|
Commissioners Meeting June 24, 2002
The Vanderburgh County Board of Commissioners
met in session this 24th day of June, 2002 at 5:33 p.m. in Room
307 of the Civic Center Complex with President Catherine Fanello presiding.
President Fanello: Introductions are as follows. To my right, Superintendent of County Buildings, Tammy McKinney; County Attorney, Kevin Winternheimer; Commissioner Mosby will be joining us in a second. To my left, Commissioner Mourdock; County Auditor, Suzanne Crouch; and our Recording Secretary tonight is B.J. Farrell. Please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance was given)
President Fanello: Do I have approval of prior minutes? Commissioner Mourdock: I'll move approval of the minutes of June 10th and June 17th. Catherine Fanello: I'll say second and so ordered. Commissioner Mourdock: And also we do have the minutes from the space allocation meeting, and I don't recall the exact date of that but it was June... Suzanne Crouch: Third. Commissioner Mourdock: June 3rd, I'm told, so I would move approval of the June 3rd space allocation minutes. President Fanello: Second and so ordered.
President Fanello: The next item is permission to advertise Notice to bidders for contract #VC-02-07-01/Concrete repair of various roads. Commissioner Mourdock: And I would move approval of that advertisement. President Fanello: Second and so ordered.
President Fanello: And the next item is the discussion of leased space for Betty Knight Smith, the Recorder's office. Is there anyone here who has any additional comments? Commissioner Mourdock: My comments, and as I recall, the way we left this last week was just to see if there was new information. I have, again, spoken with the Recorder, been down in the office, and the comment that I made last time, I think, is still reasonably appropriate, so I'm still comfortable with that. President Fanello: Commissioner Mosby, we have just now reached the item of the leased space in the Recorder's office, and I've asked anyone in the audience if they have any additional comments and it doesn't look like there are any. Do you have any additional comments? Commissioner Mosby: None at this time. President Fanello: Okay, and so how would the board like to proceed? Commissioner Mourdock: Seeing that there is need for the space down there without question, I think as I said last week, the only question is, is how the companies who are there, how are they asked to exit the space. We know that one company is clearly positioned to be there through the end of July of next year, and I think the only question is do we grant that as a courtesy to the other companies or do we just grant one company that - well, it isn't a right, it's our obligation to provide that based on the terms of the lease. Commissioner Mosby: I guess my opinion is, one company took advantage of the clause that was in the contract and...I guess it's my opinion that I would vote, I'd have to vote that the one company stays because they executed the clause in the contract, but as far as I can see, the Recorder needs the space. It's her space and I'm still going with the will of the officeholder. I'm not going to try to run her office, so I know the Recorder has talked to me on a couple of different occasions, expressed an interest in having that space and it would be my position to vote to leave the one company there and try to work with the other three to find space available. Commissioner Mourdock: On a somewhat unrelated, but not (inaudible) I just want to put one comment in the record here, too, because I know there have been several comments about if the office were fully up to Internet capability, that this issue wouldn't be there. And it's my understanding, and anyone from the Recorder's office certainly is free to chime in on this, but even if we had, I think the best Internet technology that we could possibly have in that office, there will still always be a need for the abstracters to work out of that space because I don't think we're ever going to see the day when we get every single book, and every single deed record, and every single leasehold interest document online, so I just want to make that point. So my point is the abstracters are still going to be working out of that space even with more Internet usage. Don Fuchs: Can I make a comment? President Fanello: Yes, please come to the microphone and just state your name. Don Fuchs: My name is Don Fuchs. I'm Vice President of Southwestern Indiana Land Title, one of the five abstract companies that is going to be affected. What I'm hearing on the discussion this evening is something that - I guess what I'm not hearing in the discussion this evening is something that was discussed last week, and that was about, I think we were going to take a week to look at some of other available space in the county buildings, most particularly, the room across the hall from the Recorder's office, and I'm just curious if there's been an opportunity to do that and not only that space, but as well as other space within the county building. Commissioner Mosby: Yeah, my question to Richard was what we found out on - Richard, I'm sorry, to Kevin was what he found out on the Election office. Kevin Winternheimer: I looked through the statutes and regulations and the only statute that pertains to the Election office is that the Election office is to be in the county courthouse or some other conveniently located building. Now, it doesn't have to be in the Civic Center in that particular case. There was some question raised at the last meeting about security and what security needed to be at the building. And I called the Election Commission, and there is no rule, regulation or statute on the level of security that has to be around the Election office. That is at the discretion of the Commissioners. And I talked to the gentleman who's name was Dale, with the Election Commission, Division of the Secretary of State's office, and he said that's the call of the County Commissioner on what level of security. One suggestion was the Old Courthouse, so that's your call. There's no specific requirement on the level of security. President Fanello: So what is the consensus of this board then? Commissioner Mosby: Then it would be my pleasure that we work with the County Clerk to see about immediately maybe moving the Election office over to the Old Courthouse. We've got a couple of rooms over there that I know are already fit, that could be used and probably have as much space or more than we've got now. So the possibility that we work with them and we can look at opening up the space down in the Election office. President Fanello: And just to bring you up to speed on what happened in our space allocation meeting, Dave Rector, who is the Director of the Building Authority, has submitted his plans to a company today to have the drawings for the Civic Center scanned into CAD and he's going to help us do some modeling as we try to redefine our space within the Civic Center for our five to ten year long-term plan. So we're looking at allocating space throughout the building, but I know the County Clerk called me the other day and she is more than willing to move the Election office to the Old Courthouse. Commissioner Mourdock: So let's play what if for a moment. What if we do that? We then have opened up the Election office for space. Are you thinking we would use that space for either A) some purpose to resolve this issue? In other words, put some or all the abstracters in there, or B) use that space to put the marriage records in that the Clerk has expressed her concerns about before? Or C) none of the above? Commissioner Mosby: It would, I can answer that. I mean, it would be my pleasure that the marriage records will go in the Recorder's office like we talked about previously last week. My second suggestion would be that whatever space we come up with available in the Election office will be offered to the abstracters. Now if three of the abstracters or four of the abstracters agree to take that space, I mean, they're going to have to take all the space as far as I'm concerned. And that space will have to be paid for at the same rate we pay for it so that we're not subsidizing in any way, some part of that space that the abstracters are going to be occupying. And if the four abstracters take it and the fifth one stays in the Recorder's office for one year, and there's no space available to that abstracter after that given year, that abstracter is on his own. President Fanello: Well, I was just going to say that I think we ought to, if they do move into the Election office, and that's a nice, sizable office, that a minimal amount of space should be given the abstracters in case we also need that space for another office within the Civic Center or for somebody that may need to utilize it for storage or for any kind of office space whatsoever. I don't want to leave out our own offices, so that's my first concern is our offices within the Civic Center. Commissioner Mourdock: Yeah, I would wholeheartedly agree with that, the idea of all or nothing, I don't think is where we want to go with that. President Fanello: So I would say that if we're going to do that, that they, you know, they operate out of the smallest amount of space possible that they can operate out of. Commissioner Mourdock: I'm curious if any of the abstracters have a comment regarding that space across the hall. Don Fuchs: Again, Don Fuchs on behalf of Southwestern Indiana Land Title. An issue that I brought up with Kevin, and Kevin, correct me if I'm wrong on this area, but unless that space becomes part of the space of the Recorder and under her jurisdiction, it would be of little value to abstracters, for us, to be moved across the hall because then we would not have access to her books and records. That's the whole reason we need to be in her office, is to have ready access to her books and records. So if we're across the hall in space that is not within her jurisdiction, again Kevin, correct me, is that we then would not be able to take a look at her books and records and so it would be a great hardship on us. What we're looking for is something within her confines. Commissioner Mourdock: I'm confused. What - within her confines, within her jurisdiction, means. Obviously, any member of the public can go in and look at any of those records at any time. How does being across the hall prohibit you from doing that or limit or restrict you or otherwise be negative? Don Fuchs: That is a very good question. It is very useful to us to be able to have the books and records there in front of us on the work tables that we rent so that we can view them, view the microfilm cards and all other documents in a record. And then if we don't have access to those records, because we cannot physically remove those from her office, take them across the hall, so that we could spread them out on our work tables where we work. That's the problem that I envision. Commissioner Mourdock: Okay, so under the auspices means that you would need to have the authority to pick that book up, carry it across the hallways, put it down in space - Don Fuchs: And let me tell you, I mean, as far as - I'm just one of the five abstracters. I don't have a problem with that. I just wanted to make sure that we're doing something that's fully in compliance with the statutes and the law. And again, I don't have the expertise that Mr. