VANDERBURGH COUNTY

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

FEBRUARY 13, 2007

The Vanderburgh County Board of Commissioners met in session this 13^th day of February, 2007 at 3:30 p.m. in room 301 of the Civic Center Complex with President Cheryl Musgrave presiding.

President Musgrave: Good afternoon. I would like to call to order the meeting of the Board of Commissioners of Vanderburgh County for February 13, 2007. We will start with introductions to my right.

Marissa Nichoalds: Marissa Nichoalds, Superintendent of County Buildings.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: Ted Ziemer, County Attorney.

Commissioner Nix: Bill Nix, County Commissioner.

President Musgrave: Cheryl Musgrave, County Commissioner.

Commissioner Tornatta: Troy Tornatta, County Commissioner.

Madelyn Grayson: Madelyn Grayson, Recording Secretary.

Bill Fluty: Bill Fluty, County Auditor.

President Musgrave: Will you please join me for the Pledge of Allegiance?

(The Pledge of Allegiance was given.)

President Musgrave: I think I just got a splinter on this. Okay, is there permission to open the quotes for the County Commissioners title search?

Commissioner Nix: So moved.

Commissioner Tornatta: Second.

President Musgrave: All those in favor?

All Commissioners: Aye.

Commissioner Nix: Madam President? I’m just curious, do we have minutes of the previous meeting?

President Musgrave: We do. We have put them under the consent agenda.

Commissioner Nix: Okay, alright. Thank you.

President Musgrave: I believe we received a quote. Do you have that available? Right there, okay.

President Musgrave: First action item is Torian Hofmann Dillow and Flittner insurance report. Mr. Bob Dillow is here. These are the county’s insurance agents, and I believe this is your annual update.

Bob Dillow: Yes.

President Musgrave: Thank you.

Bob Dillow: Thank you very much. First of all, I’m Bob Dillow. I’m here with my partner, Greg Hofmann. We’ve been handling the county’s insurance, this will be now the beginning of our third year. The policy actually renewed February 1. It is, it continues to be with Alternative Market Specialists. They have been handling your insurance for several years now. A couple of important points, since we’ve started, the property values have increased approximately 22 ½ percent, representing an increase in property values of $35,741,576. During that same time period the insurance premiums have steadily dropped. They’re approximately $50,000 less than when we began. That’s done, of course, through a competitive bidding process, and holding an insurance company’s feet to the fire on their quotations. The current amount of insurance for all of your property, which includes your buildings, contents, equipment and vehicles is now $195,741,576. The payroll that we use to calculate your worker’s compensation premium was increased by three percent this last year. We were able to increase what’s called the aggregate excess liability portion of your policy by an additional half million dollars at no additional cost. This particular limit comes into play if you ever exhaust your loss fund. There’s a $100,000 deductible per claim. You start subtracting that amount from a loss fund of approximately $800,000. If, in fact, that loss fund would ever be exhausted, which has never happened, you then go to this aggregate excess liability that used to be a half million, and can then tap it with no more deductibles until you exhausted the half million. Now you can go to a full million dollars before any additional deductible would start over again. The only reason, truthfully, they gave us this additional half million dollars of coverage, is because it’s never happened. There’s never been a claim. You have never been close to exceeding your loss fund. Of interest, we were able to purchase, when we started sexual harassment coverage, but we were only able to obtain a limit of two million dollars. This year’s policy that has been increased from two million to six million dollars. Those are the changes that took place in this year’s policy. Your third party administrator, Alternative Service Concepts, offered their fee structure for this year, and they have again reduced their fee. This year their fee is $61,351. When we started in 2005 that fee was $72,812. So, in our two years the fee has dropped by $11,461. Now, as a reminder, it does concern us that the amount of earthquake insurance we carry is capped at a $50 million limit. As you are aware, earthquake coverage is difficult to obtain. We are continuing, as we always do, to try to find additional coverage. This might be a good year with the fact that we are now again under budget, again to determine if we could consider finding earthquake coverage. So, if we can, we will come back to you with a recommendation that higher earthquake limits are available and ask for your thoughts on it at that time. Another item that we would like to consider during this next year is the amount of property insurance. We have been increasing it by an inflationary increase that represents what is estimated to be the replacement costs increase, the cost of construction, from last year to this year. The last time any of your buildings were professionally appraised, I would say is possibly 13 to 15 years ago. At some point in time it would be advisable to consider a professional appraisal on your properties to make certain that we’re either insuring you to an adequate amount, and also to make sure we’re not over insuring your properties. So, as we develop some recommendations we would like to come back to you with that as an additional subject. Are there any questions?

President Musgrave: Well, congratulations on reducing the premium again. Thank you for the report. I’ll look forward to your additional reports regarding appraisals and earthquake insurance. Commissioners, do either of you have any questions?

Commissioner Nix: I guess, I do have one question. On the professional appraisal, is that something you’re going to just come back to us with some recommendations on?

Bob Dillow: Yes, we are.

Commissioner Nix: In the next few months?

Bob Dillow: Yes, we are.

Commissioner Nix: Alright. I just wanted to make sure of that. Okay.

President Musgrave: Thank you very much for coming.

Bob Dillow: Thank you all very much.

President Musgrave: Next on the agenda is Mr. Brad Mills for the Area Plan annual report.

