: No, no, no. This is just between APC and the County and City Engineer to discuss this internally.  Commissioner Mourdock: Okay. That raises an issue, and I know there is no requirement to do it, but as we look at that section of roadway would we do well to have a public meeting to at least let the public know what we're looking at there? Rose Zigenfus: I think once we get something for them, after this meeting on the 23rd, you should have a public meeting like you did for the other road plans. Commissioner Tuley: I think there may be several times we want to incorporate a public meeting.  President Jerrel: Rose, I'm just going to give this to you because it is some things that I've been working on for, you know, we establish goals and this is one that fell under my report to outline some areas that we might be interested...things we're going to do and where the money is, you know, so that we know what to expect and that is what I prepared for the Commissioners. If I may read this and you can follow along and you and I can kind of see. Rose Zigenfus: Okay. President Jerrel: The first item was the Fulton Avenue Bridge and that just goes over the fact that the asbestos testing is done and the results were negative and we're going to have the bid letting. The cost for it $4,864,000 and we're going to use $2.3 of our allocated funds and then $2,564,000 from the Cum Bridge account, so that one is under way. Eickhoff/Koressel and the phase one has the design approval in and we're currently in the right-of-way and the Commissioners are interested in proceeding and I notice I've got a public hearing must be held to determine the preferred alignment. That's something we're going to have to do. We have half a million dollars available in Roads and Streets to begin the initial part of this, so we're...if we want to go further we're going to have to as a Commission decide if we want to the go to the Council for additional funding. The Lynch Road extension interchange construction phase two from Burkhardt to Telephone Road has received design approval. We've got...we encumbered $160,000 from `98 funds that we can buy those outstanding parcels, we hope, but the interchange construction has been estimated at $8.5 million and we're in the process and have spoken to you about the idea of perhaps borrowing ahead on that. The Morgan/Burkhardt intersection is another CMAQ program. It has been approved and is an 80/20 split and I don't know when that...you told me the other day when we talked that the design was approved, it's ready to go. Of course, I would like to-- Rose Zigenfus: I don't know if it is on a bid letting list yet or not. President Jerrel: Could you find that out for us? Rose Zigenfus: Sure. President Jerrel: That would be very helpful. That's a $2.2 million dollar project and we do have our money in place, the funding that we will be required to have. Then the last page is a list of discussion items that the Commissioners have talked about. One, Mount Pleasant Road, because it's a collector road that is really in bad shape and whether or not we need to do some upgrading on that. If so, this is a project we may need to go Council on. We know we're not looking at money anywhere else and then there is a bridge out there that is needing some repair. Volkman is another one that is going to have...I'm trying to see how you feel about these. And then Carpenter Creek is something the Commissioners have put on their goal list for an evaluation and we have some funding that Council has put in place, so we do perhaps have money to do some study on that. And then approximately 400 feet of Virginia Street needs to be completed to connect Burkhardt to Cross Pointe. The developer is going to build up to this one point and it goes up to a point, so it's an estimated cost of about $100,000 and our funding is in place, so we could complete Virginia so there would be another straight across that would be ready. That could be done at any time, I guess. Just do it. Then Burkhardt Road between Lynch and Morgan needs to be widened and we don't have any costs on that. The last statement is I would really like to, you know, for Council to come onboard with a presentation and explaining to them what is going on so we can make these things happen while our funding sources are good. You know, I know you haven't had time to look at this, but they just got it too. I just finished it. Rose Zigenfus: I think Virginia Street is of critical importance out there. I know Mount Pleasant and 41, that area, also with the growth that you're seeing I think that is a good project as well.  Commissioner Tuley: Did you ever mention Shutte? President Jerrel: Shutte Road, go ahead. Commissioner Tuley: Rose, you've called me back...or called me a while back, maybe it was over the holidays or something, about the state is looking to do something to address Shutte Road and State Road 62. Rose Zigenfus: I'm waiting on them to schedule a public hearing. Commissioner Tuley: Okay, so they will schedule it? Rose Zigenfus: I was also told that they wanted to confirm your position and they would be contacting each of you. Commissioner Tuley: Okay. Rose Zigenfus: And I don't know if you've gotten anything from them or a call or anything. Commissioner Tuley: I haven't gotten anything. Rose Zigenfus: But you will.  President Jerrel: Okay. Let's just...my message is keep them moving. Commissioner Tuley: Right, but they'll conduct that since it is State Road 62, they'll conduct that public hearing? President Jerrel: Yes, they will.  Commissioner Tuley: My assumption is they will ask for input from USI and... Rose Zigenfus: In fact, we talked about holding it out there and USI has agreed to that. Commissioner Tuley: Oh, good.  President Jerrel: That would be good. Commissioner Tuley: That would be good. Rose Zigenfus: We're just waiting on a date. Commissioner Tuley: Would you maybe make sure we're fully aware of when that meeting is in case we don't know? Rose Zigenfus: Absolutely. Commissioner Tuley: Because I think it is going to be critical that we're there and hear the input before we can really give a positive or input into it. Rose Zigenfus: Yeah, they want each one of you there. Commissioner Tuley: Okay. Rose Zigenfus: Or at least your position on whatever they propose. President Jerrel: That's wonderful. Are there any other questions? Commissioner Mourdock: No, Rose's comments on Green River while they're not here I think are very pertinent as well, so I look forward to whenever that public meeting is.  Rose Zigenfus: They're on my update that you have. President Jerrel: Well, we need to blend these. Rose Zigenfus: Number three on my list is the Lynch Road route transfer proposal. INDOT is reviewing that and last week, as you know, Thursday we took action, the EUTS Policy Committee, took action to contact them again to find out where that project stands and to get an update on it. Then also number four on my list is we programmed the intersection of Millersburg and Green River as a CMAQ project for installation of a traffic signal. It needs the warrants and the estimated cost is about $75,000 with 80 percent being federal and 20 percent being local. That's $15,000 to the county and I would recommend that the Commission consider this project and take necessary steps for implementation. Commissioner Mourdock: Which intersection? Rose Zigenfus: Millersburg and Green River. It needs the warrant for a signal. And then with regard to federal aid funds I thought you might want an update on that. We received the funding allocations from INDOT. We know what the allocation is. We have not received the obligation authority amount yet. It is somewhere in the amount of 88 percent of what they're telling us we have, but until I get that I don't want to give you any numbers until I know exactly how much we can spend. President Jerrel: You know, I thought when I went to that one in service on TEA21 that the obligation was out, that the money when it was allocated was the money that was going to be available. That the obligation authority, has it been changed in any way? Rose Zigenfus: It changes every year. Congress has to enact whatever their spending authority is and that is when we find out what the number is. From Dennis and his people they are telling me it's about 88 percent, but they don't have the final figure. So that's an annual thing.  President Jerrel: I'd like to look at the...I know you probably have a copy. I would like to see the language in that TEA21 because I think it is different in the number of different areas that maybe we can get better dialogue going with the state on those.  Rose Zigenfus: That's all I have in my report.  President Jerrel: Thank you very much, Rose. Rose Zigenfus: I don't know if you have any other questions. President Jerrel: Rose, we're talking among ourselves up here. When you mentioned the light at Millersburg and Green River Road and they were saying...we do have the funding in place? Rose Zigenfus: The federal funding, yes. President Jerrel: No, I said-- Commissioner Tuley: Local. President Jerrel: --we have the local. Rose Zigenfus: Oh, you do?  President Jerrel: We have our local money in place. Rose Zigenfus: Okay, so it could be a matter of letting a design contract? President Jerrel: Well, it's...what? Richard, you're thinking. Commissioner Mourdock: Well, I'm thinking of Green River as a whole. President Jerrel: Yes. Commissioner Mourdock: I know we don't have the funding to do this, but the fact that we need a stoplight now by traffic count at Green River Road and Millersburg is only making the point that we need to widen Green River Road all the way north, I mean. President Jerrel: John and I talked about it. We don't have any costs on what that project would be. Commissioner Mourdock: I understand, but-- President Jerrel: We can. We can do it. Commissioner Mourdock: Well, step one I think it's appropriate that we go ahead and do a motion at this point and I'll move that we again start the process to put the traffic light at Millersburg and Green River.  Commissioner Tuley: I'll have to second. President Jerrel: So ordered. Rose Zigenfus: Thank you. Commissioner Mourdock: And give them Rose's phone number!  Commissioner Tuley: Second!     Buente Trust - Vacation of an easement President Jerrel: Okay, well we did my report and Rose's all at the same time, so at this point there is a public hearing for the vacation of the easement requested by Buente Trust on a portion of Virginia Street.  Danny Leek: Thank you, Commissioners. My name is Danny Leek with Morley and Associates, and I represent the Buente Family Land Trust and their petition to vacate a portion of the Virginia Street right-of-way which extends between Cross Pointe Boulevard and Burkhardt Road. The reason for the request is currently the right-of-way for Virginia Street as it is dedicated doesn't line up with Virginia Street as it was constructed from Burkhardt Road and in doing the vacation we will rededicate a new right-of-way which will go north and line up with the existing Virginia Street. We filed a plat on behalf of (inaudible) Associates for Cross Pointe, Section 5 which dedicates that right-of-way and we've prepared documents for the right-of-way dedication from the Buentes to the county which is currently being processed by the owners. Commissioner Mourdock: Do I...go ahead, this is the hearing and we need to move forward. Joe Harrison, Jr.: This would be a public hearing at this time for any comments and then it would be a first reading on the ordinance. There will be a final reading on the 22nd, but there might be some comments. President Jerrel: Is there anyone here that would like to speak to the vacation of this easement? Commissioner Mourdock: I'll move on first hearing the approval of the vacation of the easement as requested. Commissioner Tuley: Second. President Jerrel: So ordered. The final one will be when? Joe Harrison, Jr.: The 22nd. Danny Leek: Thank you very much. President Jerrel: Uh-huh. Commissioner Mourdock: Do you need a motion to advertise, Joe? Joe Harrison, Jr.: It has been advertised for the public hearing.     First reading - Ordinance amending speed limits on county roads President Jerrel: Okay, the next item on the agenda is the first reading for the ordinance amending speed limits on county roads. Commissioner Mourdock: I'll move that we amend the presented list supplied by the County Engineer to include a 30 mile an hour speed limit on Schlensker Road. Commissioner Tuley: Second. President Jerrel: So ordered. Commissioner Tuley: I don't see it on here. Joe Harrison, Jr.: If I could recommend, the County Engineer will reflect that on the ordinance in front of you and then it will be signed on the 22nd for a second reading and then it will have to be advertised or published one more time. President Jerrel: Okay.    Final reading Ordinance prohibiting smoking in county governmental buildings President Jerrel: Moving on, the final reading for the prohibiting of smoking in county governmental buildings. We did have a good meeting last week and many of you that are here tonight came back and you did do a good job of speaking to it, is there anyone that wishes to speak to this with new information?  Johnny Kincaid: I'm Johnny Kincaid and one of the questions that came up last time around was dealing with the Courts and jury rooms and accommodations for juries and we did a little kind of straw poll of other counties and whether they make any kind of provisions for their jurors. Warrick County, Ft Wayne, Valparaiso, Muncie and Henderson County, none of those counties make any provisions for...you know, special provisions for the jury room. The only two counties that we found that did make any kind of exclusion were Elkhart and Gary and they leave that up to the discretion of the judges at the time. The other thing that I wanted to make an offer here too is the fact that we do smoking cessation classes and when new policies come in it becomes a big time for people to make a decision that they want to try to quit. We offer free classes. We even offer up to six weeks worth of free patches and we want to make that offer to any county employees who are interested in being able to quit smoking, we would be more than happy to help them out.  President Jerrel: Did you have a comment? Unidentified: I have some information. President Jerrel: Sure. Wayne Kirk: It's going to take me a couple of seconds to get prepared here again because there is so much in front of me. Again, my name is Wayne Kirk. I go to the University of Southern Indiana and I am part of the organization called Student Activist Organization and we're here to report facts, not politics, not emotions, not anything else, just what is in front of us, what can we deal with and how can we handle it from here on. Concerning a lot of the misinformation, sort of what Clinton does currently, or what we call lies presumably, Smoke Free Indiana, they use a tactic of fear that is a little bit used too much. You know, let's just go right to information that is provided for us like the World Health Organization. They did one of the most extensive studies on secondhand smoking and they were one of the leading organizations, part of the UN Charter, to investigate the effects of secondhand smoking and they were against secondhand smoking, but their research came out to be inconclusive. They couldn't find any information that proved either for or against secondhand smoking which how can we rule on a legislation that really has no empirical...well, the empirical studies are there but they have no final facts that should be supporting that which, I think, it's pretty important that we should be sickened to those types of things. Articles released through the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, Investor Business Daily, the Economist and several other magazines and newspapers, publications, they released several articles concerning this and there is a great reason to be concerned about legislation that should be passed for what reason whatsoever, I don't know. As for going back to Smoke Free Indiana, they do take money from the federal government, they get grants so we're creating spin-off groups within our society to lobby for new legislation from the federal government, which we know the government, federal government, is doing with the issue on smoking when they are doing something pretty illegal, I would say per se, suing tobacco industry and, well, the tobacco industry ultimately settled, but the Justice Department, and this is in the Wall Street Journal on Monday, February 8, 1999, it was released from the Cato Institute, which is a Washington based think tank organization, and they more or less, they follow through with our rights and make sure that we know what is going on constantly and they expressed that the Justice Department has said repeatedly that the federal government has no statutory authority in bringing a direct suit to recover smoking related damages. I know this is a little off the beaten path, but this is sort of to establish some sort of case reference to how the federal government is pursuing this tobacco legislation and to what is actually going on with Smoke Free Indiana here. The World Health Organization when they did do their research they compared about 1,500 healthy people and about 650 lung cancer patients and they've done numerous studies. Harvard has researched this. Several, several groups have researched this and they have not come up with anything. The environmental tobacco smoking is one of the biggest issues when they are talking about secondhand smoking. In 1988 Reagan's appointed C. Everett Koop, Surgeon General, he released a document more or less stating that secondhand smoking doesn't cause cancer or any harmful byproducts of anything. Also, several other organizations...try to figure out where my notes are here. Okay, this is concerning the jury...the trial that happened in Muncie, Indiana, which I came from that area, I came from Anderson. I also lived in Indianapolis. I ran for public office last year in Indianapolis for Pike Township Trustee. The tobacco case involving secondhand smoking out there or environmental tobacco smoke there was a unanimous verdict in that case meaning all jurors came and said that they couldn't find any evidence saying secondhand smoke causes any cancer or caused that person's death which is what they were trying to promote there, so, again, it failed in court. If failed after, you know, time, and time, and time again in the courts and here we are we're trying to promote public legislation that has failed in the courts, but we're trying to manipulate people and use our fears to create new laws and legislation, okay. I would like to mention this that I think that for the nuisance issue, yeah, I think that they should in public areas inside of buildings within the government buildings, not within private business, don't get me wrong here, within government buildings, public areas, people shouldn't have to be subject to smoke, but why can't you compromise and create a smoking room? Have you guys discussed that at all here on the economics of creating maybe a room or something in these buildings? Have you guys at all?  President Jerrel: Uh-huh. Wayne Kirk: That should be discussed. I think it is pretty important here. Similar to your Burdette Park, you guys compromised there. That's because of economics maybe. It's not because of anything else because the city saw the economic interest not as much as social (inaudible) health interests involving that. This issue, secondhand smoking, it forces me in two different polarities here. I, you know, I understand there is smoking...direct smoking does cause harm. My dad smokes. I don't agree with it. I think, you know, you can overuse something and your body is automatically going to have problems. You can overeat, you can do anything in excess and you're going to have problems. That's just obvious, I mean, but secondhand smoking, again, they haven't found any proof whatsoever, so I think we should take that into fact there too. Congressional Research Service also has released reports more or less stating that secondhand smoking doesn't cause any harmful effects, any serious harmful effects or any...I'm not quite sure to what extent yet. This is a little bit off the subject here, but this involves legislation that is going too far in this country and we should be opening our eyes up to this because this does affect us constantly each day. This is a jury or a suit that is being brought about against the gun makers. They're doing this because they are trying to charge gun makers for the homicides caused by guns. How can you do that? I don't understand. It's very similar to the smoking issue or you can just say, well, what if I got myself, which I'm in college which is synonymous to college here, what if got myself into $10,000 in debt are you going to charge my father for my debt? You can't do that. I mean, he should have taught me how to be responsible with my money. Well, gun manufacturers should be teaching people how to be responsible with guns. We can't be manipulating the real issue here. These cases should not be brought up because they are a total violation of our rights. It's a total violation of what we should be standing for in this country and we should be stopping this right now. This is what these meetings are for is to start informing people of facts and truth and what is really going on not of fear, nor of innuendos or anything whatsoever. Another thing I have is a thing called juries rights. This is kind of...as president of the Student Activist Organization I am part of the organization called Fully Informed Jury Association which more or less tells the jurors that they have the right to decide a case upon the facts and the law, so we can say a law is unconstitutional, we can do that. People should be informed of that. It's a form of responding to the legislature that the laws aren't right because the legislators are protected by legislative immunity so they aren't held accountable to their votes. This is sort of one of the first things we're going to be doing. Now if this does pass, which it will, I'm very sure of it today, I just want to make a kind of fair assumption that in the near future that if anything is going to be escalated that we won't be quiet in the college levels. Students are going to come out of the woodwork. We are going to come out and we're going to fight. We're going to fight verbally, by pen, and civil disobedience and teaching people their rights and we're going to inform people and we're also going to start voting, something that is not being done too well nowadays, but it's time for us to do that. It's time for us to make that case. That's all I have today, thank you.  Jenny Cissell: My name is Jenny Cissell and I'm a registered nurse at Welborn Clinic and I teach smoking cessation and help a group of people that are trying to quit smoking. We have smoke free support group. My concerns here tonight are not so much with statistics, but with what I have seen in the last 28 years as a nurse and I respect what this young gentleman brought before you tonight. I don't believe much of it because as a nurse I read just the same information that he does and it doesn't come across to me that way. I've seen too many people hurt and maimed and dying from the issue of smoking, so that is what I would like to refer to tonight. First of all, secondhand smoke is dangerous. It's dangerous to children and adults that are in the same environment as a smoker. It can trigger asthma, it can trigger respiratory problems and infections, bronchitis. I have to respect someone that does smoke. I mean, that is their decision, but when they infringe upon the air of the other people here in Indiana that don't smoke I feel like that's a serious issue. There is 28 percent of the people in Indiana that smoke and there is about 72 percent of the people here in Indiana that don't smoke. Again, I respect their opinion to smoke, but I think that we have to think about the other people that are in the same working quarters, jury areas, that don't smoke. There are 4,000 different toxic chemicals in every cigarette that a person smokes, 35 cause cancer and the side stream smoke that comes from exhaling is just as dangerous as what a person is inhaling, so side stream smoke is what the people on the outside receive. The City Council has voted to ban smoking in city run buildings. To me it makes sense to follow suit in the county buildings. I think this publicity sends a message also to our young people. They've seen this in the newspaper and we ask our children not to smoke, we ask them not to experiment with drugs, but as role models we've got to send the same message. What I would want to ask a smoker and I've done it before because I talk to people every day about it, is how would you feel if your child smoked, your ten year old? Ninety percent of the new smokers today are teenagers and I know that for a fact as well. One of our physicians, which I'm not sure if he has come before you or not, Dr. Selby did a really, I thought, intensive comparison on a video that we've used for Welborn Clinic's Finally Beat Smoking Program. What he did was tell a gentleman, he said I want you to go home and I want you to hold a picture of your grandchildren in one hand, I want you to hold a package of cigarettes in the other hand and look at yourself in the mirror and ask yourself which one do you want to say goodbye to first and this is a pulmonologist that sees people die every day from smoking related illnesses as well as secondhand smoke. I invite you tonight to be proactive to prevent disease in these offices and public buildings and reduce insurance claims and reduce illness and not to be reactive and what I mean by that is why would you want to pay for doctor visits, chemotherapy, radiation and medications to the people that may need it one of these days because they've been exposed unduly to secondhand smoke. Candy Allen...Kathy Allen was here last week. She has a severe eye disease which is severely aggravated by smoking. She came up during the City Council and spoke when we were trying to get the City Council to vote to ban smoking and she came up last week also. I think if you just think about this one lady, you know, keep her in mind when you vote against...for the ban on this county buildings. Again, I think we should be consistent with City Council and I invite you all to help promote better health for your workers and for the people, the public that come within the buildings. Thank you for hearing me out.  President Jerrel: Yes. Unidentified: I would like to say-- President Jerrel: I think he is next. He had his hand up a minute ago and you can go after him.  