The Vanderburgh County Board of Commissioners met in session this 7^th day of June, 2005 at 3:30 p.m. in room 301 of the Civic Center Complex with President Suzanne Crouch presiding.

President Crouch: Good afternoon, and welcome to the June 7^th Vanderburgh County Commission meeting. Please join us in the Pledge of Allegiance.

President Crouch: We’ll go to contracts, agreements...oops, wait a minute. I wanted to first of all recognize three deputies that we have here from the Sheriff’s Department. If they could stand so the camera can catch them. We have Johanna Norman, and Gabriel Rexing, and Brian Bishop. Welcome.

President Crouch: Open quotes, we have VC05....oops, I’m sorry, we’re going to pass over that for now. Contracts, agreements and leases, our first one, Tri-State Transportation. I believe that that is going to be addressed by the County Attorney shortly. So, let’s move to the I-69 resolution. As the Commissioners know, Governor Mitch Daniels had indicated that INDOT was two billion short on their future road funding, and that he had asked communities and legislators to prioritize projects. I believe that we as a Commission probably feel that I-69 is one of those projects that should not be touched. That that should not even be considered as part of making up that shortfall. The EUTS policy committee endorsed and signed a resolution, it has been to Posey County, and the Commissioners have signed that, and the Mayor will sign that. It was at Gibson County this morning, and the Commissioners and the Mayor of Princeton signed that. It’s here, the Mayor of Evansville has signed it. It’s up to us to sign it, and then it will move over to Warrick County tomorrow. Upon getting all the signatures, we will send that off to Governor Daniels and to Commissioner Tom Sharp expressing our intent and our desire to keep that project in tact for our community.

Commissioner Musgrave: That’s an impressive amount of coordination, and I hope that it gets heard in Indianapolis, and that I-69 stays on track or moves faster and that they hear us, that that road is needed, and needed now, and we need to start here and go north.

President Crouch: Now, open quotes VC05-06-01, concrete repairs at the Old Courthouse. If I could have a motion.

Commissioner Nix: Yes, we’ve got change order number three for the jail project. Actually four different items on there, for a sum of $68,412. I would recommend approval of this.

President Crouch: So ordered. Commissioner Nix, now when Mr. Summers was here a few weeks ago, I believe the amount that we were discussing was much larger.

Commissioner Nix: Yes, it was around $176,000 or so, and we are reviewing those, and we’re looking at some different ways of maybe doing some of that work, and just making sure that, once again, that the county is getting the most for their money for this project.

Commissioner Nix: Yes, some of those could be denied, and also, once again, we’re looking at maybe doing some additional engineering to eliminate or reduce the balance of those then also.

Adam Farrar: Commissioners, as you may remember, I’m Adam Farrar, I’m a lawyer for Bamberger, Foreman, Oswald and Hahn. I represent Building PAR LLC. I’m here on their behalf today to petition the board to vacate a public roadway located in Vanderburgh County, along Hedden Road. The roadway at issue is located in Airport Industrial Park Subdivision. I’ve brought along some diagrams for the board, I would like to provide, if I can, at this time. I would like to begin by stressing that the roadway that we are proposing to be vacated is improved and constructed in no way. It was platted in the early 80's with the Airport Industrial Park Subdivision plat. It has not been used by the public, nor used by the county since then. Drawing your attention to page one, you can see from the outline, the yellow outline surrounding the real estate of lots 14, 15, and 16, where my clients property is located. You can also sort of make out, this being the plat of Airport Industrial Park, the roadway to be vacated. It bisects my clients property running along the southern boundary of lot 14 and the northern boundary of lots 15 and 16, just sort of straddles that property there. You can see that it’s, the western boundary of the roadway to be vacated is adjacent to and abuts Hedden Road, and the eastern boundary ends at Building PAR’s eastern property line. Directing your attention to page two, this gives a little closer view of the real estate at issue. Again, my clients property is located within the yellow outlined area. You can see a little closer picture of the right-of-way running along the southern boundary of 14, the northern boundaries of 15, 16 again. You can also notice in lot 14 a rectangular area sectioned off. This is actually a single story steel building that has been constructed. This building was constructed lawfully, and everything that needed to be approved was approved, but it only came to Building PAR’s attention after it’s construction that this was actually crossing the right-of-way. At no time was my client instructed that this would be a problem. It was discovered afterwards. You can also see again the boundary lines for the roadway crossing, running east-west, bisecting Building PAR’s property. Directing your attention to the third page, this is a much closer view of the 60 foot proposed roadway easement as it was referred to in the plat. Again, this roadway only exists on paper. There is no concrete or stripes or anything like that across this area. In fact, well, first I also wanted to point out on the eastern boundary there is labeled a 15' PUE. This had been a source of concern for Vectren especially. They were concerned that the vacation of this roadway may, in some way, affect that PUE. But, we have spoken with Jean Ashby and she has approved an ordinance, as we have prepared it, which specifically states that this will in no way affect any existing PUE’s, and specifically this 15 foot PUE along the eastern boundary. That was enough to satisfy Vectren. Now, drawing your attention to the last page, this is actually a picture that I pulled off of the Evansville Police Department’s web site, which would explain the sort of odd legend. But, this shows what the property looks like at this time. You can see the building, the parking lot, and the boundary lines. You can get an idea of where that roadway would be, if it had been constructed. I want to stress that all abutting property owners have been notified. To my knowledge none of them object. We have also notified all of the public utilities that are interested, that would be interested in this roadway. None of them have objected. We have satisfied Vectren, as recently as this morning. We have an ordinance that we think that will protect all parties and accomplish what we desire to accomplish. I think it’s also important to point out that the Vanderburgh County Engineering Department has also approved this vacation. So, with that, if you have any questions I would be happy to try to answer them. But, I’m, at this point, just petitioning the board to approve the vacation of this roadway.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: I have a question. Did you, I thought you told me this morning that you had a copy of a letter from Vectren.

Commissioner Nix: That letter takes care of this 15 feet of public utility easement then?

Adam Farrar: Yeah, I believe in the letter Ms. Ashby states that she is approving the ordinance as drafted, which actually deals with the 15 foot PUE.

Commissioner Musgrave: I’ll move approval of the vacation, and express my disappointment that nowhere along the line did your client get notified that this right-of-way existed. I hope that the agencies involved have improved their practices so that that doesn’t happen again.

President Crouch: Next item, state of support for the Guard and Reserve. This is a kind of a statement showing our support as employers, Vanderburgh County’s support of the men and women who serve in the Guard and Reserve. We are going to, hopefully, approve this, sign it, display it, and then send the information that will allow us to get updates on how we, as employers, can best address the issues that those men and women face as employees. So, if we could have a motion.

Commissioner Musgrave: Motion to approve the statement of support for the Guard and Reserve. Is there one that we should read into the record?

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: Well, I do. On the last item of business, the vacation of the right-of-way, this was the public hearing today. First reading would be next week, and second reading would be the following week. So, I’m not sure that I understood from your motion just exactly–

Commissioner Musgrave: Well, it was probably premature. So, we just accept it today, and go on to first reading next week.

Commissioner Musgrave: This should only take a second to read this, but I think it’s important that everyone know that we do appreciate the guard and reserve.

“County of Vanderburgh. We recognize the National Guard and Reserve as essential to the strength of our nation and the well being of our communities. In the highest American tradition, the patriotic men and women of the Guard and Reserve serve voluntarily in an honorable and vital profession. They train to respond to their community and to their country in time of need. They deserve the support of every segment of our society. If these volunteer forces are to continue to serve our nation, increased public understanding is required of the essential role of the Guard and Reserve in preserving our national security. Their members must have the cooperation of all American employers in encouraging employee participation in the Guard and Reserve. Therefore, we join other employers in pledging that: (1) employment will not be denied because of service in the Guard or Reserve; (2) employee job and career opportunities will not be limited or reduced because of service in the guard or reserve; (3) employees will be granted leaves of absence for military service in the Guard or Reserve, consistent with existing laws, without sacrifice of vacation; and (4) this agreement and its resultant policies will be made known throughout our organization.”

President Crouch: We may note that we do have Sheriff Deputies in the Guard, and we have County Highway employees, and I’m sure that we have other employees throughout the county and city.

President Crouch: Next item on our agenda, Unification Study Committee waiver of fees for the Centre. This has been provided to them in the past. I would presume that if we do approve, that we will exclude the Teamster overtime as part of the waiver?

Commissioner Nix: I make a motion that we approve waiver of fees for the Centre for the Unification Study Committee.

President Crouch: Next item on our agenda, Eagle Creek Apartments. That is on our agenda because we had received e-mails from the Westside Improvement Association and from other citizens and residents regarding the marketing of that particular piece of property. Back in 2003 I sat on Area Plan Commission and the developer did appear before Area Plan Commission, and subsequently before the County Commissioners and represented that it was not going to be marketed and leased to students, and at the very most it would be 10% student leases. In fact, what precipitated the e-mails was a flyer, I guess, that appeared at USI marketing it to students, and then a billboard that appeared on the property identifying it as student housing. Certainly there were residents at the time, surrounding neighbors that were somewhat uncomfortable with the rezoning, but withdrew their opposition based upon the assumption that there would only be 10% student housing leased. So, that is what has brought us today. I would like to at this particular point in time start, perhaps, with the groups that precipitated all that, and that would be the Westside Improvement Association.

