VANDERBURGH COUNTY

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

JANUARY 17, 2006

The Vanderburgh County Board of Commissioners met in session this 17^th day of January, 2006 at 3:32 p.m. in room 301 of the Civic Center Complex with President Cheryl Musgrave presiding.

President Musgrave: Call to order the January 17, 2006 Board of Commissioners meeting for Vanderburgh County. I’ll start with introductions on my far right.

B.J. Farrell: B.J. Farrell, Superintendent of County Buildings.

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

Commissioner Nix: Commissioner Bill Nix.

President Musgrave: Commissioner Cheryl Musgrave.

Commissioner Shetler: Commissioner Tom Shetler.

Madelyn Grayson: Madelyn Grayson, Recording Secretary.

Bill Fluty: Bill Fluty, County Auditor.

President Musgrave: If you will please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance.

(The Pledge of Allegiance was given.)

President Musgrave: We have on our agenda three sets of minutes to approve. Is there a motion?

Commissioner Shetler: Motion to approve.

Commissioner Nix: Second.

President Musgrave: All those in favor?

Commissioners: Aye.

President Musgrave: There was an executive session today where we discussed potential pending litigation.

President Musgrave: We move now to action items. First on our agenda today is Bernardin Lochmueller to give an update on the USI-Burdette bike path. If you’ll state your name, and I don’t think we need his address. Do we need that? No. For the record. Oh, good, we’ve got everything going here.

Jim Farney: You also have these in your handouts. So, if you prefer to look up here, that’s fine. We’ll also try to get (Inaudible) for the audience, so they can see what we’re talking about.

President Musgrave: Do you want the walk around microphone?

Jim Farney: No, this is fine.

President Musgrave: Okay.

Jim Farney: I can talk from here. Thanks for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Jim Farney and I’m with Bernardin Lochmueller. As Cheryl had said, we were hired by the County several months back to do a preliminary study for the possibility of constructing a bike trail from USI to Burdette Park. The purpose of the study was to come together with USI and county representatives to go over possible alternate routes for a trail between those two destination points, and to analyze those routes and to come up with some alternatives for those routes, and also the cost associated with constructing those routes. As I was told before I started, you’ve got a lot on your agenda today, so, I’ll be very short and brief here. Basically, we went through the study, go ahead to the next slide. The project would start up at USI, that’s the first handout that you have, which is at the top, upper left there. We investigated two alternate routes, is the pointer there? There’s a route to the left, which starts up at the campus at an existing dormitory complex, let me point to that for you. It would be right here on your drawing. This is existing dormitories that were just recently constructed, which is directly connected to the campus core, which is up here. So, the first segment of the trail would begin at this parking lot and go south and across this dam where this is an existing lake recently built, and follow this across here, which is a proposed perimeter access road for the USI campus in their master plan. Another alternative is to start at a different location on campus, which is up here, this is their existing baseball complex, and, again, this is existing infrastructure up here and connected to the core. So, the other option would be to start here and come down to this point. Once we get to this point, there were two routes looked at. One to run down the east side of their sports complex, which is located here, just north of Broadway, which is here. The other option was to run down the west side and come across the bottom. Once we got to this juncture, we were looking for the best possible crossing of Broadway Avenue which is approximately right here. So, then we ran the trail from this point over to that point, we crossed over Broadway, go to the next slide, Harmony, and after you go to your second drawing I’m at this same point right here that I left you on the other drawing. Once we cross Broadway, the intent is to run south along Broadway for a short distance, either continue over to this (Inaudible) road and go down next to this (Inaudible) road or cut through this woods a short distance and come in to this clearing...by the way, all this property, the sports complex and this property is what’s considered SIHE property, or Southern Indiana Higher Education property. Now that we’re on this SIHE property, they asked that we use this open clearing for the trail. So, we have the trail proposed along this route here. Once we get to this point, they had suggested we continue on this clearing and try to come down this area here off this, this is a very high ridge, down to this low land, and follow the low land along the woods down to Nurrenbern. Another option that we looked at that was much more feasible, was instead of following the clearing on up and going down there and along the woods, we looked at going through the woods along this ridge and coming in to a clearing that exists here, and follow this clearing out. The object either way was to get in to this area which is, if you’re familiar with the area out there this is Nurrenbern Road, it turns and goes across the front of Burdette. Once we got to this location we’re now trying to get to the end point which is the Discovery Lodge over here. So, we were instructed to come up this clearing, which is still SIHE property and try to get over to the Discovery Lodge. We looked at either coming through the woods at this point and finding our way up to the Discovery Lodge, or the original suggestion was not necessarily to end exactly at the Discovery Lodge, but just hit the park anywhere. So, we looked at the option of going up the clearing, a more direct, straight route up to the top of the hill. The problem with that route is it really doesn’t get us to an ideal destination point, and there’s some grade considerations there that are pretty extreme for the trail. So, basically, what we did is we, those were all the options, we got together with the group, we came up, we analyzed all the routes, we looked at the possibilities and what we came up with, if you want to go to your handout on the very first sheet, which says it’s a construction cost summary, which is now up on the board, we selected these routes that you see on the left of the total package, and we costed each one out. We equated the lineal foot and the cost, and you can see the total cost of the trail was $2,328,229. Once we arrived at that cost, we had also costed out all the other possible options that you saw on that drawing, and they ranged as low as $1.7 million, all the way up to about $2.6 million. So, the trail that we were currently considering is somewhere in the range between the two ends. After we came to that conclusion, our next step in the report was to help understand what the total cost of the project would be, because these numbers only reflect, those numbers only reflected construction costs. So, you would have other costs, such as planning activities, which is what this study was for. You would have project development. This also includes an environmental document. You would have preliminary engineering plans and surveying. You would have right-of-way acquisition, because the piece that is on SIHE property would come to you in the form of an easement. So, you would have some right-of-way acquisition to get that situated. This includes an appraised value for the land, even if it were, that could, would probably come to you as a donation, but nonetheless we programmed a cost as if you were to acquire it. Just to get a good understanding of what the project could cost. Then you go to construction, which this is the same number you saw in the previous slide. That’s our total estimated construction cost. Then you go figure in your inspection and construction engineering to administrate the construction project. So, the total project now, considering all the program costs is right at three million dollars. Okay? Then the next, go to the next slide, Harmony. The next step in the process that we did was to evaluate how you might accomplish this. You had suggested that you were possibly interested in pursuing ISTEA monies through INDOT. Basically, through the ISTEA program, currently per any application request, the most they will allocate for each request is a million dollars. So, what we did is we looked first at a single stage construction. What if you were going to try to build this all at one shot, right out of the gate? If you were to apply and receive a grant from INDOT then from an ISTEA grant, you would be, at best, you would get a million dollars. So, going back to the total program cost, if you take a million dollars off that, the monies you would have to come up with initially are right at two million dollars. Now, another step which is often done in ISTEA programs, because they will only grant that million dollar cap, people start phasing their projects. So, if you look at this and do it in a two phase construction project, which we discussed in the meeting and how that would be done is we would build the portion on the USI campus down to Broadway, we will build the portion on the Burdette Park property to Nurrenbern as phase one. Then we would come back later and make the connecting piece on the SIHE property between Broadway and Nurrenbern, we would consider that phase two. So, if we took that approach, the cost for each phase would basically be just half of the total cost that we had above. Each grant, you would be asking for two grant applications, or two requests, so you would get a million dollars two times. Then the local monies that you would need for each project, for each phase would be $541,250. The end result, you would have only outlaid a million dollars versus the two million dollars up here, because you’re going to end up getting another, a second million dollars from INDOT that you would not get through this process. So, even though this is more attractive to you cost-wise, it is phasing the project and delaying the end construction, or the end usability of the trail to some degree. However, this might fit your pocketbook much better. Then we even went down and considered what would happen if you phased it in to three phases. If you phase it in to three phases, basically, your cost per phase would be a little over a million, which is, again, that number just divided by three. If you were going to get grant from INDOT, each request you would be asking for 822, and the reason you can’t, in this case, ask for a million dollars is they’re also only going to participate in an 80/20 percent ratio. So, you’ve gotten a total project cost down where 80 percent of it falls less than a million dollars. So, that’s why it’s only 822 and not a million. But, you would be getting that three times. So, you’re total of monies from INDOT in this case would add up to $2,466,000. The total project, of course, being the same. Your outlay at the end would be close to $600,000. But, this is a three step program. This would take three phases of construction. It will take you a year just to get through, the previous slide I showed all the planning documents and everything else. Then you’ve got to go through three requests with INDOT. So, this could put the completion of the trail out pretty far. Now, as far as getting grant applications, INDOT, of course, looks more favorably toward LPA’s that are willing to contribute more than 20 percent. So, of course, from INDOT’s perspective, one of these top two would be more attractive to them. But, nonetheless, here’s three possibilities on how this could play out.

Commissioner Nix: Before you go on.

Jim Farney: Yes?

Commissioner Nix: Between the three phases, two and three, do your soft costs go up proportionately?

Jim Farney: No, the only, no, they would be the same. The only thing that when you do your CE document, which is your environmental document for the trail, you cannot fragment that document. So, basically, in the first phase you would be doing the environmental document for the whole project. So, there’s a few of those documents that can’t be fragmented. But, as far as whether the individual cost really wouldn’t go up. Now, if you, if the design of this trail ended up, for phase three, ended up being five years down the road, then I assume, you know, your consultant fees would go up by whatever their, you know, their hourly rates had gone up over that period of time.

Commissioner Nix: And construction costs pretty much?

Jim Farney: And construction costs and everything. You know how that works, Bill. As time goes on, it just goes up. So, in that respect, yeah, they’ll go up, but you’re not going to pay more because you’re going it three instead of one, just simply put, okay? Go ahead to the last slide.

Commissioner Shetler: Jim?

Jim Farney: Yes?

Commissioner Shetler: Has any consideration been given to the Greenway project and plans that they have and trying to incorporate this in to their plans a bit? Or is that not even–

Jim Farney: The Greenway plans being? The Evansville Greenway?

Commissioner Shetler: Yes.

Jim Farney: Well, the Evansville Greenway always speaks of this in their long term plan, a trail connection at USI. So, in some respect this is, I guess, a piece of what the Greenway’s always seen in their overall plan. The Greenway is currently trying to progress up Pigeon Creek with their current plan of attack, and they have a project that they currently was just recently awarded, and they’ve got another application in currently for the next section which would get them up to Maryland. So, their emphasis right now is to try to get up Pigeon Creek, but in their long range plan they speak of this.

Commissioner Nix: And that would be a tie through a parking lot at USI?

Jim Farney: To the Greenway trail?

Commissioner Nix: Yeah, from the Greenway, it would be....right now there’s really no plans that physically tie together, but the Greenway does, in fact, come up 62 to outer Lloyd, it would be on the USI side, is that correct? Do you know if that (Inaudible. Microphone cutting out.)

Jim Farney: I don’t know that I’ve seen....I think the early planning document suggests that, yes, that it’s on the south side and runs out to USI.

Commissioner Nix: So, by rights, if nothing else, it would tie by just crossing a parking lot or two to access this property (Inaudible. Microphone cutting out.).

Jim Farney: Well, the other thing that USI is contemplating that, again, I don’t want to take up too much of your time, but they are currently in the process of master planning their campus, and they have a whole perimeter road system that’s in their master plan, and that whole road system is going to have bike lanes on it. So, they will have bike lanes, they will be constructing their own bike lanes on their access roads that will take you from the bottom of the campus up to the interchange at the State Road 62. So, they’ll make that connection up to the highway. So, it would be the Greenway’s, the Evansville Greenway’s point of beginning then at the interchange, and then they would take off from there, I would assume. Now, the other possibility, by making this connection down to Burdette Park, is you connect back to the Greenway by virtue of the river bottom roads. There some advantages to that too. It’s a much safer route. It’s a more scenic route. So, there’s possibilities that this trail goes from, that your final connection to the Greenway doesn’t really come down the Expressway. It comes back up through, from Burdette Park up toward the city, through that direction and ties in. Because, ultimately, the point you’re going to connect to is the old Ohio Street bridge there at Pigeon Creek where it dumps in to the Ohio River. That’s basically the point where the two are going to marry. Okay, the only other thing that I wanted to show you real quickly is, just to give you an idea on time lines, the planning activities is what we’ve completed to date. The next thing would be project development. That takes you through finalizing and alignment, going through a field survey, developing a preliminary plan, starting your environmental document, getting that environmental document approved, and then possibly having a public hearing. That whole process typically takes six to eight months. So, then beyond that, you would go to the next step which would be doing your soils investigation and going into final design, and preparing your cost estimate for the project. Then near the completion of that, you usually go in to your right-of-way acquisition phase. So, then you would be getting the appraisals on the SIHE property. One of the reasons that you’re trying to do that is appraise that property and act like you’re buying it, is the fact that INDOT will see that as part of your soft match. So, there’s some advantages to taking that process and going that direction, okay? Then after you get through the right-of-way acquisition and INDOT officially deems the right-of-way clear, which means they feel like you have the rights or the ability to build this on that property, then you would go in to the bid period. Again, this would be bid through INDOT, and their bidding process takes three to four months. Because in that process what they’re doing is they are copying all the plans, they’re sending them out for bid, they’re going through a bidding period, answering contractors questions, and then it comes back and then they let the project. So, at that time, at the end of that bid period, that three to four months, you would have a let project, hopefully, and then immediately after that you would go in to the construction mode, and this project would....it depends on how you phase it, but it could take anywhere probably from six to 12 months to build the project, depending on how much you phased it. After that, basically, you’re at the end of construction and you have project close out. So, the only reason, the thing that I wanted to demonstrate here is, that if you add up all those months, you’re that many months down the road from, as I sit here today, before you even go to phase one. So, if you have phase one, you can kind of see where you’re going to end. If you have phase two, you don’t go all the way back up to the top, you go down there about to the middle, but you’re still going to have two to three months of design of the next phase, then you go back through the bidding process, which is the same three to four months, etcetera, etcetera. So, if you get too many phases, your projects just seem like they’re never going to end. You’re never going to get there. So, I wouldn’t encourage a whole lot of phases, but on the other hand, I’m not saying a single phase is the answer either. You have to come up with the match, or you’re not going to get anywhere either. So, you need to just think through this, discuss it, and come up with what you think works best for you. I don’t want to take any more of your time. If anyone wants to ask anymore questions, I would be glad to try to answer them.