Dan Steward: Thank you. I'm Dan Steward, I'm Vice Chair of the Libertarian Party of Vanderburgh County. I want to thank all of you for letting me speak tonight. I'm thankful that I live in a country where we still have freedom, where we say the Pledge of Allegiance, something that warms my heart. It makes me feel really good that we say and we not just say, but we know and we feel that liberty and justice for all and we strive towards that. We work towards that goal. That's what I work for as a Libertarian and as a member of a party and also I believe so much in freedom that I am willing to go out of my way to do things that other people would not feel would be such...well, just say that they would be things that other people would seem to look at as outrageous maybe. I do these things because I care. I care about my freedom. I care about the freedom on non smokers as well, but the thing is that they have to also care about mine. I want to let you know and I want to thank all of you first for deciding not to side on the side of the pressure groups. Not to side on those, you know, that deal in fear. Those that...groups like Smoke Free Indiana whose facade on the outside is to say that, yes, we care about smokers, we care about people, we care about you, but on the inside they, you know, they disrupt speakers as they talk. They are also guilty of violence against people that oppose them. I'm one of those victims. I am one of those people that has gone up against Smoke Free Indiana. The first time I did they damaged my vehicle, a vehicle that I had painted up with signs. Nothing inflammatory, nothing controversial, just my rights as a smoker and as a human being. For that I got attacked. Just last week, after the meeting here last Monday I went home to find that someone had again damaged my vehicle. They had vandalized it, took some of the things that I had on there, decorations on the van, and threw them towards my window. These are people that know where I live. I'm listed in the phone book, you know. My address is listed, too, so I'm not a hard guy to find. I'm not a hard guy to miss either especially if you see me in a cigarette costume. As of Tuesday night...yeah, that was me. As of Tuesday night and Wednesday morning I was visiting with a friend in Chandler, Indiana. I was in her vehicle and when I came back home I tried to start my own vehicle and drive down the road. As I did, again, it was vandalized. Lug nuts were loosened on the front of my vehicle and there is damage to the alignment of my tires. Again, a third attack upon my vehicle. The people in Smoke Free Indiana are a pressure group. Again, as I said they can say on the outside what they stand for, but I know on the inside that, you know, that it's not that. I know that when you scratch the surface you will find some people that cannot stand descent, that freedom is opposite of what they believe in. I don't want to impugn any of them or their members or their leadership, Mr. Kincaid or Ms. Sinclair or any of them, but, you know, I've got to point the finger where the finger needs to be pointed at and I want to thank you. I want to make sure that you people understand that if you give in to their demands when they tell you, well, let's ban smoking at Burdette, too, you know, and you just go okay, but when you do that, when you give into these pressure groups you are giving into people that are violent. You're giving into people that are hateful, you know. You're giving into people that, you know, that are just so much used to having their way that anything, you know, that isn't their way, you know, will make them violent, will make them angry. I want to thank you again for allowing me the chance to speak tonight and I hope that you will think about that. Goodnight. President Jerrel: Mr. Roll. Lyman Roll: Thank you, Commissioners. My name is Lyman Roll. I would like to defend Smoke Free Indiana. I have been affiliated with the group for a number of years and I consider them a very conservative bunch and I have never known any of them to demonstrate any violence toward anyone. Not to my knowledge and I find that very hard to believe. Dan Steward: I've got it on video. Lyman Roll: It struck me as preposterous. What I want to bring to the attention of the Commissioners was something on the economic...you know, we've heard a lot of eloquent comments on the health and safety issues and secondhand smoke has for all intents and purposes has been indicted for many, many years. I have a report from NIOSH, National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, who does the research for OSHA. This was a 1992 publication and it was based on extensive research, so the idea that the jury is out on secondhand smoke is just absurd and preposterous. To hear people repeat it in this day and age you have to think that they are on RJR Reynold's payroll. The economic issue I wanted to bring forth is when a building is being built such as our new auditorium, if the ventilation system hasn't been installed yet, if it is a smoke free building ASHRA recommends a much lower...a much lower cubic feet per minute return of air to the building, but when smoking is allowed they recommend a much higher and therefore that would be driving the cost of operating that building. I hope that there is some way that can be done unless it has already been installed because that would be a lot of capital cost up front to try to accommodate smoking and now if you're not going to allow smoking in there that would be money that would have been wasted on that ventilation system. Can you tell me tonight whether or not the ventilation system has been installed and-- President Jerrel: It's being installed. Lyman Roll: --was it installed allowing for smoking to be included? President Jerrel: The specifications...do you want to? Joe Harrison, Jr.: It was not contemplated that smoking would take place in the facility although the architects were hoping that the Commissioners would take this step although that proposal will not be considered final until tonight. Lyman Roll: Well, some consideration could also be given to the Civic Center Complex itself. If the ventilation system is ever replaced, if it is a smoke free building you could have enormous savings there on a new ventilation system. The system that we have here presently, an outside auditing company has came in numerous times and has recommended a total smoking ban for this facility to improve the air quality. It hasn't been acted upon, unfortunately, but hopefully it will be and I highly recommend it. Thank you. Brian Majors: I'm kind of sorry, I have a headache. I had one earlier and all this talk of sewer pipes and speed limits has kind of made it a little worse. I'm not going to say too many things tonight because you've heard-- Commissioner Mourdock: State your name, Mr. Majors. Brian Majors: Oh, Brian Majors, the Libertarian Party. You've heard everything before. Really all I want to say is this is the last chance. Politics is the art of compromise. Well, there is a chance to compromise here. You can compromise with the smokers. You don't have to ostracize them. I'm not really going to say much, but I would like to say no Jim Crowe laws for smokers. That's all I would like to say and by enacting this it is not only bad policy it is un-American and it's wrong and if you vote for this you line up with the other thousands of local legislators who have signed up for this kind of thing, but if you vote against it you stand out as a leader, so you can either go with the flow, do the easy thing and throw the unpopular minority out from amongst you or you could be a real leader and stand up and vote against this Jim Craw low...Jim Crowe law, I'm sorry my head, Jim Crowe law tonight. So here is your chance to be either real leaders or just blind followers of the rest of Indiana. Thank you.  Johnny Kincaid: There have been a couple of things that have been stated on public record that I can't let pass without referring to them. First of all, I want to apologize for having laughed when the name Dr. Koop was mentioned earlier, but Dr. Koop is the man who began the entire secondhand smoke movement, so to say that he is of the belief that secondhand smoke is not harmful struck me as being very, very funny and I apologize for that. The issue of violence, we all know that's so ludicrous that we don't even need to go there, but on the issue of use of federal funds I do have to state for the public record that no federal funds have been used in providing any information, for providing any of the meetings or anything else associated with this ordinance. The people that have talked here have all been volunteers. I do not work for Smoke Free Indiana. I'm not here on Smoke Free Indiana funds. I'm here as a volunteer, as have all of the speakers who have been here for the two hearings and I want emphasize that fact and the fact that accusations dealing with federal funding are completely unfounded. Thank you. President Jerrel: At this time...oh, yes. We'll let the lady behind you...well, I don't care. She was starting up first.  Anna Stockton: I just have a couple of questions. President Jerrel: Your name first. Anna Stockton: Oh, I'm sorry. My name is Anna Stockton. I live in Posey County so I don't have...really shouldn't be here probably, but I had a couple of questions. Have you guys thought about where you are going to put the smokers if you ban smoking here? Where are you going to have them, like outside somewhere or have them in a different part in the outside area? Also, if you do have the outside, have you thought about all the trash that would be accumulated around that area? Wouldn't that be more time for the workers who clean up the trash or spend more time on that? Commissioner Mourdock: If I may address that, Ms. Stockton. I did have a discussion with Steve Utley who runs the Building Authority, that's the maintenance group that actually looks after this building. On the cleanup time his estimate is even though there would be some cleanup around that the net time spent would be less because of the other things that smoking causes inside the building that have to be cleaned up. As far as where that would happen, there are a series or there can be put near the exits a number of what are being referred to as smoking stations that are, I don't want say decorative, but at least they are something more than an ash can with a bunch of cigarette butts sticking up out of them, so, yes, we have had those discussions.  Anna Stockton: Okay. Commissioner Mourdock: It was a good question, thank you. Marsha Abell: My name is Marsha Abell and I am probably the only person here who actually spends well over 40 hours a week in that building over there. I just have some questions. As some of you may know I have been on vacation. What rooms in the court building would not be smoke free? Are there any? I've heard jury deliberation rooms have been mentioned or is it going to be the entire building?  Commissioner Tuley: We'll have to vote on it, but just speaking as one Commissioner I don't foresee any room being over there being designated for smoking. There was an approach by two judges. Two of the judges last week asking for some special consideration, but I didn't...again, I am speaking as myself, but I didn't get a real sense that it was truly going to be necessary to do that and primary part of my rationale behind it was I asked the judge specifically how they would address that and control that room and what have you and I really wasn't comfortable with the answer I got. I kind of felt like they sidestepped me. They never did really answer my question. Another officeholder here went to the judges Friday or to that one particular judge and carried forth that I would be willing to meet with him if he could sit down and show me and give us a written plan or something that would explain how they would plan on doing that and take that into consideration and I didn't get that as of tonight's meeting and I don't see them here, so from my point of view I don't foresee any changes. It looks like a totally smoke free building. Marsha Abell: Okay, well that's what I was concerned about. First of all, you've probably been in one of those jury deliberation rooms. They're not of any size at all. They're just big enough for a conference room table. If I were fortunate enough to serve on a jury, which of course in my position I won't, I would not be able to be in a jury with someone smoking in there because I have a high...I have no tolerance to smoke whatsoever. I would also like to point out that I have 53 employees in my office and I have some who smoke and none of them would mind at all if you made that building entirely smoke free. Our bathroom is absolutely filthy and we go down to the judge's corridor and use the judges restroom to keep from having to use the one. The general public has just trashed our bathroom something awful. We've had the curtains removed and we have a small area in there called the lounge. They recently took the curtains down and threw them away. They couldn't even clean them anymore, so I would certainly...I don't know about all the other county buildings, but the one that I spend a lot of hours in a week I would certainly encourage you to make it totally smoke free.  Brian Majors: Can I just say one more thing about the-- President Jerrel: Yes. Brian Majors: --violence part. I'm sure violence isn't condoned by any of the leadership of Smoke Free Indiana, but I have had eggs thrown at me, you know, I've been yelled at, verbally threatened. My pregnant wife has had to listen to untold numbers of threatening phone calls calling me names, calling what I stand for names, calling smokers in general names, so there is a climate of intolerance here. I'm sure it's not condoned by the leadership, but it is real and I have felt it and so has my family. That's all. President Jerrel: At this time I'm going to just call on the Commissioners. This is the final reading on this ordinance and I'll just start with Pat. By the way, just one other little misstatement a minute ago. It was Commissioner Tuley that made the recommendation on Burdette Park's swimming area, so it didn't come from anybody else, but if you have any comments to make and then I'll go to you.  Commissioner Tuley: Just so everybody understands, the judges last week asked for some special consideration. The officeholder over there approached me, explained to me the judge was not trying to take care of his employees, had some legitimate concerns there, and that's all well and good and I appreciate that, I just, again, I just felt like it's important that we don't start making concessions in buildings here where people have to come to. You know, we did make some concessions at Burdette, but, again, that's a choice. If they decide to go to that particular chalet because they want to smoke and their family smokes and they want to subject their family to that, that's fine, that's their call. So I didn't mind conceding there a little bit, but I'm inclined to believe we're doing the right thing here. I think it sends the right message and quite honestly there has been enough publicity in the last week and I did not get a single phone call, a single letter or a single comment made to me out in public anywhere that said you're wrong, Commissioner, you've got the wrong idea. Any comments that I got, phone calls or candid conversation I had with anybody, you're on the right track and I think we're doing the right thing.  Commissioner Mourdock: I will start a little bit where I was last week, and again compliment all of you who came to the microphone tonight, and particularly, perhaps surprisingly, I want to compliment Mr. Majors and also Mr. Kirk because it takes a lot of guts to be in the minority. This is one of those issues where it's very easy to define yourself on the majority side and just kind of go with the flow and it's pretty hard to walk to the microphone and in your heart feel that you really are standing for something and know you're going to get ridiculed for it, so I compliment both of you for doing that. But, again, I will say what I said last time, too, that I have a little libertarianism in me, small L. The issue was sort of hinted at by Mr. Kirk that maybe this is going to lead to some other ban on smoking in private buildings, at restaurants or whatever and I'll tell you that if that was before this Commission as a county ordinance I would oppose it because I do think that private businesses can be run the way they want to be run, but as Pat said a moment ago people have to come into this building. This is a public building and it ought to be a smoke free building. Maybe it isn't so much an issue of health, I mean if you want to believe that, it isn't an issue of health, but what it is is an issue of civility. People ought to be able to go to a public building and not put up with all the hassles and inconvenience of smoking, so I will move on first reading the option of this ordinance. Commissioner Tuley: Final reading. Commissioner Mourdock: Pardon? President Jerrel: Final. Commissioner Mourdock: Final reading, I'm sorry. Commissioner Tuley: Second. President Jerrel: I will now call for a roll call vote. Commissioner Tuley? Commissioner Tuley: Yes. President Jerrel: Commissioner Mourdock? Commissioner Mourdock: Yes. President Jerrel: And I am very proud to vote yes, so this will be a smoke free building. It's our intention it will be a smoke free building. Commissioner Mourdock: Yes, everything.  Joe Harrison, Jr.: If I could ask for a motion to publish the ordinance because it did contain an amendment. President Jerrel: Okay. Commissioner Mourdock: So moved. Commissioner Tuley: Second. President Jerrel: So ordered.     First reading Ordinance amending weight restrictions on certain bridges President Jerrel: The next item on the agenda is the first reading of the ordinance amending weight restrictions on certain bridges.  Commissioner Mourdock: Is John Stoll still here? President Jerrel: John, are you still here? Commissioner Tuley: Somewhere. President Jerrel: Okay, he is working his way up here.  Commissioner Tuley: There's John hidden behind the crowd. John Stoll: That ordinance revision is to cover the revised postings that were recommended in the last bridge inspection report. Every time we've gotten the inspection reports we followed it up by making revisions to the ordinance, so it is recommended that it be approved. Commissioner Tuley: John,-- John Stoll: Yes. Commissioner Tuley: --I know it's first reading, are you Mr. Hahn by chance? Okay, I was going to say I got a phone call this afternoon from Don Kolb who is, as most people know, a pretty big farmer down there in the bottoms. The concern he had was the eight ton limit on Seminary, I guess where Kings Road-- Unidentified: Near Kings Road and Seminary. Commissioner Tuley: Okay, that there is an awful lot of farmers down there that have an awful lot of heavy equipment that if truly eight tons is the limit we need to put on there that maybe some consideration should be given to maybe replacing it. I think Mr. Hahn is here to talk about that particular bridge.  John Stoll: I told Mr. Hahn that a while ago, I don't remember exactly when that bridge is slated for replacement. I don't think it is this year, but it is soon. Do you all have your copy of the inspection report back there? Commissioner Tuley: It's back in the back. President Jerrel: Yeah, it's in the... John Stoll: I could say I would go get one and find out when it is slated for replacement.  President Jerrel: If you want to go in my office the little one in the middle and just look behind my desk and the bridge report is about the second shelf. John Stoll: Okay, I'll go get that and let you know when it is slated for replacement because it is coming up soon, but I don't remember when. President Jerrel: Well, we'll just go on until you get that. Commissioner Tuley: If you want to go look for it and what have you, Mr. Hahn, do you want to just go ahead and make whatever comments you need to make?  Robin Hahn: I'm Robin Hahn, farmer in Union Township. When I saw the notice in the paper I worried about it because eight ton is a very small amount. There is a lot of grain trucks that pass over that bridge and weighing empty they're over eight ton and there is even school buses that go across that bridge. Empty those weigh approximately 12 ton, an empty school bus. So we're talking about heavy loads of grain going across there, so what I was wondering is if the bridge is going to be replaced is if we can ask for a waiver in the meantime. We're going to take a chance crossing a bridge with a heavily loaded truck, but, again, we don't want to pay a $2,500 fine every hour we cross the bridge with a load of grain. Commissioner Tuley: I told Don I would be glad to speak on behalf of the concerns down there, but I also have to watch out for the county.  President Jerrel: It's already...is it already eight? Robin Hahn: It has been in the past posted eight, if I recall. President Jerrel: So it's what it is all along and we'll know in a minute what-- Commissioner Tuley: I mean, I don't know how to say this, there is not a nice way to say this, but I guarantee you if we just kind of turn our eyes and someone crashes through that, the first one that is going to get sued is going to be us.  Robin Hahn: I realize the liability, but we've got to move our grain and our machinery across the bridge. Commissioner Tuley: What I wondered-- Commissioner Mourdock: Yeah, but there is another side to that, too, Pat, and I think of the Waste Management garbage truck that fell through the bridge out on (inaudible) Road just over into Warrick County and Waste Management ended up buying the county a nice new bridge.  Commissioner Tuley: Based on they exceeded the limit. Commissioner Mourdock: Right, exactly. Commissioner Tuley: Yeah, and I guess what I am hoping for is when John figures out when that bridge is going to be replaced if there is maybe a way to change that around, I mean, that's a plan and what have you. Is there a way to maybe trade that one out for one earlier that needs to be replaced, you know, one that is scheduled earlier that is maybe not going to affect so many people adversely, is what I am trying to get at.  Robin Hahn: Okay.  Commissioner Tuley: I'm willing to work with it any way we can, you know, taking the liability off you guys and us. Robin Hahn: Right.  Commissioner Tuley: And I would assume these other two, and I don't have any reason to believe that they wouldn't be. Robin Hahn: We have to use the bridge regardless, but we just don't want to pay a $2,500 fine every time. Commissioner Tuley: Oh, I understand that. Robin Hahn: Thank you. John Stoll: Our earlier report recommends replacement in two to four years and another sheet says replacement in 1998. I remember last year-- Commissioner Tuley: Say what now? Commissioner Mourdock: `98. Commissioner Tuley: I heard `98 and this is `99. John Stoll: Whenever this was listed as replacement last year we had contacted the inspectors to find out if it really was the worst one out there to replace and at that time we were told no and then we proceeded to put in the new bridge further down on Seminary Road. You may recall that one, it was a new bridge to replace a culvert.  President Jerrel: Right. John Stoll: So the money that was budgeted for this one was used elsewhere on the basis of what we were told on the phone call to our consultants. We need to check and see what the discrepancy is here.  President Jerrel: Why don't you call and see, right. John Stoll: Their description of work it says: ADue to the non redundant nature of this superstructure, low load limit, inadequate channel and geometry, replacement is recommended within two to four years. And this inspection was done in `98, so I don't know why the two conflict. President Jerrel: Would this likely be the same cost about as that, I don't know, I want to think of Number 7 and something else, those that were replaced? They were replaced with culverts. John Stoll: The other one on Seminary that we did last year was in the neighborhood of $100,000 so if it truly is needed right now I think there is money in the Bridge Fund that we could do it. President Jerrel: Well let's check the money, call the consultant and we'll make a decision on it at our next meeting. John Stoll: Okay. President Jerrel: If we approve this we can-- Commissioner Tuley: Yeah, I mean I don't have a problem with...I know you're getting ready to make the motion, approving on first reading with the understanding that we're going to get some more information and we can change this before we actually adopt it, okay.  Commissioner Mourdock: I'll move acceptance of the ordinance regarding weight restrictions on certain bridges. Commissioner Tuley: Second. President Jerrel: So ordered.     Co-op Extension Service Purdue University contractual service agreement President Jerrel: You have in your packet a final reading...I mean, excuse me. The contract with County Co-op Extension with Purdue whereby, you know, we are paying them a certain amount of money and in turn then they take care of those costs rather than doing it like we had been. This was agreed to last year. Commissioner Mourdock: I'll move acceptance of the `99 county contractual service agreement with the extension agent. Commissioner Tuley: Second. President Jerrel: So ordered.     Any group or individual wishing to address the Commission President Jerrel: Is there anyone here that wishes to speak to the Commission?     Steve Craig - Burdette Park President Jerrel: If not, we'll go through the reports. While you're talking to him, you want to let Steve go real quick? Let's take the Burdette Park. We'll run you up here real fast while he is finishing that.  Steve Craig: I forgot what I was going to talk...no! I kept it in front of me so I wouldn't. I guess in our report you got our year end financial statement. President Jerrel: Right. Commissioner Tuley: Steve, that is pretty thorough. President Jerrel: Very. Commissioner Tuley: Thats extremely thorough. I was pleasantly surprised and very pleased. Steve Craig: Well, thank you. There was a couple of other things. Not that I like to pat ourselves on the back, but every once in a while...we had a survey from Bristol Meyers that was very basic, but you appreciate to get them and when you have...they are probably our biggest picnic of the year by far and when you can get an A+, what they told us, then I thought maybe you guys ought to get to read that. President Jerrel: Yeah, that's nice.  Steve Craig: The only other thing I had was that Gary and I was going to drive up tomorrow to see the A. Martin Lodge up in Nashville, Indiana because I have had several people now tell me that it is something that we ought to look at to maybe structure ours. Starting with Bettye, she had mentioned she had been there and really enjoyed it. President Jerrel: Yeah, it is. Steve Craig: I've had two or three people tell me since then we ought to go up and not copy it, but at least get some good ideas from it and so Gary and I thought we would run up there tomorrow if it was okay with everyone. President Jerrel: There is a request if you would like to act upon the request to permit them to use a Park vehicle and go to Brown County. Commissioner Mourdock: So moved. Commissioner Tuley: Second. President Jerrel: So ordered. Thank you very much. Steve Craig: Thank you.     John Stoll - County Engineer President Jerrel: Okay, County Engineer.  John Stoll: First item I've got is a request for a change order on the Daylight Sewer project. This is for the final driveway that requires a bore instead of an open cut. This cost increase is $5,110.  Commissioner Mourdock: Is this the same one we spoke of several weeks ago or additionally? John Stoll: This is the additional one. The one large one went to Fruehauf Trucking, I believe, and this is a smaller one. It's a 30 foot driveway rather than 120 foot the Fruehauf driveway was. There are no other ones that I am aware of that have to be bored that weren't called for in the contract originally. Commissioner Mourdock: Is this a concrete or paved driveway? John Stoll: It's a rock driveway.  Commissioner Mourdock: Do we have a choice? John Stoll: No, unfortunately. Commissioner Tuley: I was afraid that was the answer.  Commissioner Mourdock: Move approval of the change order. Commissioner Tuley: Second. President Jerrel: So ordered. John Stoll: The next item I've got is a letter to INDOT regarding the Fulton Avenue Bridge. This is a letter that is sent to the local transportation section of INDOT regarding the construction inspection agreement that we'll have with Bernardin Lochmueller. This doesn't require signatures on the agreement right now, this is just a cover letter to forward the agreement to INDOT for their review. The amount of the agreement is $545,216. It's likely that will require some changes because when Bernardin Lochmueller came up with that cost estimate they did not have INDOT's time frame established in the contract so they estimated construction being completed in July of 2000 and then they had some additional work as far as finishing up the final construction records through September of 2000. I contacted INDOT last week with the recommendation to put it has a fixed date completion of December 31st, so once INDOT does take action on establishing the terms of the contract then they can review this agreement and see if the time frames established in this agreement correspond with what they have established as construction time frames and then determine whether or not the dollar figures are accurate, so there may be some revisions required on this, but Steve Dilk of INDOT did tell me to go ahead and forward the agreements up to INDOT now so they could get in the process of reviewing it.  President Jerrel: So these don't...these sound like they are completely out of sync.  John Stoll: Depending on what INDOT puts as the terms of the contract it could be. They could put the...if they follow the recommendation to put the completion date at December 31st, yes, that will be way out of line with the amount of time that Bernardin Lochmueller has estimated by a good six months probably assuming that they got the job done on December 31st and took a couple of months to finish out all the paperwork and claims.  President Jerrel: So what are you saying? We're going to go ahead and try this to see?  John Stoll: This letter is just to submit the unsigned agreements to INDOT for INDOT to review them and INDOT will check to make sure that the time frames in the inspection agreement matches up to the time frame established in the construction contract. No action is needed, I guess, but that letter needs the Commissioners' signatures so I can forward the information up to INDOT. President Jerrel: Okay. Commissioner Mourdock: I'll move approval of the signing of the letter. Commissioner Tuley: Second. President Jerrel: So ordered. John Stoll: Next I've got a request for acceptance of streets in Breckenridge Subdivision, Section 1 and 2. This involves acceptance of Breckenridge Drive, Vertigo Court, Crescendo Court, Lobo Court, Silverthorne Court, Silverthorne Drive, Cimmaron Drive and Sawmill Drive. The grand total is .74 miles. President Jerrel: Is there a motion? Commissioner Mourdock: Move approval of the streets referenced in Breckenridge Subdivision. Commissioner Tuley: Second. President Jerrel: So ordered.  John Stoll: Next I would like to recommend that we award the Heckel Road Bridge contract to CCC of Evansville in the amount of $241,405.88. They were the low bidder on the project. Commissioner Mourdock: Move approval of the award. Commissioner Tuley: Second. President Jerrel: So ordered. John Stoll: Next I've got a street acceptance request for Sycamore Hills Subdivision. This subdivision...this street acceptance requires also some acceptance of some additional right-of-way. The developer built the road out of the right-of-way, so to correct that problem he has had to dedicate additional right-of-way. I've got a deed signed off by the owners of that right-of-way which is Sovereign Technology Limited Liability Corporation and I also have a corporate resolution from that company dedicating the right-of-way, so contingent on the acceptance of the additional right-of-way it is recommended that Saddlebrook Road in Section 4 of Sycamore Hill Estates be approved. This is 705 linear feet of road.  Commissioner Mourdock: So moved. Commissioner Tuley: Second. President Jerrel: So ordered. John Stoll: Next I've got a revised street plan for Elpers Industrial Sub. You may recall back in December we approved these street plans subject to some revisions on the drainage plan. This is the plan we originally approved and this is the revision. They basically deleted this one storm sewer pipe and rather than run it down here into this ditch on the east side of the property they are now going to run it to the ditch on the west side of the property. This is in conformance with what was approved as part of the drainage plan, so it is recommended that the revised plan be approved.  Commissioner Mourdock: What is this sub? John Stoll: Elpers Industrial Sub.  Commissioner Mourdock: I'll move approval. Commissioner Tuley: Second. President Jerrel: So ordered. John Stoll: That's all I've got unless you've got any questions. Commissioner Mourdock: A bit of direction for you, John. It is that time of year when we again need to convene those people we were calling the infrastructure working group. John Stoll: Okay. Commissioner Mourdock: Would you please take that upon yourself to call those entities together in the next week to ten days and report back to us as far as what the progress is. If you let me know what day you're going to do that I will do my best to try to be present, but I think it is important we start coordinating everybody again now that the construction season is almost on us.  John Stoll: Okay. Commissioner Tuley: John, someone brought to my attention last week, I don't remember exactly what day it was, late in the week, we either have a stop sign down at Franklin and Woods...Woods...I don't remember where Woods runs into Franklin in the county, but you know Woods goes along there. Part of it is in the city and part of it is in the county. John Stoll: Okay, but it was on Woods? Commissioner Tuley: It was on Woods. John Stoll: Okay. Commissioner Tuley: And then if that one is down then there is one missing like at Upper Mount Vernon and like St. Phillips or vice versa. One of them is down and one of them is missing completely. I think they are stop signs. John Stoll: What was the second intersection? Commissioner Tuley: Like Upper Mount Vernon and I think it is St. Phillips Road or something like that. I'm thinking that one is down because the individual that called me said he called Posey County and they looked at it said, no, that's the wrong color sign, that's not our sign. I thought all stop signs were the same color. I'm not sure, but you can get someone to look into it? John Stoll: I'll check on that, yeah. President Jerrel: Alright, thank you. Keep us posted on what is happening with that bridge.      Weekly reports President Jerrel: Okay, we also have reports for the Garage, Soil & Water and Ozone Officer. Is there a motion to accept those? Commissioner Mourdock: I'll move acceptance of those three reports. President Jerrel: Is there a-- Commissioner Tuley: Second. President Jerrel: --second. Thank you. So ordered. Now the County Attorney is going to-- Robin Hahn: (Inaudible) for the County Garage? President Jerrel: Sure. Robin Hahn: I would like to put in a couple of cents for roadside trimming. On the west side we've got some roads that tree limbs are just notorious for growing out and my wife has a school bus and she owns it and operates it herself. She has called the County Garage numerous times to get those limbs trimmed down and last year she wrote a letter. We haven't had any results yet and I know they have one of these bushhog machines that goes down the side of the road and trims the limbs and I was wondering if that is just certain times of the year. Joe Harrison, Jr.: What's the address again? There on Old Henderson Road? Robin Hahn: No, this would be on the west side more, Broadway Avenue, West Franklin Road, Smith Diamond Road, Schmuck Road, Bayou Creek Road, Strueh Hendricks Road, all those roads it's just wooded areas, solid. Those limbs just constantly are growing out and if you meet someone you scratch the side of your vehicle up. Her school bus about every two years I have to climb up on the roof and repaint it for her. Joe Harrison, Jr.: Well, the county will have to take a look to see. You know, if those trees are on county right-of-way-- Robin Hahn: It has to be on a right-of-way because, I mean-- Joe Harrison, Jr.: --then they can trim them. Robin Hahn: --they're growing out into the road. Joe Harrison, Jr.: If they're on private property the only way they can is if it is at an intersection. Otherwise, they can't go on private property, but they'll have...I'm sure they can take a look at it and see.  