|
Commissioners Meeting June 3, 2002
President Fanello: Call to order Vanderburgh
County Board of Commissioners meeting, June 3, 2002.
President Fanello: Introductions are as follows, Patty White, Commissioners Assistant; Jay Ziemer, County, sitting in for County Attorney, Kevin Winternheimer; Commissioner Mosby, myself. To my left, Commissioner Mourdock; County Auditor, Suzanne Crouch; and Recording Secretary, Madelyn Grayson. Please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge was given.)
President Fanello: Do I have a motion to approve prior minutes? Commissioner Mosby: So moved. Commissioner Mourdock: I wasn't here, so I can't. President Fanello: Oh, that's, sorry.
Second, and so ordered.
President Fanello: Phil Lawrence. Commissioner Mourdock: (Inaudible.) President Fanello: Is Phil here? Commissioner Mourdock: He's coming in the door. President Fanello: Okay. You're on. Phil Lawrence: Me already? President Fanello: Yes. You're on. You're number one. Commissioner Mourdock: A man who knows how to make an entrance. Phil Lawrence: You bet. Of course, I can't see, but, okay, what am I doing first? Commissioner Mourdock: Computer Services Outsourcing. Phil Lawrence: That's the bid that was opened last Tuesday at the Board of Public Works meeting at 11:00. Some of you have probably seen some of the numbers. I do have them, for the record. President Fanello: Now, just to kind of further clarify, these are the respondents to the RFP, or to the RFQ. These would be the consultants who would help us write an RFP for our Computer Services contract. Phil Lawrence: Yes. President Fanello: So. Phil Lawrence: The results, Gartner, and these numbers are basic, and there are some other numbers to be added to it. Gartner's numbers out of Chicago, Illinois, is $280,944. KPMG, LLP is from Indianapolis, and their bid was between $70,000 and $120,000. McCarter and Associates was from Greenfield, Indiana, and their bid was $35,000. Commissioner Mourdock: And with the wide range of bids, obviously, they are looking at things differently. Phil Lawrence: Yes. Commissioner Mourdock: How are we going to go the next step? President Fanello: Well, here's what...the Mayor and I met a few weeks ago, because this, obviously, the city sent out the same time, because this is a joint contract. We formed a small committee to help go through and interview each of these respondents. Eric Williams, as President of the Data Board, is on that committee. I'm on the Data Board, so I'm on sitting on it. The Mayor is on it- Eric Williams: Phil Hoy. President Fanello: Phil Hoy, who is the County Council representative, and Gene Koch, who's on the Data Board also. Commissioner Mourdock: Well, with that- President Fanello: The plan is to review them, and take them under advisement. Commissioner Mourdock: Yeah, with that group reviewing them, I would move we take these under advisement. Commissioner Mosby: Second. President Fanello: So ordered. Thank you, Phil. Phil Lawrence: Thank you.
Phil Lawrence: Next is permission to advertise the annual price APA033-2002, which is trash hauling, for the city and the county, and APA013-2002, Tires and Tubes, for city and county. Commissioner Mourdock: I'll move permission to advertise the trash hauling and tires and tubes. Commissioner Mosby: Second. President Fanello: So ordered. Phil Lawrence: Thank you.
President Fanello: Next item is Morley and Associates, O'Day Discovery Lodge discussion. Is anybody here from Morley and Associates? Unidentified: I am, but I don't know that anybody else is coming. President Fanello: Are you prepared to discuss- Unidentified: Not the O'Day. President Fanello: Okay. Steve? Commissioner Mourdock: Steve? Steve Craig: The last time I talked to Jim, he was going to come and discuss this with you. President Fanello: Okay. Commissioner Mourdock: Is it safe to say the summary of his remarks was going to be reflecting on the bid opening, or I should say the review of the bid, and making of the award? Steve Craig: I think it has to do with that and the added fees that he wanted to charge for the overseeing of the construction of the building. Commissioner Mourdock: Ah. President Fanello: I guess, that would be a very important discussion. Commissioner Mourdock: Uh-huh. President Fanello: Well, I think we're going to have to defer then, since no one is here. Commissioner Mosby: We can hold till later, and see if they show up. Commissioner Mourdock: Yeah. President Fanello: Uh-huh. Commissioner Mosby: I mean, if they show up before the end of the meeting, we can discuss it. President Fanello: If not, we can put it back on for next Monday. Steve Craig: Okay.
President Fanello: Other items, Morley and Associates, vacation of easement, public hearing. That's why we have this gentleman here. Scott Buedel: There's Ben for the O'Day. President Fanello: Okay, well, you can go ahead, and then we'll let Ben talk. Scott Buedel: I'm here on behalf of Brian and Krista Housman. They are proposing to vacate a public utility easement- Commissioner Mourdock: State your name, please. Scott Buedel: I'm sorry. Scott Buedel, Morley and Associates. They proposed to vacate a public utility easement, which crosses through their property. Prior to, well, approximately about a month ago, they owned four individual lots that these easements bordered, and just recently, on May 24th, they recorded a replat of their property. So, now there is just one lot that they own. These easements criss cross through the middle of that property. They are asking for them to be vacated for the full use of their property. In addition, they have granted additional easements to the Water and Sewer Utility, and a public utility easement for Vectren, or telephone, whoever it may be, for utilities that are existing or proposed in the future. President Fanello: Is there anyone who has any questions, at this point? Commissioner Mourdock: Is this first or second reading? Did this come up last week? President Fanello: This is first. Scott Buedel: First. Commissioner Mourdock: First. Just note that in the packet there are the number of different utilities that have responded with letters saying that they are, they have no objection to the vacation of the easement, so. Scott Buedel: Correct. You should find John Stoll's letter in there. I received it a little bit late, on my part, it was my fault for that, but it should be in the packet too. Commissioner Mourdock: Yeah, okay. Seeing no one here to remonstrate or to talk about this, I will move approval on first reading. Commissioner Mosby: Second. President Fanello: So ordered. Thank you. Scott Buedel: Thank you. President Fanello: We'll move back up to the O'Day Discovery Lodge discussion. Commissioner Mourdock: Before we do that, Jay, do we need to formally read in the record just the property description on that easement? Often times we do that, and I'm not sure that it's a requirement. Jay Ziemer: I don't know if it's necessary or not. Unidentified: We can't hear you. Commissioner Mourdock: Oh, I'm sorry. I was just saying, for the previous one that Mr. Buedel was just talking about, I want to make sure that if we need to formally read that property description, for the vacation of the easement, into the record. I want to make sure we do that. Jay, do you know, is it necessary? Jay Ziemer: Excuse me, I don't know about...I don't know how there would be any official record, unless that would be done. I assume though it's going to be recorded at the Recorder's office, though. Commissioner Mosby: It's been advertised, I mean. I don't remember us doing it previously. Commissioner Mourdock: Okay. Let me just clarify it this much, and say that it is for the vacation of an easement for 110 Evergreen Road, Evansville, and that the legal description is attached with the stamp of a land surveyor. Scott Buedel: Yes, that's correct. Commissioner Mourdock: Okay. Scott Buedel: 110 Evergreen. President Fanello: Thank you. Commissioner Mourdock: Okay.
President Fanello: You're on. Ben Kunkel: Alright. Hi, sorry for running late. I just picked up, got a copy of some questions you guys had on the bidders, and things that we, that Morley and Associates was providing the documents, and things like that. I did finish that. I have a copy of that, but then I've also got a letter recommending, from Morley and Associates, Arc Construction is the most responsible, lowest bidder. So, I would take any questions you have. (Inaudible) our response, at this time. Commissioner Mourdock: With the letter of recommendation from both the Advisory Board and from Morley regarding Arc, do we have the formal contract, Jay? Have you seen that? I don't think it's in the packets. Jay Ziemer: I haven't seen it, no. Commissioner Mourdock: Okay. Okay. President Fanello: Does anybody have any questions, at this point? Commissioner Mosby: I guess, I would want to see your responses. I mean, because I'm the one that had Tammy send you the list of questions. Ben Kunkel: Sure. Madelyn Grayson: Ben, do you have an extra copy of those for the record, by any chance? Ben Kunkel: Yeah. Can I give it to you after? Madelyn Grayson: Sure. Commissioner Mosby: I guess, I'll take the first question. Ben Kunkel: Sure. Commissioner Mosby: It says after further evaluating the specific needs of the project, we elected to perform all the work "in house". What was the difference from the first time you bid on it until whenever? Ben Kunkel: The structure was a pre-engineered structure as opposed to a conventional sealed structure. So, we elected to just perform the footing design "in house" on the structure, the structural. Then to further...as far as the mechanical, electrical, and plumbing, we decided in order to make sure that the facility was in keeping with what we wanted, to allow, to hide all the duct work, and hide all the lights and that kind of stuff, we kept all of that under our control, which, I think, the end result we got a better product. Commissioner Mosby: So did we, as a county, save any money by you not doing this? Ben Kunkel: Save any money? Commissioner Mosby: Yeah. Ben Kunkel: It was the same fee. It did not exceed the fee that we, the hourly rates that we talked about. So, no. Commissioner Mosby: So, we didn't save anything? Ben Kunkel: Correct. Commissioner Mourdock: That begs the other side of the question, is it costing us more? Ben Kunkel: Costing us more in construction? Commissioner Mourdock: Yes. Ben Kunkel: In construction, or in design? Commissioner Mourdock: In design. Ben Kunkel: In design, no. As per our contract, we had a not to exceed amount, and we have not exceeded that. Commissioner Mosby: I'm just wondering if, with their added expertise to the project, could we have saved money on the project. I'll flip to the side to that. Ben Kunkel: Of the- Commissioner Mosby: I'll go on the flip side. Ben Kunkel: -on the construction side? Commissioner Mosby: Yeah. Ben Kunkel: That's a tough question to answer, but I feel like we did a thorough job, and the project came in at, actually, a little bit under the budget that we had established. So, I feel like we did a good job. President Fanello: Are there anymore questions, right now? Commissioner Mourdock: No. I have no questions. Again, I don't see the actual contract here with Arc. Since that, certainly, needs to be reviewed by either Jay or Kevin, I would move that we defer. Obviously, we do have the information that the Morley and the Advisory Board are telling us that they believe they are the successful low bidder, but until we see the final contract, I don't know that there's a lot that we can do. Ben Kunkel: Did you want us to provide a notice of award after, and do the contract? Would we do that- Commissioner Mourdock: I think we really need to look at the contract- President Fanello: Uh-huh. Commissioner Mourdock: -before we give notice of the award. Ben Kunkel: Okay. Commissioner Mourdock: I wouldn't expect that there to be any problem in the contract that would preclude that, but I think, just to be safe, we ought to do them sequential. President Fanello: Because Kevin may have more questions regarding the contract. Commissioner Mourdock: Right. Ben Kunkel: The contract that was in the project manual was a standard AIA contract. President Fanello: Okay. Ben Kunkel: So, if you want to just review that. Commissioner Mourdock: Yeah. Alright. Commissioner Mosby: I'm still reading. President Fanello: Okay. Commissioner Mosby: I mean, if we're going to defer it, that's fine. Because I'll have next week to ask questions. Commissioner Mourdock: Yeah. President Fanello: Okay. Commissioner Mourdock: Okay, well, I'll formally move that we defer signing the contract until the attorney sees it. Commissioner Mosby: Second. President Fanello: So ordered. Ben Kunkel: Thank you.
President Fanello: Next item we have is Allen Gries. This is a continuation of second and final hearing of a rezoning, VC-6-2002. I believe you were absent from that meeting, Commissioner Mourdock. Justin Shofstall: Justin Shofstall with Easley Engineering. As the request of the Commissioners from last meeting was tabled, because it was requested for a letter from Mr. Gatewood, that there be some letter issued as to whether he has support for the project, or whether he would require a use and development commitment or private covenant restriction. At this time I would like to go ahead and present that letter. President Fanello: Thank you. Do you have any additional copies? Or is that the only copy? Justin Shofstall: That is the original. President Fanello: Okay. Justin Shofstall: The only other copy that I have is the one that I have in my file. President Fanello: That's fine. We'll make copies. Justin Shofstall: It states in the letter that Mr. Gatewood does give his support for the project, and reaffirms the verbal agreement between Mr. Gries and Mr. Gatewood as far as which lots that Mr. Gries will be using and developing. Also, as far as, with the private ingress/egress easement for Mr. Gatewood to use to cross Mr. Gries' property, as far as long as it being a residential use, and also as the addition, that, yes, there will be a pine tree buffer, or opaque type buffer between Mr. Gries' property and Mr. Gatewood's property. President Fanello: Okay. Justin Shofstall: At that point, I still believe we came here with approval, or recommendation for approval from the APC meeting. President Fanello: That's right. Commissioner Mosby: Is this supposed to be the private covenant? Justin Shofstall: I believe it was stated at the meeting it was either some form of paper itself, as far as whether it be a private covenant, or whether it be a letter from Mr. Gatewood. I did prefer to have it recorded, but since with the signing late Friday afternoon, there was not enough time to have it recorded prior to the meeting. Commissioner Mourdock: Mr. Gatewood understood that it was your intent to go ahead and record? Justin Shofstall: Yes. Allen Gries: He said he didn't have any problem with it last time. He didn't know why it didn't go through last meeting? President Fanello: Well, there had been discussion, and so I think it's better for us if we can get something in writing making sure that the, when there had been questions before, if the resident had some questions about the rezoning. I know there had been talk about a private covenant, or some type of agreement. So, when you came to the meeting, it was a surprise to me that there wasn't one. Allen Gries: Right. I called him on the way home. He said he didn't know nothing about it. President Fanello: Okay. Well, that's the discussion that I had understood had taken place. So, in order to protect everybody's interest, I think, it's always better to get something in writing. Would you like to make a motion for approval? Commissioner Mourdock: You might check and just formally make sure there is nobody else here to speak to it. Commissioner Mosby: Let him look at it. President Fanello: What's the address? Commissioner Mourdock: 4612. President Fanello: Is there anyone else in the audience wanting to speak to 4612 North St. Joe Avenue rezoning? Commissioner Mourdock: Seeing none present, on second reading, I would move approval. Commissioner Mosby: Second. President Fanello: So ordered. Thank you. Justin Shofstall: Thank you. Commissioner Mosby: You have to have a roll call vote. It's a zoning. President Fanello: Oh, I'm sorry. Roll call vote. Commissioner Mourdock? Commissioner Mourdock: Yes. President Fanello: Commissioner Mosby? Commissioner Mosby: Aye. President Fanello: And I vote yes. Rezoning passes. Thank you. Justin Shofstall: Just one further question. As far as with us having that recorded, will the Commissioners be supplying that back to me, so I can have that filed for recording? President Fanello: Madelyn? Justin Shofstall: I can leave a copy here. President Fanello: Madelyn keeps all of that. Madelyn Grayson: I can have that recorded, but I don't have enough money in the rezoning. I think the check that you provided was only for $9.00. So, I'll need an additional $11.00. $11.00, if that is two pages. Justin Shofstall: Two pages. Madelyn Grayson: An additional $11.00 before I can record it. Justin Shofstall: Alright. I will have the check cut and into your office tomorrow. Madelyn Grayson: Make it out to the County Recorder. Justin Shofstall: County Recorder. Does it need to be certified, or can it be just a regular draft check from the company. Madelyn Grayson: It can be just a regular draft check from the company. Justin Shofstall: Alright. Thank you. President Fanello: Thank you.
President Fanello: Next item is Tim Van Cleave, RFP evaluation, VC-17-2002, Courts Technology. Tim Van Cleave: Good evening. Tim Van Cleave with Computer Services. Here on behalf of the courts technology. I do have a presentation for you. Briefly, to summarize the document, is the findings of the evaluation of the three responses that were opened here two weeks ago. Apologize for not getting this in to your possession prior to this meeting. Needless to say, there was a lot of information to process within two weeks. All three responders were very, were very respondent. It made it very difficult based on the different designs that could have been developed. One thing that I might point out, prior to going into the official recommendation, is that one of the responders, Dell, did not have a full response to the RFP. That is not to say that they could not provide some of these services, but based on the guidance that I was given by the Department of Purchasing, that information not contained within the RFP could not be presented for award. So, their score does reflect that. However, based on the scenario that the courts feel is best in the interest of the courts, and into the county, is what has been recommended here. President Fanello: Does anybody have any questions? Commissioner Mourdock: My memory tells me we've gone about six or eight weeks, and come back to where we started. Is that right? Tim Van Cleave: Very close, yes. We did make an initial presentation to the County Council on Wednesday. Their direction was to come to this body for your direction on whether to move forward with this recommendation. Then final evaluation of the financing would be performed during the second meeting of the County Council. President Fanello: So, are your numbers of the $600,587, is that for outright purchase? Tim Van Cleave: Yes. President Fanello: Then the $630,947 is for a lease agreement? Tim Van Cleave: No. President Fanello: Okay. Tim Van Cleave: Since the RFP was released- President Fanello: Ah. Tim Van Cleave: -there was some additional work stations that have been identified. We are actually estimating now closer to 260 work stations that will be needed, versus the 250 that were originally estimated. President Fanello: So, is the lease price the same as the- Tim Van Cleave: From the vendor, Matrix Integration, with Compaq, they are providing a, in essence, 0% lease. President Fanello: Okay. Tim Van Cleave: With a, I believe, a $35,000 buy out option at the end. President Fanello: Uh-huh. Uh-huh. I mean, I would say the next step, in my mind, would be to see a copy of the lease that we could review, and our County Attorney could review. So, that I could...personally, I would want to see if leasing versus outright purchase would be in our best interest. Tim Van Cleave: And that was the courts thought ,as well, is that our first step tonight was to get direction to move forward with the replacement plan that we had initially presented. If there was comfort level to move forward with that. Our request from this body tonight would be to move forward pending the review of the leasing contract by the County Commissioners, and the final directive by the County Commissioners and the County Council by final funding. Commissioner Mourdock: What would the lease term be, Tim? Tim Van Cleave: What we went out for in the RFP was three and four years. Commissioner Mourdock: Three or four. Tim Van Cleave: Needless to say, we also tried to do our best to come back with a buy out fair market value, along with step payments. Which all of those items complicated the financing to make it very difficult to try to bring apples to apples. So, that is why we felt that it would be best then, if a comfort level was to move forward with the project as it is. Then to bring the financing people from that organization in here to try to finalize some numbers. Commissioner Mourdock: That's where my next question was going. Is the leasing actually done through this organization? Or do they, basically, just lease it through some capital company? If we lease, are we going to have a better handle on them, to make sure we get service, is what I'm asking? Tim Van Cleave: I don't know how to answer that one. Matrix Integration has supplied Compaq and Compaq Financing is the organization that they are using to finance their solution. What they are saying is that the cost over three years would be the same as the...if you were to buy the same hardware today. Then depending on what option that you, the county, selects at the end, would depend on what the final payout would be. They have a wide range of tools, as all the financing companies that we work with, or discuss this with, so that there is no one way to do this, or any real incorrect way. The best thing to do is to take a look at what is the best proposal for the county. Commissioner Mourdock: I agree with Catherine, certainly, we need to see what the lease terms would be, and, you know, if it's going to be a zero interest lease with basically 5% buyout at the end, it may even be possible that if we did it cash up front we would get some better value for that 5% as a discount up front. President Fanello: I really have to have the lease agreement to see whether purchase versus lease, what our best option is. Tim Van Cleave: I guess, what we are really looking for today is to narrow in and say this is the solution that we want to pursue for funding and direction. Or, if you want to try to find another solution. I feel that this is the best one that will help the county- President Fanello: Solution? I'm not sure I understand what you mean as far as solution. Tim Van Cleave: If you recall back several months ago the different documents that have been coming through. We had evaluated multiple solutions ranging in costs from anywhere from a half a million up to a million some dollars. President Fanello: Well, I think, I mean, as far as I'm concerned, my decision is to look at the contract or the lease agreement and see if it's in the best interest of the county. You and the courts know what your best solution is as far as technology. So, I can't make that decision for you. Tim Van Cleave: Okay. President Fanello: That's how I see my role anyway. Doug Knight: Doug Knight, Superior Court. I'm hoping what we can get here today is some consensus on the direction of the project, and the approval of the project. I see the choice at the end always being open on a direct purchase or a lease, no matter, depending on how the numbers crunch out to everybody's advantage. The problem we immediately face is having to replace 250, 260 desk top computers. We have only in place about $125,000 for this year, and then we have to start a funding cycle really quick through the County Council to, at least, get a commitment for the balance of something in the neighborhood of $630,000. I suspect the Council is going to say, well, if the Commissioners okay the project, granted that the last stroke of the pen may be on a lease or an outright purchase of...not only the desk tops, but servers, upgrade to the software that we're dealing with in terms of Word Perfect. There are so many nuances to this project that it is so hard to get your arms around. Commissioner Mourdock: I think what I heard Catherine say a minute ago, I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong, is that you were okay with their solution, but you want to look at the financial decision as to whether it's a lease or an outright purchase. President Fanello: Uh-huh. Doug Knight: Okay. Commissioner Mourdock: So, I think we're saying- Doug Knight: I misunderstood then. Commissioner Mourdock: Okay. President Fanello: Yeah, I mean, I think it's your choice to determine whether the technological solution you've picked is your best solution. I can't make that choice for you, because I don't work in the courts, but I can definitely offer my perspective from as far as the lease contract and those things. Doug Knight: Certainly. Commissioner Mosby: I'm comfortable. I mean, I'm comfortable with what you've came up with, and as long as the Council is willing to fund it, I mean, I don't have a problem with it, so. Doug Knight: A lot of hard choices really did go into this project. Thanks to Tim and Marsha Abell and what little I had to offer, hard choices were made. In the long run, even in the short term, in some of these situations, the replacement of these desk top units is the right answer. If the most economical way to pay for it is, obviously, in everybody's best interest. Thank you. President Fanello: Thank you, Judge. So, you'll get a copy of the lease agreement? Tim Van Cleave: I will contact Compaq Financing and have them get...do you want one with numbers? Or a rough draft, at this point, what it would be prior to numbers? President Fanello: No, I would really like to see numbers, because I think that, I think we need to see the whole thing. Tim Van Cleave: Okay, and would you also like the financing group to come down and make a presentation and actually have them in the meeting? President Fanello: I don't know that they need to make a presentation. Just as long as they submit all the information, I think we'll be able to evaluate. Commissioner Mourdock: The numbers are what the numbers are. It's simply what's the best option at this point. President Fanello: Yeah. Tim Van Cleave: And, I guess, the main reason I bring that up is the other tools that they may have at their disposal that once you go and tell them here's the numbers we want run, that may not provide you additional tools that they may have to make this even a better financing opportunity. President Fanello: Oh, I see what you're saying as far as financing options. Tim Van Cleave: Because once you go through the initial piece there are multiple options at the end of the lease that you can go into. President Fanello: I think, why don't you let us at least read it and see how we interpret the lease agreement, and then I think we can...if any of us have any questions, as far as presentation, we could do that. Tim Van Cleave: Okay. President Fanello: Or if you could supply us who we need to call in case we do have questions. Tim Van Cleave: Will do. President Fanello: Okay. Thanks, Tim Madelyn Grayson: May we make a tape change please? President Fanello: Yes. (Tape Changed)
President Fanello: Thanks, Madelyn. Is there anybody in the audience wishing to address the board? Unidentified: What did you say? President Fanello: Anyone in the audience wishing to address the board. Unidentified: Please. President Fanello: Sure. Harold Gourley: I'm Harold Gourley, and I live at 8700 Old State Road. I'm happy to report tonight here that I'm not here just to represent the property owners involved in the widening of the Mt. Pleasant Road, but so many people have driven by my property and seen the stakes that they said what's going on, Harold? So, one of them recommended that we get a neighborhood organization going. So, I'm here now, we have a north side neighborhood property owners association now. So, I'm speaking for them, and we're at the stage now of where we have street representatives. For example, like from the bridge at Mt. Pleasant to Old State, and then from Old State to Mt. to Darmstadt Road east and west, and then north and south from Old State and Mt. Pleasant to Hillsdale. Then going south from Old State to Campground Road. It really impacts the entire Highland community, and so that's where we are now with the exception of Deerfield, which has it's own property owners association. So, I'm here representing more people than just the people involved. I would like to ask a question, if I may? On April the 8th, one of my neighbors, Larry Kremer, appeared before the Commissioners and requested that they redesign, or another look at the Mt. Pleasant widening project be looked at. Because at the time that we first became aware of it was a newspaper account in the 1999 when it said Mt. Pleasant from Highway 41 North to Old State Road at a cost of $1 million. Now we find out that there's going to be three lanes, four turn lanes, and the cost is over $2 million, at this point. So, we were very pleased and happy that the board, the Council, Commissioners here did grant the request. So, I'm here to see if we have an up-to-date report. It's been about two months now, and see if they have looked at the design and made any comments or suggestions or any revisions to that. So, at this time, that's why I'm here to ask a question, what has been done since April the 8th? President Fanello: Excuse me, well, on May 24th our County Engineer, John Stoll forwarded us a letter of all the research that he had done, and the people that he had met with. He had given us a price, probably about three weeks ago, or so, four weeks ago, about how much it would cost to hire someone to redesign, and that was about $83,000. He has forwarded us a three and a half page letter on his findings and recommendations. His recommendation is to keep the project the same as it was originally designed, looking at the long term aspects of the project. So, I guess, I would ask the rest of this Commission if they have had time to review the letter presented by John Stoll, and if they have any comments or thoughts? Because I think we do need to give the residents an answer, and we need to go ahead and give John an answer of how we are going to proceed here. Commissioner Mourdock: Yeah. In the several parts of that question, yes, I have read it. I presume though, Mr. Gourley, you have not seen that letter, right? Harold Gourley: No, I have not. Commissioner Mourdock: I would certainly like to see us get a letter to Mr. Gourley. President Fanello: Okay. Commissioner Mourdock: So, John, or Patty, whoever, if we can make a copy and make sure that you and other folks in your new neighborhood association, I guess, even get a copy of that. As far as the findings in the letter, I understand in reading through it, and certainly John documented what the INDOT numbers are, what the EUTS numbers are, and those kind of things, but, I guess, I still have a real problem with going back, and....like Mr. Gourley's neighbors, when you go back and see where the stakes are, and see how it's going to affect the neighborhood, it's not something necessarily that I feel comfortable doing, at this point. So, that's my view. President Fanello: So, you don't feel comfortable with the design as it was originally designed? Commissioner Mourdock: That's correct. President Fanello: The original project. Based on the traffic counts, even though the traffic counts warrant the turn lanes, you don't feel comfortable with that. Commissioner Mourdock: That's right, and let me just add, and John can speak to this more than I can, but in any engineering study there is always what is called the "f" factor, which is to say the fudge factor. You know, you always design for safety, and then you go one step beyond that. It seems to me that the development potential that we've reached at that intersection, while it may now be bumping the edge of the literal number that's put out by the state as far as their, well they call it their warrants, where you have to be warranted to do something. I don't see that we are going to increase dramatically. That neighborhood is so mature, if you will- Harold Gourley: That's right. Commissioner Mourdock: -I don't see adding a lot more vehicles to it- Harold Gourley: That's correct. Commissioner Mourdock: -if it's working at this point, I just, in looking at John's report, and looking at the intersection, I just don't know that it's worth doing. President Fanello: Don't take this the wrong way, but is that theory going to hold when we start talking about Ninth Street? Commissioner Mourdock: We can certainly talk about it. That's a good comparison. I do see it as somewhat different, but that shouldn't surprise you at all, right? Harold Gourley: Well, I didn't hear her comment. I only have one hearing aid in today. President Fanello: Well, we're currently- Commissioner Mourdock: It wasn't so much a comment as it was a pointed jab towards my (Inaudible. Talking over each other) of the jail issue. Harold Gourley: I want to hear the good stuff (Inaudible. Talking over each other.) President Fanello: We're currently discussing Ninth Street back here, and possibly vacating a portion of Ninth Street- Harold Gourley: Yeah. President Fanello: -and we have very low traffic counts, of which I think do not effect the vacation of the Ninth Street, so. Harold Gourley: What Commissioner Mourdock was relaying to was more or less some of the comments I'm receiving when...the people that we've interviewed in the area, and their questions are always why, why do we need three lanes? Do we need another NASCAR trial run from Old State to the bridge? Another one is, the question was well, who recommended, where did the recommendation come from? Has the community, have we had impact? Of course, the property owners have not. In fact, I received a letter in 1999 saying that the...well, I guess, when the Commission at that time okayed the project, saying that if it was going to affect my property, I would be notified. I still have that letter. I was notified when the appraisers came, and while I was on vacation the stakes were in my yard. So, I feel like as a citizen of this community, and having lived on that corner for 40 years, I've seen a lot happen. Almost every subdivision developed from Spring Haven all the way down to Mt. Ashley and Northbrook One and Two, and Ridge Knoll, and all of those. The traffic count is not what they are saying. The two things that I've heard mostly is, well, you know that's a dangerous corner. I have lived there for 40 years, I don't remember a fatality at that corner. Of course, you will always have wrecks. My neighbor here, Tom, he's been there about five years? Oh, ten, okay, ten years, and the same thing. The other comment I hear is from EUTS is that...I haven't read this report, I'm sure it's in this report that by the year 2025 there may be 59 cars at that intersection, you know, the passing. Well, that's 25 years from now, and I think where else can we, you know, go with the developments? They are there. So, that's why we just don't understand where the county has this kind of money to spend an extra million or so for something that's not necessary, in our feelings. President Fanello: Well, I don't think that it's seen as not necessary, because all the information that John has presented in this letter is based on traffic counts and the standards and guidelines that he goes by. I think that what we probably need to do is go ahead and get you a copy of the letter, and maybe you can distribute a copy to the residents out there. We would be happy to have you back next Monday night, and we can discuss it, after you've had a chance to review the letter and see what his recommendations are. Then maybe if you have questions on what he is suggesting in the letter, then maybe we can address those questions. Right now I'm comfortable with the way the project was originally designed, because of the standards that he has stated in the letter, and the traffic counts. I've been a big proponent of long term planning, and if we are going to do this project, I feel like we need to do it right, and it needs to meet future, future growth, and future needs. So, I'm pretty comfortable with it right now, but I would like for you to take the opportunity to look at the letter, and then maybe come back at next Monday night's meeting with your thoughts. Harold Gourley: Well, certainly appreciate that, President Fanello, but, you know, at the same time, we feel a little bit hurt in our community that some of the people were aware of this from the word go, and the rest of us whose property is being impacted- President Fanello: Uh-huh. Harold Gourley: -it was a surprise to us. I think all of us should have been treated fairly and equally. This is a representative government. President Fanello: Uh-huh. Harold Gourley: This is a representative group here, and we feel like we were sort of slighted on the input and the engineering of it. President Fanello: Well, maybe what we need to do..that's a factor that we need to address in how we better inform the public of the road projects that we are currently looking at, and that have been adopted by EUTS, and by this Board. So, that's something for us to consider how to better communicate. Harold Gourley: I know you are busy people, but I would just like to share with you a report, how it will affect just one property- President Fanello: Okay. Harold Gourley: -not counting all the properties, but this is just one property that it will affect. I think it will surprise you the cost. President Fanello: John, why don't you, oh, I'm sorry, Commissioner. Commissioner Mourdock: John, what is the margin that is looked at in that kind of engineering thing as far as a safety factor? Is it 20%, 25%? John Stoll: Nothing was factored up on that. That was just the actual counts. The future traffic counts were straight from the EUTS computer model. The turning volumes were based on ITE trip rates, and assigning those based on percentages that EUTS had gotten from previous studies. So, they weren't factored up or anything like that. Commissioner Mourdock: Okay, I realize those data weren't bumped up, but what I'm thinking probably has some factor in it is what the state uses for their traffic count to say that an improvement is warranted. John Stoll: Off the top of my head I don't know what their original basis is. They don't, in their design manuals they don't give the criteria on how they developed, what warrants- Commissioner Mourdock: Okay, but you would agree with me that there is probably something in there for however they do their formulas? John Stoll: Basically, I would say so. They typically include some margins for error. Commissioner Mourdock: Yeah. John Stoll: The flip side of that, I guess, would be if the state pursues the project they've got on 41, and they do close off the intersection up at Old State Road, we could see even more traffic than what is currently projected up there. So, there again, I know we're dealing with future, and it's impossible to say what's going to happen, but that's another thing that would drive the count even higher, rather than lower. Commissioner Mourdock: Uh-huh. President Fanello: Well, John, why don't you go ahead, you can...Commissioner Mosby's copy, I've got highlights on my copy, but he's got a clean copy, go ahead and maybe make a copy right now for Mr. Gourley, or did you already give him one? John Stoll: I gave him three copies of it. President Fanello: Okay. Madelyn Grayson: I will need a copy of that letter for the record, and Mr. Gourley's report. He didn't have an extra one. President Fanello: Okay, we'll get you one. Is there any other questions right now? Commissioner Mosby: Not right now, but- President Fanello: Okay, we'll go ahead and put it on next Monday night's agenda. If you want to come back next Monday night. Harold Gourley: We certainly will. President Fanello: Okay. Harold Gourley: Appreciate the invitation. We'll be there. President Fanello: Okay. Thank you.
Is there anyone else in the audience wishing to approach the board? Okay.
President Fanello: Is there any New Business any of the board members have? Commissioner Mosby: Pardon? President Fanello: Any New Business?
President Fanello: Old Business. Our favorite discussion, site selection for the new jail facility. I'm getting gray hair people. Well, Richard, you were not here at the last meeting, and the night that we received the site survey back, and talked about that. So, I think we need to go ahead, if anybody has any points on that, and then talk about that, but we need to come to what I feel is a final conclusion. I felt like Commissioner Mosby and I made the first step towards that at the prior meeting. But we do not have any more time to waste, and I'm going to say, we've got to cut it off. So, we've got to come to some conclusion. I know that you had several questions that you had e-mailed. I believe a majority of those answers can be found in the past research that United and the design team have done, and also in the site survey. So, I'm hoping that over the past couple of weeks you had an opportunity to get those questions answered. Commissioner Mourdock: Well, the several questions, yes, I've looked at, and your comment a moment ago about Ninth Street, as I put in the notes you referred to a moment ago, my view of Ninth Street is we need to have some alternative there. Certainly, the one option that was presented, I think it was detailed as option three, might require the closing of Ninth Street, in it's present form, but also would leave something open as per the EUTS plan of several weeks back. So, you know, I see something like that as being viable. I think the bigger question on the site comes back to what serves the community's best interest here with all the space out there, with all these other things, including, certainly, parking, proximity to C.K. Newsome, proximity to the new convention center. I don't know which of those sites, at this point, you want to deal with, specifically, by way of discussion, but I still feel, I mean, my feeling is that that option three, which is kind of a compromise site between both the area close to the back 40 and the courts parking lot is the better option. President Fanello: You mean the one that wraps around Ninth Street? Commissioner Mourdock: Right. Right, and that does affect Ninth Street- President Fanello: Uh-huh. Commissioner Mourdock: -and that, with that, what I'm saying if that is the plan, and if a part of that plan can be that we get Ninth Street connected per the EUTS drawing, something like that, I could certainly support that. I just strongly feel that going into the back 40, as it were, is going to not be in our best long term interest, because space is always at a premium. President Fanello: And I'm going to differ with you on that, because I don't think wrapping it around Ninth Street and the courts parking lot is in our best interest, because I see a vertical expansion with that option, and I'm not really fond of that based on the research that's been done by the design team. Also, I think that, if there was anything other than vertical expansion, I mean, you're talking about expanding onto Sycamore, possibly, or, and I think that affects the Mayor's Downtown Master Plan more than us vacating this small portion between the Civic Center here and the back parking lot. I will take anybody else's comments, but when everyone is finished, I do have a letter that I have drafted to the Mayor, and anyone who wishes to sign it, may sign it, but I feel very strongly about this decision. We need to make a final decision, because our design team has reached a point where they cannot go any further until we select a site. I would like to, personally, rule out the Judges parking lot as a site. That's my personal opinion, so. Any comments from? Commissioner Mosby: My comment position hasn't changed. I've been an advocate of vacating Ninth Street. I looked at the traffic counts, I mean, it clearly shows, that if anything, the road services, probably, the people that work here at the Civic Center, that would, possibly, get off of Sycamore, come over to Ninth and into the back 13.7, if you want to call it that. I don't see much public use in the line of that small version of the street that runs back there. You know, in discussion with Rose down at EUTS, the director, and looking at the Downtown Master Plan, I mean, it's obvious you can't get off of the Lloyd and come down Main and use any portion of Ninth Street as a thoroughfare to downtown. I mean, it services nothing except between the parking lot and the Civic Center. It's a valuable piece of land that I think we need right now in constructing a new facility. If we are going to go towards the back 13.7, and construct a stand alone facility, I would probably go on record as saying, you know, then we need to move and look at an alternative site, which would be a green field site. Because, we are not going to do ourselves any justice to go back there and build, push the building back further than what it needs to be, have to build a parking garage on top of it. If we are going to build a parking garage, go out and buy the ground. You know, and that's the way I see us moving by pushing it towards the back 13.7. Commissioner Mourdock: Well, I'm hearing two widely different things though. Let me be sure I understand. Because, Catherine, I hear you saying we need to vacate Ninth Street so we can use that in some way as part of this process, and, let's be clear, none of us are talking about a temporary vacation. We are talking about a permanent- President Fanello: No, I'm talking about a permanent vacation. Commissioner Mourdock: Okay, so you're saying we need to vacate it permanently. President Fanello: Uh-huh, and build on that portion of the back 40- Commissioner Mourdock: Okay. President Fanello: -as identified in the site survey, which really has, virtually, almost no effect on the parking. Commissioner Mourdock: Okay, and I just heard David say something about moving further back, which, at least in my mind, paints a picture of having Ninth Street open. David, is that what you're saying? President Fanello: He does not want to move further back. Commissioner Mosby: No, I don't want to move further back. Commissioner Mourdock: Okay. Alright. Commissioner Mosby: If I'm going to do that- Commissioner Mourdock: Well, then with those two points of view, let me ask you this question, because I think this is where we're not doing as good a job as we need to, which is to build consensus for this whole project. Let's assume two minutes from now the two of you vote to say, okay, this is it, we are going to sign this letter, send it off to vacate Ninth Street. We're going to send the design team off to start doing that project, drawing it all up, and then the political will isn't there at the City Council to make it happen. Where do we go from there? President Fanello: Well, what I think we need to do is to make our decision known, because, obviously, they can't move until we make a decision. Then I think it would be very appropriate to have Bernardin and Lochmueller come in and make a presentation on the site survey. I think they need a full presentation. Commissioner Mourdock: They meaning the City Council? President Fanello: Yes. What I've heard from them so far is that, you know, there's about four people that have their mind made up, and to me that has turned this into a political issue, and it doesn't need to be a political issue. I'm asking for everybody to keep an open mind. We go over there- Commissioner Mourdock: Yeah. President Fanello: -let them know what our decision is, and I think it would be appropriate, like I said, to have a presentation by our design team, Bernardin and Lochmueller, anybody from the soil survey, but I think, you know, they need to, they need to have these people over here to ask them questions. Commissioner Mourdock: I would caution you against saying whenever someone disagrees with you, it's a political issue. Because my disagreement on the site is, has nothing to do with politics. It is what I sincerely believe is in the best interest to the county. That's not- President Fanello: I did not. I did not mean you. Commissioner Mourdock: -Republican. That's not Democrat. President Fanello: I meant- Commissioner Mourdock: Well, even on the other side, I'm going to respect the Republicans, and I have not spoken to any one of the three Republicans over there. I have spoken to Connie Robinson a number of times in the past, to try and get her input as to what she thinks would be best for something in her ward. It's not political. It is simply what we each, independently think is our best, best forecast for what is in the community's interest. Let me go back to something I said a moment ago. I think we need to have a better process in place, to make sure we're building consensus as we go along. A few years back we had what became known as the Blue Ribbon Committee, where we had all these various stakeholders involved with it, so that everybody was getting information at the same time. President Fanello: Uh-huh. Commissioner Mourdock: I would strongly suggest, and you are President of the Commission now, and the President of the Commission had that responsibility to chair that group. I would strongly suggest that you call all those people back together with the Blue Ribbon group- President Fanello: That group has been meeting every Thurs...or every third Thursday, Eric? For the past, I don't know how many months. It's now called the Criminal Justice Planning Group Committee, and it's very hard to get people to show up to that committee, but we've been meeting for over a year? Commissioner Mourdock: Well, I think- President Fanello: Yeah. Commissioner Mourdock: -more evidence of that committee, or more input to the committee would be serving us well right now- President Fanello: Uh-huh. Commissioner Mourdock: -because I think...I don't know who's on that group from the City Council, from the City Police? President Fanello: Councilman Hoy's been attending, Judge Knight's been attending, Judge Bowers has been there several meetings- Commissioner Mourdock: City Council. President Fanello: -Judge Heldt...oh, City Council? Unidentified: Joe Reeves. President Fanello: Yeah, Joe Reeves from the City Police. There has not been a City Council member there, because, I don't know why, and I don't know if they served on the Blue Ribbon Committee, but- Commissioner Mourdock: Yes, they did. President Fanello: -definitely everyone is invited. Commissioner Mourdock: Yeah, the Mayor had an appointment. Unidentified: (Inaudible. Not at mike.) President Fanello: Yeah, they are copied and invited and on the meeting, and, so. I mean, they have not been attending the meetings, but this group has been meeting, and we've been discussing ways to keep the population down. There's been extensive discussion going on. Commissioner Mourdock: The point is, there has to be something, I think, at a higher profile to make sure those people feel like they are getting their opinions dealt with before the decision is being made. Because, and, again, call them politics if you want to, but I think if you go through this, I don't think it's going to happen. It isn't just because it's Republicans. I think you need to be prepared if that happens. What's the next choice? Maybe it is, as David said a moment ago- President Fanello: Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Commissioner Mourdock: -going back more green field, but it seems to me, if we do that- President Fanello: Well, I felt like, you know, writing a letter to let them know, you know, what the reasoning was behind why we were wanting to vacate Ninth Street, and I feel like I said that it would be appropriate for us to go over there and make a presentation, and to have the Sheriff go, Bernardin Lochmueller go, the design team go. I mean, nobody's trying to keep any information, or force a vote on somebody, but if we don't make a decision ourselves, and have consensus among us three, how can we take something to someone else? Commissioner Mourdock: Uh-huh. President Fanello: And I think, you know, over the past year and a half I've seen numerous meetings take place. United has been down here to hold numerous programming meetings. I went through and reviewed those notes last night again, and saw that the majority of the people, you know, want the jail facility near the courts building. That is a consensus. Now, no one, yeah, I've had, I've asked the Prosecutor, I've asked the Judges, quite frankly, they want the building built. I mean, they feel like it's our three, us three right here are the one's that need to make the decision of where it needs to be. I think that's what we need to make a final decision, and then go to the other elected officials and say this is why we made that decision. Here is the information. Here are the facts. I mean, they are going to have to, obviously, vote on it in the end. We can't force them to vacate a street that they don't want to vacate. Commissioner Mourdock: And I'm trying to move us further in the process, not by slowing it down- President Fanello: Uh-huh. Commissioner Mourdock: -but by making it move faster. Because I don't think that we have, at this point, gotten all the support we are going to need to do it. I'm not beyond compromise on this thing. As I said a moment ago, with version, or option three, as it's described, in that situation- President Fanello: Uh-huh. Commissioner Mourdock: -yeah, I'd go with you on the Ninth Street proposal, providing there was something to, again, align with what EUTS presented us a few weeks back. President Fanello: Well, the Mayor does have a site survey. I met with him over two weeks ago, approximately two weeks ago, in fact, I think I met with him the Tuesday, yeah, the Tuesday after the meeting that you were not, the night we discussed it, May 17th. So, he does have a copy of the survey. I pulled out the maps, we went over everything. He said he was going to get with the City Engineer and Rose, and I have not heard back from him, except for an e-mail to say that he is still against closing Ninth Street. I understand that, I mean, that's where we all have to make a decision, but I'm going to go on record saying why I want Ninth Street closed, and why I think it's in the public's best interest to have this facility connected to the courts building. That's my position. Now, if, you know, we're going to have to go out somewhere else, then we have to go out somewhere else. But, the Sheriff and I had extensive discussion last week, and if he would be so accommodating to offer his comments on Ninth Street. We talked about the walkway. Brad Ellsworth: I'll try. Sheriff Brad Ellsworth. I don't envy your all's position, because it is tough. But, as being somebody who's been on just about every meeting regarding this, I'll try to give my best, as a consultant to this, I guess, because I have to work in the place, but don't have any vote. Having worked with United and touring, you know, somewhere getting close to 50 jails now, and seeing how they are designed, and worried about after hearing that 90% of the cost is the operational cost versus 10% building over the course of the jail, I have a lot of concerns about back here. I have to go on record saying that I am, although we can work in anything you all build. We'll make it work, but I'm dead set against putting it in the Judges parking lot. That being a totality of the things that we've talked about. I think what backs us up here is not just United, who we chose, but also when Hafer's group came in and made their presentation, they, Allan Braun stood right at this podium and said that going up was going to be a major problem for them. I think that, you know, we don't trust United, why not trust Hafer. The problems with back here are going to be the design and the flow of this building. Take, for example, this week I had one of my delivery trucks that ran into the side of the jail and knocked a chunk of concrete out of the existing jail. This is because there is no place to pull in an 18 wheeler to make deliveries. That's with a 268 bed jail. I don't see the area where I'm going to be able to stop an 18 wheeler, unless we get rid of all the police cars on Sycamore Street, and cut another curb cut, you know, where is the other services that come in? It's not just beds. There's a whole lot that goes into this besides beds. We're designing pods right now, that if we make them square, then they have to much square footage per inmate. We don't want to do that because that adds the cost up. If we make them round, or we make them star shaped, then each, each corner costs more, every corner on the outside of the building. So, we're wrestling with that, but none of these pod designs we are coming up with are going to fit on that parking lot over here. My best suggestion is that you design, I've always said this, you design a building that runs efficiently, and then you find the place to put it. We can work in anything you all decide. We can have a tunnel. We can have a bridge that is two miles long, and goes down to South Kentucky. I guess, we could walk them that far, or train them, or something, but, you know, the most efficient is to design your most efficient building, and then see where it fits, from what I've seen in all these meetings. I think it will be a hassle to connect to the courts on that side, when all of our holding is on this side. We are going to have to build some holding on that side if we bridge across the street, unless we butt up right to it. It's still not the ultimate design, because we still have to jut around and go catty corner into that parking lot. We are going to have to work this around. That's going to be easier to go across and out that way, if we can't connect. If there is no way we can connect to the court building, then my recommendation, based on what I've heard, is that we go totally off site. The reason I say that, that way you could design the building you want to build, and stick it on this field, parking lot, whatever it's going to be. We then would have to force, convince, beg the judiciary to use video arraignment. That would cut down on our transports. We figure that through video arraignment and building a court building, a court room in that facility, a small one for hearings, that you could probably cut down on 85% of the transportation of inmates. Now you're down to really workable numbers, because we probably only have 2% of our charges that actually...maybe less than that that actually go to trial per year. Where they need to bring them for a trial. Now, you are going to have to have some come over, but I have to go on record and say I am against that design. When we get that way we can open it up more to make it an efficient design. The tunnel is not unworkable. It's not a project stopping...I shouldn't say tunnel, I should say the bridge is not a project stopping in our eyes. It's certainly not the most efficient design, because it changes the whole way we are talking about administration, a sally port. There is things besides beds. Where do we pull the van in to move these inmates? The bus in to move these inmates? Those kind of things are all things that we are thinking about, but we need that site to go on and try to move this in an efficient building. So, if that helps, I don't know. I don't know if I answered any questions. Commissioner Mourdock: Well, I think there is still a lot of questions to be answered here. Your comment about having the 18 wheelers back up, or doing that. When Veazey Parrott and Shoulders stood at that microphone a few years ago, and told me how they were going to set it up over across the street for the convention center, I thought there is no way that something like that would work. The thing about a good architect is, and that's not to infer that United or DLZ are not good architects, I don't mean that that way. I think we have been so prejudiced in our thinking against the courts parking lot from the get go that every design that's been talked about has been more pushed towards the one level design, because it's more efficient to operate. You now, I think there are a lot of ways you measure efficiency. I've said this before, I have, and I said it in my note two weeks ago, you know, we're getting ready to spend $34 million, $35 million, that all of us on the Blue Ribbon Committee, from the old days, would agree is the wrong project. Because it's not 700 beds. It's 484 beds. To me that is crazy for us to spend $35 million building something that we know is the wrong answer. To me we have to have some better efficiency, which incorporates the whole system, and I'm not convinced that when you think of the parking space issues over there, again, the C.K. Newsome Center, the convention center and all those things, there are efficiencies that go beyond working in the jail. There are a lot of aspects to this. Brad Ellsworth: I agree. I think, you know, I mean, I'm not here to get in a match with Connie Robinson, but City Council should also be concerned about that, you know, there is a lot of constituents, not just hers, but everybody's, that are 112 people laying on the floor over there. As opposed to the proximity to C.K. Newsome Center. I mean, that's, like I said, I'm not here to get in a match with her, but there's bigger concerns here than how close it is to another building. This jail has been, it's, you know, a 1/4 mile from a church. It's catty corner from YMCA. There's a lot of kids that run in and out of the YMCA, and nobody's every been concerned that this jail is too close to them before. So, I know that's...I've been through enough of these meetings to know that remonstration- Commissioner Mourdock: But that's because this jail has from 1969 been part of this whole Center. Brad Ellsworth: Right. Commissioner Mourdock: Now, we're talking about something separate. Brad Ellsworth: Right. I can tell you that this new jail will be as secure, and there won't be any difference than the old jail. I wouldn't have a bit of concern putting this, moving it from here to here- Commissioner Mourdock: Yeah, I don't think the question is security. At least in my mind it isn't. Brad Ellsworth: Then I don't know what the question is in having it close to the C.K. Newsome Center? Commissioner Mourdock: Well, it's just the image of having the jail next to the convention center. When you've got people coming in and out and it's right next...they are parking next to the jail, is that the right image we want to give. It's those kind of issues. Brad Ellsworth: Then, you now, then move it out. You find, you know, in the middle of a junk yard somewhere. I don't know. Commissioner Mourdock: We may go back there. I don't know. I mean, it's, like I say- Brad Ellsworth: It's not my fight though. I'm just trying to give you my opinion. Commissioner Mosby: I mean, I guess, there's probably a lot of people who don't realize they are parking close to a jail right now. I mean, and I think that's the biggest thing, because the jail is already here, and, I guess, that's the hardest thing I have buying is, you know, all we're doing is moving around the corner. It's not like we're bringing it in from out at Wansford Yard and going to sit it in the back 40. I think on the flip side of that, the problem is, and that gentleman right there wouldn't want us bringing it out there on Old State Road, and sitting it. I mean, what if we was taking his property for that? I mean, that would be a prime example, I mean, would he want that rather than a road? I'm not advocating putting this in anybody's back yard when we have the space available. Now, I'm going to go back to a comment you made a minute ago about the 650 beds, and that's one thing that I said on the record two weeks ago that I totally agree with you, and I'm glad you put that in writing, because I wish you would have advocated that with the County Council all last year when we were over there fighting, and we couldn't get the money to build the 650 beds that we need. That's why we're sitting here working with a $35 million budget. Now, what hasn't been presented to the City Council yet, and I think what we've all got to look at, that's why we need to get this in their hands. They are probably not familiar with the project. They are not near as familiar with the project that everybody sitting in this room is, because we've heard about it for a year. We need to go over and familiarize them with the project. I'm sure they know, through the newspaper, that all we've got to work with is $35 million. So, going out and buying a piece of land is going to be very detrimental to the project if we have to take $5 million out. Because we are going to be less than the 484 that we're complaining about right now. I mean, we are going to go down to, probably, somewhere in the neighborhood of 425. I think we have to let them know that this is going to be a problem on everybody's back. Not just the county, I mean, every city taxpayer pays county tax too. So, 77% of the people that we are referring to here pay county tax that live in their jurisdiction within the city. So, let them understand that if we don't use Ninth Street, and we do have to go off site, or we do have to go back in the back 40 and move this project around, or whatever, we have to start spending money for land, that becomes a burden on every taxpayer's back in this city. It's a burden that they don't need to be picking up on right now. That's why I think we need to go ahead, file the vacation for Ninth Street, and familiarize them with the project. If they make that ultimate decision that they don't want it back there, or if they pass it and the Mayor vetoes it, let him make that decision. Then we will make a decision from there where we go, but, I mean, somewhere you have to start. You crawl, then you walk. Well, you know, we need to start crawling. Let's get it over with. Commissioner Mourdock: That's fine, David. I don't have any objective, or any objection in pushing this thing to them to get a decision from them. My earlier comment remains. I think we've done ourselves a bit of a disservice by maybe not building a bridge fast enough to get them involved with the process. Be that as it may, and I did read your comments from last week, and I still say it's the County Council's job to determine what the funding level should be. They said $35 million, that's their job, and whatever we can get...if we could get 600 beds for that $35 million, I would be all for that. I think we just need to keep the options open here. Let's move the thing. I'm as tired of talking about this project as you guys are, maybe more, because I've been doing it longer, but let's move on down the road. I think we'll be revisiting this one again. Commissioner Mosby: Oh, I think with $35 million we're going to be revisiting it the day that the Sheriff opens the new jail. Because we will probably cut the ribbon out front and walk out back and do the ground breaking. I mean, and that's about what I see. I mean, I totally agree with you. Is it adequate? No. Is it a disservice? Probably so. I'll go on record as saying that. We all know 484 beds is not enough, but, once again, the County Council did not ask, you know, what do we need, and what's it going to cost? The County Council said, here's how much money you've got, build what you can. Most people that I know that are going to build a new home, they don't build a new home that a way, but, I mean, that's the way we are going to approach this project. We're going to say we've got "x" amount of money, and we're going to build whatever whether we get more than what we've got now, or, you know, however it shakes out. So, you're right. We have to live with that. We're not going to get what we need for $35 million, but they're very aware of that. I think they were aware of that from day one. It was just a stand off battle that they win. Brad Ellsworth: If I could just add a comment. The one thing that will save us in this project, if we all agree that 484 is not enough beds, the only way we save ourselves in this is by building those core...we've been to enough of these classes, the core facilities, the laundries, kitchens and that big enough at the very start, and then add housing after that. That's one of the things that I've been trying to do in those meetings is say, whether it goes there or straight up or whatever. I think we have quit, I heard a comment from somebody saying, well, that space is awful big, and let's cut that down. It's going exactly against what we've always talked about. I don't know even who to attribute that comment to about that this warehouse is too big, or this kitchen is too big, you've got extra space. Don't know who said it, but that's a ridiculous comment. Because if you don't make the extra space in those core services first...the housing units are the easiest thing to add at the end. That will be the cheapest construction. So, if we do have to add housing at the end, whether it's up or whatever, if we don't make those core services, we are going to be in the exact situation we are in right now, and we're really digging ourselves a hole by not doing that in any concept we come up with. So, you know, we can live with 484 right now, to settle this law suit, if we make everything big enough to add the pods later. Because we are already going to be out of housing units. There is not a jurisdiction that does this that doesn't, you know, that the numbers don't go up the day that they open the doors. Commissioner Mosby: Well, I agree with you. I've talked to United. They have said that, yeah, you'll probably walk in a new jail and you'll be using half a kitchen. Brad Ellsworth: Right. Commissioner Mosby: And people will probably look around and say why all this wasted space, but that's for the other half that we are going to have to build sooner than later. Brad Ellsworth: I think that's what the public has to trust us to say that we were thinking ahead on this, and that's why we built the kitchen this big, and the warehouse this big, and the laundry that big. I mean- Commissioner Mosby: That's the one salvation- Brad Ellsworth: -they pay us to go to those schools. Commissioner Mosby: Yeah. I mean, that's the one salvation I see in this whole project that we probably won't get the 650 beds, but we'll get the support services, and the mechanical areas that go with it that will be big enough that when we have to add on we won't be building everything again. President Fanello: I have to read you this little excerpt from an article in the Seattle Times. Because it will show that across the country they have the same discussions. Commissioner Mourdock: Oh, yeah. President Fanello: They are in Everett County, I guess, they are looking at building a, or Everett City. I don't know if it's Everett County or Everett City, but building a new jail, and it says; "They report that adding floors to the current 11 story jail would be costly and affect Everett skyline.", Hite said. "If we have to build up, it will be too difficult and expensive to maintain.", the Sheriff said. Hite said it's too early to consider building designs, but studies show the new jail would need 1,845 beds to meet the county's needs for the next 20 years. County officials have not decided what to do with the current jail. Architects were given several scenarios to work with, including building an entire justice center for the Sheriff's office and the jail. Bart thinks the ideal facility would be a one to two story jail on a large tract that would include or be near the Sheriff's office. Voters would have to approve a tenth of a percent sales tax increase to finance a new jail, estimated to cost $90 million. "Even if we started building tomorrow, it still wouldn't be up and running for another three years.", Hite said. For years the county has looked for sites to build a new permit jail, but has received cold receptions from cities that don't want a jail in their back yard. Two years ago residents in Arlington and Smoky Point fought against regional jails in their communities. Commissioner Mourdock: We are not alone. President Fanello: So, anyway, I have this letter. I think all of you have reviewed it. Would anybody like to join me in signing the letter? Commissioner Mosby: I'll make a...do I need a motion to that effect? I mean, I'll- President Fanello: I could read it into the record, if you want me to. Commissioner Mosby: -make a motion to sign the letter, and send it to the Mayor, and for, the public's interest, I mean, basically, it says everything we've just said here tonight, you know, about vacating Ninth Street, and all the detriments to trying to build a facility that goes up. So, I mean, that's, basically, what the letter says. I'll make a motion to sign the letter, and send it over to the Mayor. President Fanello: I'll second. Madelyn Grayson: May I make a tape change when- President Fanello: Yes. Madelyn Grayson: Thank you. (Tape Changed) President Fanello: Just noting in
here, I did make reference to the Downtown Master Plan that the Mayor had
spoke of, and after review of the Downtown Master Plan there were, I did
not see how this, closing Ninth Street would affect our project. So, it's
all outlined in the letter, if anyone would like a copy. Is there any other
Old Business? Seeing none. Move on to Department Head Reports.
President Fanello: County Engineer. John Stoll: I was notified today by Bernardin Lochmueller's inspectors on the Burkhardt Road Project that they've encountered some field tiles that drain some of the agricultural fields out there adjacent to that project that no one knew were out there. In order to address that and connect those field tiles to inlets and manholes, we need about 400 meters of pipe. That's about $28 a foot for the...$28 a meter for the pipe, plus the rock. So, basically, they are saying we'll need $15,000 to cover the costs of making these connections. I'm just- Commissioner Mourdock: Is it on the east side, or west side? John Stoll: Both. There's...this is north of Old Boonville Highway. There's the one field right at the northeast corner of Old Boonville Highway and Burkhardt, and then just north of County Trace Subdivision there is also another agricultural field. Commissioner Mourdock: So, it's north of where the homes are then? John Stoll: Right. Commissioner Mourdock: So, it is an active system? John Stoll: Yeah. Commissioner Mourdock: Okay, so what do you need? Approval of a change order, John? John Stoll: I don't have a change order this evening. I just want verbal approval to proceed with making these additional pipe runs out there, and then I'll bring a change order in at a later date. Commissioner Mourdock: So moved. Commissioner Mosby: Second. President Fanello: So ordered. So ordered. John Stoll: The second item I have is in regard to Rodenberg Avenue. We've done some checking, Valerie Harry checked with two of the three property owners out there abutting that structure. One of them said that they wouldn't have a problem with dedicating some right-of-way. One of the owners said that they wanted to see our plan before they would commit to anything. Then we haven't heard from the other one. So, I guess, my next question is, do you want us to proceed with designing something to present to the property owners and see if they are willing to sign off on right-of-way? Without that, I guess, we don't know, we don't have anything to present to that property owner, to say here's what we plan to do. We could give him some approximations of how much right-of-way we would need, but without a specific set of plans, I don't know how much cooperation we will get. Commissioner Mosby: I would, and I'll make a motion to the effect that we go ahead and start a design. I mean, it's obvious the situation out there is never going to get any better. As far as I'm concerned, I still think to this point that we probably still have some liability knowing that the county went out there and worked, at one given point in time, on that bridge. That if something would happen, and, I mean, there's a very dangerous situation, public safety wise, more than any out there right now. I'm afraid if something happens that we probably have incurred some liability by going out there at one point in time and working. So, I mean, if it means design, whatever, I mean, I would make a motion to go ahead and design something and get it out to them as quick as possible, and ask them to sign off on it, so we can drop a box culvert in there or whatever. Commissioner Mourdock: Are you looking to do the design through a consultant? John Stoll: No, we would do it in house. Commissioner Mourdock: Oh, in house. Okay. Alright, I'll second. President Fanello: So ordered. John Stoll: That's all I have. President Fanello: John, while you're up there, real quick. You sent us a letter on County Line Road, because we had, I believe, a resident during the road hearing ask about possible improvements to that road. You suggested a consultant be hired for the project. Do you have any idea what the cost would be of that consultant? John Stoll: No, I don't. President Fanello: Okay. John Stoll: I haven't pursued that- President Fanello: Okay. John Stoll: -talking with any consultants, at this point. President Fanello: I guess, has everyone else on the Commission had a chance to read the letter? Commissioner Mosby: I read it. Commissioner Mourdock: As I say, I don't think I saw that one previously, but I saw it here before we got started with the meeting. President Fanello: Okay. Commissioner Mourdock: Any idea what the project would end up being, John, both in consultant? John Stoll: There again, it's kind of hard to say at this point. The way it all is set up out there, the right-of-way is only defined in three platted subdivisions, from what we can find so far. So, we don't even have any idea where the road lies relative to the dedicated right-of-way. Without knowing that, we really don't know what all would have to be reconstructed. The residents out there, basically, are saying they would just like the road widened to match what Posey County had done, which is, basically, about an 18' road. That, I'm not sure if that's exactly right. I've driven through Posey County to see what they did, but, I guess, I've got concerns in regard to the 18' width whether or not we could meet any kind of standards as far as cutting back embankments, and things like that. There again, what kind of right-of-way needs we would have if something like that was pursued. So, without knowing all the specifics, it was kind of hard to assign a dollar figure to it. I had a number in there if we just widened and overlaid and had no other costs associated with it. I thought I had a number around $70,000, is that correct? President Fanello: I don't remember seeing a number in there. John Stoll: But that was just assuming- President Fanello: Yeah, $65,000. John Stoll: $65,000, okay. That was assuming a 4' addition, and asphalt, and then an overlay of the whole 18', but it addressed no right-of-way purchase, no cuts, fills, anything. We know there are two hills where there are sight distance issues that there would need to be some reconstruction for cuts and fills. So, without knowing how all that pieced together, it's really kind of hard to come up with an accurate figure. Commissioner Mourdock: Would the $65,000, that would be hard dollar construction costs? John Stoll: That was just asphalt cost. Commissioner Mourdock: Yeah, excluding, it sounds like excluding any earth work, cutting down the hills- John Stoll: Right. Commissioner Mourdock: -cutting down, tapering back. John Stoll: That's saying if we went out there today, and cut a 4' trench along side the road, put asphalt in and then resurfaced the entire street, that's what that would cover. Commissioner Mourdock: Okay. So, Catherine, what's your pleasure with this one? What do you want to do with this? President Fanello: Well, I mean, if we, I guess, without knowing how much the consultant costs, is there anyway you can kind of feel out, and see what the price would be for a consultant? John Stoll: I could talk to a couple of them and see, just ball park. President Fanello: Okay. John Stoll: I mean, we'll be looking at, it's just short of a mile of road. The bad part is, where it lies it would probably need to be shoulders and ditches and people have a tendency to go out and throw a pipe in all the ditches and screw up all the drainage. President Fanello: I guess, what we really need to do is, I mean, is it a, we have several, I'm sure, small roads that need improved, and how do we go about prioritizing them, and is this one we want to go ahead and expend money on right now? Commissioner Mourdock: I would suggest you would take a look at it, but then budget the whole thing for next year. I mean, as you mentioned a few minutes ago, Catherine, we don't know where the budget is going to be with a lot of this stuff. President Fanello: Uh-huh. I mean, we definitely should do that right now while we're putting the budget together. John Stoll: Okay. President Fanello: Look and see about budgeting it for next year, if we don't have the funds to do it this year. John Stoll: Okay. I can try and talk to a couple of different consultants and just see ball park- President Fanello: Just get a ball park figure. John Stoll: -what, and if they were going to meet INDOT's rehab standards what that might be. It's a very low volume road, and I doubt that the traffic counts will ever increase very significantly at all, because it just connects with Posey County Line to Denzer Road. Commissioner Mourdock: Uh-huh. Okay. While you're at the microphone, John, that letter that you put together on the storm water issues, I don't know that I've seen you since you put that thing together that you sent off to IDEM, was a very good letter. John Stoll: Thanks. Anything else? President Fanello: I think that's
it.
President Fanello: County Highway. Ralph Kissinger: Ralph Kissinger, County Highway. Excuse me, you have my weekly report. Also, Richard asked about the milling credits for the rap. Did you get a copy of that? Commissioner Mourdock: Yes, I did, and I saw that the thing did not include any kind of trucking price too. Ralph Kissinger: Right. I sent some in that E&B had sent....E&B is actually going to do the trucking for Charbon Bridge when they do the milling. Commissioner Mourdock: Right. Ralph Kissinger: I thought I had them in your packets. Did you see, did you get that? I've got copies for everyone if it didn't come in your packets. Commissioner Mourdock: I saw the one on the trucking, but I don't, no, I don't- Ralph Kissinger: Okay. Commissioner Mourdock: -think you did get it to me, Ralph. Ralph Kissinger: I sent them in Friday morning. I didn't get the response until Thursday afternoon. So, it may not have gotten in there, but I do have some copies, and I have enough for everyone. Commissioner Mourdock: What's it come out to? Ralph Kissinger: $5.15 a ton. Commissioner Mourdock: Oh, that's the trucking, yeah. Ralph Kissinger: That's the trucking. Commissioner Mourdock: Yeah, I do have a copy of that. Ralph Kissinger: (Inaudible. Stepped away from mike.) Commissioner Mourdock: As far as the value for the rap, what did they work on? Ralph Kissinger: That's, that's what they included. They said that that was...that they hauled it off, and deducted the actual hauling cost for the value of the rap. What Charbon said they are charging us for $1.14 is to do the milling. Everything else is, there's no hauling cost or anything. Any tonnage cost which they...E&B said was, what was it, $5.15 a ton? Commissioner Mourdock: Right. Ralph Kissinger: I believe is what they said. Commissioner Mourdock: Okay. Ralph Kissinger: The would just waive that, and they take the rap. That's, basically, what they do for that. For the hauling cost, they take the rap. I've talked to several different contractors, and that- Commissioner Mourdock: Okay. Ralph Kissinger: - is what they say is the norm on that. Commissioner Mourdock: Okay. Ralph Kissinger: I'm new at this too, so, I've got questions too. With your permission, I would like to go ahead. They are wanting to schedule the milling of, excuse me, Red Bank to Upper Mount Vernon for next week, so that I can get your permission to go ahead with milling, so I can get my people in behind them to pave as soon as possible. Commissioner Mourdock: Okay. So, at least by asking the question we got $5.15 for sure. Ralph Kissinger: Correct. Yes. Commissioner Mourdock: Okay. Very good. Okay, then I'll move that we go ahead to begin the milling per the request of the Highway Superintendent. Commissioner Mosby: Second. President Fanello: So ordered. Ralph Kissinger: That's all I have. President Fanello: Any other questions? Ralph Kissinger: Richard, I will get back with you. I'll check on that again, on the amount- Commissioner Mourdock: Yeah, call him in the evenings or whatever. See if (Inaudible. Talking over each other.) Ralph Kissinger: Yeah, I would be glad to. Commissioner Mourdock: (Inaudible) persistent. Ralph Kissinger: Sure. President Fanello: Thanks, Ralph.
President Fanello: County Attorney. Jay Ziemer: I have nothing.
President Fanello: Superintendent.
I don't think Tammy had anything. Okay.
President Fanello: Burdette Park. Steve Craig: Steve Craig, Manager of Burdette. First thing I have was if you had got your estimate from the Dave Matthews group on the land out at Burdette for my budget purposes. If we wanted to have me put it in our budget to pursue buying the ground that is for sale that is adjacent to Burdette. President Fanello: Has everyone seen the appraisal? Commissioner Mourdock: Yes, I did. President Fanello: It's...there's not a copy in there, but I had one on my desk, and I think, did we only get one copy? Steve Craig: No, we got two. President Fanello: Okay, because I just had one on my desk. I don't know if anyone else got one, but that was Friday afternoon when I was in, and I saw it. I don't know if anyone else has seen it. Commissioner Mosby: I've got it laying in my office right now. President Fanello: Okay. Commissioner Mosby: If it's the same one. I'm not for pursuing it at that cost, no. Commissioner Mourdock: I'm sorry, David, I couldn't hear you. Commissioner Mosby: I said I'm not for pursuing it at that cost. Steve Craig: Okay, so I won't put it in my budget. President Fanello: Well, I mean, if we're not pursuing it at that cost, do we want to make them an offer at another cost? Commissioner Mosby: Well, I mean- Commissioner Mourdock: Before you- Commissioner Mosby: Isn't this something that we would discuss- Commissioner Mourdock: -mention a definitive number- Commissioner Mosby: -yes, we need to be discussing this in Executive, not here. President Fanello: So, I guess, we have to have an Executive Session next Monday anyway, I believe. So, we can discuss it then. Commissioner Mourdock: Okay. Just for Steve's benefit, and you mentioned budget purposes, I guess, if we're not going to accept it at the present number, at least that number could be used for budget purposes. Although, now we've said for the public record- President Fanello: Up to that amount. Yeah. Commissioner Mourdock: -we're not going to pay that. So, it would be something less. President Fanello: Okay. Steve Craig: That answers my question. Commissioner Mourdock: I thought it would. Steve Craig: Okay, the other thing was that I wanted to bring up is that our Day Camp program had our state inspection at 8:00 on Friday, May 24, 2002. This was a new requirement this year if we wish to be approved by the State of Indiana. Mrs. Hillenbrand from the Evansville 4-C conducted the inspection, and informed us that we were the first site to pass the state inspection. Joyce said if you had any questions on what the state inspection included and that, that you could give her a call at Burdette about it. We were the first center to be approved with the new state guidelines. Commissioner Mourdock: Which group through the state approved it. Steve Craig: It says Evansville 4-C conducted the inspection. Commissioner Mourdock: I mean on behalf of the state. Some state agency has approved this. Who is the state agency? Steve Craig: It just said state inspection team, and it was the Evansville 4-C. Commissioner Mourdock: The ever growing behemoth. That's okay. Steve Craig: I can't give you an answer on that. Commissioner Mourdock: Yeah, okay. A part of the $1.3 billion deficit thing, so. Steve Craig: It's still in existence. President Fanello: That's important. Commissioner Mourdock: That's true. President Fanello: Is there any other questions for Steve? Commissioner Mourdock: No.
Commissioner Mourdock: I'll move the approval of the Ozone Officer's Report and Soil and Water into the record. President Fanello: Do I have a motion to approve. Commissioner Mosby: Second. President Fanello: Okay. Commissioner Mourdock: Okay. President Fanello: So ordered. Commissioner Mosby: He made the motion. President Fanello: I'm sorry.
President Fanello: Consent Items. We do have one letter here that John Stoll has drafted on our behalf as comments to the upgrades to US 41. He did a very good job. Thank you, John. Would like to add that to the Consent Items. Commissioner Mourdock: Yeah, I'll move approval of that letter to the Consents. Commissioner Mosby: Second. President Fanello: So ordered. The only thing that I would ask that we pull from the Consent Items is the Markham Security Specialists contract, because I don't know, I did not have discussion with Kevin before he left on vacation, and I'm really not sure that he reviewed it. Commissioner Mourdock: Okay, and that is the one with, that Z. Tuley was concerned about transporting- President Fanello: Yes. Commissioner Mourdock: Yeah, okay. Alright. Okay, I'll move pulling the Markham Security letter from the Consent Items. Commissioner Mosby: Second. President Fanello: So ordered. Commissioner Mourdock: Other than that, I'll move approval, with those two changes, move approval of the Consent Items. Commissioner Mosby: Second. President Fanello: So ordered. Do I have a motion to adjourn? Commissioner Mourdock: So moved. Commissioner Mosby: I thought you was going to talk about the Master Plan. Never mind. The meeting was adjourned at 6:59
p.m.
CONSENT ITEMS: Employment Changes:
Travel Requests:
Co-Op Extension Service:
Commissioners:
County Engineer:
Sheriff:
Those in Attendance:
APPROVAL
______________________________
______________________________
______________________________
Recorded and Transcribed by Madelyn Grayson. |