Brad Mills: Good afternoon. Brad Mills, Area Plan Commission. I’ve distributed to the Commissioners and one for the record, we do have this report that I’ve passed out on our website at evansvilleapc.com. So, those at home can get on the website and check that out and take a look at it. I’ve got a Power Point with a few of the highlights of that report. So, if you don’t mind I’ll go ahead and start that. Go ahead and hit next, that’s fine. Okay, the annual report, basically, covers the data that we have on zoning subdivision permits filed in 2006. It also looks at development trends, and then it talks about special projects, such as items as updating GIS layers and things that we’re doing throughout the year other than normal permit business. Go ahead. The development activity remains steady from 2005. We did have a peak of our activities in the 1990's, and most of the new subdivisions and housing is located in the county. Go ahead. Take a look at the subdivisions we had filed, the majority of those were in the county, we had 34 that were filed in the county for a total of 43, those that were recorded, which can take anywhere from two to four months for a subdivision to be approved after it’s been filed and then recorded. We had a total of 43 as well. If you look down the page, I’ll just do the totals on rezonings, we had 42 for the city and county combined. Special uses were 35, variance requests were 94,with the majority of those in the city. Total improvement location permits, which includes requests for remodeling, for new houses, and for things of that are 1,928. Total fees collected were over $173,000. Go ahead. Take a look at this, I won’t go through all this, I know this is a large table here, but these are the APC improvement location permits. If you notice the top one is single family units, which would be a home. In unincorporated Vanderburgh County in 2005 we had 457, in 2006 that dropped to 341. So, we are being affected by the housing market which has slowed over the past year. Total permits in comparison for the total city and county was 553 in 2005, and 410 in 2006. Going down just to the bottom of the page, I’ll let you all look at the rest of that, but you can see total permits was 1,930, and that was in comparison to 2,227 from 2005. Housing unit permits, this shows, based by the township, you can see that Center Township is the highest area unincorporated at 227 total, 158 of those were in the county, and 69 in the city. That was a reduction from what we had in 2005, which was a total of 322 for single family, and then three for multi-family, or 48 for multi-family, excuse me. Looking on down, we also had a relatively high in Perry, which was at 65, and that was a reduction from last year as well. Totals down at the bottom, Evansville was 212, unincorporated 390, for a total of 602. Okay. Location of type of unit permitted in 2006, the total units permitted we had 65 percent of those were in the county, 34 percent in the city. The type of total units permitted was 68 percent was single family, with 83 of those, 83 percent of those single family in the county, and 32 percent, multi-family was 74 percent of the multi-family in the city. This is a graphic showing the typical growth, or the growth areas that we have. As you can see the highest level of activity is in green, and that was in Center Township, with the moderate levels being in Scott, Pigeon and Perry Townships. Okay. Total acreages of approved rezonings and recorded subdivision data, you can see that agricultural we had 58 plus acres zoned, single family was one, multi-family was 76, and all the way down for a total of 302 acres that were rezoned, in comparison to 183 from 2005. Recorded subdivisions, we had 484 in 2005, 42 on this graphic, total number of lots was 648 in 2005, and 533 in 2006. Total acreage then for 2005 was close to 370, and about 356 for 2006. Also, down at the very bottom of that you can see that currently we’re holding letters of credit, we hold all the letters of credit for improvements that are public improvements to be put in place, those would be items like water/sewer improvements, drainage improvements, streets that need to be constructed, that would then be turned over the utility or to the city and county. We are holding one point, excuse me, $12.1 million in letters of credit at this time. I believe that was it. I would be happy to answer any questions you might have. If you have a chance to look at that report, it has a lot of other information. I would be happy to answer any questions. You can call my office, or folks can e-mail us at our website.

President Musgrave: What is that address?

Brad Mills: Evansvilleapc.com. We have on that website a place to contact us at evansvilleapc.com.

President Musgrave: Okay, Commissioners, are there any questions? Alright, thank you very much for the report. It was very helpful.

Brad Mills: Thank you.

President Musgrave: We move now to the Pigeon Creek Greenway ordinance. I understand that we have Kevin Winternheimer, the City Attorney, and Gail Riecken, Director of Parks. This ordinance is an inter-local, Mr. Ziemer, is it an ordinance or an inter-local agreement?

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: It’s an ordinance establishing an inter-local agreement.

President Musgrave: Okay. I understand that it was introduced into City Council last night?

Kevin Winternheimer: That is correct. For the record, I’m Kevin Winternheimer with the City Attorney’s office. Yes, it was introduced last night. It is set for final reading on the 26^th, if that’s a Monday, of this month. What you have before you is a formal written agreement establishing a Greenway Advisory Board. The current board that we have has worked very diligently, very hard and made much progress, however, we’ve never really had a formalized agreement showing the commitment of the county and the city to this project. That’s what this does. It establishes the board, outlines their duties and responsibilities, how donations/money are to be handled, if it’s a city donation versus a county donation, and I think will answer questions and provide the basis for an on-going relationship for the city and the county in a commitment to the greenway. We have asked, and I understand that you have incorporated into your latest version two slight changes. At the request of the Controller, in section 5.04 and in article six we substituted the City Controller for the Parks Department. In the area of donations they wanted the money to go first to the Parks Department so they can do their accounting, whatever needs to be done, then it is transferred to the City Controller, if it’s a Parks Department (Inaudible).

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: Actually, you said those in reverse. You substituted the Parks Department for the City Controller.

Kevin Winternheimer: You are correct. That’s what we did.

President Musgrave: As an ordinance, Mr. Ziemer, does this have first reading today and then final reading next week?

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: It can have. I mean, first reading today, yes.

President Musgrave: Alright. Commissioners, do you have any questions about the ordinance? If there are no questions?

Commissioner Tornatta: I move that we accept the ordinance as written.

Commissioner Nix: Second.

President Musgrave: If this is a first reading I’ll call for the vote, and then call roll. All those in favor?

All Commissioners: Aye.

President Musgrave: Commissioner Nix?

Commissioner Nix: Yes.

President Musgrave: Commissioner Tornatta?

Commissioner Tornatta: Yes.

President Musgrave: And I vote yes. So, we’ll have this on for second reading next week. Let us know if there are any further changes that come to your attention.

Kevin Winternheimer: Thank you.

President Musgrave: Thank you for coming.

President Musgrave: Next on your agenda was the quote for the camera in this room, room 301, but I understand that that quote is not ready in its entirety. So, we will probably hear that next week.

President Musgrave: So, at this time I would like to welcome Sheriff Williams. He has a letter asking for the reinstatement of the Criminal Justice Planning Commission.

Eric Williams: Thank you, Commissioners. Sheriff Eric Williams. I believe all of you were given a copy of the letter, I addressed one to every one of you, along with all the members of Council and several other key people in the criminal justice system, the people I refer to as stakeholders in our criminal justice system. Basically, the letter was asking for participation in what I would call the reconstitution of the Criminal Justice Planning Commission, or committee, or the name’s not all that important. I’m trying to avoid using the words blue ribbon, much as you suggested also. But, you know, I think it’s a very important committee to have in place. It had been in place several years ago as we prepared to move to a new jail, discussion of a new jail, and lot of things were accomplished. Now that was accomplished because of open forums, communications and talking amongst everybody. Really I’m here to answer questions, I’ve gotten good feedback from the majority of the people I’d sent the letter to and their plans to participate in it. The first meeting is scheduled for next week, at that meeting I hope to facilitate some discussion about the role of that committee, whether or not to formalize it and come back to you and ask for it to be put together in the form of an ordinance and an official standing committee of the county, or to keep its informal status. I’ve done quite a bit of research and information that I want to pass on to those people that are going to participate and the importance of the communications and the dynamic it can create and the efficiencies it can create within the criminal justice system. Obviously, this is important to us. As the Sheriff, I’m purely the innkeeper of the jail, but we feel the day-to-day pain of it being crowded. As it continues to crowd, it seems to me that as opposed to allowing it, the problem to fester, as it did in the past, that we get on top of it as early as we possibly can and look for all the possible solutions and resolutions there may be to at least keep the crowding level at a manageable number, or to make decisions on how we want to proceed in the future. With that I would be happy to answer any questions you might have.

Commissioner Nix: Sheriff, I’m just curious, you’d mentioned formal or informal, do you have a preference at all? I mean, if it’s formal it’s more structured with an ordinance and all that. If it’s not, then it’s–

Eric Williams: There are pros and cons to both of them. Obviously, a formal organization would require media presence and public notice and those kinds of things. Which is not a bad thing by any stretch of the imagination. In some respects it’s probably a good thing. The problem that we saw in the past was that a lot of times people don’t bring their wildest ideas to the table if they’re afraid that they’re going to be misquoted by the newspaper or a media outlet and taken out of context. Sometimes that would occur. I don’t know if that’s a good reason to not make it a formal one or not, but that happened. I can just tell you from past experience when the media was present, the meeting was quieter, and less things were brought to the table. When the media wasn’t present, they became much more lively discussions. So, I think that’s probably the bottom line other than the formality of it and having specific appointments, people that are tasked with being on that and being able to report back to this body on a formal basis as opposed to informally.

President Musgrave: Even for all of us to attend next week’s meeting, which is characterized as informal, we’ll have to alert the media, as would any other–

Eric Williams: Sure.

President Musgrave: –quorum of public officials.

Eric Williams: Sure.

President Musgrave: I know that you’ve invited County Council as well. So, I know I intend to go, and, I guess, I would like to know, it looks like we’re going to be alerting the media to that.

Eric Williams: That’s fine. That’s how it works. I want people to be there. I want people to talk. I want people to understand the problems we’re facing. You know, one of the common things that occurred is that one segment of the criminal justice system can make a very minor change that can have a huge impact, positive or negative across the system as a whole. If we can discuss those changes amongst ourselves in advance of the change, we can either say, you know, that may not be the greatest idea in the world, or that’s a fantastic idea, let us prepare for it so that we can help enable that to be a success. You know, those are the kinds of things we need to have. So, the more the merrier. I mean, I would like as many people to be there as possible.

President Musgrave: I lean toward the idea of a formal structure. Wild ideas can always come out in smaller subcommittees.

Eric Williams: Sure.

President Musgrave: So, that wouldn’t suppress it, in my opinion. But, opening the door for the media to come, sometimes having media there and making the meeting quieter is a good thing. So, it’s not always a bad thing. But, anyway, I’ll see you there next week. I personally support this, and I’m glad that you brought it to our attention. Are there any other comments?

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: Just relative to this informality versus formality. Who would name the members of this group?

Eric Williams: Originally when the Sheriff’s office asked to do this several years ago, we presented it to the Commission at the time and we had talked about enacting an ordinance that specifically listed those who would have a position on it, much as the ITAC board here does–

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: Right.

Eric Williams: –or any of the other boards that serve as recommending, this organization has no formal authority. It is more just an organized body of people to share ideas, communicate and make recommendations to the funding body and the administrative body. On the city side too. I mean, they’re impacted by this equally. Maybe not equally, but there is an impact.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: What I was going to point out is that regardless of the formality of it, if an entity is, a committee is created by an entity which is subject to the open door law, then that committee is also subject to the open door law. So, if we, for example, created a very formal committee and spelled out, by ordinance, who was to be on it, and that committee then named a sub-committee, that sub-committee would also have to meet the requirements of the open door law.

Eric Williams: There again, I have no real preference. I think there are pros and cons to both of them. Quite honestly, I welcome the media, any crazy ideas I have, you know, print them and then I’ll get beat up for them later.

Commissioner Tornatta: Sheriff, is there any thought to go back to those same players that did facilitate such a positive manner at the last time this was addressed?

Eric Williams: You mean, bringing in one of the outside entities?

Commissioner Tornatta: Well, I’m not saying outside entity. I’m saying that there was a committee called blue ribbon, call it whatever you want.

Eric Williams: Correct.

Commissioner Tornatta: I mean, obviously, we’re thinking about getting some of those players in.

Eric Williams: On the letter that I sent to you there’s a list of everybody that I’d included on that one. Right now it included just about everybody. There are some people that were left off initially, getting a feel for how much people wanted to participate in this. But, you know, in the long run, I don’t see a reason why Auditor Fluty may not want to be involved in that, the School Corporation might want to be involved in it, there are other people that want to be involved in it. Right now, I sent the letter to the obvious, which would be the Commission, Council, City Council, the Mayor’s office, the Police Department, Prosecutor’s’s office, Legal Aid and some of those people. I think, if you are alluding towards maybe the PMSI study, or a paid facilitator, I think that’s obviously something to consider down the road as this committee begins to meet and come up with issues that a facilitator could help us overcome and come to some solution. At this time I just want the people to sit down together and start talking.

President Musgrave: Okay. Well, I don’t think this requires a motion or anything.

Eric Williams: No, thank you.

President Musgrave: While you’re up here, do you want to go ahead and do the other two things that you had, which is the interlocal agreement for electronic services, and the proposal for claims administration management?

Eric Williams: Sure, hold on a second.

President Musgrave: Okay.

Eric Williams: Which one do you want me to take first? I’ll do the interlocal agreement with the DOC for inmate monitoring. I’ll present this and let you pass it around, but this is the device.

President Musgrave: We can keep a copy?

Eric Williams: Yeah, they are different, but you can have those. Basically, this is an agreement with the Department of Corrections to be a one year pilot county with them in testing some equipment that deals with the monitoring of sex offenders who are on parole. The parole office would select the sex offenders, the convicted sex offenders who are now on parole who would participate in this project. They have 25 of these devices they want to put in this county, and they want Community Corrections to do the monitoring for them. They want us to treat them much as we would anybody else that’s in our Community Corrections program. The devices are GPS enabled, so we get real time, live access to these people’s whereabouts all the time. So we know where they’re at. It’s fairly expensive equipment, so, that’s one of the things that are attractive to us, that we’re going to get to test this new equipment out at the state’s expense and give us some real opportunity to see how it functions, if there may be some opportunities for us to use it in some of our own programs down the road, or the courts and the judges might want to consider using it in some of their programs. But, it will give us some real, local hands-on testing experience. The other advantage of this program, from our perspective, is, and I should tell you that I’ve already presented this to the Community Corrections Advisory Board and they unanimously approved it and wanted to participate. The other real advantages to this, in my mind, is the fact that we’re a pilot county chosen by the state. We’re the only county south of Indianapolis that’s going to be participating in this. I think that speaks highly of the programs that we’re running here in this county, in the Community Corrections area, and they thought highly enough of us to let us test this equipment. I think it helps build bridges with the Department of Corrections, and they are critical to us as we talk about lots of things. The more doors we can keep open with them, I think the better off we’re going to be in the long run.

President Musgrave: So, you’re going to get 25 devices to monitor 25 sex offenders–

Eric Williams: Correct.

President Musgrave: –each offender for a year?

Eric Williams: The project is for a year, and then they’re going to decide whether or not they are going to fund it initially to go on longer. We’re going to be one of the initial four counties that get the project. The other one of the things about the project is there are very few rules, processes, policies and procedures set in place, and they’ve asked us to help develop those. So, that way, in the future, if this rolls out state-wide, we will have been on the ground floor of designing the project itself and how it’s going to work.

President Musgrave: Right now sex offenders are released without monitoring, except they have to register their address right?

Eric Williams: Correct.

President Musgrave: So, for somebody to be released with this device that they can’t take off?

Eric Williams: Correct.

President Musgrave: Okay.

Eric Williams: That is why they are going to be people who are still on parole, because it will be a condition of their parole.

President Musgrave: Okay.

Eric Williams: So, the parole people, the parole officers here in our community will select those sex offenders who are being released from prison who they think are the most likely to reoffend, the most potentially problematic for us, and they will select the ones they want us to put in this program, and then we’ll do that. They are people that we would already be contacting through the Sheriff’s office as being responsible for the registry, the sex offender registry. They are still required to register with us, this is just another option that the parole is going to have to further monitor them.

President Musgrave: So, no one will be released early, for example, on the condition that they wear this?

Eric Williams: That’s going to be a DOC decision, but that was never indicated.

President Musgrave: Okay.

Eric Williams: These are people that are completing their sentence and are scheduled for parole, but they felt like they needed additional monitoring. It was a good test group of people to test this on. The reality of it is, people like to know where these folks are.

Commissioner Tornatta: As far as the GPS, that’s monitored by the parole?

Eric Williams: No, it would be monitored by us, the Sheriff’s office will monitor it.

Commissioner Tornatta: Okay, and that stays in the house? That does not go to–

Eric Williams: No, it’s going to be a closed monitoring.

Commissioner Tornatta: Closed, right.

Eric Williams: It’s not going to be available on the internet or anything like that.

Commissioner Tornatta: Okay.

Eric Williams: It will be monitored at our Community Corrections complex. Then, part of the project is to develop the system of exceptions or alerts. Most of these people, because they are still on parole are going to fall within that 1,000 foot category, they are not allowed to be within 1,000 foot of a school, licensed daycare, a city park or any of those kinds of things. So, we’ll build exceptions for each one of these on their profile. Part of this project is going to be to determine how to react to somebody who violates an exception. I use the example of the Lloyd Expressway, it is impossible in this community to travel from east to west on the Lloyd Expressway and not cross through several 1,000 foot barriers. Are we going to violate somebody’s parole because they drove the Lloyd Expressway and drove through one of those 1,000 foot rings? No, that’s not the intent. So, part of our process is to determine how to decide when an alert is necessary and when it’s a violation of the parole and be able to react to it.

President Musgrave: So, this is a contract, correct?

Eric Williams: Correct.

President Musgrave: Alright, is there a motion to approve the contract?

Commissioner Tornatta: I make a motion to accept the contract for the devices.

Commissioner Nix: Second.

President Musgrave: All those in favor?

All Commissioners: Aye.

President Musgrave: The motion carries. Good luck with that.

Eric Williams: Thank you.

President Musgrave: You have one more thing.

Eric Williams: The final one is an agreement with CRS risk services, Correctional Risk Services, and this is, we’ve looked at several people to provide this service. It is basically a company that we want to bring on board to help us with our medical billing, when we get bills. They provide a lot of services, but the crux of it is, they take all of our bills that we get for inmates who are getting outside treatment for medical services; the hospital, x-rays, dialysis, whatever those services may be. They will take those bills, they will, number one, check to make sure that the service indicated on that bill was truly provided and that they are coded properly, to make sure there are no billing errors, to make sure that they’ve not been billed twice or re-billed. They will do all of that for us. Then, they negotiate what they call quick pay options. A lot of the providers will give a much better rate if there is a system in place for quick pay, that there’s no extended times and/or volume and those kinds of things. They’ll negotiate that savings. They will write one check to each of these providers monthly, and then they will bill us monthly for the total cost of it. They keep their cut based on the savings between their negotiated rate and the claim amount. They get 30 percent of that savings. So, for example, we ran all of our 2006 bills through their system, and just looking at it, without looking at duplicate billing problems or missed coding problems and those kinds of things, we would have saved approximately $35,000 last year having used a system like this. So, it comes at no cost to us directly. Their amount of profit is based on the amount of savings they get for the county. It will also create a savings for both the Auditor’s office and my office, because right now we process hundreds of blue claims a month from all the different people that are providing services for our inmates outside for medical. We’ll only process one now, because they are doing all the payments and then invoicing us one time for that. So, that will be a huge savings for his office and for our office.

Commissioner Nix: Is this just a one year contract the way it’s set up now?

Eric Williams: Yeah, it’s really an open-ended agreement. We can kind of quit whenever we want.

Commissioner Nix: Okay.

Eric Williams: But, it is listed as a one year agreement. We just quit sending the bills if we don’t want them to do it anymore.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: Actually, it’s two years.

Eric Williams: Two years.

President Musgrave: And, you will be monitoring it? So, if those cost savings aren’t realized–

Eric Williams: Absolutely.

President Musgrave: –you’ll pull the plug on this?

Eric Williams: We stay on top of them pretty closely, because, obviously, that is one of our most tumultuous accounts that we monitor on a regular basis. So, we keep pretty good tabs on our inmate medical expenses, and we’ll continue to do that. Hopefully, this makes that monitoring that much easier for us too.

President Musgrave: Is there a motion?

Commissioner Tornatta: I make a motion....go ahead.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: Well, I was just going to say, for the record, while it is for two years, it can be terminated by either party, anytime on 30 days notice.

Commissioner Tornatta: Okay. I make a motion for the proposal of claims administration management and inmate excess medical insurance.

Eric Williams: You might want to stricken the last part of that inmate medical insurance, because that was another option that they proposed to us, and we’re not prepared to go that route. We just want them to manage the billing right now.

Commissioner Tornatta: Okay, so I amend that just to cover the claims administration management.

Commissioner Nix: Second.

President Musgrave: All those in favor?

All Commissioners: Aye.

President Musgrave: The motion carries.

Eric Williams: Thank you very much.

President Musgrave: You’re welcome.

President Musgrave: We’ll go back in order of our agenda, permission to advertise notice of public hearing for vacation of public utility easements in the Vanderburgh Industrial Park. I don’t believe there is anyone here to present on this. I do know that the County Engineer looked over it and everybody’s review has been satisfactory.

Commissioner Tornatta: So moved.

Commissioner Nix: Second.

President Musgrave: All those in favor?

All Commissioners: Aye.

President Musgrave: The motion carries.

President Musgrave: Purchasing, we have a bid opening report, Debbie Spalding, joint City-County Department of Purchasing is here to read reports on crushed stone, sand and gravel, oil products, batteries.

Debbie Spalding: Good afternoon. You have before you a table that shows you the bids that were opened at the Board of Public Works meeting on February the 8^th. These four items were all advertised in the Evansville Courier and Press on January the 19^th and January the 26^th. So, bidders, potential bidders were aware of the items that were being bid. On the crushed stone we received only one bid from Mulzer Crushed Stone. For the record, the price of, the total price of all items was $163,979 and some cents. Attached to your chart you’ll see the items that we put out for bid, and all those are included. APA-003, the annual price agreement for our sand and gravel, again for the city and county, Mulzer Stone was the only bidder. The price for those items, with the quantities that were estimated, was $19,563. On the oil products we had a little bit better luck. We received four bids for our oil products, and the apparent low bidder is Busler Enterprises. You will notice that there were six companies who expressed interest, but chose not to bid on the items. Then on the automobile and equipment batteries, we had two bidders, with Busler Enterprises also the apparent low bidder on that item. There were five other companies that expressed interest, but chose not to bid. Today I’m just asking that you take these under advisement. We would like to go line item by line item on, especially the oil products and the automobile and equipment batteries, just to have a little bit more time to review it. We would ask next week that you would award those.

Commissioner Nix: These quantities are based on historical use from years past? I mean, it should be somewhat close to what we could expect to pay in the end?

Debbie Spalding: Right. The crushed stone and the sand and gravel, they, in the time frame that I needed, they weren’t able to tell me the amount that we actually used last year, but it’s something they’re working on. On the oil products and the automobile and equipment batteries, I did sit down with last years winning bid and asked them what products did we purchase and in what quantities. So, those products are very close to what we purchased last year.

President Musgrave: Do we normally only get one bid in the crushed stone and sand and gravel?

Debbie Spalding: Yes, because everybody would get their price, I guess, from Mulzer.

Commissioner Nix: Only one game in town.

President Musgrave: Is there a motion to take under advisement?

Commissioner Tornatta: So moved.

Commissioner Nix: Second.

President Musgrave: All those in favor?

All Commissioners: Aye.

President Musgrave: The motion carries. Thank you.

President Musgrave: Contracts, agreements and leases. The Indiana Family and Social Services Division of Disability and Rehabilitative Services, Blind and Visually Impaired Services for the Civic Center and Community Corrections. I know the County Attorney has reviewed this and it’s substantially similar to last year’s agreement. Is there a motion to adopt it?

Commissioner Tornatta: Adopt the contract.

Commissioner Nix: Second.

President Musgrave: All those in favor?

All Commissioners: Aye.

President Musgrave: Kraftwerks Old Courthouse lease agreement. This is just to lease some space in the Old Courthouse.

Commissioner Tornatta: Accept the lease with Kraftwerks.

Commissioner Nix: Second.

President Musgrave: All those in favor?

All Commissioners: Aye.

President Musgrave: The Health Department has brought forward an agreement for equipment maintenance services of the dental clinic, which is nearly identical to last year’s agreement. The hourly rate is slightly higher.

Commissioner Nix: Move approval.

Commissioner Tornatta: Second.

President Musgrave: All those in favor?

All Commissioners: Aye.

President Musgrave: County Commissioners, the Bowers Harrison title search contract.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: I would like to comment on that, if I might? Since this is to seek title searches for property not sold on tax sale, and there are 184 of those properties, since this is a service it was not necessary to be bid or quoted at all, and the Commissioners could simply pick who they would want to do that. We thought in the interest of good business that we would seek some quotes. We got a quote from Evansville Titles at $415 per search. We got a quote from Bosse Title for $250 per search. We got a quote from Bowers Harrison for $150 a search. We also received a quote just today, in our office, for $12,960 and we did not deem that a responsible, you know these quotes need to be responsible and responsive, and we did not deem it to be responsible. We received another quote that I’ve opened here today from United Tax Sale Service, that’s in response to advertising for bids in 2006. So, it’s a little late. However, it’s non-responsive in that we want these searches to be done by March the 9^th, and this particular quote says they would be done one month from the time that they receive the properties to conduct the searches on, and it’s already February the 13^th. So, they couldn’t possibly do it by March the 9^th under that quote. Plus, we think it’s not as responsible as it should be. We are recommending that the Commissioners award the contract to Bowers Harrison for their quote of $150 per search.

Commissioner Tornatta: I accept the quote from Bowers Harrison.

President Musgrave: Is that a motion?

Commissioner Tornatta: A motion to accept.

Commissioner Nix: Second.

President Musgrave: All those in favor?

All Commissioners: Aye.

President Musgrave: The motion carries. Thank you. County Highway, Sprint/Nextel agreement. It provides for the County Highway to get the same cell phone services as the city. This was bid out by the city, and I understand that it’s been reviewed. Is there a motion to accept.

Commissioner Nix: So moved.

Commissioner Tornatta: So moved.

Commissioner Nix: Second.

Commissioner Tornatta: Second. Okay, stereo.

President Musgrave: All those in favor?

All Commissioners: Aye.

President Musgrave: The motion carries.

Commissioner Nix: You’re going to have to start raising your hand over there.

President Musgrave: Grant agreement for childhood lead poisoning prevention. This is an amendment to a grant received, and it includes an increase in the amount that we will receive to $7,093 of an increase. Is there a motion to accept?

Commissioner Tornatta: Motion to accept the gracious grant.

Commissioner Nix: Second.

President Musgrave: All those in favor?

All Commissioners: Aye.

President Musgrave: We will hesitate to change the tape.

(Tape Change)

President Musgrave: Mr. Stoll, you’re up. We now welcome County Engineer, John Stoll. He has several agreements for us.

John Stoll: The first item that I have is a request to accept streets in section seven of Stonecreek Subdivision. This is 413 feet of Admiral Drive, 378 feet of Anchor Way, 347 feet of Chatteris Road, 460 feet of Mooring Road, and 952 feet of Newport Drive. This does exclude a section of Anchor Way south of Newport Drive. We have some unresolved issues that have to be dealt with before we’ll recommend acceptance of that. So, there will be one more acceptance coming for section seven of Stonecreek, but I would recommend that these be accepted for maintenance at this time.

Commissioner Tornatta: So moved.

Commissioner Nix: Second.

President Musgrave: All those in favor?

All Commissioners: Aye.

President Musgrave: The motion carries.

John Stoll: Next, I have a letter that I put together for your signatures. It’s to Sam Sarvis, the District Manager of the Vincennes District of INDOT. This is in regard to the University Parkway project. It presents a funding plan that outlines how the balance of the University Parkway project would be constructed. It indicates using quite a bit of Federal Highway Rural Funds, and we’re just asking for his assistance in concurrence with the use of those funds. Madelyn has that letter, and I request that you approve that.

Commissioner Tornatta: So moved.

Commissioner Nix: Second.

President Musgrave: All those in favor?

All Commissioners: Aye.

President Musgrave: The motion carries.

John Stoll: The next item is also another letter to Sam Sarvis of INDOT. This is a letter that notifies INDOT that Vanderburgh County will contribute up to $500,000 towards the cost of the installation of a culvert underneath Green River Road at Morgan Avenue. INDOT will, in turn, modify their intersection improvement plans to include this box culvert. This will take some work through County Surveyor Bill Jeffers. He has some on-going contracts to do some drainage studies in the Wabash and Eerie Canal, and in the end Vanderburgh County will contribute up to $500,000. INDOT will pay the balance of any construction costs that exceed $500,000. We will also have, through the County Surveyor’s office, the environmental permits provided to INDOT in conjunction with this. It’s contingent on INDOT not invoicing Vanderburgh County for this $500,000 until at least March of ‘08, once we get our approved 2008 budgets. I’ve got that letter for your signatures, and request your approval of that.

Commissioner Tornatta: I do have one question that I wasn’t able to ask. Do we think that, in any way, shape or form that the State would hesitate on that job once they get started? I know we’ve had that issue, and I don’t know who’s fault it was, at Stockwell Road, and some other places where INDOT was involved. I mean, do we have any satisfaction that they would, since that’s such a heavily traveled intersection, that they would not expedite that?

John Stoll: You mean, as far as the timetable when the thing goes out for bid?

Commissioner Tornatta: Correct. Yes.

John Stoll: Right now they originally planned on putting that out for bid in October of this year, but based on these plan changes, in discussing it with INDOT yesterday it sounds like it might be delayed until early next year, which would be better for the motorists since it would occur after the holiday season.

Commissioner Tornatta: I guess, what I’m looking at, once they get started and maybe, Commissioner Nix, you can help me with this, but, once they get started, I mean, do we anticipate that there’s anything that would prolong the building of that intersection?

John Stoll: We haven’t gotten to that level of detail, as far as the maintenance traffic plans, as of yet. Out on Stockwell, I believe, we gave, it was two or three weeks for the installation of that culvert. They ran into some utility conflicts that made that more of a problem. That’s something that we could work out to basically stipulate that after “x” number of days, then liquidated damages would take effect, to make sure that the thing was put in as quickly as possible. Because there’s a lot more traffic on Green River, and it will be a lot more disruptive.

Commissioner Tornatta: Right, and the thing that I don’t want to see is because we don’t have direct control over that project, that we can’t make sure that the progress is going to move fairly quickly.

John Stoll: We can work with INDOT to have them put some special provisions in their contract to stipulate how it’s done. Once we get to that point I can get back with you and we’ll get some details worked out.

Commissioner Nix: I agree with what you’re saying. I guess, this is part of a really, a bigger project, and that’s widening the turn lanes and everything else. So, this is something that we feel like we need to get done during that process. The concern that I have is the way the State writes specifications for projects. In the winter months they allow contractors to not work during the winter months. I think we just need to be clear that if this is going to start sometime during that time, that those stipulations aren’t put in there. I don’t know if that’s, and I don’t know, you and I haven’t really had a chance to address that, but I think we just need to be concerned about that very issue so things do move forward.

John Stoll: I can bring that up with INDOT. When they get to the point where they are actually putting together the contract specifications, then we can get something worked out. It would be actually to everybody’s benefit if it does go into early ‘08 before it’s out for bids, because, here again, you won’t run into that lag time where they’re not charging work days based on their specifications. I think it runs from December through March. So, if they put it out for bid somewhere along the lines of when our money becomes available, then the time frame should coincide pretty well, where the work days would be charged and you wouldn’t have that down time. But, I can check with them.

Commissioner Nix: They typically do that just to keep the costs down on projects. They allow contractors to, you know, the winter months you can’t really make hay like you should be able to. So, this gives them an opportunity, but in this particular project, if it does go in winter, I really think we need to emphasize that it has to work.

Commissioner Tornatta: Do they allow for continual service, since it is not essentially a residential area, would they allow for a 24/3 shift run in that case?

John Stoll: That’s something we can bring up with them as well, just to try and make sure it gets done as quickly as possible. The trade off will be how much money they have available to construct it, because if they’re running multiple shifts, then the suppliers have to be available for the contractor, and then the cost would go up paying the overtime. But, here again, it’s going to be a short duration, within a couple of weeks, three weeks, I don’t know what the magic number will be, but it won’t be a real long period of time that this overtime would kick in if there was an accelerated schedule. So, there again, I can discuss that with them.

Commissioner Nix: Correct me if I’m wrong, the plan is for the intersection to stay open during the whole process, with the exception of maybe having to install this culvert. So, other than, and that might even still be an option too, depending on the sequencing and sizing of the culvert, and, I guess, the railroad track that goes along there.

President Musgrave: I want to recognize Engineer Stoll and Commissioner Nix and Bill Jeffers was just out in the hallway so he won’t hear this, but I know that Mr. Jeffers heard that the state was going to do this improvement to Green River Road where it intersects with Morgan, and there’s this culvert, a big pipeline ditch, if you will, that runs underneath Green River Road, running east and west at that location, and he saw the opportunity for us to improve the waterflow under Green River Road. I believe he brought it to your attention and to your attention, and you began holding meetings with INDOT to try to convince them that this was the time to replace those pipes. I think you met with some resistance, all three of you, when you first sat down with them, and this is the conclusion that has been reached. The county will help pay for the, I believe it was engineering modifications to correct the size of the pipe that runs under there now, to be one that allows water to drain, which will further enhance the ability of the city and county to develop the far east side and use it for all the purposes that we see happening there. This drainage is a marked improvement to what has gone on so far, and, if I’ve said anything wrong, John, this is your opportunity to make that right.

John Stoll: The only thing that I would add is that it will result in a reduction of over a foot in the hundred year flood elevation. So, that’s that much less fill that has to be put all over the east side as all the vacant ground develops out there. This basically covers the areas east of Green River, south of Morgan out to 164. So, it’s a pretty substantial undeveloped area at this point.

President Musgrave: Very positive. So, you need permission to send that letter, so, is there a motion?

Commissioner Tornatta: Motion.

Commissioner Nix: Second.

President Musgrave: All those in favor?

All Commissioners: Aye.

President Musgrave: The motion carries.

John Stoll: Next, I have an agreement with INDOT for the University Parkway right-of-way. This is the agreement that allows the county to use the federal earmark funds that were obligated to the University Parkway project. Basically, it’s 100 percent federal funds, no county, local match, but, the way the agreements are set up with INDOT, the county must pay up front and then we submit claim vouchers to INDOT and they will reimburse us for the actual parcel purchase costs. This agreement outlines that. The County Attorney has reviewed it, and he was okay with the agreement. So, I would request your approval of that agreement.

Commissioner Nix: Move approval.

Commissioner Tornatta: Second.

President Musgrave: All those in favor?

All Commissioners: Aye.

President Musgrave: For those folks who have called, either me or John, wondering when the county would be making offers on right-of-way, that time is nearing. It hasn’t yet arrived. I understand there’s maybe a four to six week lag before that will actually occur, but the happy news is it’s very close.

John Stoll: The last item that I have is a request to go to County Council to transfer $3,000 from the Mt. Pleasant Road Road and Street Account, to the Travel/Mileage Road and Street Account. We’re finished with Mt. Pleasant, so the funds won’t be needed there anymore. So, I would request your approval to go to County Council to make that transfer.

Commissioner Nix: So moved.

Commissioner Tornatta: Second.

President Musgrave: All those in favor?

All Commissioners: Aye.

President Musgrave: The motion carries.

John Stoll: Thanks.

President Musgrave: Thank you, Mr. Stoll.

President Musgrave: We move now to board appointments. Mr., Commissioner Nix, would you like to read those?

Commissioner Nix: I would like to appoint, or ask for approval to appoint, in a motion, to Community Corrections, Nick Hermann, and Human Relations Commission, Greg Meyer.

President Musgrave: Is there a second?

Commissioner Tornatta: Second.

President Musgrave: All those in favor?

All Commissioners: Aye.

President Musgrave: The motion carries.

President Musgrave: We have some new business. Mark Acker, our Veterans Service officer for the County has asked the Commissioners to sign a letter which he will compose to support House Bill 491, which is currently making its way through the Indiana legislature. This bill will allow members of the Coast Guard and Merchant Marine a burial allowance, as are the other services allowed this. These two branches were left off. So, he will bring that letter if you approve its signing.

Commissioner Tornatta: So moved.

Commissioner Nix: Second.

President Musgrave: All those in favor?

All Commissioners: Aye.

President Musgrave: The motion carries. When that letter arrives, I’ll see to it that you’re notified so that you can come. I’m notified that there’s a correction on the Human Relations Commission. I just want to make sure that the record reflects we made that.

Madelyn Grayson: You just made a motion to appoint Greg Meyer.

President Musgrave: Yes, you’re right. It shouldn’t say Greg Meyer.

Marissa Nichoalds: No.

President Musgrave: Could we have a motion to appoint Ms. Denise Peyronnin?

Commissioner Nix: So moved. Did I need to rescind that other one?

President Musgrave: Yeah, I think so.

Commissioner Nix: I’ll rescind the other motion for Greg Meyer.

Commissioner Tornatta: I accept your motion.

President Musgrave: Does your motion include putting Ms. Peyronnin in?

Commissioner Nix: Yes, it does.

President Musgrave: Alright, and your second does as well?

Commissioner Tornatta: Yes.

President Musgrave: All those in favor?

All Commissioners: Aye.

President Musgrave: Thank you for seeing that. Other new business, we have an Executive Session to announce. That Executive Session is scheduled for February 20^th at 2:00 p.m. in room 305. All three of the Commissioners will be there to discuss some pending litigation.

President Musgrave: In old business, I would like to remind everyone that we have two more road hearings. We only had one person come to our last road hearing, and while you don’t need to come, you can still e-mail us at commissioners@vanderburghgis.com, the next two are scheduled for February 21^st at Helfrich Park School, 5:30 to 7:00 p.m., and February 28^th at Hamilton Golf Course, 6:30 to 8:30 p.m. But, again, please e-mail us, e-mail the County Highway Department, call the Engineer or e-mail him. We would love to know which roads that you have that you would like the Commissioners to pave or repair next year. If you can bring photos, exact addresses, all of that will help us address your concern better. Is there any other old business, or new?

President Musgrave: Is there any public comment? No one there.

President Musgrave: There’s a long list of consent agenda items. I had contacted, or had the staff contact the County Assessor to pull his, and I see that he is here. Did you have anything to say with regard to this one?

Jonathan Weaver: (Inaudible).

President Musgrave: A travel request. If you do, I’m going to have to ask for you to come to the microphone.

Marissa Nichoalds: (Inaudible).

President Musgrave: Okay, so no permission is needed.

Marissa Nichoalds: Right.

President Musgrave: Okay, in that case, we will, I will ask for a motion to remove it from the consent, or does he still need it, Marissa?

Jonathan Weaver: I don’t know what this is about.

Marissa Nichoalds: We would normally put it through even if it doesn’t come out of the Commission budget, just to approve the permission to travel, but it can be paid from their own budget.

Commissioner Tornatta: 2007 legislative reception.

Jonathan Weaver: Is that on March 14^th?

President Musgrave: I’m sorry. That’s for a, it appears to be an evening reception. Can you be more express about that?

Jonathan Weaver: Yes, it’s a networking event, and I was asking the Commissioners permission to go. Just to go up, I don’t have the information in front of me, I’m sorry.

Commissioner Tornatta: I think it’s been cancelled, has it not?

Jonathan Weaver: I was not prepared for this.

Commissioner Nix: March.

Commissioner Tornatta: Oh, okay.

President Musgrave: Well, I’m going to ask that whoever makes the motion to do this consent agenda to approve the consent agenda to remove that, because while I routinely support and encourage everyone to go to training and if there’s a reception after the training, I think that’s just great, but to just go up for a reception, I do have a problem with that.

Commissioner Tornatta: Okay, just to get this on the table, I will make a motion to accept all consent items with exception of the County Assessor’s travel request.

Commissioner Nix: Second.

President Musgrave: All those in favor?

All Commissioners: Aye.

President Musgrave: The motion carries.

Commissioner Tornatta: This obviously can be brought back. If there’s something else that you’re looking for, Mr. Weaver, just bring this back next week or whenever and we can put it on the agenda.

President Musgrave: If there’s nothing further, is there a motion to adjourn?

Commissioner Nix: So moved.

Commissioner Tornatta: Second.

President Musgrave: All those in favor?

All Commissioners: Aye.

President Musgrave: The motion carries.

(The meeting was adjourned at 4:30 p.m.)

CONSENT ITEMS:

Employment Changes:

Weights & Measures (2)           Health Department (2)              Sheriff Office (9)

Prosecutor (8)                           VCCC (7)                                  Circuit Court (3)

County Clerk (2)                       Center Assessor (1)                 Treasurer (2)

Public Defender (1)                  Superior Court (1)

Travel Requests:

Health Department (4)              County Engineer (1)                 Commissioners (2)

County Clerk (2)                       DADS (1)                                  Auditor (1)

County Council (1)                    Legal Aid (1)

Commissioners:

Approval of January 23, 2007 Commission Meeting Minutes.

Approval of January 26, 2007 Executive Session Summary Minutes.

IBAP Gatekeeper Monthly Report.

2007 Trustee Poor Relief Standards: Center, Perry, Pigeon, German.

Letters to State for DHS Pre & Multi Hazard Mitigation Grants.

Drawdowns No. 15 & 16 for Knight Township Fire Department CDBG Funds.

EPD request to waive rental fee at the Centre (Merit Award Banquet).

Department Head meeting notes: January 23, 2007

Sheriff:

Request to surplus vehicle to Knight Township Fire Department.

County Engineer:

Pay Request No. 17: Burkhardt-Green River TIF Projects: $76,339.67

Superior Court (Juvenile Division):

Request to accept check for total loss of vehicle: 1993 Caprice Classic.

Auditor:

Surplus request letter: filing cabinets, printers, bookcase.

Lien Release: Old State Subdivision Barrett Law Project.

A/P Vouchers: February 2007.

Prosecutor: Federal Annual Certification Reports: Drug Task Force Grants

Department Head Reports:

Burdette Park                           County Engineer                       County Highway

Ozone Officer                           Supt. Of Bldgs.                         Veterans Services

Those in Attendance:

Cheryl Musgrave                      Bill Nix                                      Troy Tornatta

Bill Fluty                                    Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.          Marissa Nichoalds

Madelyn Grayson                     Bob Dillow                                Brad Mills

Kevin Winternheimer                Eric Williams                             Debbie Spalding

John Stoll                                  Jonathan Weaver                     Others Unidentified

Members of Media

VANDERBURGH COUNTY

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS