| | Back | Home | Email | Search | Weather | | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Vanderburgh County
The Vanderburgh County Board of Commissioners
met in session this 22nd day of January, 2001 at 6:00 p.m. in
Room 307 of the Civic Center Complex with President David Mosby presiding.
The meeting was called to order by President David Mosby. Those present were David Mosby, Commission President; Catherine Fanello, Commission Vice President; Richard Mourdock, Commission Member; Phil Hayes, County Attorney; Tammy McKinney, Commissioners' Secretary; Suzanne Crouch, County Auditor; and Charlene Timmons, Recording Secretary. The Pledge of Allegiance was given.
There was a motion made by Catherine
Fanello to approve the minutes. It was seconded by Commissioner Mourdock.
President Mosby so ordered.
Commissioner Fanello: Am I going to do all these at one time? Are we just going to make one motion? Commissioner Mourdock: Why don't you go ahead and do them individually or how many of them do you have? Commissioner Fanello: Quite a few. Commissioner Mourdock: I would still suggest you do them just individually. Commissioner Fanello: Okay. Commissioner Mourdock: Then we can go through one motion at the end and then if I have any questions in the meantime I will stop you. How's that? Commissioner Fanello: Okay. I'll move approval for Tim Spurling to be appointed to the Board of Review. Commissioner Mourdock: Um- President Mosby: Go ahead and do them all. Commissioner Fanello: Huh? President Mosby: Are you going to do them all? Commissioner Fanello: No, he said do them individually. President Mosby: Oh, I see. Sorry. Commissioner Mourdock: I will second. President Mosby: So ordered. Commissioner Fanello: Burdette Park, Charlie Guetling, and I can't remember if I reappointed Rob Kerney. If not, I'm going to do so at this time. Commissioner Mourdock: Okay, that being a motion I will second. President Mosby: So ordered. Commissioner Fanello: Motion to appoint Lisa Bandy and Sandie Aaron to the Convention & Visitors Bureau. Commissioner Mourdock: Second. President Mosby: So ordered. Commissioner Fanello: Motion to appoint John Buckman, David Alexander and Sheriff Ellsworth to the EMA Advisory Council. Commissioner Mourdock: Second. President Mosby: So ordered. Commissioner Fanello: Motion to appoint Wayne Crowe to the Library Board. Commissioner Mourdock: Second. President Mosby: So ordered. Commissioner Fanello: Motion to appoint Wilbert Robinson to the Building Authority Board of Trustees. Commissioner Mourdock: Which Board of Trustees? Commissioner Fanello: Building Authority. Commissioner Mourdock: Oh, okay. That's fine. Second. President Mosby: So ordered. Commissioner Fanello: Motion to reappoint Christy Baker and Stan Young to the Domestic and Sexual Violence Commission. Commissioner Mourdock: Second. President Mosby: So ordered. Commissioner Fanello: Motion to appoint James Stauber and Gary Stutte and reappoint Tom Guth, I believe it is, to the Electrical Board of Examiners. Commissioner Mourdock: Second. President Mosby: So ordered. Commissioner Fanello: Motion to appoint Reverend Justin Marx to the Human Relations Commission. Commissioner Mourdock: Uh, that's fine. Second. Commissioner Fanello: Motion to appoint Dan Durbin, Jerry Richey and Richard Redmon to the Redevelopment Commission. Commissioner Mourdock: Second. President Mosby: So ordered. Commissioner Fanello: That's all for tonight. We'll have a couple more next week and that should be it. Commissioner Mourdock: Which boards are short? Commissioner Fanello: We still have the HVAC Board of Examiners, Home Inspectors Licensing Board and the License Examining Review Board. President Mosby: And one for John Clement to the Burdette board, too. Commissioner Mourdock: Do I have one to Burdette? I thought that one was...the term was still- Commissioner Fanello: I'm sorry? Commissioner Mourdock: I'll check that. Commissioner Fanello: Okay. President Mosby: I think all the Burdette Park board is at one time. Commissioner Fanello: Yes, all the
board at Burdette Park are up at one time.
President Mosby: Okay, Purchasing. Jerry Bryan: Good evening, Commissioners. I have before you in your packets a list of two bids that are annual bids that are needed to be bid out. They are APA014-2001, traffic paint, glass beads and thermoplastic. I would like to advertise on January 25th and February 2nd and open on the 20th of February. The second one is to advertise and bid the following annual contract for traffic signs. Advertise on the 25th and the 1st and open on the 20th. These have been approved by the BPW. Jerry Hayes, I order these things for him and he works with the county on an as-needed basis. Commissioner Fanello: Okay, I'll move that we give permission to advertise the traffic paint, glass beads and thermoplastic on January 25th. Commissioner Mourdock: I'll second. Commissioner Fanello: Permission to advertise traffic signs on January 25th. Commissioner Mourdock: I will second. President Mosby: So ordered. Jerry Bryan: Thank you. President Mosby: Thank you, Jerry.
President Mosby: DADS. Commissioner Fanello: Nobody here to- President Mosby: Is there anybody here from DADS? Commissioner Mourdock: They normally don't...excuse me, they normally don't come into the meeting, but we have the contract in the packet to hire Ron Wilson as an instructor for the Drug & Alcohol Dependency Abuse Program. I just got the acronym wrong, but the DADS program. Drug & Alcohol Deferral Service. President Mosby: Okay. Commissioner Fanello: I'm going to move for approval on the DADS contract. Commissioner Mourdock: Okay, Phil, did you get to look over this contract? Phil Hayes: Yes, I have and I am familiar with it and it appears to be in the appropriate order unless you have any substantive changes. Commissioner Mourdock: I don't have any substantive changes, I don't think, but we have five copies. Is that- Commissioner Fanello: I don't know why we have five copies. Commissioner Mourdock: Yeah, I kept looking through them thinking they were under a different- Commissioner Fanello: No, they are the same copy. Commissioner Mourdock: Okay. Phil Hayes: Yeah, there were several. Commissioner Mourdock: Okay, so they are just all the same, just multiple copies? Phil Hayes: They are multiples, uh-huh. Commissioner Mourdock: Okay, with the motion on the floor I'll say second then to the hiring of Ron Wilson as the instruction for the Youth Alcohol Program with DADS. President Mosby: So ordered.
President Mosby: Jill Marcrum. Jill Marcrum: Good evening. My name is Jill Marcrum. I'm president of the Evansville Bar Association. Basically I am here tonight to offer the Bar Associations' services to you on a more formal basis. I know the individuals from the Bar have met with many of you on an informal basis and we're here tonight to formally offer our services, quite frankly, in the form of the Courthouse Action Committee. There are several issues which concern the courthouse and it is the opinion of the Evansville Bar Association that these issues should be considered now, that this is the perfect time to address these issues while we are addressing the issues regarding the jail. Some of these problems with the jail interrelate with the courthouse and it is our opinion that by addressing these issues now not only will we be looking at the big picture and solving some of the problems that exist with the jail and the courthouse, but it won't slow down what you want to do with the jail, what you're trying to accomplish now. We think that it will mesh quite nicely at this time. One thing we need to stop and think about is that wherever you build the jail, be it at the parking lot in the back 40 or some other location, the people lodged at the jail will have to be brought to court for hearings, so those are issues that we need to be concerned about. The transportation of the people to the courthouse, where they are being kept when they are at the courthouse waiting for their hearing. There are security issues and quite frankly I think everyone is quite well aware that there are space issues among others. The Evansville Bar Association is made up of approximately 450 attorneys and we realized quite a while ago that there were issues at the courthouse and we've been addressing them within the Bar Association off and on. We now have 19 judicial officers. Eight elected judges, five senior judges, six magistrate judges and quite frankly we only have ten courtrooms. We have increased filings in all of the divisions. As the Bar Association we wanted to be proactive in trying to offer solutions so in June of 2000 we created the Courthouse Action Committee. The purpose of the committee is to study the problems at the courthouse and try to arrive at solutions that would benefit the committee...I'm sorry, the community. This committee is made up of approximately 38 attorneys. They have studied and are in the process of wrapping up and we hope to have to you by February 1st a final plan, our final evaluation of the problems. We've studied the Old Courthouse, the uses of it and what would need to be done if the Old Courthouse were to continued to be used as a courthouse for current hearings. The current structure, the existing structure, one separate subcommittee has studied that issue. We've studied the effects of having court in two separate buildings, the current building and the Old Courthouse, the current building and some other building. We've studied the concept of a judicial center and we had a separate committee just simply doing research to support all of these subcommittees. This committee has been working for more than five months and I don't want you to think that we're asking you to slow down or stop what you're doing. We think that if upon receipt of this draft you'll realize how beneficial that this is going to be and how, quite frankly, the work that you're going to do with the jail in building a new jail can mesh with the addressing of the courthouse issues. I'm going to ask Ed Johnson to address you. He is one of the co-chairs. He is here along with George Porch tonight, who is also a co-chair of the Courthouse Action Committee. I ask that we be able to bring this report to you and that you consider it. I think that once you have seen that you'll realize that in the big picture this benefits not only the courthouse...I want to stop right there. It's important that you realize that no judicial officers were on any of these committees. I felt that it was very important as president of the Bar Association that this committee approach it from the community standpoint. This isn't the Bar Association coming here disguised for the judges. This is the Bar Association representing all of their clients who use that courthouse on a daily basis who when they go to their client and say, just a minute I have to go figure out which courtroom we're going to be in and that happens on a daily basis. It doesn't matter if you are a judge or a magistrate, when an attorney wants to know where their hearing is going to be held the odds are there is not a definite courtroom that they know to send their client to. We believe that if we address these issues now all at once it will be a benefit to the community as well as the courthouse. At this time I would like to introduce Ed Johnson, one of the co-chairs of the committee, and ask him to give you some more specific information. Ed. Ed Johnson: Thank you. I'll just take a couple minutes of your time. I won't try to belabor this tonight because we are going to have a written report. We're going to favor you with that report and let you take a look at it and see if you don't agree with this so we can work together and solve these problems. We don't want this jail built without coordinating it with the courthouse space for some safety reasons, some security reasons. Let me just give you a down and dirty overview. Back in 1968 when we first moved into that building over there, the court wing, we did have about five to six judicial officers. Today we've got 19. Back then in 1968 between now and then we've had an increase of 400 percent in criminal felony filings, 300 percent or more in civil filings. Just with...you all will be happy to know the number of attorneys in town have increased three fold since then- Commissioner Mourdock: So it's not all good news. Ed Johnson: No, it's not all good news. More lawyers, more litigants, more filings, three times as many judicial officers and we're still stuck with the same building that we had. Here is what we think we need. We think when the new jail is built we need some space in the jail building for courts. That does two things. Number one, it help alleviate the overcrowding conditions, but secondly it's a tremendous safety issue and a security issue for the public. If we build a jail and don't have a way of getting a felon from the jail cell into the courtroom secure the way we have now in Circuit Court, we don't have that in Superior Court, but we have it in Circuit Court. If we don't have that you're going to have the Sheriff taking prisoners across, you know, walking them across. In the last year we've had two Circuit Court prisoners dive out a plate glass window. In just one year they've dived from the second floor onto the concrete to try to escape. It will be a big security risk. We can aviate that problem if we simply when we build the jail if we simply construct some new courtrooms as part of the jail plan and get those prisoners from the jail cell into the courtroom. It will make the Sheriff's job a whole lot easier. It will make the citizens a lot safer and it will address the problem of this serious overcrowding in the present court system. We'll have more. I'm not here to argue any more. I just wanted to let you know what was coming and why, what the problems are. We'll give you a written report on it within the next couple of weeks and we'll be then at that point be glad to come back and work with you or talk with you, meet with you, answer questions, anything, because I think we can work together and get a building, a jail building, a correctional center, that with some courtrooms in it with some security built into the building will benefit all of us. Thanks. Judge Heldt and Judge Bowers are here and I think they had a couple of things they wanted to say in closing. Thank you. Carl Heldt: Carl Heldt, Circuit Court. First I want you to know that I wasn't in court either time when those fellows jumped out the window! I just want to support what Jill and Ed said. Our courthouse was built at the same time the jail was built and we've got the same problem and that's space. The courthouse is a fine facility and it has been really good to us and it's a good place to be a judge and to practice law, but we have...not only do we not have enough courtrooms but we have people stacked on top of each other, workers. It really isn't good for the judicial process, so I support what they are doing. I think it's the perfect time to address this issue and I thank you for giving us the time. Scott Bowers: Thank you for the opportunity to address the Commission. I'm here in place of Chief Judge Pigman who sends his greetings and was unable to attend because he is teaching. The need for courtroom space I think is very manifest just in the last ten years. We've gone from about 30,000 cases not including any juvenile matters just in Superior Court alone to up over 45,000 which is about a 50 percent increase. The felony filings have increased very nearly 100 percent in the last five years. The security needs are quite substantial and we're frankly lucky we haven't had a real disaster yet. We've even had some serious problems in terms of physical attacks and threats of attacks in civil cases. Obviously, judicial officers need a workspace to work and you need it there and ready to go, just like a fire station, when you have to have the hearing. With 19 skilled and experience people waiting to hear cases, but only ten rooms to hear cases in it's obvious that we are under utilizing our personnel. I've made a number of representations publicly about what kinds of things would increase the efficiency of the courts and reduce jail population in the past year. I can confidently say that everything I have said to this body and to the Council about what needs to be done to reduce jail populations and move cases faster has been well substantiated. I'm here to tell you we really do need some courtrooms and it can really help the public. Not just with the security on criminal matters, but also in moving very important civil matters because we'll be able to use our personnel much more efficiently. Frankly, when you look at the personnel cost over there the idle personnel far exceed the cost of building the new space to fully make use of their services and I think from a standpoint of economic efficiency there is just no question that this would be money well spent. Thank you. President Mosby: Thank you. Jill Marcrum: If you have any questions we would be happy to answer them. Obviously, we hope to have that report to you the first of February. If there are any questions now we would be happy to address them. President Mosby: Questions? Commissioner Fanello: I don't have any questions. Commissioner Mourdock: Yeah, I have several and I'll start with you, Jill, simply because you are at the microphone. Jill Marcrum: Sure. Commissioner Mourdock: You or Mr. Johnson said we would be getting the report shortly. In light of what Judge Heldt and Judge Bowers just said about the use of courtroom space versus the number of judicial officers is there some proper ratio, and you don't need to answer this on the spot, but I would hope this would be part of your report? Is there a proper ratio of judicial officers to courtrooms? I mean, one to one sounds like it makes perfect sense, but there is probably a lot of reasons why it doesn't. Jill Marcrum: Right. Commissioner Mourdock: If we have 19 versus ten right now obviously that's not the right number. Jill Marcrum: One thing to consider is five of the judicial officers are senior judges who do not work full-time. That takes us down to what...14? Commissioner Mourdock: Fourteen. Jill Marcrum: Which still with only ten courtrooms we do try to juggle. Obviously, there was talk last year about assigning...about judges not rotating and quite frankly if the judges didn't rotate we would be in a disaster because we obviously would not have the courtrooms. We wouldn't be able to juggle it the way we do now. We have had the benefit of a lot of studies from judicial centers. Susan? Unidentified: National Center for State Courts. Jill Marcrum: National Center for State Courts. We probably do have some studies that would support or would provide us on a national basis that information. Our system here is so different and so unique in the way that we handle cases that I'm not sure you can translate that. There has been no study...no one has paid for a study to determine what would be appropriate for our county given the way we handle cases. Commissioner Mourdock: Well, that's an excellent point and I don't have the answer with what I am about say, but I know one of the things that PMSI pointed out to us was that the rotating system that we have is unique in Indiana to Vanderburgh County. Jill Marcrum: It is. Commissioner Mourdock: I don't know if that's a good thing or a bad thing, I am just repeating what they noted in the report. I just heard you say if it wasn't there it would make the courtroom situation worse. Jill Marcrum: It would. Commissioner Mourdock: And yet everyone else is doing the opposite. Jill Marcrum: They have a lot more courtrooms. Commissioner Mourdock: Well, prove it. You may well be right, but that is the kind of information I need to know to make any kind of informed decision. One other issue, and I know I heard Judge Bower speak on this probably a year ago, the question came up given that we needed to move cases faster and use the current facilities better what does the legal community think of doing something more with night court? You know, would that give us greater use of the existing courtroom space? I mean, we have to look at every option. I applaud your group for wanting to get involved with this and hearing you at the microphone suddenly makes me think that probably when we originally set up the Blue Ribbon Committee we may not of had enough members of the legal community there. We did have Jeff Lantz in as a defense attorney, but he was the only person who was on that who was not a stakeholder here immediately within the building, or a couple of buildings. So the fact that you've done this, I think, is a good thing. Jill Marcrum: Well, one of the things that maybe we need to add, Ed and George, is the fact that I think our rate of turnover for cases, as Judge Bowers mentioned earlier before the meeting started that in Marion County I think it's a minimum of two years to get a final hearing for a divorce. Here...a contested final hearing. Here I think it is about 60 days. I was studying them this morning, 60 days. I mean, we move cases, I think, at a lot more rapid rate than the other counties do. Commissioner Mourdock: Judge Knight has presented statistics backing that up, so I don't know if either David or Catherine has seen those, but I have certainly seen those statistics too. Jill Marcrum: I mean, while we may have had some problems that we have addressed and tried to do even better I think when you look at a statewide basis I think that our county is doing exceptionally well. I say that as Bar president here and we will try to address the issue of night court because there are also some problems with that that doesn't...basically, a lot of our officers are working at the same time. So there are inherent problems with that, but we'll try to address those. Commissioner Mourdock: There are inherent problems, but a lot of other communities do it as well. Jill Marcrum: We do some night court. Anything else that we can answer this evening? Commissioner Mourdock: I would just ask if a few select members of your group would, and I presume we'll be talking about this under old business tonight, but as we continue to move forward with all the jail issues I would hope that a few select members of your 38 member committee might want to be a regular part of the communication process. Jill Marcrum: We would be more than happy to offer all the members that you would like. Thank you. President Mosby: Thank you.
President Mosby: Sheriff Ellsworth. Commissioner Mourdock: We have in the packet again, I don't know that the Sheriff is present, but I know Eric Williams is here, but we do have in our packet a simple contract tonight that is for the vending machines over at the Vanderburgh County Community Correction facility. Again, I would presume that the County Attorney probably has had a chance to look at these. Phil Hayes: Yes, I have. (Inaudible.) President Mosby: Phil, do you want to say that on the mike. Phil Hayes: I'm sorry. Oh, that's what we're talking about. I'm sorry, I thought we were having a private conversation. President Mosby: No. Me and Richard was wanting to listen. Commissioner Mourdock: Right. President Mosby: We were straining. Phil Hayes: I'm sorry. Commissioner Mourdock: Is the contract that is presented, have you had a chance to look at it? Phil Hayes: Yes, I have and it is in standard form of those vending contracts that are common with the Division of Disability, Aging and Rehabilitative Services. I have not seen the current contract, but it appears to be one which is usual and in order for the duties that our government has towards the vendor and the vendor's duties to us, so I have no problem with this format. Commissioner Mourdock: I'll move approval of the contract then between Vanderburgh County and the vendor who is...a contract between the FSSA, Division of Disability, Aging and Rehabilitative Services Blind and Visually Impaired for the vending operations at the Community Corrections facility. Commissioner Fanello: I'll second. President Mosby: So ordered.
President Mosby: Old Courthouse Preservation Society. Faye Gibson: I'm Faye Gibson, Executive Director of the Old Courthouse Preservation Society. I basically asked to be put on tonight's agenda to have a follow-up conversation if appropriate this evening in response to a letter forwarded to the Commissioners late last week. This letter basically states that presently the Old Courthouse Preservation Society is in financial trouble and because of that may not be able to continue its stewardship responsibilities with the Old Courthouse. President Mosby: Are there any questions? Commissioner Mourdock: That was a question! Obviously, the term used in your letter, and I don't have it in front of me, but the term of the letter last week used the term insolvency of the Old Courthouse group and I guess it begs several questions, all of which are legal questions. First of all, if I presume of the terms of the lease between Vanderburgh County and the Old Courthouse Preservation Society that there was a clause in there that said certain things would automatically happen if insolvency was declared. If that has not yet been reviewed I would ask the County Attorney to review that and report back. Phil Hayes: That has not been reviewed. Commissioner Mourdock: Okay, I certainly would assume that language would be there. I believe your letter said you expected insolvency to possibly occur as soon as the end of March or the beginning of March? Faye Gibson: End of March. Commissioner Mourdock: End of March. Faye Gibson: If my projections are correct on the utility bills. Commissioner Mourdock: Which could be- Faye Gibson: If I have under budgeted it could be sooner. Commissioner Mourdock: In a few short words, Faye, is the insolvency basically a result of increasing on the cost side or is your donor base drying up? Faye Gibson: It's both. Basically in a nutshell it's both. We've reached what we feel is a sealing on revenue generation. Other than the second floor of the Old Courthouse, so that we have almost a full building as far as tenants. We have raised the rental rates to what we think is fair. If we were to raise them too much more we would probably run them off to a building that provides housekeeping, which ours doesn't. We have a dwindling donor base, I feel, for a couple of reasons. Number one, and I think most importantly, when the Conrad Baker Foundation was originally founded it was done so in the height of awareness that this historic landmark could be torn down any day because the county had just vacated. It was formed by some very well educated and concerned individuals who recognized the value of historic preservation. As 32 years have gone by without a reason for people to come into the building other than to visit the tenants that we have in the building we have missed a whole generation of supporters and we're probably working on a second generation, quite frankly. I spoke with a donor just last week, mid 30s, who pointed out to me that he has been raised in a generation of AIDS related problems. He has been raised in a era where they look at medical and health issues and until he became involved through a family member telling him about the Old Courthouse, you know, it just didn't dawn on him. So as a result of that, and I think that is a major factor, quite frankly, we do have a dwindling donor base. We have done 60 to 65 percent of our operating budget has come from tenants leasing space in the building. Thirty to 35 percent usually comes then from out and out individual and corporate donations as well as special fund-raising events. What we're seeing now, too, is our annual fund-raising events have peaked, so for the first time in the fall we raised less money with our fund-raising efforts than before. So, yes, income is dwindling. Expenses, the biggest one utilities obviously, have just really socked it to us. Also, you'll have rising expenses whenever it comes to repairs and maintenance of a building that size and that age. It's the two together. Commissioner Fanello: I was going to ask what is your annual operating budget? Faye Gibson: This past year we spent $184,000 on the building. Commissioner Fanello: And revenues? Faye Gibson: Pardon? Commissioner Fanello: Revenues, yearly revenues? Faye Gibson: Last year we only realized about $170,000. Now this is...when I give these figures I'm talking about unrestricted figures that we earn through our own means, be it tenants, be it fund-raising. I'm not talking about restrictive grants that we've received over the years for major restoration work. Commissioner Mourdock: That begs another legal question. When those grants came in, were they donated to the Old Courthouse Preservation Group or to the Conrad Baker? In other words, when Dennis Avery and Venita did something a year or so, two years ago, I'm concerned if there is any legal worry that we should have if that grant was made to that group, to your group, and otherwise now if there is an insolvency nightmare scenario, worst case scenario, might the county have to pay that money back to the state? Again, you don't have to answer that question. That's a legal question that we need counsel on. Faye Gibson: You're correct. We did receive Build Indiana Fund two years ago through the General Assembly, through Dennis Avery's help, and that money has been spent. The entire second floor is totally air conditioned now so we have accomplished what we wanted to. Commissioner Mourdock: The other outstanding series of questions would deal with the lease arrangements that exist between the tenants who are presently there. If you become insolvent what obligations does that then put on the county as far as providing the day-to-day things that they might need to keep those offices going because certainly we don't want them to move out and make a bad situation even worse. Faye Gibson: Correct. Commissioner Mourdock: Is your group prepared to make any recommendations in its absence to what it thinks might happen or should happen with that facility? Faye Gibson: In its absence if the group were to become financially insolvent and have to dissolve? Commissioner Mourdock: Uh-huh. Faye Gibson: First of all I was just asked the question how much did we...how much money did we spend last year. I think the county...okay, I don't want to say the county. I think whoever would manage this building would need to depend on at least a minimum of $200,000 a year to do so. I will say that we have a staff of two full-time people and one part-time person so it's not that it is going to salaries. That is for general repairs and upkeep of the building, building supplies. When you are running an office building, you know, someone could talk to Mark Owen across the street at the Court Building and see what his budget is to manage an office building and that is what we have been doing, managing an office building. I would think a minimum of $200,000 would be needed to continue the building. Now granted some of that could be offset by tenants or leasing space in the building. It's not like it would have to come out of any other pocket. I personally am still convinced that the courthouse needs to be a courthouse. That's my own personal opinion and I'll say that any time I get a chance. If the second floor were restored and used as courtrooms that we just heard about tonight which I didn't know was going to be talked about tonight, but I'll bring it up again. You heard a figure of four. We've got four courtrooms sitting on the second floor that could be used for court any time. They could be used as is. Now granted we would like to paint, we would like to restore, we would like to make the rooms beautiful, but I think the county should look at that very seriously if they want to look at stabilizing this building again. Commissioner Mourdock: About five years ago, maybe five and a half years ago I suggested in a meeting very similar to this sitting in this same chair, in fact, that perhaps we ought to think about privatizing more of that. About two weeks later the smell of tar and feathers was coming in from the outer hallway out there even at the suggestion that be done. Faye Gibson: I also recall that you said publically that your wife made you sleep on the couch that night, too. Commissioner Mourdock: You have a good memory, Faye. That's true. Faye Gibson: Privatize? I don't know if anybody is out there willing to do that. In our defense, Richard, you were misquoted as saying let's just sell the building which showed disrespect for our building and of course we would come in arms then with disrespected. Privatization, someone who could turn it into a showcase that it should be and someone has got the money to do it, you know, that might be quite a fitting purpose for the building. I personally will tell you that I turn 20 people away every day. People who want to pay a parking ticket, a speeding ticket, buy a fishing license, look for their birth record, you know, so we are still seen as a county courthouse. It certainly looks more like a county courthouse than the complex we're standing in now. Of course, we're all bias too. I think it should be a courthouse. Commissioner Mourdock: Well, for what it is worth, and one of the things in our first meeting of this year we talked about doing was using tonight to talk about what our individual goals as Commissioners would be for this year and I put mine together before I saw the copy of the agenda today because I was out of town over the weekend and the next to the last one I have is listed over there as the Old Courthouse, define revitalization plan. Faye Gibson: Thank you. Commissioner Mourdock: Yeah, I don't know what that means other than being words on a page at this point, but clearly with what Ms. Marcrum and Mr. Johnson were saying before the need for courthouse I agree with you. I think the most logical thing for that building to be is a courthouse, but getting us from here to there remains to be seen how that happens. Faye Gibson: True. Commissioner Mourdock: I'm not sure that privatizing in some form still can't be part of that plan, but who knows? President Mosby: Questions? Phil Hayes: If I may, Faye, we had met before the first of the year since us Democrats were tenants in there and still are I think. Faye Gibson: Still are. Phil Hayes: We were hooked by you- Commissioner Mourdock: Raise the rent. Phil Hayes: -and Jeff Hayes and pay an exorbitant rent, but in that discussion we had covered a little bit about whether there had ever been any approach to the City of Evansville to assume any responsibility on this and I know, of course, that the county...it's clearly a county facility. Faye Gibson: True. Phil Hayes: However, I think everybody agreed and I think I was pretty well satisfied that its character has changed and it is a community building. As it turns out now it's a historical fact of legal title that the county owns it. But as far as the city is concerned, I know the City Preservation Office is still over here. They don't rent out. The county has a tenant, its engineering operations are over there. Faye Gibson: As well as Veterans Services. Phil Hayes: And Veterans Services is there as well. Since that time, and I know it has been short, do you know of any contact to the city or any folks there? Faye Gibson: No, I don't think so. Phil Hayes: So we don't really have a reflection on their view. Faye Gibson: That's a novel concept because that historically has been county property for 100 years I don't think anyone has ever asked that question or thought of it before, quite frankly. Phil Hayes: Oh, really. Faye Gibson: Of whether or not the city...now, over the years the courthouse has received some funding which is passed through the city, through the Community Development Block Grants, federal grants. Phil Hayes: Sure. Faye Gibson: So the city is in that respect aware of our needs. Phil Hayes: Right. Faye Gibson: And so forth. As far as any direct involvement other than that, no. Phil Hayes: Okay. Commissioner Mourdock: Is there anything, Phil, that we need to be thinking of between now and whatever the...I don't know since you're a non-profit if there is a formal declaration as in a Chapter 7 or Chapter 11 filing or something like that? Phil Hayes: No. Well, they'll have to terminate their status as far as their tax advisor advises them to do so if they intend to disband and give up that tax status, that 501C3 tax status. I don't know that is something if you have been advised to immediately jump into that and do it. Faye Gibson: No. Phil Hayes: So you have a board, you have a current operating board, and you are basically notifying us that you're just going to be sitting over there and you're going to be targeted because you happen to be occupying it. I don't think you'll run away from anybody. You'll probably notify them, but you won't be able to operate your telephones for example. If you can't pay the bill to do it- Faye Gibson: Correct. Phil Hayes: -you won't be able to do that, so your phone service is going to be terminated hopefully on a planned basis, but pretty quickly right? Faye Gibson: Unless some unforseen subsidy comes our way that we are unaware of. The utilities have effectively- Phil Hayes: Have you spoken- Faye Gibson: They have started eating into the small reserves that we had to begin with. Phil Hayes: Right, have you spoken to the utility about your plans and about the mechanical means of- Faye Gibson: Not at all. Phil Hayes: -minimizing incurring further expense so you don't in essence go in the hole? Faye Gibson: No. Phil Hayes: Okay, so that is something no doubt that you're going to get advice on and try to have a soft landing versus a hard landing as they say. Okay. Commissioner Mourdock: But either way it would seem to me it lands on us. Faye Gibson: Correct. Commissioner Mourdock: Because- Phil Hayes: Total responsibility to maintain that property, right. Commissioner Mourdock: Yeah. Phil Hayes: And when I say maintain it that would be...I'm sure Faye will know the number of leases that are there so those tenants have certain rights. Commissioner Mourdock: If the day this insolvency occurs I think it is reasonable to expect, and again you don't have to answer that, Faye, but you said earlier you've got three people, yourself and two others, that are paid people working there? Faye Gibson: Yes. Commissioner Mourdock: Most people if they're not going to get paid aren't going to show up for work and what I want to make sure we're ready for is if that happens do we have what we need in place through this office to effectively run the facility by personnel not just the right documents which are critically important. Are we going to have that in place and this is not a suggestion, this is just a statement, would we as county government be better off to be the source of some slight, to use your word of subsidy, to keep the phones on to keep the most basic services going. I mean, would it be cheaper for us to do that from this end than it would be to just have it all dumped on us? Again, that is not a recommendation. That is simply a question I think we need to study. In addition to...not in dollars, but your normal monthly bills obviously is for the wages for the several of you, is for the phones that you have, is there anything else specific to your group? Faye Gibson: Obviously building supplies. Commissioner Mourdock: Office supplies. Faye Gibson: And office supplies, things like that. Commissioner Mourdock: We might want to look at that- Phil Hayes: You have a maintenance staff there, do you not? Faye Gibson: Yes. Phil Hayes: Excuse me for interrupting, I'm sorry. Faye Gibson: One full-time and one-part. Phil Hayes: One full and one part-time and they're...but on a daily basis there is ongoing...for example cleaning that takes place on a daily basis not an interim basis? Faye Gibson: Yes, correct. Phil Hayes: So those liabilities are there that probably should be if we intend to continue it being open and not have the hard landing kind of effect you probably need to inquire as to how to get that taken care of. Faye Gibson: We do have several Old Courthouse tenants sitting in the audience tonight because they have concern about their future, quite frankly. Phil Hayes: Uh-huh. Faye Gibson: It would be the Old Courthouse Preservation Society's intent to do as much as we can to secure the future of our tenants who have been supportive to our building. Commissioner Mourdock: Sure. In the near term maybe the best thing we can do is to, and I'll make this as a motion, that we direct the County Attorney to go ahead and work with Ms. Gibson and her group to get us to that point of soft landing in the most economical way fashioned or most economical way possible. Perhaps, Phil, next week you can report to us what the alternatives might be. Phil Hayes: We can do that, sure. Commissioner Mourdock: That was a motion. Commissioner Fanello: Second that motion. President Mosby: So ordered. Any other questions? Phil Hayes: Thank you, Faye, appreciate
it.
President Mosby: Department head reports. Commissioner Fanello: Did you ask
if anybody wanted to address-
President Mosby: Is there anybody
else that wanted to address the Commission?
President Mosby: Seeing none we will move on to department head reports. County Engineer. Tammy, I believe- Tammy McKinney: I gave it to Catherine. Commissioner Fanello: Yeah, John couldn't be here tonight so he has, let's see, an application for a construction in a floodway permit, so I guess this needs to be signed and it has to do with the project. It involves replacing an existing concrete box beam bridge with a new structure and it's part of the widening of Mt. Pleasant Road between US 41 and Old State Road. This permit is required for construction in a floodway. Commissioner Mourdock: And I'll just make the point that is pretty routine and customary. That's a normal document that we deal with, so I'll second the motion. President Mosby: So ordered.
President Mosby: County Highway. I believe Ralph is here with us tonight. Ralph Kissinger: I guess you have my packet and my weekly reports in front of you. I have one thing if I may present it to you at this time. It took myself, the garage foreman, and my assistant superintendent up until almost meeting time to complete this, so I would like to go ahead and give this to each one of you. These are specifications for the two...actually three, two or three. There are two trucks that would be identical that I requested last month that I had permission to go ahead and write the specs up for these trucks. Two of the trucks will be the small one ton vehicles with utility dump beds and spreaders and plows for subdivision work. As I told you before our larger trucks have a lot of trouble in subdivisions especially if cars are parked on the streets and these smaller trucks will be a lot more effective in snow removal and I would like to request that we be able to give those to Jerry Bryan in Purchasing and get those out for bids as soon as possible. Commissioner Fanello: You don't have any costs on them yet? Ralph Kissinger: I've got approximate costs. I know that just by getting estimated prices, which these are not...these are ballpark figures. The tri-axle dump truck which I am requesting for the paving crew with a dump bed will run in the neighborhood of $80,000. The two smaller trucks will run in the neighborhood of approximately $40,000 to $42,000 a piece. So ballpark we're looking at $160,000 to $162,000. I have talked with Ms. Deig. She said that I do have appropriated funds for the road equipment to draw from. I'm new at this so this is how I am going about trying to spec the truck out and make the request that we put it out for bids. Commissioner Mourdock: If in fact, we acquire these vehicles are you going to put several other vehicles out to surplus then? Ralph Kissinger: At the present time probably just one. There is an older, larger dump truck, but we need to increase our fleet for snow removal especially. These two smaller trucks can be used, one on the paving crew during the summer and one on the bridge crew during the summer so they will be utilized. They won't just be snow removal vehicles. Commissioner Mourdock: You're not looking at a manpower increase to go with these? Ralph Kissinger: I hope not. I know that was one of my first questions when I came in, are you going to get us any more help around here, and I know from a business standpoint of being in private business for as many years as I was that you're required as much as you can with as little as you can. I'm trying to run the garage as a business now instead of...I don't know in the past it has been run as different things. The only way I know how to run it is as a business and I am going to try to utilize what manpower I have at the present time. Commissioner Mourdock: Okay. Ralph Kissinger: I don't foresee any requests right now. I do have a request in your packet. There has been a transfer from The Centre for a laborer's position at the garage to be filled, but other than that at the present time the only other thing I had to ask to tonight is there is a county bridge conference at Purdue University and I put in the report the approximate cost and permission and a copy of the slip for one of my garage foreman. The bridge foreman, actually, Oscar McGee, and for my assistant to attend the conference. I may be late on that, but I just got the information and we didn't have a meeting last week. Other than that I've got my inventory report in there. Is there any question on it? Commissioner Fanello: Did Suzanne get a copy of the inventory report? Charlene Timmons: We did not, but we need one. Commissioner Fanello: You need a copy. Ralph Kissinger: Yes, I'll get it to you tomorrow. Charlene Timmons: Any time you submit anything to these guys we would like to have a copy. Ralph Kissinger: Okay, did I not? Commissioner Mourdock: You said that too politely. Not we would like, we must have. Charlene Timmons: Or that! Ralph Kissinger: I will get those copies. Commissioner Fanello: So then do I need to make a motion as far as what Ralph, I guess, to go out for bid on these trucks? So I'll make a motion to allow Ralph to go out for bid on these trucks. Commissioner Mourdock: I will second. And, again, you mentioned you'll be working with Jerry Bryan on that because you need to do that? Ralph Kissinger: Yes, I will. President Mosby: So ordered. Your travel request will fall under travel requests. Ralph Kissinger: Thank you. If that's all? Thank you. President Mosby: That's it with me. Commissioner Fanello: Oh, I was going to ask you one question about the paving list for this year. When do we need to have that information together? Ralph Kissinger: As soon as the three of you can come up with what you actually want on it because I need to get a schedule and try to get...I know what my cost per ton...I need to figure out how many miles I can pave and I also need to get exact figures on what money I have to pave with. Commissioner Mourdock: And just for historical reference on that, Ralph, what we have done is the...at least in the six years I have been here the Superintendent of the Garage always provides to us a tentative list. It's usually late February or early March as to what he sees as necessary for paving for the coming year. We then take it under advisement for a week or two, make sure we're okay with it, offer suggestions or move things around as need be and then act on it about two weeks after you give it to us. Ralph Kissinger: And informally not to present as a board, but I spoke with Commissioner Mosby the other day and I did give him a copy of what I had and I will be glad to submit copies to the other Commissioners formally at the next meeting if that is okay. Commissioner Mourdock: Okay, and Charlene just reminded me of something that is quite correct. We have always dedicated one meeting after we've taken that material under advisement and before we officially approved it we always have one meeting we advertise as the road hearing and a lot of folks will come in and tell us, you know, I was here last year and now this year is my year, right? You get to make a lot of friends. Ralph Kissinger: I will have that the next meeting. Commissioner Mourdock: Okay. President Mosby: Thank you, Ralph. Ralph Kissinger: Thank you.
President Mosby: County Attorney. Did you have anything to add? Phil Hayes: Nothing specific except in general I simply wanted to report that most of the active litigation cases that the county has that have been the primary responsibility of Mr. Harrison are continuing. We've met. He has continued on certain cases. Certain of those are being transferred for efficiency and in that general respect that business is moving on. I don't have a count as of today as to how many active torte notices have been filed and are pending with the county. There are some reports. They are aging, they're in different states, so that is to say different states of development and as you know the county has 60 days within which to determine how they are going to handle those, so I am anticipating that you'll have that full information ten days to two weeks and if you need it before that why we can probably put something together for you. As of now, Mr. Harrison doesn't believe there is anything that has a critical need to act on at this point. Commissioner Fanello: At this time should we go ahead and...you have reviewed the AMR document? Phil Hayes: Yes, if you wish to- President Mosby: We're doing that down here. We've got that. Phil Hayes: You wish to cover it later, that's fine? The AMR item and then the other items are there. They have been reviewed. President Mosby: Me and Richard have our own agenda. Phil Hayes: In brief that's our report.
President Mosby: Superintendent of County Buildings. Tammy McKinney: I don't have anything.
President Mosby: Burdette Park. How
soon are you going to be able to move to the Old Courthouse and superintend
that?
Steve Craig: Steve Craig, manager of Burdette Park. The first thing I have on my agenda is I have given you a notice of request for proposal for the architectural and construction supervision services and I was wanting you to look that over and decide which way we wanted to go on it. Commissioner Mourdock: Did you give that to everyone, Steve? I'm not sure that I've seen it. Then again I was out of town this weekend. Steve Craig: Yeah, we brought 12 of them down Friday. Is that it there? Commissioner Fanello: Do you have one? Commissioner Mourdock: The goals, yeah. You're not asking us to take action on this particular part tonight? Steve Craig: No, I would like to take it under advisement and next Monday...I imagine Phil should take a look at it too to make sure it is what we want to do with it. I had some things that I put in there and I would like you guys to look it over and bring it up for next week. Also, in my packet we always do this at the beginning of every year also the goals and projects that we intend on doing for the year 2001. They were in there and you might want to look them over and then next week if you've got any suggestions or ideas that you think that we should add to them we can address that. Commissioner Mourdock: Again, these are the product of the staff with the Advisory Board, correct? Steve Craig: Yes. Commissioner Mourdock: Good. Steve Craig: Then I have my worksheets that we turned in and other than that, that's all I have. Commissioner Mourdock: I have something you'll be interested in. I always love it when we get little pieces of paper with Connie K. Naas' signature on them. The Auditor of the State has sent us the check that came from Build Indiana Fund in the amount of $50,000 to also go towards the O'Day Lodge. Steve Craig: And that is from who? Commissioner Mourdock: Well, it's from the Build...does it matter? It's from the- President Mosby: It's $50,000. Commissioner Mourdock: -Build Indiana Committee. Build Indiana Funds. Steve Craig: Well, usually there is a legislator that is attached to it. Commissioner Mourdock: And it is from Venita Becker, that's right. Steve Craig: It's from Venita Becker. Commissioner Mourdock: Right, the way the Build Indiana Fund works different representatives get to do their thing with certain funds and this is from Venita's commitment to the park. Steve Craig: That's great. That's two of them in two weeks then. Commissioner Mourdock: Yes, it is and it's always appropriate if you would maybe put a letter together from staff to send that to Ms. Becker. Steve Craig: Will do. President Mosby: Got any more of them? Commissioner Mourdock: No, I'm sorry I don't. President Mosby: Any questions of Steve? Thank you, Steve. We'll look at the requests for the O'Day Center and try to get back with you next week. Appreciate the goals. Thank you. Steve Craig: Thank you.
President Mosby: Soil & Water Conservation. Commissioner Fanello: Don't we just get those? Commissioner Mourdock: Yeah, I don't
think we have anyone here tonight, but they did submit their report.
President Mosby: Ozone. Commissioner Fanello: Nobody, they just submit. Commissioner Mourdock: Yeah, and we have that report submitted, so I'll move approval of all the consent items as submitted to the board this evening. Commissioner Fanello: I'll second. President Mosby: So ordered.
President Mosby: Employment changes. Commissioner Fanello: No, that's part of the consent items. Commissioner Mourdock: I'll move approval. President Mosby: Oh, the whole consent. Commissioner Mourdock: The consent items we have in one packet including employment changes, travel requests, the Treasurer's report, the Auditor's report, also the Auditor's report submitted regarding bridge certifications and the weekly jail information reports. By the way, mentioning the jail as of tonight as of this moment Chief Deputy Williams tells me we have 267 so we're actually one less than capacity at the jail which is the first time, I think, since I have been a Commissioner that we've been able to say that, so that's a good thing. President Mosby: Can't beat that. Commissioner Mourdock: So I'll move approval of the consent items. President Mosby: I did not see Ralph's request. Commissioner Fanello: In the travel requests? President Mosby: Yeah, I was looking for his request and I didn't see it. He said that a minute ago. Commissioner Fanello: I don't see it either. President Mosby: Ralph, when did you turn your travel request in? Ralph Kissinger: It's in your packet. It should be in our weekly report. Commissioner Fanello: Oh, okay. President Mosby: Oh, okay. That's why we didn't see it. Commissioner Fanello: Okay. Give them to...yeah, okay. Give them to Tammy in the future and that way she'll put them in our... President Mosby: Here we go. Commissioner Fanello: Yes, Tammy is going to get copies. Commissioner Mourdock: The motion I made was for all the various consent items we had here. We generally do those as one. President Mosby: Okay, with this not being on here do we need to add this? Commissioner Mourdock: The one specific for Ralph, for the garage? President Mosby: The one for Oscar and Mark to go to Purdue University. Commissioner Mourdock: Okay, I'll move that we add that one item to the consent file. Commissioner Fanello: I'll second. Commissioner Mourdock: Okay, and with that addition I'll move approval of the consent items. Commissioner Fanello: Second again. President Mosby: I have a motion and
a second with an addendum to add the Vanderburgh County Highway Garage.
So ordered.
President Mosby: Old business. Commissioner Fanello: Scheduled meetings. President Mosby: Oh, scheduled meetings. I'm sorry. Commissioner Mourdock: I have no proposal for scheduled meeting changes unless either of you have any. President Mosby: I don't. Commissioner Fanello: I don't. President Mosby: No changes.
President Mosby: Old business. We discussed the AMR contract last week and I believe we need to act on that. Phil, if you want to. Phil Hayes: Yes, I have reviewed the contract and there are matters...the contract is in order. There are policy matters that are considered substantive and that would be for your pleasure concerning the most important probably would be response times that the previous minutes reflect concern with. In terms of the manner in which the contract has been written and as far as the providing the proper license and certifications and all the legal requirements we find it to be in order. It's in order in terms of its form. Commissioner Mourdock: Is the service area the same as in the prior contract because that was quite contentious several years back with Scott Township? Phil Hayes: Well, our understanding is that it's the...the term is with the same territory that was covered in the contract under which we are operating now by extension, yes. Commissioner Mourdock: Okay. President Mosby: Jerry is here and he is shaking his head yes, but if you have any questions Jerry Key is with us from AMR. Commissioner Mourdock: Oh, okay. I didn't see him behind the podium. Hi, Jerry. Jerry Key: There are no changes in it other than minor things that I had sent through. Commissioner Mourdock: Okay, and again those are in regards to, as the counsel was saying, the response times? The only changes are in response times? Jerry Key: There are no changes to the response time criteria from what we are operating under currently. Commissioner Mourdock: Okay. Phil Hayes: I didn't mean to imply there were. In terms of the discussion as far as at your pleasure if you wish to discuss those. Commissioner Fanello: I'm going to bring that up. I'm going to move approval of the contract, but during this year or last year during the campaign last year I heard several people complain about response times and I don't know if we need to discuss that now or maybe discuss it some other time, but I do want you to know that has been an issue with several people. So I don't know, have you heard of...have you personally received any complaints? Jerry Key: No, we receive very few complaints on that. We did this year before submitting this I did meet with all of the suburban fire chiefs to have dialogue about any complaints or concerns that they have. There doesn't seem to be a disparity other than the difference that you see in response time between urban and suburban. There are differences as an example between what the city response time standard is versus what the county is, but I think when you look at it across the country for suburban response times they are very competitive response times. Again, I think that is certainly your discretion any time you see fit to change those. Our objective, obviously, is to meet whatever those goals are and to do that consistently well. Phil Hayes: With the board's permission I did have one legal interpretation I was going to ask about and that is I'm quite sure I have looked at this. I don't see any provision that would place this Commission in the same position for example that Warrick County recently found itself in which was that ambulances were loaned out to other communities. They were gone and it created in some, at least allegedly, traffic circumstances there. I find nothing that authorizes that and is in your opinion is there anything that would authorize that kind of situation? Jerry Key: It doesn't speak to either authorizing or deterring it. The intelligence of, I think, of the Commission in this particular contract is defining response times. That gives us the latitude to do what we need to do business wise, but holds our feet to the fire on providing specific service whereas in adjacent counties there is no standard so if they show up in ten minutes or in 30 minutes there is no consequence to that and so that is where the difficulty comes in when an ambulance is not in the county regardless of whether they are a 30 minute standard can't...or response time can't be dealt with. So the only way they've got to deal with that is to come back as fire chiefs, as an example in that county, and complain they're not getting good service and blame it on the fact that they're doing other work. Probably their solution would be to adopt a standard similar to yours and say we don't really want to regulate or run and operate ambulances. What we want is good service for our citizens and I think that's the intelligence of the contract that Vanderburgh County has adopt is to set specific goals for that and hold us accountable for that with penalty clauses. Phil Hayes: So the...we can rest assured then as far as the legal aspect of this is concerned that like the discussion about response time where those kinds of complaints that they've received are...they may be individualized and since they are antidotal we don't know, but in general are we going to be able under this contract the Commission be relatively assured that they're going to know about if there is going to be a policy as there was in adjacent counties and it didn't involve your firm at all. Jerry Key: Right. Phil Hayes: But we would be informed in the event that such practices were going to be engaged in or anything like that relying on the response time? I guess what I am trying to get down to is that the contract is the same as it has been. We don't want to overdue it. It has been clearly reflected in the record that we are probably not going to negotiate anything any different here and still have the service that we need, but I think from a legal standpoint I'm concerned to know that we're not going to be receiving torte claim notices and so forth on people who may allege that we improperly contracted or improperly supervised the delegation of authority to bring these services in. You don't have a practice particularly of scattering your ambulances out in other cities and loaning them out in any event? Jerry Key: We do have a practice of we use what we call a fluid deployment system where ambulances that are in the system are always moving and we send the closest available ambulance to whatever call we get and we use them for everything from a discharge from the hospital to a nursing home to a 911 response. Phil Hayes: Right. Jerry Key: But there is an allocation system. I really don't want to get into it. Phil Hayes: Fifty percent, and you needn't. That's not really the direction I was going in. Fifty percent of these ambulances on some given day aren't going to be in Nashville, Fort Wayne, Louisville or Cincinnati? Jerry Key: Correct. Phil Hayes: They'll be here. Jerry Key: We can't responsibly cover our responsibilities here and guarantee you that kind of response time if we don't have enough resources. Phil Hayes: So that's the situation. Everybody knows we didn't cue one another on this dialogue. That's what I was after on this contract and I think that's certainly a good answer. Thank you. Commissioner Fanello: I'll move approval of the AMR contract for 2001. Commissioner Mourdock: I will second. President Mosby: So ordered. Commissioner Fanello: Now there was another contract that we discussed last week, the Safe House. We need to go ahead. Commissioner Mourdock: You're talking the lease? Commissioner Fanello: Yes, lease agreement. Commissioner Fanello: I guess if there are no questions on that and Phil has reviewed it I will just go ahead and move approval unless you have a question. Commissioner Mourdock: Phil, you have reviewed it and you're comfortable with it? Phil Hayes: Yes, we have done so and I have also been informed and I believe I am correct on this, Eric, but you and Sheriff Ellsworth have had a chance to review this document? There were a couple of areas, I think, that you wanted clarified and they were clarified to your satisfaction? Eric Williams: Yes. Phil Hayes: Okay. Commissioner Fanello: I'll move approval for the lease agreement for the Safe House. Commissioner Mourdock: I'll second. President Mosby: So ordered. Commissioner Mourdock: The other bit of old business we have or at least one other bit, as I mentioned when Faye Gibson was at the microphone we spoke at the first meeting on January 2nd about using this evening to present what our individual goals are as Commissioners and then typically what we've done in the past is the three of us put our goals up and if we can see some commonality between the three then we obviously move pretty aggressively towards those. I don't know if either of you are ready to discuss those. Commissioner Fanello: No, actually I was going to ask if we could have another week because there are a couple of issues that I would like to research before I finish my list. President Mosby: I want a month. Commissioner Fanello: Huh? President Mosby: How about a month? Commissioner Fanello: A month? You don't need a month. A week. Commissioner Mourdock: That's fine. I'll just state for the record since I've got mine up there and without going into great detail, but I feel very strongly about hiring PMSI by the 5th of February. Several items all coming under the jail. We have different dates up there, but I think we need to get the jail facility recommendations formalized. We need to obviously receive the recommendations prior to that from all the different stakeholders that I would hope PMSI might facilitate. We need to get the jail bid and then also as far as the process the judges who were here this evening as well as a lot of other folks have changed their processes in such a way that we've dramatically seen the numbers change. Case in point being the numbers from days gone by over there on the blackboard. You can 332, 295, 284. As I mentioned earlier we're at 267 and I think we need to make sure those processes stay in place so that at the end of the year we might see an average number in the jail of no more than 310 people, which is still overcrowded, but it's better than what it was formerly. Also that the average time in jail based on the older form of statistics is 65 days. Again, you can see up there we've gone from 79, 86, 83 days. Two other items, one I mentioned previously was the Old Courthouse and last but not least is on the GIS. I think we need make sure the public is starting to use that by the end of this year. If we don't I think we have a severe problem. Commissioner Fanello: And I did ask Cheryl if she could come next week and make a presentation to the board since David and I need to be updated on that issue. Commissioner Mourdock: Okay. Coming back to PMSI for a minute since I do have that on a fairly short fuse on my scope of things to get done I know there was a lot of talk last year about were we moving too fast, were we moving fast enough. At the first meeting this year I presented you with some of my thoughts that I thought somewhat coincided with the discussion we had prior to your inauguration. You asked that we defer those which we did. I think received, Catherine, I guess from you, a copy of a document that Bill Sheppler sent your way, a fax copy, of some other scope items. Again, it seems to me that's largely consistent with what you were asking for with one exception, and I appreciate this exception, that exception being the funding, the Crowe Chizek issues that you feel are not appropriate for PMSI. I would like to see us move forward with PMSI. We've had all the stakeholders, we've had people from County Council want to see those folks continue to be involved in the process and I know with the jail being the issue it is, it's a very high profile issue, and I think the public certainly has a right to know that we are moving forward on it and with that, you know, I would certainly continue the discussion as far as either my document or the one that PMSI sent you. Is that in fact the type of services that you're looking to use them for and if not what do we need to do differently? Commissioner Fanello: You want to go ahead...do you have any questions at this point? President Mosby: I have read the PMSI report and I'm not near ready to sign any contract with them. I'll leave my comments at that. Commissioner Mourdock: That being the case, Dave, what do we see as an alternative to keep the process moving forward? I'll ask the question I asked two weeks ago. In what PMSI presented to us what is it that is not there that isn't vital to this process? Commissioner Fanello: I didn't bring mine with me. President Mosby: I didn't bring mine with me either. Commissioner Mourdock: This one. Let me even add a different context. In the calls that I have received from the various stakeholders the question is being asked am I still going to be part of the process? In other words, the judges want to know as you heard tonight certainly the attorneys were saying, but Judge Heldt and Judge Bower made the comment about how might the courthouse or the courtroom situation how might all that come into play with what we do with the jail issue. I know I have heard Catherine say that you felt, and don't let me put words in your mouth, but I think what I heard you say was you felt we ought to deal with all these issues pretty well at one time from the point of view of bonding. Commissioner Fanello: Yes. Commissioner Mourdock: And I don't disagree with that. It seems to me all the people who have an issue in this want to move forward. They want to move forward with PMSI specifically along the lines of the scope of services that was presented to us and if we're not going to do that I think we're going to be forcing people back out of the process and we've worked real hard over the last two and half years to get their input. All of their input is in that volume that we have from PMSI. That's not PMSI's sole opinion. That is what they've compiled by meeting after meeting with all those various stakeholders. President Mosby: I'm looking at a couple of the things on here that I was trying to recall. Number one, the first thing they've got on here is to confirm the size of each project. I don't think PMSI and the Sheriff even agree at this point. Commissioner Mourdock: Wait a minute. President Mosby: So I don't think that I need PMSI to declare or decide that. Commissioner Mourdock: PMSI is not making the decision. President Mosby: I understand that. But you're asking me- Commissioner Mourdock: PMSI is compiling that information from those stakeholders. President Mosby: Okay, you're asking me what I do and don't want PMSI to do. I'm just saying this is one thing right here, the number one thing. I have heard the Sheriff say that he doesn't think the community corrections facility needs to be as big as what PMSI says. They don't agree on number one, so I think that is something we need to look at, we need to decide as Commissioners and we don't need to pay anybody outside to come in and do our job. Commissioner Mourdock: Without question it is our job to do that. President Mosby: Okay. Commissioner Mourdock: We don't have any disagreement there. President Mosby: RFPs. You know, we can write RFPs. We've got Baker and Daniels who has RFPs that they did on other projects. Commissioner Mourdock: But the RFP process has to be based on what we need in this community not other projects, but it has to have input from the stakeholders that we have been working with. President Mosby: I'm just not ready to sign anything with PMSI. Commissioner Mourdock: Well, I will...and I understand that. This is obviously a board- President Mosby: We have a letter going out next week that I've asked Catherine to draft...or Tammy where I would like to submit to all the judges, the prosecutors, the people we heard from tonight, the sheriff, his chief deputy, asking for what they want. Exactly what happened tonight. What do you see, what do you want? What do you want to be in the consulting, the architectural part of it, anything that you see? I would like to bring that back, put together a spreadsheet, have four or five people review it and once we've got it put together send it back out and look and see if there is anything that we missed. That's my...that's what I would like to see. Commissioner Mourdock: Okay, and here is my...having gone through the Blue Ribbon Committee process the thing that I fear under that type of scenario is that the individual stakeholders will no longer see the people collecting that information as being a neutral party. PMSI's role or any consultants role as I envision the scope of work here that we're tentatively identifying under PMSI, that scope of work is not to tell us what to do. It is to solicit information from all the stakeholders. They come forward as a neutral party which is why I think all of the various stakeholders have liked them as a group. They then compile that, they work with that group of people, try to come to some form of consensus and come to us with a recommendation which we are under no obligation to accept. At least that way they see it as a process outside the realm of the judges control it or the Commission controls it, or the Sheriff controls it. You know, we've got a lot of stakeholders here, we all know, and I think getting them into this process is critically important. We may go another direction with this, but I just want to go on record...and these people, I owe them nothing except their respect that I owe them for doing a good job. Having this thing in my hand that they forwarded to Commissioner Fanello on January 10th I would move that we direct the County Attorney to have discussions with PMSI regarding this scope of services. President Mosby: Dies for lack of a second. Commissioner Mourdock: Okay, fair enough. If it dies for lack of a second it dies for lack of a second, but I told the various stakeholders who have contacted me that they wanted to see this brought forward and I met my commitment. President Mosby: I'm not saying that I wouldn't in some point in time decide that there is something on here that I would want PMSI to do. I just don't foresee everything on there that we need PMSI to do. Commissioner Mourdock: Okay, well may I ask then- President Mosby: By 2/5. Commissioner Mourdock: Pardon? President Mosby: I was just looking at your date. Commissioner Mourdock: Oh, by 2/5. That's two weeks from tonight. Can we schedule, since your brought that up, two weeks from tonight to again talk about the scope of services that PMSI has here to make a formal...to take formal action at that time as to what portions of this scope of service ought to be awarded or at least further discussed with PMSI? President Mosby: We can do that. Commissioner Mourdock: Okay, well I move that we have that on the agenda for- Commissioner Fanello: February 5th. Commissioner Mourdock: -February 5th. Commissioner Fanello: I'll second that motion. President Mosby: So ordered. Any other old business? Commissioner Mourdock: I think I saw a hand up. Did we see a hand go up? President Mosby: Anybody wanting to speak under old business? Commissioner Mourdock: Okay, I guess
not.
President Mosby: Any new business? Seeing none. Unidentified: May I have just a minute? President Mosby: Sure. Commissioner Fanello: Sure. President Mosby: Anytime. Phil Hoy: Thank you, Phil Hoy, County Councilman. I've been listening to your discussion and I'm glad that you're going to bring this...I'm only speaking for myself as a County Councilman, not for the Council. But I'm not interested in awarding a contract to PMSI that gives them two percent of this whole project and I don't think that's what you're talking about Commissioner Mourdock. Commissioner Mourdock: No, sir, it is not. Phil Hoy: And I knew that, but I'm glad you're going to discuss it again. Having participated in the juvenile section of that and we all spent a lot of time. My main concern is that we don't do two things. One is we don't lose...there are really three things. We don't lose the momentum that has gathered in the system. I know we're going to have to build something. I think we all know that, but also fine tuning the system you can see the results in the jail in the number of inmates. The second thing is I don't want to lose that body of work that they did. I don't agree with every part of it either just as you don't, Commissioner Mosby, but I think it gives a working document to us. My third point is in my opinion we don't need to spend any more money with the consultant. I think we can take that document, you know, and work with that. That's what I would like to see us do and that's why I am happy to see you're going to discuss this in two weeks. Thank you. Commissioner Mourdock: With the document, Phil, I'm not sure what you're referring to. You're referring to the preliminary study? Commissioner Fanello: The study? Phil Hoy: Yes, well, yeah. The study and the executive summary and then the recommendations because I have also worked with Community Corrections. I was assigned there for a while, and I agree with the sheriff, by the way, that facility does not need to be as large as it is. One of my complaints over the year, I'm just going to be honest here, it got personal when my foster son's head was kicked in by a felon and my foster son was a policeman. He was in the hospital two weeks. You don't put that kind of person in community corrections. We've seen rapists. That's being changed. That must be changed and the system must change that and we must call this system to accountability. The criminal justice system does not belong to the sheriff or the judges or to you or to us as Councilmembers or to the lawyers. The community justice system belongs to the community. It is our system and we have made it work better, the criminal justice system. We have made it more of a system via this particular study. That is a remarkable accomplishment and I owe PMSI nothing. I don't owe anybody anything. I don't have any contracts with anybody. I don't have any, you know, stake at all with them, but I don't want us to lose that body of work. I'm real concerned about, you know, the part I worked on. That's the juvenile section and we had lots of input there. Lots of hard work not so much from them, they facilitated, but we took hours and hours of time from all kinds of stakeholders in the juvenile system. Local people. I think that's an important thing to hang on to. That's my major point. Commissioner Mourdock: And just for the record I don't know where the two percent number came from. I have never suggested that they receive two percent. I understand- Phil Hoy: It came from them. Commissioner Fanello: It did come from them in your Council meeting, I think, when they came. Phil Hoy: They came to a Council meeting, PMSI yeah. Commissioner Mourdock: I know previously the work that they had done for us was based on $110 an hour which is much cheaper than what a lot of other people would charge us to work on this. Phil Hoy: Yeah. Commissioner Mourdock: My feeling on that would be that we use that sort of hourly rate and then put a maximum cap, but two percent would...it would not even come close to two percent. If it's two percent I'm in the wrong business. Phil Hoy: Yeah. No, they wanted two percent of the overall cost and I think that's an unnecessary expenditure. Commissioner Mourdock: I do too. Phil Hoy: I'm not in favor of that. I want to be real clear about that because you're talking about an awful lot of money. I just think the document we paid for is what we need to work from. That's my only point. Commissioner Fanello: So are you saying that you don't see them being involved in some of these? Phil Hoy: I can see them involved to a point, but I don't want to see them involved to the point depending on what we spend. I hate to mention a figure because I think that is inappropriate at this time, but we know that we're talking about millions of dollars. I don't see them getting two percent of that, but I think we might use the firm at certain points and I would hate to change to another firm at this time is all I'm saying. Commissioner Fanello: But you see the study that we have to be a working document from which a decision can be made? Phil Hoy: Yes, yes. I think so and I think that is what Commissioner Mourdock is saying. Commissioner Mourdock: Well, I'm saying- Phil Hoy: I don't want to put words in his mouth. Commissioner Mourdock: I seeing it as a starting point. Phil Hoy: Yeah. Commissioner Mourdock: The specifics...you're right, David, I know there are people that disagree with what the findings were in that report and there is a difference between a finding and a recommendation. When they came here through the several weeks of presentations they were pretty careful in identifying those as findings. That it was their feeling that the consensus of people within a given committee felt it ought to be 225 beds. Well, maybe the Sheriff was one of those, but he was only one of that group. Clearly it comes back to us to make the right call and we do have to take information in from other sources, but what I see them very good at is organizing the information into an RFP. The RFP is the sum total, the product of what would come from this. I don't agree that we as the Board of Commissioners can put together an RFP for a project that I've read to be $50 million dollars and I don't know where that number came from because it has never been the sum total of what they gave us as their findings. President Mosby: Susan asked me one night and I said it could cost up to $50 million dollars- Commissioner Mourdock: Okay. President Mosby: -and that was just something I threw off the top of my head. Commissioner Fanello: Which I don't think should have been recorded in the paper, I'm just going to say that, because that's not a factual number. I just feel like I have to say that and I don't think we should be throwing figures out there that we have no factual basis for. Phil Hoy: Commissioner Fanello, that's why I said what I did. I'm not going to pick a figure out of the air because- Commissioner Mourdock: Like two percent. Commissioner Fanello: Well, that came from PMSI. Phil Hoy: The two percent was if they shepherd this project all the way through. I don't think we need them for that, but I do think I would hate to see us not use them for the next step for RFPs and things. I think that might be beneficial and we certainly don't have to follow all of their recommendations. Commissioner Mourdock: And I guarantee you we won't. It's too complex of a project. Phil Hoy: In the juvenile area, for example, Warrick County at the present time is, I think, also considering a juvenile facility and it would seem to me that it would be very wise if the two counties worked together. We're in the same region. I don't want to overbuild the juvenile facility because if it is built it will be filled and I'm not interested in locking up just hundreds and hundreds of juveniles. I think it would be a mistake, but we need more than what we have because we don't have a place to put a juvenile that is intoxicated, who is under the influence of drugs. We don't have any local place for young women. Those are key issues and I have given...I've tried for 40 years to get this done. It's a crusade for me. Those of you who know me know that I hang in pretty tough on those kind of things and I think this is the opportunity to do something that is correct and right. This juvenile facility was recommended by the Ready Study which created the Youth Service Bureau back in 1970. I was the first director of the Youth Service Bureau. It was in that study that long ago that we should have a juvenile facility. We're way behind on that. I think we can look at that recommendation. I've taken a lot of your time and I appreciate it. Thank you. President Mosby: Thank you, Phil. Any other new business? Seeing none. Commissioner Mourdock: Motion to adjourn. President Mosby: Is there a second? Commissioner Fanello: Oh, second. President Mosby: So ordered. The meeting was adjourned at 7:27 p.m. Employment Changes:
Travel Requests:
Auditor:
Treasurer:
Sheriff:
THOSE IN ATTENDANCE:
APPROVAL: VANDERBURGH COUNTY
______________________________
______________________________
______________________________
Recorded and Transcribed by Charlene Timmons
|