President Musgrave: Now, I understand that we’ve got the application for the grant nearly ready to go–

Jim Farney: Yes.

President Musgrave: –and that that will be filed by the end of the month with all the appropriate signatures?

Jim Farney: Yes. The other thing with ISTEA monies is, you can only apply at a certain time of the year. You can’t apply just anytime you feel like it. They only accept applications beginning in the late months of the year, and, basically, having an MPO, EUTS, as we do in Vanderburgh County, that application needs to run through EUTS.

President Musgrave: Okay.

Jim Farney: And EUTS’ policy board meets in January to approve anything they are going to apply for, and then at the end of January is your application period. So, if you want to apply this year, then we’ve got to get everything in order by the end of January, which shouldn’t be a problem. So–

President Musgrave: Do the Commissioners all sign the application?

Jim Farney: Yes. Well, I don’t know that you all have to, but one of you will have to.

President Musgrave: Okay.

Jim Farney: If you all want, if all three of you want to, that’s probably fine.

President Musgrave: Well, why don’t we go ahead and make a motion then to authorize the signing of the, any application documents, or letters or any accompanying documents that need to go with this grant as it moves through the process.

Commissioner Nix: So moved.

Commissioner Shetler: Second.

President Musgrave: All those in favor?

All Commissioners: Aye.

President Musgrave: The motion carries. Thank you very much.

Jim Farney: Thank you.

President Musgrave: I understand from Area Plan, where they’ve already had their EUTS policy meeting for this month, that they are going to send it to each member individually. So, I would ask that you, and Steve Craig, go touch base with Brad Mills down at EUTS and see how quickly that can get underway.

Jim Farney: Okay.

President Musgrave: Alright?

Jim Farney: Alright. Thank you.

President Musgrave: Thank you very much.

President Musgrave: Next on our agenda is Purchasing, the permission to award two bids, toners and ink cartridges, computers and copy paper. Mr. Lawrence?

Phil Lawrence: Yes, Madam Chairman, Commissioner Nix, Commissioner Shetler, I would like your permission to award APA-020-2006, toners and ink cartridges. You have a copy of the breakdown. ICC Business Products was the low bidder for ink jet cartridges, $11,480.82. Alpha Laser was the low bidder on the re-manufactured toners, $47,973.

Commissioner Nix: So moved.

Commissioner Shetler: Second.

President Musgrave: All those in favor?

All Commissioners: Aye.

President Musgrave: The motion carries.

Phil Lawrence: The next one is APA-022-2006, computer and copy paper. The low bidder on that was Resource Services at $85,651.50.

President Musgrave: Is there a motion to approve?

Commissioner Nix: Move approval.

Commissioner Shetler: Second.

President Musgrave: All those in favor?

All Commissioners: Aye.

President Musgrave: The motion carries. Thank you, sir.

Phil Lawrence: Thank you.

President Musgrave: We move now to contracts, agreements and leases. The Sheriff has an agreement with ARAMARK, and he was, Chief Deputy Williams was unable to attend today. I know the attorney has reviewed the contract. Do you have any remarks?

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: I don’t. It’s satisfactory for execution.

President Musgrave: Okay.

Commissioner Nix: Move approval.

Commissioner Shetler: Second.

President Musgrave: All those in favor?

All Commissioners: Aye.

President Musgrave: The motion carries.

President Musgrave: We have on the agenda a Westbrook agreement addendum. Mr. Ziemer?

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: Yes, Madam President, I first want to present you with checks for insurance proceeds totaling $71,885. These are insurance proceeds on the various mobile homes in the Eastbrook Mobile Home Park that had debris that needed removal, and the insurance proceeds to the degree covered debris removal, and that’s what these proceeds represent. There are still companies to be contacted, or are in the course of being contacted, or are in the course of waiting for responses, and Eastbrook Mobile Home Park, or Westbrook Corporation has requested that we give them an additional two months to collect the balance of the proceeds before we would draw against our letter of credit. So, they would like us to agree that if by March the 15, 2006 they have not collected the entire $100,000 or more of insurance proceeds, that the county could then draw against a letter of credit by March 20, 2006. I have a new letter of credit, which I have given to the recording secretary, and she’ll provide me with a copy of that. Then I have an addendum to the Eastbrook Corporation agreement, which is in the file, by signing which you would agree to these terms. That’s satisfactory for execution.

Commissioner Nix: When we originally had set this up I thought it was a little, the time constraints that they had were a little tight. I have no objections to allowing them to (Inaudible. Microphone cutting out.) extension (Inaudible). Then what they can do for the time being, I’m sure is pretty (Inaudible). So, I would like to make a motion that we extend the time frame through March the 15^th, with drawing on the credit after March 20^th.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: On March 20^th.

Commissioner Shetler: Second.

President Musgrave: And I would like to point out that the FEMA regulations for the reimbursement that FEMA has for us requires us to collect this insurance money as a condition of receiving anything from FEMA. I will call for the vote. All those in favor?

Commissioners: Aye.

President Musgrave: The motion carries.

President Musgrave: We move now to the EARC grant agreement.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: This agreement is the same as their agreement for 2005, with the same grant amount being involved, which is $279,000. The only change between the 2006 agreement and the 2005 agreement is that we’re now requiring a verbal presentation by them at this meeting only twice a year, rather than four times a year. It is satisfactory for execution.

Commissioner Nix: Move approval.

Commissioner Shetler: Second.

President Musgrave: All those in favor?

All Commissioners: Aye.

President Musgrave: The motion carries.

President Musgrave: We move now to the County Treasurer, American Financial Credit Services contract.

Z. Tuley: Good afternoon. I’m Z. Tuley, Vanderburgh County Treasurer. I did receive the amendments that you had sent forth. I forwarded those to Kris Williams, the CEO of American Financial Credit, and he had no problems with any of those changes. So, he’s comfortable.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: Yeah, we did prepare amendments to the agreements submitted by American Financial Credit Services, and, as Ms. Tuley says, they have accepted those changes. So, the agreement is in the file and it’s satisfactory for execution.

President Musgrave: Treasurer Tuley, would you just go over again what the public can expect as a result of this agreement that we’re signing.

Z. Tuley: Okay. First and foremost we would have to go back to the 2003 payable 2004 tax bill. If you received your tax bill in 2004 and you did not pay, in the beginning of 2005 you were certified to the County Clerk. This becomes a lien.

President Musgrave: Personal property, oil?

Z. Tuley: We’re talking about personal property, mobile homes, state assessed and oil. Qualifying oil. Oil has to be offered at tax sale twice before it can be certified to the Clerk. This becomes a lien. This lien shows up in your credit report. The company that I’m asking you to sign the contract for is only going to pursue collection from those, excuse me, that have been certified to the Clerk already. So, annually they will get a new batch. We are getting ready to send out demand notices. So, for the 2005 bill, if the taxpayer did not pay that bill, they will, in addition to that bill, get a demand notice from me in the next few days. Well, actually, I think they’re scheduled to go out on Monday. If that demand notice is not paid within the 30 days allowed, their names and the amount of taxes that is owed will be submitted to AFCS at that time.

President Musgrave: Okay, and this contract with this company begins on February 1^st. So, between now and then you will have an actual list of these delinquent personal property taxpayers on your website?

Z. Tuley: The list is created at the time that they are certified to the Clerk. It’s all one file. It’s a working file. Then once it’s certified to the Clerk, it falls in to that category, and that is a separate, searchable category on my website that says, that way, if you are John Doe taxpayer that did not pay in 2004, you will see him as a repeat offender in 2005, if he did not pay again.

President Musgrave: But, you’ll post a list as well, as well as your searchable data base, you’ll have a list that starts at A and ends at Z, won’t you?

Z. Tuley: Starts at?

President Musgrave: The letter A and ending at the letter Z.

Z. Tuley: At the time that we certify?

President Musgrave: Yes.

Z. Tuley: I don’t know that it’s doable prior to payment. It’s, it would be, I don’t know about the technology, because I can’t blend it in with those files, because they haven’t been certified to the Clerk. So, then it would have to be a separate file. I don’t know what kind of technology that would take, because you’re out of my realm of expertise. But, those people will be getting a demand notice. It is a certified demand notice. So, they must sign for it. So, the taxpayer has had the opportunity to pay the bill last year, they also get the opportunity to respond to a demand notice. Any address changes that may have occurred, there may be another series of address updating with the Auditor’s office and the township assessors, and I have already done this once in May of 2005 as we got them back. But, this process does give us a second opportunity if someone has failed to turn in their change of address timely.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: Z., I was thinking maybe Commissioner Musgrave was thinking people don’t know yet, they know they haven’t paid, but they don’t know that very shortly there’s going to be a collection process, which is going to establish a 25 percent penalty, if you will, for the collection of that, which they are also going to have to pay, and if they knew that in advance of that collection process beginning, they may come in and pay and not have to pay that 25 percent. Will they have some kind of knowledge of that?

Z. Tuley: That is correct. It is written in red. It’s the only red section, or I believe it’s the only red section on the demand notice, it says if notice is not paid within 30 days there will be an attorney’s fee. Right now it stands at 1/3, because the prior contract that we had with a local attorney for his collection fee it was 33 percent, or one third.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: And it says that in the red language?

Z. Tuley: Yes.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: The amount? Thirty-three and a third percent?

Z. Tuley: Yes.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: Good.

Z. Tuley: It says 1/3. So, technically speaking, because until this contract is signed, I can’t have created new forms that would say now it’s only 25 percent.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: Sure.

Z. Tuley: But, that is what the form will say. The form will actually say 1/3, and they will not endure quite that amount.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: Thank you.

President Musgrave: I’ve had a number of discussions with your Chief Deputy, and I see that he’s here today, at no time did he indicate that creating the list on the internet would be a problem. He’s here could he address whether or not–

Z. Tuley: It’s not a problem to put on the internet. It may be a problem to separate it from the system that we already have in place. I’m not real comfortable with putting the delinquent notices, or the delinquent list on the internet until they are given the opportunity to respond to the demand. If it is indeed an assessment in error by the township assessor, or if the current address is not correct due to a transposition of the street number, for example, this would mean that this would be the fault of the county and not necessarily the fault of the taxpayer. So, if they didn’t get the bill, or if they did get the bill and they ignored it, receiving the demand notice also calls their attention to it. Also, the demand notice itself, in an attempt to recoup some costs, has an eight dollar fee that they must pay. That is to, an attempt to recoup the certified mailing that we’re having to do, plus paper, plus envelope.

President Musgrave: I would like that list on the internet so that people can check for their family members who may not be paying attention to the demand notices that they get so that we can at least give the taxpayers a fighting chance to pay the taxes that they owe without this additional 25 percent to the contractor. Your deputy has given me all the assurance in the world that this list can be posted. I will hope that you can do that as soon as possible. You say your list is being mailed to people on Monday, so, you will have the list generated from that mailing, if no other means.

Z. Tuley: I will have that list. It is being done, it will be completed by Monday.

President Musgrave: You can post the list?

Z. Tuley: I’m not real comfortable posting the list. I must say that as the elected official for the Vanderburgh County Treasurer’s office, I have been given the duty by the Vanderburgh County taxpayers to collect taxes. That’s what I do. At the current time I am following exactly what the law says that I should be doing in the manner in which the law is telling me to handle it. I am handling it in this manner currently. In the past we have had a collector that charged 1/3. They were given the opportunity through the legal process to pay. If they did not pay, at that time our legal collector notified them. I don’t feel so bad that they got hit with another 1/3 penalty. They were given two opportunities, one with the bill, and one with the demand notice. That’s what the law says is supposed to be done. That is exactly what I do. Once they are certified to the Clerk, that list is present. If someone does happen to find that before they are contacted by American Finance, or in the past before they were contacted by our legal collector, then they also had the opportunity to take care of that without an additional penalty.

President Musgrave: Well, I’m very disappointed that you won’t post the list.

Z. Tuley: I’m not inclined to do that, as you and I have discussed, without further research. I would like to see if other counties have published this in advance. I have a particular situation that I have shared with at least one other Commissioner. It didn’t come to thought when you and I had our phone discussions. Deaths in the family. When there are deaths in the family, you could have the potential to advertise the name of the decedent. Perhaps they were not well enough and their spouse and/or their family were not aware that they were negligent of these things due to their failing health or whatever that situation may be. Some have been turned over then to estates, and they are being handled by attorneys. We may be rubbing salt in the wound to those who have had family members that passed, and then we advertise them, without allowing them to have the opportunity to respond to a demand notice first.

President Musgrave: The value of the property, personal property taxes, and the example you are telling me now, you told me earlier that was a real property situation and not the personal property that we’re dealing with.

Z. Tuley: The one that you and I talked about was the loss of a daughter.

President Musgrave: In a real property–

Z. Tuley: I’m talking about the loss of a spouse.

President Musgrave: In this, the amount of the overdue taxes that you are seeking to collect here is more than five million dollars, right?

Z. Tuley: That’s correct. We already have had legal counsel trying to collect this for years. American Financial has promised a greater return for their effort.

President Musgrave: Plus 25 percent. It’s that 25 percent that I would like people to have a fighting chance, in the next two weeks, not to have to pay, but you will not post the list.

Z. Tuley: They have 30 days to respond to the demand notice that I’m sending out, which they must sign for.

President Musgrave: Okay.

Z. Tuley: I don’t feel that we should embarrass them and shame them in to paying without them receiving the demand notice first and having some time to respond. I also don’t think that we should embarrass the county for any errors that we may have on our part before the taxpayer has time to respond to the 30 day notice. Then once the demand is ignored, then to certify them to the Clerk and further steps be taken, I don’t have any problem with that.

Commissioner Nix: Ms. Tuley? Would it be feasible then to say at some time, maybe eight to ten days, these letters are sent out certified, is that correct?

Z. Tuley: Yes.

Commissioner Nix: Okay. At some time, within ten days, would it be feasible then to have those posted somewhere?

Z. Tuley: Before they have their 30 days? The law says they have 30 days to respond.

Commissioner Nix: Okay.

Z. Tuley: The notice says that they have 30 days. The notice says that there will be attorney fees after the 30 days if they don’t respond, as per Indiana Code.

Commissioner Shetler: Z., any feeling on this $5.4 million, is it, how much of it is commercial or individual, you know, privately?

Z. Tuley: I didn’t separate it out in that fashion, but it is a blend of all of the above.

Commissioner Shetler: Okay, thanks.

Z. Tuley: I think this is a win-win. I think it’s a win for the county to collect this delinquent money. I also thinks it’s a win for the taxpayers to have the opportunity to clear things up in the next 30 days. For those that are already certified, which is where American Financial will get started, they have already been given the same opportunity, and now they have to face the consequences of having not paid. The county already slaps a ten percent penalty when you pay late. That’s a pretty harsh and steadfast penalty.

President Musgrave: I believe that’s a state penalty, not a county penalty.

Z. Tuley: Yeah, it’s ordered by law. I don’t have any choice. The law says that I will send them a notice. The law says that I will certify them to the Clerk. That list is all public record, and all published, and on the internet.

Commissioner Shetler: Do you need a motion for approval then? So moved.

Commissioner Nix: Second.

President Musgrave: All those in favor?

Commissioners: Aye.

Z. Tuley: Thank you.

Commissioner Nix: Thank you.

Madelyn Grayson: May we make a tape change please?

President Musgrave: Certainly.

(Tape change)

President Musgrave: Cooperative Extension Service, contractual services extension agreement. Is there anyone here to speak to this? Or is it just reviewed by the attorney?

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: This is, again, an extension of an agreement that they had through 2005. This extends it through 2006, and appropriates an additional $64,080 through the period January 1, 2006 through December 31, 2006.

Commissioner Nix: Move approval.

Commissioner Shetler: Second.

President Musgrave: All those in favor?

All Commissioners: Aye.

President Musgrave: Health Department, diabetes grant amendment. Mr. Ziemer, I believe you reviewed this also.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: Yes. This, again, just appropriates an additional $10,000, and extends the term of the agreement through March 29, 2007. Again, it’s appropriate for execution.

Commissioner Shetler: So moved.

Commissioner Nix: Second.

President Musgrave: All those in favor?

Commissioners: Aye.

President Musgrave: We come to a resolution R-01-06-002 in support of legislation establishing the Southwestern Indiana Regional Air Commerce Park. Is there anyone here to present that matter? We have a letter of resolution in the file. Have the Commissioners had a chance to review that? Do you care to read it into the record, or just go ahead and pass it?

Commissioner Shetler: I don’t have a copy of it.

President Musgrave: It’s right there.

Commissioner Shetler: Test my reading skills here.

Commissioner Nix: That’s why you sit there.

Commissioner Shetler: Really?

“Whereas, the Board of Commissioners of Vanderburgh County, Indiana, are duly organized and existing pursuant to Indiana Code Section 3-2-2; and Whereas, the Board of Commissioners of Vanderburgh County, Indiana, do by this Resolution adopted the 17^th day of January, 2006, enter upon the record their support for the legislation establishing the Southwest Indiana Regional Air Commerce Park and instruct the custodian of their records to transmit a copy of this Resolution upon adoption to the Indiana General Assembly so stating their support for this legislation. Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Board of Commissioners of Vanderburgh County, Indiana, as follows: (1) The Board of Commissioners of Vanderburgh County, Indiana, do by this Resolution, enter upon the record their support for legislation establishing the Southwest Indiana Regional Air Commerce Park. (2) The Board of Commissioners of Vanderburgh County, Indiana, instruct the custodian of their records to transmit a copy of this Resolution, upon adoption, to the Indiana General Assembly so stating their support of this legislation. (3) The Board of Commissioners of Vanderburgh County, Indiana, are hereby authorized to take any and all necessary actions to carry out the purposes of this Resolution, including the execution of all such documents and instruments to carry out the purpose of this Resolution.”

It should be in full force and effect after adoption by the Board of Commissioners of Vanderburgh County.

Commissioner Nix: Move approval.

Commissioner Shetler: Second.

President Musgrave: All those in favor?

All Commissioners: Aye.

President Musgrave: We move now to county ordinance 01-06-005 concerning equal employment opportunity and overtime/compensatory time for the first and final reading tonight.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: I understood that we were going to hold that over.

President Musgrave: Oh, okay. Let’s hold that over until next week then.

President Musgrave: Solarbron Terrace has issued, or asked us to close the roads for a race. I understand that our attorney looked at that, and that the race will be held in May, but I don’t have the date, to raise money for a disabled fireman who lives at Solarbron. Is there any discussion? Or is there a motion?

Commissioner Nix: Move approval. I guess, before, excuse me, before I do that, I guess, all the paperwork has been lined up for that?

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: The paperwork is in line. They’ve given us certificates of insurance. I did request, by e-mail, to the County Engineer that he would let us know if he had any problems with it, and I have not had any response in that regard.

Commissioner Nix: Are they going to take care of barricading what they need to barricade?

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: They will, and they will have their own security.

Commissioner Nix: Move approval.

Commissioner Shetler: Second.

President Musgrave: All those in favor?

All Commissioners: Aye.

President Musgrave: The motion carries.

President Musgrave: The Knight Township Trustee guidelines have been received from Knight Township. All the township trustees are required to ask us to approve those annually. Knight’s is the only one that we’ve received so far. I have asked Ms. Farrell to e-mail the other trustees to have them get their standards through to us, but they were the same as last year from what I understand, and you reviewed those?

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: They are, and they meet all the standards.

President Musgrave: Okay. Is there a motion to accept?

Commissioner Shetler: So moved.

Commissioner Nix: Second.

President Musgrave: All those in favor?

Commissioners: Aye.

President Musgrave: The motion carries.

President Musgrave: We come now to department head reports. Ms. Farrell, you have a report on the Old Courthouse.

B.J. Farrell: Yes. The Old Courthouse Foundation did meet last week, and we do have a couple of questions and would like some guidance from the Commissioners. We have not yet, for 2006, have anyone sign a lease agreement to use the Wedgewood Room for any facility for the year, and we do have our RFP out with those responses being returned to us by February the 8^th. The board would ask the Commissioners to consider not spending any funds to make any renovations to the room, to possibly rent it until we get some recommendations from the consultant about which way to go. They feel that we would be spending money and then have to redo what we might be doing as a temporary fix to make it more presentable. So, I’m asking for guidance from the Commissioners on how they would like that handled.

President Musgrave: How long will it take for them to come back with a recommendation?

B.J. Farrell: The RFP’s are to be returned by February the 8^th.

President Musgrave: Okay.

B.J. Farrell: The board, I believe, meets the very next week.

President Musgrave: Oh, that’s fine.

Commissioner Nix: I would think that it would be four, at least four or five months before there was anything physically done. We were just looking for a window to say that from this point back (Inaudible. Microphone cutting out.) from this point forward, not because of, once again, not to hamper progress (Inaudible).

President Musgrave: People have been renting it in it’s current condition, right?

B.J. Farrell: That is correct, yes.

President Musgrave: You think that no construction or changes would even be able to begin until like April or May, right?

Commissioner Nix: I think a lot of that would have to do with the response that we get from these RFP’s, which is February the?

B.J. Farrell: Eighth is the deadline.

Commissioner Nix: I mean, we’re hoping that there’s going to be some people there to present plans with some concrete activities and some time lines and that. That may be a little bit premature to hope for, but we would like to see that anyway.

President Musgrave: Is there any problem with anyone renting it between now and February 8^th?

B.J. Farrell: There’s no problem....I don’t know if this is off or on. We don’t have anyone, because the inquiries that we have had so far, one of the questions they ask is, can we guarantee them that in eight months that room will not be under renovation, because, as most of us probably know, wedding receptions and so forth they are planned a year, a year and a half in advance, and that was their concern. So, we told them we could not guarantee when the work would start, but if they wanted to rent it, they could, but we couldn’t guarantee that something wouldn’t be going on at that time because it was so far in the future.

President Musgrave: Do you want to make a motion?

Commissioner Nix: I don’t know what it would be.

President Musgrave: Or give her advice?

Commissioner Nix: I think we just need to kind of play it by ear right now, and just see how the RFP’s come out, if there are any actual things in there that say that if we get started with construction at a certain time that, you know, this is when we would need this room. So, I think we can just table it for maybe this meeting, and after we review any RFP’s in February come back to the Commission with maybe something that may be a little more concrete. But, we just wanted to call it to the attention that if we did proceed with this, this could present a problem for us.

President Musgrave: I know that SMG has now taken over the scheduling and booking of that room. I suppose none of us would have any problem if somebody wanted to rent it over the weekend in the condition that it is in now, given the fact that nothing is happening now.

Commissioner Nix: For the next couple of months I would say for sure.

President Musgrave: Okay. Alright. Is there anything else, Ms. Farrell?

B.J. Farrell: Just...I don’t know if this is on. I can’t tell. Okay, here we go. We did receive a letter from the Welfare to Work, the IBAP Gatekeeper program. They just asked that we allot the money as was decided by their board, their advisory council, and I just want to submit that letter in to the record, then I will process the requisition to obtain a purchase order.

President Musgrave: Okay. Anything else?

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: Just pass this down?

B.J. Farrell: Yes, please, to Madelyn.

President Musgrave: Alright, Mr. Ziemer, I understand you have some SIGECOM contracts.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: Yes, pardon me.

B.J. Farrell: I couldn’t get going here quick enough.

President Musgrave: Sorry.

B.J. Farrell: Mr. Acker is here, did you wish for me bring up the situation at the Veterans Coliseum, or have him do it?

President Musgrave: I was going to have him come up after Mr. Ziemer.

B.J. Farrell: Alright, thank you.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: Yes, I have received and reviewed agreements with SIGECOM to provide their services to the county and the city in one agreement, and to the Vanderburgh County Health Department in another agreement. Both of those agreements I prepared addenda to those contracts making them more specific to the particular projects that SIGECOM is going to be performing for the city and the county on one hand, and for the Health Department on the other. Those agreements are satisfactory for execution, with the addenda. We recommend them.

Commissioner Nix: So moved.

Commissioner Shetler: Second.

President Musgrave: All those in favor?

All Commissioners: Aye.

President Musgrave: The motion carries.

President Musgrave: Mr. Acker?

Mark Acker: Madam President, Commissioner Shetler, Commissioner Nix, I bring forth to you an emergency request order for repair on the Coliseum roof. We have a leak that needs to be repaired immediately. We just did $2,000 worth of internal repair, and now found that we have an additional leak problem that needs to be taken care of. So, I respectfully request that you appropriate the money for that repair.

President Musgrave: Do we have monies targeted in a particular account that would go for this?

B.J. Farrell: I did talk with Tom Simpson of the State Board of Accounts, he informed me today that if the Commissioners will declare this an emergency, he would not take exception to paying this out of Riverboat Infrastructure.

Commissioner Nix: Move approval.

Commissioner Shetler: Second.

President Musgrave: All those in favor?

All Commissioners: Aye.

President Musgrave: The motion carries.

Mark Acker: Thank you.

President Musgrave: We come now to....are there any other department heads? Last week I skipped somebody. I see no one coming forward.

President Musgrave: Board appointments. There are several appointments. Commissioners, if you would like to go ahead and make those.

Commissioner Nix: I guess I’ll do, can we just do these all wholesale? Domestic and Sexual Violence Commission, Lori Hahn Cornelison; Old Courthouse Foundation, Michael Conati, Stewart Sebree and Lloyd Winnecke; Convention and Visitors Bureau, Michelle Peterlin; HVAC Board, Jeff Schneider, Bob Crow and John Dillingham; the MWBE, Darrell Ragland, Frankye Calloway, and Dan Gardner; Construction and Roofing, Steve Heidorn, John Elpers, and Jeff Hatfield; License and Disciplinary Board, Mr. John Stoll; Electrical, Randy Breivogel, Jerry Goedde and Harvey Kramer. These all expire, except the Old Courthouse Foundation, on 12/31/06. Then the Old Courthouse Foundation expires 12/31 of ‘08. That is a motion.

Commissioner Shetler: Second.

President Musgrave: All those in favor?

Commissioners: Aye.

President Musgrave: The motion carries.

President Musgrave: New business. Does anyone have any new business?

President Musgrave: Old business. Tomorrow we have our first road hearing for district three, Wednesday, January 18^th from 5:30 to 7:30 p.m. at the Helfrich Park Middle School. We’ll be conducting these largely the way we did last year with taxpayers who have concerns about roads or ditches that need to be repaired or upgraded to come forward at this meeting. The first one is tomorrow, 5:30 to 7:00 at the Helfrich Park Middle School. Also, we need to read out that there is the second urgent need grant public hearing tonight, January 17^th , (Inaudible. Microphone not on.) 7:00 p.m. for the Knight Township fire station.

President Musgrave: Artwork Unlimited, Old Courthouse lease. Ms. Farrell, are you (Inaudible. Microphone not on.)?

B.J. Farrell: I can do that, or Mr. Ziemer, whichever you prefer.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: We could do it in unison.

Commissioner Nix: I could jump in there too, I’m sure.

B.J. Farrell: You should. The Old Courthouse Foundation, which I stated earlier, did meet last week. The discussion about Mr. Wolter and his haunted house exhibit in the sub level part of the Old Courthouse was an agenda item that we discussed. The board did take a vote to recommend to the Commissioners, it was a (Inaudible) vote to allow Mr. Wolter to continue to use the Old Courthouse, but there was a suggestion that the language of his contract be revised, that there would be no tolerances for him doing work outside of what he is allowed to do, or he has to stay within the confines of his contract. The day he opens, the day he closes, no electrical work, no changing, nothing can be done to the Old Courthouse without the written or verbal approval of the Commissioners. So, it would be before you today to vote as to whether or not you will allow Mr. Wolter to continue to use the Old Courthouse for another year.

Commissioner Shetler: I guess, the question that I have is, understand that there’s been some questions of maybe being able to get access to maintenance areas and certain service areas of the Old Courthouse. I mean, I would just think that there would be some kind of guidelines or rules established underneath the contract there where he’s not allowed to, you know, or anyone, anybody that’s actually leasing to access certain things that could create a problem for, you know, us as the landlord. So, I just think we need to be real tight on that.

Commissioner Nix: Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe that’s built in to the lease? He’s to use only the space that’s designated and I think they did a pretty decent job working out all the, making sure the other spaces aren’t available. Is that what you’re addressing?

Commissioner Shetler: Right.

Commissioner Nix: I guess, one of the concerns that I had early on, when we first started talking about this in the meeting we had with the Old Courthouse Foundation last week, was you start renovation work, that area will be pretty well off limits. The old catacombs is pretty well nothing we would ever do anything with. If we did, it probably would be the last thing that we would work on, if, in fact, there is anything that can be done with that area down there at all. Maybe storage or something. Just something to think about, you know, in the future. There was some conversation in the meeting about Mr. Wolter, and I don’t know if he would like to speak to this today. I think maybe working with the Old Courthouse Foundation and have an Old Courthouse Foundation evening, for, maybe one evening, and I don’t know, Mr. Wolter, do you want to speak to that?

Phil Wolter: Sure. Hello, folks. Did you have a specific question about that?

Commissioner Nix: There was some conversation in the meeting we had the other day about possibly having an Old Courthouse night, the Foundation (Inaudible. Microphone cutting out.) possibly some people that might be benefactors, or be willing to contribute money maybe to this Foundation at some time down the road (Inaudible. Microphone cutting out.) quite a bit of money to do this. I don’t know if you are still in the process, or have had chance.

Phil Wolter: I believe Mrs. Abell brought that up in the meeting, and, sure, we’re all for that. I think it would be a great idea. We could add a night in there somewhere, or take one of the existing nights on the schedule, which we haven’t really turned in the dates yet this year, but we would be glad to entertain that idea, and maybe, I think you may have mentioned that there be some kind of promotion going with that, and we would certainly pitch in and help out with that, along with that particular night. We would certainly want to discuss what kind of details you had in mind for that night.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: I think we were saying that any revenues from that night would go to the Old Courthouse Foundation.

Phil Wolter: Right.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: We probably, I mean, if this gets approved, would build a provision like that in to the lease.

Phil Wolter: Sure.

President Musgrave: What is the dollar amount of the lease per month or year, whichever figure is handiest?

B.J. Farrell: It’s $7,000 is what we receive from Mr. Wolter.

President Musgrave: Alright.

B.J. Farrell: He pays it one time a year, in October?

Phil Wolter: It’s usually the first week in October, uh-huh.

Commissioner Nix: I guess, the lease (Inaudible. Microphone cutting out.) a two purpose lease. One is you use area for storage for the year for supplies and things that you work on (Inaudible), and two is the actual function in October.

Phil Wolter: Right, the actual event. Then, everything leading up to that, the preparation, storage, inventory, constantly working the sets and, you know, rebuilding the whole thing.

President Musgrave: From my point of view, this isn’t the direction I want the Old Courthouse to continue to go in. The last administration invested more than $8 million in structural repairs and upgrading, and I feel that this does not present the image that the building needs in order to be successful in the future. So, I would not, I’m not in favor of continuing the lease. I’ve also been contacted by a landlord for another haunted house who feels that this is somewhat unfair competition for his outfit, because he’s paying taxes on the building that he owns, he’s charging, I believe, $20,000 a year for his tenant to stay there. So, this is government property being leased at a reduced rate, and I really don’t feel that this is the appropriate image for the building or the downtown to be projecting the community. So, I personally am not in favor of continuing the lease. But, I understand that I may have a motion here.

Commissioner Nix: I make a motion that we approve.

Commissioner Shetler: I have some of the same concerns that Cheryl has in that I’m not sure, but I hate to react just from my own gut here, and I’m wondering if maybe the best thing for us to do is to get the input from some of the downtown groups and some other folks from around the area that might be able to give us some professional opinion if we are on the right track with this. I agree that this is, probably thinking in terms of this being a haunted house or a catacomb place is probably not what most professional businesses are thinking of locating in to that environment. If that’s what we’re trying to attract, and if that’s our overall direction, then I think this might be counter productive. But, at the same time, I’m not so sure that I’m professionally equipped to make that judgement here and now. I’m just wondering if we shouldn’t seek the advice or input from a few other groups before we bring this. So, I guess, my suggestion, at this point, would be to–

President Musgrave: Let him continue on for a month, under his old terms, while–

Commissioner Shetler: –while we seek to get some input here from....will that, could we pro-rate this on a $600 a month deal?