Fred Padget: I’m Fred Padget, and I represent the Westside Improvement Association. I had tried to e-mail something earlier, and I don’t know if it got to you or not. It came back to me as undeliverable. If you don’t mind, I would pass that out to you.

Fred Padget: First of all, I would like to thank the Commissioners, the President and the rest of the Commissioners, for setting this meeting up and inviting the developer and his attorney down to explain the circumstances involving the changes in the plan for Eagle Village. The other thing, Mike Lockard specifically is the Westside Improvement Association land use chairman, and he also wanted me to pass his apologies on to the Commission for not being able to be here. What I’ve done is put together a little bit of a recap, primarily based off of the transcript from the April 23, 2003 Commissioners meeting. Then some additional information at the end, and with your indulgence, I’ll just go through that. In the beginning what was said was that it would be a ten, there would be ten two story buildings, with eight units per building, for a total of 80, two bedroom apartments, in the upper rent category, 160 total bedrooms. What was done was 16 two story buildings, with eight units per building, for a total of 128, four bedroom apartments for student housing. That’s a total of 512 bedrooms. The investment, at that time, was said to be something over $30 million. What was done, in a recent sale indicated as being May 13, 2005 in this past Sunday’s Courier indicated that it was sold for about $17 million. I did check that with the Assessor’s office, and that represents about seven acres, which is all of the property there, or at least most of the property, and the improvements on that property. So, we missed our tax assessed value by nearly 50 percent on that project. Another thing that was said, this was laid out for a top end, low turnover, long term leasing. What did we get? We get student housing that will, at best, be year long leases. Another comment was that Moore Investments, they’re not in the student housing business, they don’t intend to be. What did we get? Student housing. Another point that was made, we’re going to basically say no students allowed, and we got student housing. By the way, you can discriminate against students for housing purposes. Another comment, we are going to have some students that just get in that, you know, are maybe older individuals going back to school for their masters ,or whatever, want to live near campus. These are the type of individuals, that’s why I want to keep it at ten percent. That’s the ten percent that Commissioner Crouch was talking about a moment ago. Another comment, what is being proposed here is to meet the demand for high quality rental housing on the west side of Evansville. Of course, we have student housing. A question that I asked the attorney back on April 17, 2003 was whether or not the Moore Development Group would maintain ownership and management of the, or would sell the complex. The answer was no, and, in fact, the verbiage in the April 23, 2003 transcript leads you to believe that the developer would be managing this luxury complex. Recently, we noticed the sale to a California company on May 13^th that I spoke of earlier. Another part of that rezoning was, there was to be some improvements and right-of-way dedicated on Schutte Road. What INDOT requested was a southbound left turn lane that runs from Lloyd to the apartment entrance, and there may be some additional right-of-way required with that. At this point in time, we’ve not been able to determine that anything’s been done in regards to the access lane or to the dedication of the right-of-way. Some other aspects of this, we, in the beginning had met with the developer and his attorney, we tried to get a private covenant put into effect, and we were told that based on his lending institution’s directions, they could not do that. Based on, this is kind of a side light, but based on the zoning requirements, we have a 512 bedroom complex here, the zoning requirements will be only for 299 parking spaces. I don’t know how many parking spaces the developer intends, but the best we can request, or the best we can require is 229 for a 512 bedroom student housing complex. I’ve been involved in land use issues, along with Mike Lockard for several years, and there have been some that were quite contentious. I received more phone calls, some of them identified and some not, and other communications over this project than anything else I’ve been involved in with the Westside Improvement Association. None were in support of the project, and the amount of outrage expressed was extraordinary. It was unbelievable to me. My concerns, Westside Improvement concerns, this will become a party house for USI. Issues such as noise and traffic will clearly see an increase, all of which further erodes the quiet and peaceful way of life previously enjoyed by the neighbors, and who were misled when this originally was rezoned. Westside Improvement met with the developer, Greg Moore, just recently, and we specifically asked him what controls and safety measures would be in place to reduce the likelihood of underage residents having access to alcohol? He indicated that there were no plans in place to assure that residents of like ages would be housed together, and we think it is a dangerous policy that students under age 21 would be housed with those over 21, thereby greatly increasing their ability to have access to alcohol illegally. USI student housing has strict rules regarding alcohol in their dorms. USI policy 2.1.1, alcohol on U.S. property, states:

“The manufacture, sale, transfer, purchase, transportation, possession, or consumption of an alcoholic beverage anywhere on university owned or controlled property, including university owned or leased vehicles regardless of location is prohibited by the university.”

This policy is referenced in the guidelines for student housing. However, this property will not be governed by those rules, and, therefore, the neighbors fears about it being a party house is well founded. As a student living area that is not governed and controlled by the USI security force, this student living complex will not be patrolled in a similar fashion as USI student housing. The Vanderburgh County Sheriff will serve it, and as such we have safety concerns for the people living in the apartments. Brad, not because of the Sheriff’s Department, believe me.

Fred Padget: More of an overload, I think. On the campus, security and emergency medical assistance is a quick phone call, but at this location, they will have to rely on coverage by the Sheriff and the volunteer fire department. We are also concerned that the number of nuisance calls that the Sheriff and the volunteer fire will have to handle, since, I think we can agree that there will be problems at a housing complex that has little to no rules, similar to the effective student conduct code that USI has in place. The company owning this, as I said earlier, is from California. Having a company from so far away to manage a student housing complex leaves me with little reassurance that they can be an effective manager of the property and any problems that can occur. We also have serious doubts that a company from the west coast will have similar ideas and ethics when it comes to monitoring the behavior of the young students who will live there. I think their apparent lack of alcohol policies support that fear. Long distance landlords have a history of not seeing to the needs and concerns of those who live around the properties. Finally, I did learn of a lawsuit the developer was recently involved in dealing with what I felt was disregard for easement restrictions and the One Call statute. The case was brought by BP Pipeline North America against Moore Development in our district federal court and concerned Linwood Subdivision on Outer Lincoln in Warrick County. Although I believe the case was filed in 2002, I’m not sure of that, it was heard during June 2004. The BP easement included an eight inch pipeline transporting xylene gas. This gas is flammable, it could be explosive, and is a definite environmental concern. The accusation was that the developer, who also does work as Carlton Construction, installed an irrigation system, had trees and shrubs planted, performed excavation work, and built patios on a restricted easement, as well as not complying with the One Call statute. Although the developer did prevail in this case, for reasons I won’t go into here, there was no denying infringement upon the easement without BP’s approval. Neither did the plot plan filed with the Warrick APC show any patios. What I saw in this case, though the developer did prevail, as I said, was disregard for following his submitted plan, disregard for legal easements, and a general willingness to do whatever he wanted to up until someone called his hand. In fact, the judge admonished both parties to work together and better at communications. Relay this to Eagle Village, the developer and his attorney said what was needed to cause us to remove our objection, and perhaps influence the Commissioners vote. He then promptly went and did what he wanted with total disregard for commitments made, and no communication to anyone involved in the approval process. To me, that represents a pattern of behavior. Illegal? Probably not. But in the long run, the more important court may be the court of public opinion. At this point, what’s done is done. For Westside Improvement’s part we’ll be more suspect and less trusting when promises are made during the rezoning process. There will be some rezoning petitioners, or involved parties added to the bottom of our list for trust and credibility, but let me be clear, there are many, many reputable, creditable developers who do what they say, and those we’ll continue to work with in good faith. For others, we’ll take a different approach. Lastly, the Westside Improvement Association will work hard and in cooperation with our elected officials and others to devise a method to add credibility, accountability, and integrity into the testimony given before the various bodies involved in the rezoning process. That’s my prepared remarks. I would like to say a couple of other things. Changes do happen, and I feel like probably one of the things we’ll hear is that the economy changed from the time of the rezoning up until the time that they kind of finalized their plans. We have a study, and I think the Commissioners have this study that was done by Dave Matthews, an appraiser in the area, and he indicates in 2001 that there were excessive vacancy rates; 2002 there were excessive vacancy rates; and if you would bear with me a minute I’ll...in the end of 2001 vacancy rates in Vanderburgh County, these are apartment vacancy rates, vacancy rates in Vanderburgh County rose nearly two percent last year from 4.9 percent, 4.09 percent in ‘99, to 6.06 in 2006. This is the highest vacancy rate in the past 12 years. At the end of 2002, which would have been just prior to the rezoning of this property, Dave Matthews, his report, shows that apartment vacancy rates within Vanderburgh County continue to rise, reaching a 13 year high. He goes on, later on, the recent surge in construction has contributed significantly to the increasing vacancy, and one would think the construction would taper off to get vacancy back in line, however, this does not appear to be the case. In summary, the overall apartment market appears to be near saturation in most areas, and overly saturated on the far east side. My point is that the economy didn’t change for apartments during that time. It was already an overbuilt market. What we have here is a developer that came in and told us he was going to build luxury apartments. If he did his due diligence he would have known that he was in a bad market at that time. The other thing, if you look at the houses sold during that period, 2001 there were 3,365 sold; 2005, 3,717; and in 2003, 4,001. As the homes were being sold, people were moving from apartments, and that was common knowledge, and anybody that would have done any economics would have known it. The other thing I want to mention just quickly is the area of Schutte Road and access to the Lloyd. Though the first public meeting, I think, where it indicated access to the Lloyd was going to be probably denied, or not have access to the Lloyd from Schutte was at the Reitz meeting back, I think, in late 2003, if I remember. It might have been 2004. But, there was a lot of discussion over Clark Road, Schutte Road, Eickhoff, that whole area for a long period of time, with INDOT involved, and it seems to me again a prudent, anybody doing prudent economics would have built that possibility of change into their plans. Had they done that, they would have not come forth with a rezoning for luxury apartments. With that, I conclude anything I have to say. If you have any questions, I’ll gladly try to answer them.

President Crouch: Questions? Thank you, Mr. Padget. Is there anyone else with the neighborhood association that has any new information to share with us? Or does Mr. Padget express your....I guess, at this point in time, we would be happy to hear from the developer or his attorney. If you could identify yourself for the record please.

Les Shively: Thank you. My name is Les Shively, representing the developer in this particular project. With me today is Mr. Greg Moore, principal of Moore Development; his engineer, Jim Morley, Jr., Morley and Associates; and Danny Spindler, the principal, one of the principals of Given and Spindler, who will be the company managing this community. Let me first say this, back two years ago plus when this rezoning came before you, the petitioner and myself represented what we knew to be the present facts and the intentions of the parties. No one intentionally misled, misstated, or misrepresented anything. Mr. Padget and his organization having dealt with me before knows that to be the case. I think it’s very, very unfortunate Mr. Padget, in the name of the Westside Improvement Association, a moment ago attempted, maybe has succeeded in slandering Mr. Moore in regards to a lawsuit in federal court brought by BP. The fact of the matter is that suit was filed in 2004; the fact of the matter is, we won; the fact of the matter is, BP ended up having to pay money, had to pay money to one of the individuals, the couples that Mr. Moore sold a lot to. The records of the Warrick County Area Plan Commission, who is a client of mine as well, shows that this Mr. Moore has been in full compliance with all rules and regulations of the subdivision control ordinance of that county. Insinuations to the contrary are very unfortunate, and just because they are said at a Commissioners meeting does not cloak them with any privilege for liability. Moreover, the first page of this synopsis presented to you this evening is in error. I refer to the minutes of the Plan Commission meeting when this was first presented in April of 2003. The original so called luxury apartment project, as Mr. Padget refers to it, was not represented to be $30.7 million, but on page eight of those minutes 3.7, 3.7 million. The fact of the matter is, it was sold for $16.4 million. Yes, Mr. Moore did well, but so did the taxpayers of Vanderburgh County, because in two years the projected approved value not doubled, not tripled, but it quadrupled. Those are the facts. The Westside Improvement Association had them wrong. Let me go through this briefly, and I’m not going to take a lot of your time, I’m not quite sure what the David Matthews study means or the significance, but let me just tell you for whatever it’s worth, since that study came out I’ve brought before you two projects, one that is right, a stones throw from where my office is on the east side that is near completion. It’s got 240 units, it’s called Lake Shore. I brought before you in January Boehne Camp, 100 units, which I don’t know if they’ve started construction or not, but it’s not too far from this site. Then Arbor Eastland, I believe it’s called, over there on the east side, I-164, I wasn’t involved with that, but that just went on line in 2004, 2005, that’s 500 units all together. I’m not Alan Greenspan, I can’t explain the macro economy, the micro economy of what’s going on in Evansville, but we’re building commercial buildings, we’re selling and building new houses, we’re building apartments. Thank God it’s all working, because Lord knows and as the Commissioners of this county know, we need the tax money. So, that’s good. I don’t know, but it’s all happening. Mr. Moore, unfortunately, because he was involved with other projects, he’s a young man, he had a lot of irons in the fire, I keep telling Greg, you’re trying to do too many things at one time, this thing didn’t come off the ground. He was approached two years after rezoning by a group that wanted to do it for student housing. You know, what occurs to me, and I’ve listened to the Westside Improvement Association for most of the 25 years that I’ve been in practice, and they do some great things, but as an advocate for the west side, one of our best assets is USI. What’s one of the best assets of USI? It’s students. Now, I grew up a stones throw from the University of Evansville. I could see the dormitories, the one that’s been there for a number of years along Weinbach. Now, not too far from where I live on Lincoln Park is now the Greek complex, and I don’t mean people from Greece, I mean the sororities and the fraternities, they’re all there, and they all work very fine within that east side neighborhood. In fact, the Lincolnshire Neighborhood, just south of campus, is one of the most sought after residential sites in all of this county. Students are a wonderful thing. They’re a great thing. They’re something we ought to be proud of. I suspect that, and Mr. Spindler is here, he can answer your questions, but he told me a very interesting thing of how they are going to operate these apartments. If you are a student, and you are not working full time, and cannot, you’re parents are going to have to co-sign on this. So, if these are traditional full time students hoping to complete their degree in four years, their parents are going to be on the hook. Last time I looked at state laws, underage drinking is against the law. If they break the law, it’s in almost every lease, and all the leases I know of Given and Spindler, the properties they manage, and their reputation is well known, those people are going to get booted out and their parents are going to have some responsibility. Student housing is a good thing. USI’s growth that results in this $16.4 million, not hopeful plastic banana dream kind of investment, it’s a real thing that’s happened, it’s gone on the tax rolls is there because of students at USI. Students are a good thing. I would hope the Westside Improvement Association would embrace that. Apparently they don’t. To suggest that students are synonymous with alcohol, drugs, and bad things, and everything evil in this world, they knew there was going to be at least 20 students that could live out there. They were willing to tolerate 20 bad students, I guess. I don’t know. I don’t quite understand their reasoning. Again, Given and Spindler is going to manage this property, not some outfit out of California. They’re going to be on-site. Parents are going to co-sign. Moreover, this is set up for housing, not for parties. There is going to be no community building that could be leased out by any of the tenants. No community, it’s not going to be conducive to that type of activity. In regards to the plans now to limit access on Lloyd Expressway, you can criticize young Mr. Moore all you want about this due diligence or lack there of, but the first public pronouncement by the Corradino Group and INDOT that they were going to close off Schutte Road, that was the plan, according to my research, what’s been provided to me appeared in the Evansville Courier, and John Martin will always attest they are the most accurate, the first on there with all the public information, was January 29, 2004. A year, better than a year after he’s rezoned the property. The improvements that he committed to do, along Schutte Road and the right-of-way, the state right-of-way, he’s going to do them. In fact, I believe it’s in the use and development commitment, if not the improvement location permit, before any unit is occupied all this has to be built. John Stoll, your County Engineer, will attest to that fact. The fact of the matter is the use and development commitment that goes with the zoning ordinance, has not been violated, it is in place, it’s been adhered to, and, again, let me go back to something, a little history, if you’ll recall, and I don’t know, Commissioner Crouch, if you were on the Board of Commissioners at that time, but the original approach by the then owners of the property was to make that corner commercial. That’s what the folks didn’t want to see out there. Jeff Hatfield, one of the members of the Plan Commission, was so, exclaimed he didn’t care if it was going to be student housing, regular housing, as long as it wasn’t commercial, was great for the west side and was further manifestation of the impact positively of USI. We came a long way from a commercial complex that nobody wanted out there, except the person who’s trying to get it rezoned, to what we have today, a $16.4 million investment. All those improvements are going to be done to Schutte Road and the right-of-way as they were committed to be. They must be, or they can’t occupy the buildings. Pure and simple.

Les Shively: Let me just summarize by saying this. I know there’s been a proposal now that the Westside Improvement Association, they’re suggesting that we ought to now impose covenants on developers. Well, I don’t want to get into the legalese one way or the other, I don’t think the zoning enabling statutes of this state allow that to happen. But, let me suggest this to you, and let’s maybe take this experience and work it for something positive, if we do believe that student housing is a different type of animal than regular multi-family, then let’s amend the ordinance and require in addition to it being zoned R-3 or R-4 that they obtain a special use permit. That would be appropriate. Then, in a broader sense, I suggested this ten years ago and it never got me anywhere, but our C-4, our commercial classifications are so broad, there’s like a 165 uses that can be allowed in C-4, let’s break it apart and let’s have more classifications so it’s narrower, and so we can, we’ll basically funnel, by virtue or our ordinance assurances that only certain uses will go in a certain classification. If they don’t fit, they’ll have to change and rezone the property. Again, I appreciate the opportunity to be here today. Again, Mr. Moore is here to answer any questions you might have about the project. Mr. Given will talk about, is here to talk about, if you want him to, about the management of the property. Then, Mr. Morley, not to cut off his level of expertise, but can certainly give you the assurances of what’s going on with the road improvements and his coordination with Mr. Stoll. I would be happy to answer your questions.

Commissioner Nix: I don’t know who wants to answer this, but what changed from 2003 to right now to cause this? I mean, just you kind of danced around it maybe just a minute ago.

Les Shively: I didn’t mean to dance, I mean, I think one thing was the fact that the possibility of loss of direct access from Schutte Road.

Les Shively: I think Mr. Moore, Mr. Moore’s the one with the, it’s his investment, I think he can tell you better.

Greg Moore: The answer to your question would be yes, the access from Schutte Road to the Expressway.

Greg Moore: Yeah, no direct access would take it from conventional housing. Without that access–

Commissioner Nix: When did you determine that that was going to take place? I mean, at what point–

Greg Moore: After the rezoning. I mean, we started to hear from the Corradino Group that, I mean, you had the talk about it. I think their report came back in, I believe it was in the beginning of ‘04, was the start of it. When it was released. Then shortly after that is when INDOT signed on, or excuse me, of ‘04, yes. Then, April of ‘04 is when INDOT signed on on their list.

Commissioner Nix: Okay. So, the statements you made in front of the Commission in 2003--

Greg Moore: In 2003 we were going to keep it for a long term investment to go along with all of our development projects.

Commissioner Nix: Is there a reason why you wouldn’t have come back to the Commission when you discovered this?

Greg Moore: –was such an objection. We never knew that anybody had such an objection against student housing.

Commissioner Nix: If you would read the transcripts from the Commission meeting in 2003, it was pretty clear that you had no intentions of putting student housing out there.

Commissioner Nix: –your own then, at some point, to just say this is what we’re going to do.

Greg Moore: We elected to change it from conventional housing to student housing. We were buying the property from the Weber’s. They were basically the adjoining property owners of that. After that we’ve got the Expressway on one side, and then we’ve got, we’re a stones throw from the campus.

Commissioner Nix: But, the statements you made in 2003, that one decision, that road being closed that was the determining factor then? Is that correct?

Greg Moore: Exactly. After that our only choice was, if we’re locked out from getting on to the Expressway, then, basically, it’s our one use for that property is student housing.

Greg Moore: After we made that decision they gave up on, right now, the plan is that we’re not going to lose access to the Expressway.

Greg Moore: As of right now, my understanding is that access won’t be cut off now. But, that’s after we’ve already–

Commissioner Musgrave: You thought that they were going to cut the access off in April of ‘04?

Greg Moore: No, it was going to be in the next, I think their plan was, what, their long term was six to eight years.

Greg Moore: Jim would have to help me out with that. It was the next, as far as the....we were just going through sub and site review, they actually wanted us to move our entrance, because they were still talking about raising Schutte Road eleven feet at our entrance, for the overpass. It wasn’t until just, what, a month or two ago that they took it off.

Greg Moore: Oh, they haven’t taken it, okay. They still haven’t taken it off yet.

Commissioner Musgrave: So, you could have operated this, with no students for six to eight years, maybe longer, and fulfilled the promises that you made to the Commission when you succeeded in gaining the rezoning, but you instead decided, suddenly, to vastly increase the number of apartments at the site, and to market it almost exclusively to students?

Greg Moore: It was six to eight, a six year project isn’t going to pay for itself. Then you lose conventional housing. Student housing, the way student housing is trending now, the students want their own bedroom. Not the way USI is right now, you’re putting two students per bedroom right now. If you look at the way it’s trending now in student housing, students get their own bedroom. That’s the way everything is moving now at the universities. All students are getting, these are all four bedroom units. Each student is getting their own private bedroom. That’s the way everything is trending now. So, if it’s eventually go towards student housing, we needed to move those marketing, or, excuse me, those construction plans now to all four bedroom housing.

Commissioner Nix: The plans that were submitted to the Building Commission were for four bedroom apartments, and not two bedroom?

Commissioner Nix: So, in other words, when you came to this body in 2003, they were two bedroom apartments?

Commissioner Nix: Okay, and from then to when you took them to the Building Commission, they went from two bedroom apartments to four bedroom apartments?

Commissioner Nix: But, I guess, what you proposed to this Commission is not what you proposed to the Building Commission. Is that correct?

Greg Moore: Right, between that time, and the time that we actually came up with the building plans, it was announced that we were going to lose access to the Lloyd Expressway.

Commissioner Musgrave: I did have one thing for the record, the letter that we sent to you, based on the address that you gave in the earlier Commission meeting, that letter came back. What is your current address for the record?

Commissioner Musgrave: No, we had a different address, just a second, we had 4455 Foxmoor Drive.

Commissioner Nix: Once again, let me make sure I’m clear on this. You came to the Commission in 2003 with a two bedroom plan.

Commissioner Nix: Then you went to the Building Commission and Area Plan with a four bedroom plan?

Greg Moore: Well, a year and couple months later, yes. In that time they announced plans to shut down access to the Expressway.

Les Shively: Mr. Nix, let me give you an example of how things change. I referred to the Lake Shore Apartments which is on I-164, visible from I-164, in that northeast quadrant. That property was zoned C-4 in the late ‘90's early 2000. The intent of that whole area was to become commercial and light industrial. For one reason or another, it didn’t happen. The plans changed, and now it’s multi-family. If people could look at every project and guarantee that what they’ve proposed to do today, want to do today, is going to be viable a year and a half, two years later, that would change the whole dynamics of the development industry.

Commissioner Nix: But, at the same time, let me interject something in, at the same time, if you, I would think it would be just common sense if you’re going to change something that you would come back to the Commission, or to the, and have that revised.

Les Shively: Well, there again, you know, Mr. Moore did contact the adjacent landowners, should a more prudent PR thing have been to contact you all, and the Westside Improvement Association? Sure. But, the thing that I want to make very, very clear is that there was no misrepresentation in 2003, and I can assure you from this individual speaking right now, had I believed for one moment that there was a misrepresentation, that information that I was being given to present to the Commissioners was not accurate, I would not....I’ve got plenty to do.

Les Shively: And everything that I stated, and I think you know my reputation, Mr. Nix, I wouldn’t have made those statements if I did not believe those to be true and to be the case. Now, the fact of the matter is, you know, everybody looking back could have done things a little differently in terms of the public relations aspect of it, no question about it. We’re hear this evening, that’s why Mr. Moore met with Mr. Padget last week. We’re here this evening, a little late in the ball game for the PR aspects, no question about it, but rest assured, there was no misrepresentation, there was no subterfuge, there was no hidden plan. You know, that would have been, well, that wouldn’t have made sense to do that, and that was not the case.

Commissioner Musgrave: You stated that your client had too many irons in the fire, and that he didn’t get off, get the project off the ground. So, in other words, he came for the zoning, and then the next year he brings the building plans. What happened during that year? What, do you see that as a long delay between the rezoning and the building plans? I mean, what–

Les Shively: –to give you an example. I keep using this Lake Shore, I mean, shortly after we rezoned the Lake Shore property, or actually I should say down zoned it, I mean, they’re moving and grooving. Because that was the project, that particular developer, by the way out of Indianapolis, they’re focused on that particular development here. Greg has two subdivisions, single family residential subdivisions, in Warrick County that were at various stages of development. Because of where they were in the development, and, maybe you’re aware of this and maybe you’re not, but you have certain time lines to get your infrastructure in place, or they will call your letter of credit. Those things had to get done. He had to complete all of his work. I think that, he’s kind of a one man show, he was focused on getting that done, and not involved, probably as much as he would liked to have been promoting and working with the property on the west side. You know, he had a lot of things going, and he had set time lines already running on him with regard to getting the infrastructure in place in Warrick County, or Warrick County would have to call his letter of credit and get that infrastructure, you know, in place.

Commissioner Musgrave: Well, I guess, the minutes would lead you to believe that he had the credit already established for this project.

Commissioner Musgrave: And that everything was going to get going, and then you say there was a year’s delay in presenting the plans to the Building Commission. So, you’re saying that he came with a plan to get the rezoning, get the building, but then his other work prevented him from getting the building started here on the west side?

Les Shively: That’s what I’ve observed. I mean, you know, there’s a lot of my clients that suffer some of the same situations. I’ve seen individuals, well, I won’t mention any names, but I know of one particular developer who did a rezoning in 1998 for multi-family, and still hasn’t done that project, and has moved on to other projects within the county, and that project has never come to fruition. I mean, that happens.

Commissioner Musgrave: Well, that may address the delay, but it doesn’t address the testimony on the record that he was going to manage this himself. That he wasn’t going to market to students. Then we find that he has, the building plans are now submitted over a year later for student housing, and then he turns around and sells the property. When did he decide that he wasn’t going to be the owner/manager of this property?

Les Shively: I don’t know the answer to that, other than it appears from what he’s said here to you a moment ago, that that happened sometime in 2004. I mean, I think, the sale took place this year. But, the whole progression probably started sometime in 2004 when he got this additional information.

Commissioner Nix: How many parking spaces are you going to have? Has that changed too?

Greg Moore: If everybody has a car then we’re going to have a parking shortage. We’ve acquired a lot next door to the house that we can have extra parking there. USI is going to provide their transportation.

Greg Moore: USI is going to provide transportation, their shuttle bus is going to run through there.

Greg Moore: We’ve talked with Ron Ruble and Dr. Hoops, and then Mark Kryzowski’s taken Ron Ruble’s place, and he’s given us the same commitment.

Commissioner Musgrave: So, at this point in time now, we have a 512 total bedroom, and Schutte Road will not be closed off. So, some of the things that you envisioned when you set out to change your plans aren’t ever going to take place, and we are going to have student housing with insufficient parking?

Dan Spindler: Yes, Commissioner. My name is Dan Spindler. I’m president of the Given and Spindler Management Company.

Commissioner Musgrave: Well, you have your work cut out for you. You will be managing 512 bedrooms, and your neighborhood association is going to be Westside Improvement, and I think you’ve heard their expressed displeasure with the way this has turned out. What are you going to do to reach accommodation with the neighborhood association and this new unit, new complex that’s being built?

Dan Spindler: Well, our company was engaged to work for Mr. Moore, I think about six weeks, maybe two months ago, in helping look at what is actually under construction at this point in time. We were engaged to manage this property. Student housing, and, hopefully, I’ll give you some background, student housing today has changed dramatically. What Mr. Moore is building on the west side of Evansville is new to Evansville. It certainly is a new concept. But, if you look around the country, and even other cities such as Ball State in Muncie, this is not a new concept. In fact, it’s old hat. I’m very familiar with the housing at Ball State University, because housing, multi-family housing in general, as an industry, this is my 35^th year of being in property management, and I’ve watched it change dramatically. The reason I am so familiar with just the Ball State as an example, we know, and I was instrumental in working with some others, and we actually brought in a four year degreed program, it was the second of it’s kind in the United States. There are people that are actually getting their degrees now in apartment management to live on site. I’m happy to say we’ve had that program in place for about six years now, and at Ball State we now have the first masters degree program in apartment management. These are people that are living on-site managing apartments. I’ve watched, for a number of years, the student housing being developed very similar to what Mr. Moore has built at Ball State, as well as many other cities that have universities all across this country. There are property developers out there, in today’s world, that their primary focus is building this type of housing. Typically, you see that’s it’s three and four bedroom housing units. It does require different management styles for that, much like a family property is managed somewhat differently than, say, a seniors property, or all singles property, or young married property. Each of today’s lifestyles that you see, based upon the resident mix of that apartment community, do require some different approaches to be able to keep it conducive. Student housing is not a bad thing. Student housing is not negative. Students must live somewhere. I see the student housing on the west side actually bringing many of the people that are students, renting from the apartment communities throughout Evansville, because of lack of finding housing suitable to their needs to be able to live close to campus. We even think that perhaps some of the U of E students may actually live on-site. One of things that Mr. Shively has already addressed is the fact that for student housing of this type, unless you can meet the threshold criteria of a debt to income ratio as a full student, making enough money to be able to justify your living and renting that apartment, your parents are required, and I don’t care if your 18 or 22, or what your age is, your parents will be required to co-sign the lease.

Commissioner Musgrave: What are you going to do to work with the neighborhood association to make this more acceptable to the Westside Improvement?

Dan Spindler: Well, I’m not sure what we can do to work with the Westside neighborhood association. I would be more than happy to meet with them, to listen to their concerns. I would be more than happy to explain our management style, and what we expect on the property itself, but our engagement from a management standpoint is to manage and lease this property.

Commissioner Musgrave: You had mentioned that there are masters degrees available in this apartment management, will any of these master degree holders be your employees on this site?

Dan Spindler: We actually have an RPM, it’s called an RPM, we actually have an RPM student, she’s a junior, going to be a junior next year that is in Evansville working this summer specifically on this property. We do expect to try to staff this property with as much as possible with students such as RPM students, or RPM graduates.

Commissioner Musgrave: So, they won’t be degreed at this time, that you know of. Will more than four people be allowed to rent one of these apartments?

Commissioner Musgrave: I would ask that you meet with the neighborhood association before you sign your first lease to see if there is any agreements that you can come to about language to be included.

Dan Spindler: We are in a marketing program, and, like I said, I would be more than happy to sit down and meet with the neighborhood association to see what, you know, what questions we can answer. I think our engagement from a management company standpoint, since we’ve been brought in to work, you know, specifically for Mr. Moore, is to manage the property, to market the property, and to lease it up.

Commissioner Musgrave: Mr. Moore engaged you? The property has just been sold, correct?

Les Shively: There’s been a change in the ownership, legal ownership, but Mr. Moore has to complete the project, lease it, manage it for a certain period of time.

Les Shively: Five years. So, he will be involved here, on the scene, for five years. It has to get up to a certain performance level to complete the transaction. So, that’s why Given and Spindler is engaged by Mr. Moore. That will be the arrangement for at least five years.

President Crouch: Thank you, Mr. Spindler. I, you know, what is is, but, I guess, we need to look at our process and whether we need to make any changes. I would like to ask three questions, one first of Mr. Mills.

President Crouch: Do you, and you, I sat on the Area Plan Commission for two years, and you’ve been there a lot longer, do you have very many instances where developers come and represent one thing at the rezoning to the neighbors, and, you know, the neighbors withdraw their opposition or they’re comfortable with what’s being represented, and then it ends up that something else happens? Does that happen often?

Brad Mills: Not in a short time frame. Obviously, as was mentioned, there is a possibility that something could be presented, and then if the project does not move forward two, three years down the road, things could change. But, typically, no, that does not happen.

President Crouch: Then, my second question is for the County Attorney. Do we currently, in our ordinances, rezoning ordinances, have any mechanism that requires or brings people back, developers back, when there has been a change in the intent that was represented?

President Crouch: I guess, my third question to the Commissioners, should there be?

Commissioner Musgrave: I would like to explore that. I would also like to explore something, perhaps that he brought up, he said that his plans to the Building Commission did not represent what was said here. Perhaps we can require the Building Commission to notify us in that. That could be one change, but, yes, I would agree with you, that we need to look at that.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: Just maybe to expand a bit on my answer, what we’re dealing with is land use, and the Plan Commission, under Indiana law establishes various codes of land use that entitle the owners of that land to use it for those particular purposes. In this case, what happened was the developer was granted the land use that allows the use that he intends to make of this property. If he violates that land use, under that zoning classification, then there is appropriate action that can be taken. But, to simply change from representations, if you will, made at one meeting to something else a year and a half later that still falls within that land use is not something that is currently addressed under our ordinances or the state statute. We have the mechanism for covenants, either a use and development commitment, which is done at the time that you file your petition for rezoning, and you could, in that document, set out something like this, though it would be extremely difficult for the Plan Commission to enforce.

Brad Mills: With the use and development commitment, which we do recommend, and we tell everyone that it is available, you can limit the type of uses that you could have for the property. If they wanted to be specific, they could say that we would only build two bedroom apartments, and then we would enforce that. However, if they just request a rezoning of the property to C-4, then any use that would be allowed in the C-4 classification would be permitted.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: The other kind of covenant, is a covenant that you enter into either in favor of the county or in favor of neighborhood associations or owners of property in a subdivision, and those covenants are legally enforceable. In this case that was mentioned in the various minutes, and referred to at the meetings, but it was indicated that the financing, or the entity providing the financing for the developer would not continence there being a covenant to this effect, and, so, it was not done. What we end up with is representations made at the meeting, and we have no remedy for those changing.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: Sure. I think there could be. It will have to fall within the enabling statutory language of the state of Indiana, but certainly that could be explored, and, yes, I think some changes could be made.

President Crouch: Commissioner Musgrave is going to explore with the Building Commission?

Commissioner Musgrave: Yes, I’ll explore that. Later on on our agenda we’ll come to a developer who is willing to enter into a private covenant with the Commissioners. So, you can see that we’re already moving down this path, and I think we can make some progress.

President Crouch: I would like to say that the development in Vanderburgh County benefits all of us, and we have good developers. But, we need to be sure that the neighbors are protected and feel that what has been represented to them is what actually takes place. I think that’s an important trust part of government that we need to ensure continues. Thank you, Mr. Mills. Any further discussion?

Les Shively: Madam President? I want to clarify something for the record, Mr. Morley can add to this, but I have also been advised that when the configuration of the buildings and the layout changed with the change in use, new drainage plans were filed and approved, is that correct? You might explain, I just want to make sure that we understand that.

Jim Morley, Jr. : We had done, at the time of rezoning, Mr. Moore employed us to do a traffic study based on an 80 unit facility. We did a traffic study for that, and had done some different layouts for an 80 unit building showing a pattern of that’s where the intent was going. I’m sure he wouldn’t have spent money paying me to do traffic studies if that was not the intent at the time. Once that changed, after that changed and the 128 units came on line instead of the 80, we received Drainage Board approval, based on that revised apartment complex, we received road plan approval based on that revised apartment complex. It went through site review, based on that revised apartment complex, and site review has all the reviewing agencies added. The Drainage Board and County Commissioners for road plan approval, both public meetings in which the public are invited to see what’s going on. Then we also received a green space variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals also for this project with the revised plan. So, this plan, as it sits today is not something that no one saw. Every approving agency in Vanderburgh County saw it. That’s the traffic study was revised, a new traffic study was done for the larger project, in which it was approved by the County Engineer. I would also like to comment, I had to check with the County Engineer to verify, the last set of plans that INDOT has provided, at least that I’ve seen and that John Stoll has seen, still has this project losing access at Schutte and the Lloyd. I am unaware of, I think Greg misunderstood, I am unaware of them, of INDOT, giving that access back. At the time we did improvement, or did design work for improvements on Schutte, that was a large concern of Dale Lucas with INDOT, because as Greg said, they plan on taking Schutte Road over the Lloyd. When they do that, they are going to have to fill Schutte Road near the entrance of this project. Because of that, we took that into account in the design of our entrance so we could minimize the impact of that later on in the project.

Commissioner Musgrave: Are you saying that when you took these revised plans through all of those other boards and meetings that you were just talking about, that you made it clear to all of those bodies that the plans had changed from the Commission meeting? And you called those out for their special attention, that they now knew that these were being built for student housing?

Jim Morley, Jr. : I wouldn’t say that I called it out and said these are different than what went through Area Plan Commission, and they are for student housing. We simply submitted the plans like we do on any project. We submit the plans for approval.

Commissioner Musgrave: So, maybe we need to have attached to all those plans, that as they go through all of those meetings what they represented when they got designed.

President Crouch: Through all those meetings were the neighbors notified? And the Westside Improvement Association? I mean, were they notified when changes did take place? Because, you know, what I have often found in dealing with the public is their only focused on a few public meetings. So, there’s a lot of action that takes place in government that the public just isn’t aware of.

Jim Morley, Jr. : I remember specifically a guy who lived significantly downstream, not an adjourner to this property, but significantly downstream, I want to say down in the Broadway area, was at the Drainage Board because he was concerned about drainage.

Jim Morley, Jr. : It might have been. I don’t remember his name. So, I do know, you know, that the public had to have been notified. He was there, I remember him specifically, and I even want to say that him and you were going to work on some things concerning drainage and that area downstream of him. But, I’m not for sure on that. But, yeah, the plans, all the approvals that were granted, the state, INDOT plan approval, road plans, drainage plans, sewer plans, water plans, everything were always done based off of the revised layout. But, we had done a full traffic study for the 80 unit layout at the rezoning time, because, at the time, that was the intent of what would be built.

Jim Morley, Jr. : The parking is accounted for in those revisions. The parking meets the ordinance for what is required for a four bedroom unit. The issue as to whether there is or is not enough parking there really depends on how many students have cars. I think, and I could be wrong, and Greg could speak to this, I believe he had one appraiser tell him that there was ample parking. Whether you think there is or is not ample parking, you know, that’s a judgement call. When I went to college, my four bedroom apartment was allotted two spaces. We have met the ordinance for required spaces, and as Mr. Moore stated, they have acquired a nearby piece of ground, that, if need be, they could come forward for approval of an additional parking area.

Commissioner Musgrave: I have a question for Mr. Mills. I haven’t looked at the ordinance for parking, but if a four bedroom unit were contemplated and you were projecting parking for that, would you project one car per bedroom, or would you have assumed that there would be underage children who didn’t drive in those bedrooms perhaps?

Brad Mills: Our ordinance doesn’t specifically address four bedroom units. It says two bedroom requires two spaces per unit. Three bedroom requires two spaces per unit, plus one additional visitor parking for every three units. So, based on that information is how we calculated the required parking, which, I believe, came out to 299, and they provided 301. So, based on our code as we interpret it, they had sufficient parking. Obviously, if every unit is rented out to a student, and all the bedrooms are occupied by students, and every student has a vehicle, there is going to be a shortage of parking.

Brad Mills: It’s something that we could revisit to address a four bedroom. As Mr. Spindler had mentioned earlier, this is a new animal to us here at Evansville. So, we have not been approached by this before. So, it’s something that we can look into.

President Crouch: Thank you. If, perhaps, Commissioner Musgrave, you have Area Plan Commission coming up, and I’m sure there will be continuing discussion about that, and perhaps about, you know, some type of a mechanism that might address these rare instances. I’m sorry.

Bill Jeffers: It’s been a long afternoon for you, and I appreciate you recognizing me. My name is Bill Jeffers, the County Surveyor. I serve on the Area Plan Commission. I’m not here to speak for the Area Plan Commission members. I’m here to speak for myself. There’s been a couple of issues that have been brought up that I want to speak to, and there’s been an issue that has not been raised that I would like to speak to first. For the period of time that I’ve been on the Area Plan Commission, and I’m sure it’s the same with Commissioner Crouch and Commissioner Musgrave, when a petitioner comes before the Area Plan Commission, unlike any other of these, you know, unlike the County Commissioners, unlike the City Council, who actually does the rezonings, when a petitioner comes before the Area Plan Commission, they raise their hand and swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. That issue has not been addressed tonight. When I sit on the Area Plan Commission, and I’ve worked for the county since 1981, and served in an advisory capacity to the Drainage Board since 1984, for all that time, it’s a very, very, very rare instance that a petitioner, particularly a land developer has come up, and without swearing in front of the Drainage Board, or the County Commissioners, without swearing in front of the County Surveyor in my office, it’s a very rare instance that any one has ever gone back on their word. We’re able to listen to a person tell us what they intend to do, and, basically, operate on an, I guess, they used to call it a gentleman’s agreement, but a person’s word is their bond type situation. That went on for many years, from 1984, when I first became Deputy Surveyor, until 1994, we got storm water detention based on a developer telling us he would put storm water detention in his subdivision. No code required it. No law, no Indiana state law still requires it. But, based on the person’s word being their bond, when they showed us a plan, and represented it, even as a what they call a conceptual plan, which basically is a pretty picture that they bring up here to get a permit. If they showed it to you, they did it. That hasn’t been addressed tonight. But, now, all of a sudden, someone’s come up and said well the Drainage Board got a crack at it, and the County Commissioners got a crack at it, and implying that the County Engineer had a crack at it when he looked at the road plans. When we look at those things, that wasn’t a new drainage plan. That wasn’t a revised drainage plan. That was a final drainage plan that came up after a conceptual preliminary drainage plan. Mr. Flittner was not here worried about parking or traffic, he was worried about some erosion down there a mile away. I won’t even go into that, because he’s been referred to the appropriate agency to address his erosion concerns. But, the drainage review, if that’s where it’s going, if that’s where this is going that the drainage review is supposed to catch an increase in housing units, or an increase in bedroom units, I should say in this case, well, then, that’s what I’ll do. It may take a little additional time to get a plan reviewed. I may not be able to do it in two or three days like is customary. It may take me a month or so to go back and check every thing that was sworn, with the right hand raised, to be done, in every set of minutes in front of you and the Area Plan Commission and the City Council, to make sure that the drainage plan reflects those promises. But, I don’t believe that’s where government should be going. I believe we shouldn’t be increasing the scope of government. I don’t believe anyone who spoke tonight is in favor of increasing government control, or the reach of government. The layers of government, and the layers of permitting and review. I don’t think one person that stood up here tonight is in favor of that. We can avoid all that by simply when you say you’re going to do something, you do it. If things do change, go back to the people you told you were going to do certain things, and explain why you’ve changed your mind before you go forward. Then we wouldn’t need all these layers and layers of regulation. Now, I had planned on talking about, asking you, I mean, Area Plan Commission is only a recommending body. The Area Plan Commission has sat there and voted 13-0 against a rezoning, and either the Council, City Council, or the County Commissioners has approved that zoning. There is different levels of activism on the Area Plan Commission. Some people are very focused on neighborhood associations and neighbors and neighborhoods. Other people simply look at is this zoning appropriate for this parcel of land with regard to the surrounding zoning classifications? We don’t look at parking. We don’t look at traffic access. We don’t look at anything other than is this spot zoning, or is this congruous with the other zonings around this parcel of land, because the technical people in site review and sub review are supposed to handle all those other issues. So, I guess, we’re going to be asking now for guidance from the County Commissioners, in this instance, and possibly from the City Council, how much activism do you want on the Area Plan Commission? Should we, when we make our recommendation on the Area Plan Commission should we just look at the appropriateness of the zoning, or should we start looking at traffic access and all the other issues? In this case you’ve heard that the parking met the zoning requirement, good or bad, it did. Nine out of ten of the plans that are brought in front of us are artist’s conceptions of what this thing’s going to build out to look like. They aren’t the final plan. They’re a pretty picture that sometimes and sometimes don’t come to fruition. But, that’s what we have to recommend a zoning to you based upon. So, but, I think what really goes to the heart of the matter, if a person stands up and says they’re going to do something, with their hand raised, and they swear they’re going to do it, that when we vote on a zoning, or when we review a plan that we can count on that’s what’s going to be done. I’ve already heard from people who work closely with those who have spoken tonight in the private sector, that the developer is now saying there is so many layers of government and so many permits we have to obtain, just get us a set of plans that will get us a permit, and let us get to building. Then, we’ll go back and show them an as-built. That’s what’s going on now because of all these layers of control. Just get us a set of plans that we can take down there, and get us a permit, so we can start building. The as-built will show what really is. So, I guess, I’m asking for guidance both as your technical advisor to the Drainage Board, and as a member of Area Plan Commission, how much activism, and how much detailed plan review do you want out of those of us that act as your advisors?

President Crouch: I would expect that you would comply with the ordinances that are in place until they are revised or amended. This Commission, I guess, needs to, as we have talked about earlier, need to review whether there should be a mechanism in place. So, that when those people that hold up their hand and swear something, if there’s been a change, that there’s some mechanism by which that change can be conveyed to the rest of the community.

Bill Jeffers: But, I would encourage you to keep it simple, because what I’ve already read is just, and what I’ve written for your drainage code, 95 pages. For your new erosion control code, 45 pages. It’s almost oppressive, you know, but that’s the way it’s going. It’s just too oppressive.

President Crouch: Oh, our first department head will be County Attorney, Mr. Ted Ziemer, and he will read the quotes, and then he will also apprise us as to the Tri-State Transportation contract.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: The first bid is from Deig Brothers Construction. They have a base bid of $20,207; an optional bid of $23,300; for a total, including the base and the optional of $43,507. CCC of Evansville has a base bid of $44,405.75; an optional bid of $28,806.08; for a total of both the base and the optional bid of $73,211.83. Concrete Pavers, Inc. has a base bid of $33,861; an optional bid of $21,007; for a total, including the base and the optional bid of $54,868.

Company Name	Base Bid Amount	Optional Bid Amount	Total Bid
Deig Brothers	$20,207.00	$23,300.00	$43,507.00
CCC of Evansville	$44,405.75	$28,806.08	$73,211.83
Concrete Pavers, Inc.	$33,861.00	$21,007.00	$54,868.00

President Crouch: So ordered. Is there any other department head that has business to come before this Commission? County Engineer?

John Stoll: The only item that I have this afternoon is an agreement with Bernardin Lochmueller and Associates for the design of the next phase of University Parkway. It’s in the amount of $400,100. The agreement would provide the revision of the alignment of the entire remainder of the project between Upper Mt. Vernon Road and Diamond Avenue to accommodate shifts in the alignment to make it a more permittable from an environmental standpoint. It will avoid stream relocations and other environmental issues that cause permit problems these days. In addition to the alignment shift, it will also provide us a complete set of design plans and specifications for the next construction phase, which is anticipated to be Upper Mt. Vernon Road to Marx Road. I had the County Attorney review the agreement. He was okay with it from a legal perspective, so, I would request that the agreement be approved.

B.J. Farrell: That’s okay, I sit up here. We did have our county surplus sale on Saturday at the Old Courthouse. I would like to thank you for being there, helping me to hold down the fort. We did collect $1,100 for our county General Fund. I have contacted St. Vincent De Paul to see if there would be any desks or chairs that are left that they might be interested in. I also have several e-mails or letters from various different county departments that had last minute surplus requests that we did put in that sale. I would like to give those to Madelyn Grayson please. I also have a late travel request for the Health Department. They need to send someone to pick up their new vehicle for rodent control in Bloomington. I also have a late request from the County Highway Department for a gentleman who’s been coordinating the resolution that the Commissioners have on their agenda today. At the last Commission meeting there were several letters that I had brought to the Commission for signature. I would like to make a report on those letters. The letter that went to the County Auditor, we have received the information. We sent two letters to the Building Authority, my conversation with Commissioner Nix today, they will be addressing those at their next board meeting, and we will be hearing from them. We did send a letter to the Sheriff requesting some information, and they are working on that, and they are doing that as they receive it. We sent a letter to the judges, and Judge Knight has told me he has had a conversation with the state court administrators office, and he will be presenting that to the judges at their next meeting that he would recommend approval that they act on our request. They will be at our meeting next week to address another issue, and will be bringing that to us as well.

Commissioner Musgrave: So, he is indicating that we will be able to run the payroll records against the court records?

B.J. Farrell: That’s my understanding, yes. There will be some criteria that would be attached to that regarding what we’ll be specifically requesting, but he will bring that to you next week.

President Crouch: Mr. Ziemer, do you have a report on Tri-State Transportation, and any other items that you might have?

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: I have other items, and I don’t exactly have a report on Tri-State Transportation, other than to tell you that their contract, which was a three year contract expired June the 2^nd of this year. The contract provides, for example, that they get paid $75,000 a year to provide the service that they provide. The contract spells out the manner in which they are going to provide that service. We had a report in April of this year of a failure on the part of the contractor to provide vans when requested by Evansville ARC. I discussed that failure with Derrick Dillon, the co-owner of Tri-State, who indicated that they had vans in the shop, and that they had had changes of employees, and so forth. The bottom line was that they had not complied with the terms of the contract. I advised the Commissioners of all that by my e-mail of April 27, 2005, and advised the Commissioners that their contract would expire on June 2, 2005, the County Attorney would need guidance to develop the contract since it provides for a fee of $75,000 and similar items which I am not going to decide. It is a services contract that can be entered into without bidding. Or the Commissioners could determine to see if there are others in Vanderburgh County who could provide a similar service and seek bids.

President Crouch: I think we ought to probably seek bids. Does that sound good to everybody?

President Crouch: Does that sound reasonable? Maybe a motion to work with Purchasing on that?

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: Okay, thank you. I prepared and submitted a services agreement to be entered into between the Commissioners and Jennifer Feigel to provide independent contractor services for the county, I think in the offices of the County Commissioners. I believe that Madelyn has....well, I sent that to you, B.J., do you have copies of it?

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: We could have the copies run. I’ve got this, and then it could be executed today.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: Okay, you have a request for closure of Norwich Place between Newberry and Wilton Way in Norwich Place from 3:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. on June 18, 2005 for purposes of conducting a neighborhood picnic. The Commissioners, of course, can approve that by simply making a motion to do so, if that was your pleasure. I would suggest that your approval be subject to the neighborhood be responsible for erecting suitable barricades at the portions of the street that are to be blocked off, and that they’re being prepared to move those barricades and monitor traffic in the event of an emergency.

President Crouch: I know we’ve had these in the past. Mr. Stoll, have we required–

John Stoll: I spoke with Ted about this earlier, and I couldn’t recall that the county provided barricades in the past when this had been approved. I thought, whoever the petitioner was had provided the barricades, but the requests had typically been approved by the Commission. But, I couldn’t remember the last one, so, I couldn’t go back and check in the minutes as to what was provided.

President Crouch: I’m sure if the recommendation of the County Attorney is that they provide the barricades, I’m sure that would be acceptable to the Commission.

Commissioner Musgrave: Move to accept the recommendation of the County Attorney.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: I submitted a weed ordinance. Do you have that, Madelyn? Well, I did this by e-mail at 3:07 today, so, maybe it didn’t get looked at. In any event, I have a weed ordinance which you could consider at this meeting. The only changes made by the ordinance have to do with reducing the level of weeds to be maintained from 12 inches to nine inches. And, secondly, to provide that in the event of work is done by the county to cut the weeds, that before this is certified to the Auditor to be put on the tax bill, a bill could be sent to the property owner, allowing the property owner to pay the amount due without the necessity of going through the certification process to the Auditor.

President Crouch: So, this reflects all the changes we had talked about when we first discussed this?

President Crouch: Are those changes acceptable to you, Mr. Lehman. Could you please wake up.

President Crouch: Why don’t we move on, and then come back? Or do you need a second?

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: Finally, there’s an agreement that was in the material submitted to me between Cinergy and the county for the addition of, or movement of, moving 11 lines from Judge Heldt’s office to the old juvenile office for a cost of $360. The agreement is satisfactory from a legal perspective, if the County Commissioners wish to approve it.

Roger Lehman: I just have one comment. Our discussion previously was to apply this change only in platted subdivisions. Since I don’t have the ordinance in front of me, I don’t know if the ordinance refers to platted subdivisions for the 12 inches that we’re changing to nine, or if we need to say nine inches in a platted subdivision.

President Crouch: We’re going to be a few minutes, do you want to take a moment and go–

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: Excuse me, you’re saying, we understood that the change was to be anywhere, the weeds would be reduced from 12 to nine. We did not get that information. I don’t believe the ordinance makes that distinction, the present ordinance. This is just an amendment of the ordinance. If that’s the case–

Roger Lehman: Yeah, we could just amend the amendment to say in platted subdivisions.

Roger Lehman: But we couldn’t just change the 12 to a nine, we would leave the 12 in and say except in platted subdivisions nine inches, or maybe it would be better if we just took it and fixed that up.

Commissioner Musgrave: I was handing you the (Inaudible). I wasn’t going to do it.

Roger Lehman: But, that (Inaudible) everything else appears to be in order and fine, but I think the Commissioners’ intent, and I think my presentation was, and our primary problem is in platted subdivisions where people are maintaining their yards in a very normally nice level. Whereas, out in the county, in general, where it might be farm fields or whatever, the 12 inches is adequate out there.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: Madam President, I would feel better taking this back to my office, and making these changes and resubmitting it for approval next week. It’s not that we can’t deal with weeds in the county, we have a mechanism for doing that, just not with these particular changes. I would rather have it done correctly than to sit here and try....because they are amendments, and what we change here affects the rest of the ordinance, and we were just, I was not aware that there was the subdivision limitation.

President Crouch: And, Mr. Ziemer, we want you to feel better and feel good, so, I think we will defer this for a week.

Roger Lehman: I will be out of town next week. So, I guess, maybe I could give my qualified support today.

Commissioner Musgrave: I would ask that Mr. Ziemer e-mail that amended ordinance to you before the end of the week, and that it’s all said and done by that time.

President Crouch: So ordered. Board appointments, I don’t believe we have any today.

President Crouch: New business, tax abatement recommendations. As the Commissioners are well aware, there’s been some discussion about providing scoring and guidelines for the tax abatements. Tax abatements are a privilege not a right, we need to ensure that the company’s that are granted abatements are accountable to the taxpayers of Vanderburgh County. So, if it’s the pleasure of this body, I would like to read just one little part of the letter that we would, hopefully, send to County Council expressing our recommendation regarding tax abatement guidelines.

“The Vanderburgh County Commissioners recommend that the Vanderburgh County Council, the body that grants tax abatements, adopt the guidelines currently used by the City of Evansville. These guidelines have been time tested for productivity without stifling growth. In addition, it allows the Department of Metropolitan Development to administer one set of guidelines, reducing the confusion for private industry and government alike. The benefits include providing greater accountability without stifling economic development. Having identical regulations in the city and county enhances our economic competitiveness as a region, a goal we all seek to attain.”

Commissioner Musgrave: I move that we send this letter to the County Council, and urge them to adopt guidelines that promote and not restrict economic development in our county.

President Crouch: Old business? The ordinance regarding non-profit street solicitations. I believe that the County Attorney has been in contact with the Sheriff’s office, and we are working out some details regarding the process for permitting, and this should be before us, hopefully, next meeting.

President Crouch: Public comment, this is the opportunity for the public to comment to the Commissioners regarding any business that this Commission has authority over. Is there anyone in the audience? Thank you.

President Crouch: Consent items, I believe we need to amend them to include some late travel requests and surplus requests.

B.J. Farrell: Commissioner Crouch, I’m sorry, I was out of the room, did Mr. Ziemer have the Airspan Internet for Burdette Park under his paperwork today?

President Crouch: I don’t believe so. Do you want to brief us on that, and add that to the amendment to the consent items?

B.J. Farrell: Yes, I would like to ask the Commissioners to allow this to be on the consent items today. It’s for bandwidth usage at Burdette Park so they can have Internet access, I believe, at the Discovery Lodge?

Commissioner Musgrave: Move to amend the consent items as you have just recommended, and as you recommended during your report.

President Crouch: So ordered. And, now, since we’ve amended them, do we have to approve them?

Commissioner Musgrave: Oh, let’s approve all the consent items. Move to approve them.

President Crouch: We now will move to rezoning, VC-3-2005. Thank you for patience.

Krista Lockyear: Good afternoon, members of the Commission. Krista Lockyear, I’m here on behalf of Pedcor Investments, LLC. As I believe everyone is aware, we have been working with Commissioner Musgrave specifically in order to put together a written covenant that will address some specific concerns, and provide some accountability on behalf of our client in the future. I think it’s telling that we’re here after the earlier discussion about the rezoning on the west side. My client is very interested in putting in writing their commitments to the county, and standing behind the representations that they have made to you. I do have copies of the covenants as current draft. There are probably still some minor modifications that need to be made. My client would like to run these by their eviction attorney to make sure we don’t have any problems with some of the language, versus the language in the leases. I would hope that in the next couple of days we could have discussions with any of the Commissioners that may have additional comments, and we could finalize this before next week, to take this rezoning to a vote.

Commissioner Musgrave: I want to thank you, and your clients for taking the time to meet with me last week to respond to the numerous e-mail messages that have come, not only from me, but from concerned members of the public, seeking to arrive at this covenant, which will put in writing some of the things that are important to the community, and that you’re willing to put it on paper and stand behind it, I think that speaks very highly of your client.

President Crouch: I do know that Mrs. Harp is here from Oak Hill Neighborhood Association, and I know she is here with some questions regarding this rezoning, because I did speak to her. So, if–

President Crouch: –you don’t mind entertaining, even though we won’t vote on it today.

Susan Harp: Thank you. Susan Harp, president of Oak Hill Neighborhood Association. This area out there, unfortunately, does not have any neighborhood association, and that is something that Mr. Farmer and the United Neighborhoods of Evansville and I, we’re working on to try to expand more neighborhoods in the county. Keystone would probably be your first neighborhood, then you get into the Green River Estates. Some of the concerns, and this was brought up at the East Sector Neighborhood Police meeting. Officer Vantlin spoke about the Vann Park apartments, and then I had just received the e-mail regarding this information, and there are some concerns from any neighborhood when you put in housing that may attract people of lower income that may be influenced by vices such as drugs. Of course, we do have the drug house ordinance in the city that we feel is going to help alleviate some of this, and I’m hoping this covenant would address those issues. But, in fact, these apartments do kind of attract, and it’s unfortunate, because everyone should be provided a place to live. My concerns were that would there be ample transportation for some of the lower income people to get to their job sites? That was one issue that was brought up. I know it will be on the Sheriff’s Department to help patrol this area. It’s just kind of secluded out there, and I know they are going to widen, or do some improvements on Green River Road, so that should help, but that’s, you know, down the road. Those were the concerns we really had. I did speak to a few of the people from Green River I and Green River II that they knew nothing about any of this. So, Timber Park neighborhood had concerns, but they’re on further south, but they and Oak Hill are the two nearest neighborhood associations, so, we’re hoping that the covenant would address the issues that protect those neighbors right there who may not know what’s in store for them.

President Crouch: Thank you, Mrs. Harp. Would it be possible to provide a copy of the proposed covenant to Mrs. Harp? Then if you could just briefly address her questions. If you could also tell her where the property is, because I think I told you the wrong location.

Krista Lockyear: Again, Krista Lockyear, for the record. Mrs. Harp, after the meeting I can give you a copy, as well as my card, and we can maybe correspond about any additional comments you have. Specific concerns that we are intending to address in this covenant is that my client is willing to commit that the leases, although this property is not to be, it’s not in the city limits, or I wouldn’t be in front of this body, we will include the language from the city ordinance about the drug enforcement and eviction procedures into our leases, so that we...and as amendments happen in the future, we will comply, basically, with that city ordinance and lease language. We also are putting in mechanisms of background searches that we will proceed and follow. Currently, at Vann Park, and intended at this Green River Road site, we do previous landlord checks, obviously, credit report checks, and we are committing to checking the Vanderburgh County Sheriff’s sex offender registry periodically, and to proceed to commit not to rent to anyone that is on that registry, as well as proceed to make sure that we don’t have tenants in the complex that are registered sex offenders. The other provisions that we are having in here is that we would agree that at any point in the future, if the Sheriff’s Department or the County Commissioners would request, as a result of criminal activity at the site, our client, or my client will hire on-site security at their own expense to cut down any problems that they may be having. Of course, we don’t foresee problems. It’s our full belief that this will be a microcosm of the neighborhood that we are locating in. I’ve indicated to this body before, our tenants that we are marketing to are the workers at the east side, close retail locations; Eastland Mall, the new Black Buggy development, the Schnucks development. This property is just north of Lynch Road on Green River Road, and, so, those tenants that we are looking for are the work force of that immediate area. As far as transportation goes, we are not marketing to individuals that require public transportation. Public transportation is just not really anything that our clients are interested in trying to accommodate at this point, or acquire. It’s the intent that most of these tenants will have their own transportation. These tenants are working individuals, and there are percentages of income requirements, but they are individuals that either currently work or may be retired, and that these complex, apartment units will be affordable to them.

Commissioner Musgrave: At our meeting last week, you and I talked about the police reports, and you relayed to me how it took your client about six weeks, I think, to get the accompanying incident reports that went along with those that you could identify problem tenants in your Vann Park Apartments. We were discussing this in order to forestall any problems in the future development. You had mentioned that your client might want to pursue easier and better access to those records. Has anything come of that?

Krista Lockyear: Not to date. I think we are going to work, perhaps with you. I would like you to kind of take a look at what our suggestions or comments may be. I don’t in any manner want to say that the Evansville Police Department didn’t produce anything and everything that we asked them to do. It was the mechanism of obtaining the information. Officer Vantlin is our beat officer, I’m not sure of the exact term. He is on-site periodically. We have had communication with him, and we now have his number to include in the community newsletter that Vann Park puts out. That hadn’t happened before this process. So, I think that’s a positive thing. We’re also going to see, in working with Officer Vantlin if there is a mechanism that we can get monthly incident reports, rather than going through a formal process through the record room to obtain these reports, and perhaps, because I think we pulled officers off of what they normally do in order to get these reports. So, if we could come up with some kind of system where any apartment complex, or any resident, for that matter, could get police reports of things that occur in their vicinity on a regular basis, that certainly would help our clients in managing the apartment complex, as well as others. We certainly would be willing to talking to the Sheriff’s Department about doing that in the future.

Commissioner Musgrave: Okay. But, the ordinance isn’t, I mean, the covenant isn’t ready to be signed today, so, I would make a motion to defer this until next Tuesday’s meeting.

Brad Ellsworth: May I make a comment? Good evening, my name is Brad Ellsworth, Vanderburgh County Sheriff. It’s my understanding that the property in question is out in the county solely, and would therefore be patrolled by the Sheriff’s office until something changes that would preclude that. I do want to say that I’m sure you understand that the Sheriff’s office is a full law enforcement agency, not just a jail, not just a civil process. That we do have detectives, and patrolmen, and crime scene investigations. One thing, my concern, and I’ve talked about this a couple of times, is that these were cornfields traditionally, and cornfields never call the police. But, housing developments, whether it’s apartments, I think we used to refer to them as Section Eight, I don’t know if that’s still the case, but, even low income housing is, they call the police. But, in large subdivisions, Green River Estates, and even the costlier houses, they still call the police. We go to Green River Estates quite a bit. So, we get runs in every neighborhood in Vanderburgh County, whether it’s $500,000 houses, or whether it’s a $400 a month apartment. It’s nothing new to us to patrol or to work in this kind of atmosphere. Carriage House Apartments off Green River Road south of there was in our patrol jurisdiction years ago before it was annexed, and I think they were quite satisfied, and law enforcement was done, and patrol was made. So, any concern that we can’t handle that, or we won’t provide reports, I don’t know if that’s, maybe that’s not what I’m hearing, but our reports won’t be, depending on, I don’t even know Officer VanZant, but it won’t be dependent upon city police providing them, we’ll be providing those reports, and I can tell you that our office is pretty diligent in providing the information. I think if you ask the citizens that we do patrol, that they are pretty satisfied with the service the Sheriff ‘s Office has provided. So, it doesn’t concern us. We’re used to any kind of law enforcement, whether it’s low income, or high income. If you have any questions from us, I would be glad to answer those.

Krista Lockyear: If I may, just for the record clarify, this is not Section Eight housing. It’s housing that will utilize the federal tax program that is Section 42, and we have units that are designated for lower income, but it is not government housing. It’s not subsidized housing. It’s affordable housing. Again, I wanted to stress that we are marketing workers. There’s a median income level that, you know, we’ve discussed with various Commissioners, and, you know, as we’ve gone through this process we have found quite a bit of information to dispel, perhaps, the myth that lower income means problems. That’s certainly not the case, and to ensure that large apartment complex doesn’t mean problems either, that’s really the reason why my client is working with you to get this covenant in writing, and, again, to provide some accountability in the future.

Commissioner Musgrave: Would you go ahead and supply a copy of that to the Sheriff, since it does mention in it an action by his department.

Madelyn Grayson: May I have a copy for the record also? Or you can e-mail me, Krista.