Robin Hahn: I sure would appreciate it, thank you. Joe Harrison, Jr.: Sure.     Joe Harrison, Jr. - County Attorney President Jerrel: Okay, County Attorney. Joe Harrison, Jr.: I just have two items. The first are the bids that came in on the shirts and hats for Burdette Park. It seems like that was yesterday, but it was two and a half hours ago, VC-99-02.     Company name Amount bid Gus Doerner Sports Submitted unit pricing for all items SouthWest Grafix & Apparel Submitted unit pricing for all items Imagination Screen Printing Submitted unit pricing for all items I would ask that you take these under advisement and review them for their responsiveness. Commissioner Mourdock: So moved. Commissioner Tuley: Second. President Jerrel: So ordered. Joe Harrison, Jr.: The last item I had relates to the Old State Road sewer Barrett Law project. The project was just accepted earlier this evening and I have prepared a preliminary assessment roll regarding the proposed benefit amount to each owner which is benefitted by the construction of the sanitation sewer project. This is a preliminary assessment roll that I would ask that the Commissioners accept and if that happens then I have also prepared a notice for a public hearing concerning the final approvement of the assessment roll. There will then have to be a public hearing for that and I've got a date in mind of March 1st at 5:30. If, in fact, you all are will to accept this preliminary assessment roll we can get the process rolling where we will have a hearing on the assessment roll and then the final procedures with regard to collection of the assessments would then begin. Commissioner Mourdock: I'll move acceptance of the preliminary findings. Commissioner Tuley: Second. President Jerrel: So ordered. Joe Harrison, Jr.: I have a notice of public hearing. I think I gave a copy of that to Charlene already and I would ask that this is a notice of public hearing concerning assessment roll for the Old State Road sanitary sewer Barrett Law project. It sets forth the fact that the Board on today's date accepted the project as well as the assessment roll and indicates that there will be a public hearing on March 1st at 5:30 p.m. in this room for the purpose of considering the final assessments to be assessed towards the owners of those properties benefitted by the sanitary sewer project on Old State Road. So if there is a motion to publish the notice, that would be great. Commissioner Mourdock: I move the notice to publish. Commissioner Tuley: Second. President Jerrel: So ordered. Joe Harrison, Jr.: That's all I've got.   Tony Greubel - Superintendent of County Buildings President Jerrel: Superintendent of County Buildings. Tony Greubel: I would like to ask permission for your approval to change the long distance carrier for the county from LDDS to LCI. The reason being that LDDS has moved their local support office out of Evansville to Oklahoma City and this has caused a problem with Janet Watson in the Auditor's Office. It's more inconvenient for her to change access codes with county employees and the School Corporation has had the same problem. They're going to change their long distance carrier to LCI the last week in March and LCI on top of having better local support is going to offer us a better rate at 824 per minute compared to about an average of 1424 by LDDS. It's not a contract. It would just be a month to month deal so we can drop out at any time if we would like. Commissioner Mourdock: What was the current agreement with LDDS? That's my only concern that can we actually terminate given where we are right now? Tony Greubel: Yeah, we can terminate that. Commissioner Mourdock: On a month to month basis? Tony Greubel: Yeah, uh-huh. Joe Harrison, Jr.: If you all consider that I would certainly have a motion to terminate and then approve another. My only concern is whether or not we've gotten sufficient quotes from a number of the long distance services. Commissioner Tuley: Yes, that's my question. Joe Harrison, Jr.: But that is...there are other long distance providers, but that is certainly for the Board to consider. You might find some other more competitive prices, but that is just my own thought. President Jerrel: Tony, do you know anything about the...you said the School Corporation was changing. Did they seek competitive prices, do you know? Tony Greubel: I'll ask Kelly from VanAusdall, she is our account representative with VanAusdall & Farrar and see if she did competitive pricing for them or just found that they had local support. I mean, she did competitive pricing, but I don't know if she did a formal series of quotes, in other words. Joe Harrison, Jr.: I'm just a little leery without doing formal...you know, without seeking quotes and changing. Commissioner Mourdock: I'll move that we direct the Superintendent of County Buildings to review the long distance service and come back with competitive quotes as to possible providers. Tony Greubel: We have time. Even if we would do it it wouldn't be effective until the end of March. Commissioner Tuley: I'll be glad to second that motion. President Jerrel: So ordered.     New business President Jerrel: Is there any new business?     Consent items Commissioner Tuley: We have to do the consent items. President Jerrel: Oh, excuse me. I don't have...I was just busy writing my name. Is there a motion to approve the consent items? Commissioner Mourdock: So moved.  Commissioner Tuley: Second. President Jerrel: So ordered.     Scheduled meetings President Jerrel: You have your meeting list.     Old business President Jerrel: Old business? Commissioner Mourdock: One item of old business, we have before us some draft language to be used in a letter to department heads regarding possible accrued comp time and sick days and I would move that letter be-- President Jerrel: Could you read that into the minutes? Commissioner Mourdock: Okay, the letter would read: The County Commission agrees to the prorated buyouts being used for county employees leaving employment. A county employee is eligible for up to 60 sick days, any accrued compensatory time that they have earned and any unused vacation days and personal days for the current year. Time earned, such as vacation, sick and personal days, will be prorated during this current year. Vacation days and personal days are not carried over from year to year. I would move that language be put in a letter to all department heads since it is in agreement with our stated policy. Commissioner Tuley: Okay, you said it is in agreement with our stated policy, so this is just a reaffirmation?  President Jerrel: Right. Commissioner Tuley: Okay, second. President Jerrel: So ordered. President Jerrel: Is there any other business to come before this body? Any new business?  Commissioner Tuley: No. Joe Harrison, Jr.: There is no meeting next Monday, just to remind everyone again. Commissioner Tuley: Nor Tuesday, yes.  Commissioner Mourdock: Really. President Jerrel: Is there a motion to adjourn? Commissioner Mourdock: Chief Ellsworth has been so patient to sit there, did you have something, Brad? Brad Ellsworth: Not unless you have any questions.  Commissioner Tuley: I know why you were here. You were here to catch them rowdy non smoking people beat up them other guys. You wanted to make sure it didn't happen. Brad Ellsworth: If they vandalize that car I'm going to catch them. Commissioner Mourdock: I was beginning to think that before this meeting was over we would receive Cedric Hustace's painting of the finished convention center! I will move adjournment. Commissioner Tuley: Second. President Jerrel: So ordered. The meeting was adjourned at 8:14 p.m. Those in attendance: Bettye Lou Jerrel Richard E. Mourdock Patrick Tuley Joe Harrison, Jr. Suzanne M. Crouch Charlene Timmons Tony Greubel Cedric Hustace Jerry Bryan Bob Dillow Brad Ellsworth John Stoll Ted Ziemer Don Dees Laura Blankenship Steve Uhm Pat Cato Rose Zigenfus Gary Blankenship Terry Raley Danny Leek Johnny Kincaid Wayne Kirk Jenny Cissell Dan Steward Lyman Roll Brian Majors Anna Stockton Marsha Abell Robin Hahn Steve Craig Members of the media Others unidentified Transcribed and recorded by Charlene Timmons