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: I guess, which I may....now, I’m speaking not as County Attorney, but as an appointed member to the Old Courthouse Foundation. We have to act with some fairness to this gentleman. If we’re not going to renew the lease, he needs time to acquire another place and make arrangements for his activities for next year. He, of course, wants to know that as soon as he can. Then I would remind the Commissioners that the appointed Courthouse Foundation Board did vote, all but one person, in favor of, so it was unanimous but for one, in favor of continuing the lease for this year. But, obviously—

President Musgrave: Is that an advisory recommendation?

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: Of course. It’s just a recommendation, but they did meet with him, they considered what he had to say, and that was their recommendation.

Commissioner Nix: Mr. Wolter, in our meeting, was that last week when we met?

Phil Wolter: Last week.

Commissioner Nix: Okay. You’d mentioned, or, I guess, I had asked you at that time was there a drop dead date that you just say that you need to know? I know you said that you need to know as soon as possible.

Phil Wolter: Well, everyday that goes by, you know, when we met last July and we first talked about it, I think had kind of an indication that we would probably know by the end of November. You know, within a month or so, and that was kind of always, you know, the deal that we had with the County Commissioners, of which, you know, I’ve been leasing now for since 1990, and that was always kind of the unwritten, you know, agreement that if we weren’t to come back in we would have, you know, be noticed, be notified by the end of November so we could, you know, acquire and then properly prepare another facility. So, times really running short.

Commissioner Nix: Once again, do you have a drop dead date? Just a, I mean, can you say March 1^st or the first week in March would, you know, Commissioner Shetler had mentioned maybe getting some input–

Phil Wolter: Right.

Commissioner Nix: –from some local businesses down in that area and maybe downtown Evansville and see, you know, what their take is on this. I know that you had presented some of that information to us–

Phil Wolter: Sure.

Commissioner Nix: –in our meeting last month. Maybe just to hear it first hand.

Phil Wolter: Well, I mean, if you can allow another month, sure, we’d go for that. We would certainly like to come back in.

Commissioner Nix: If that will work, I’ll rescind my motion then.

President Musgrave: I will entertain a different motion then.

Commissioner Shetler: Well, my motion, I guess, would be to bring this back in another month, what would that be, the 15^th or whatever the next–

President Musgrave: Okay, motion to table this until February, the second week in February. Do you have a date on that, Madelyn?

Commissioner Shetler: Is it the 14^th?

President Musgrave: You have a handy cheat sheet there.

Madelyn Grayson: We meet on February 14^th and the 21^st .

President Musgrave: Ah, on Valentine’s Day. The 21^st?

Phil Wolter: Fine.

President Musgrave: Alright, we will–

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: That’s my birthday.

President Musgrave: Oh, we can’t have a meeting that day either. Alright, so we will make a decision on the extension of your lease through the end of the year at that time. Does your motion include allowing him to continue on the same terms–

Commissioner Shetler: Yes.

President Musgrave: –until that time?

Commissioner Nix: Second.

President Musgrave: All those in favor?

Commissioners: Aye.

President Musgrave: We’ll see you then. Thank you.

Phil Wolter: Thank you.

Commissioner Musgrave: Last week at our meeting we had Vectren here and, Mr. Shetler, I don’t know if you wanted to share the information that we received about Share the Warmth. It was your question about donations to that.

Commissioner Shetler: Ah, yes. I had asked a question on whether or not it was tax deductible. It is tax deductible. That is contributing to the Share the Warmth program that Vectren has set up. Let’s see, also there’s a handout available that’s on-line as well. So, if we go to their website, you can find out exactly who to send it to.

President Musgrave: So, if you want to make a contribution to Share the Warmth, which I believe shares the, gives money to folks who cannot afford to pay their utility bill. That is tax deductible, and you can find out that on Vectren’s website.

President Musgrave: At this time, we are now at the public comment item on our agenda. Does anyone have any comments to address to the Commissioners? Ah, I see Ms. Susan Harp of Oak Hill Neighborhood Association. If you’ll state your address when you come to the microphone.

Susan Harp: Susan Harp, 2515 Glen Avenue, president of Oak Hill Neighborhood. Last year I came before you because Representative Avery had initiated some legislation, that was not successful in getting passed last year, about teen night clubs and regulation of the hours and background checks for those people who operate such places. So, that same legislation has been introduced. My husband and I testified before the committee last Wednesday and it passed the house committee. So, now we’re waiting. Representative Hinkle from Indianapolis has assured us that it will be placed, very soon, for the house to take a vote. I’m pleased to tell you that Representative Crouch has signed on as a co-author of that bill. So, we put her to work up there when we saw her. So, I will let you know any updates we have on that. I did submit the letter that you sent last year as part of our packet that we gave to them. If it comes to the point that we feel it’s necessary, we’ll maybe come back and ask for another letter of recommendation.

President Musgrave: Since things can move kind of quickly in the legislature, do you want us to go ahead and authorize that letter today and then we’ll give it to you and you’ll have it?

Susan Harp: That would be good. That would be good, because it does happen–

Commissioner Nix: They do move quickly?

Susan Harp: Sometimes. I mean, sometimes you don’t know from one day to the next what’s going to be on the agenda for them. That would be very good.

Commissioner Nix: (Inaudible) something different.

President Musgrave: Well, okay.

Susan Harp: That would be very good, and then that way I can get it to Representative Crouch, and we can get that done.

President Musgrave: Is there a motion?

Commissioner Nix: So moved.

Commissioner Shetler: Second.

President Musgrave: All those in favor?

Commissioners: Aye.

President Musgrave: Thank you for continuing to work on that.

Susan Harp: Thank you.

President Musgrave: Any other public comment?

President Musgrave: Consent items, is there a motion to approve the consent items?

Commissioner Shetler: So moved.

Commissioner Nix: Second.

President Musgrave: All those in favor?

Commissioners: Aye.

President Musgrave: A motion to adjourn, please?

Commissioner Nix: So moved.

Commissioner Shetler: Second.

President Musgrave: All those in favor?

Commissioners: Aye.

(The meeting was adjourned at 4:40 p.m.)

CONSENT ITEMS

         Employment Changes:

         Cumulative Bridge (1)               Health Dept. (1)              Burdette Park (3)

         Sheriff Office (5)                       Public Defender (1)        Knight Assr. (1)

         Coroner (1)                               Auditor (2)

         Travel Requests: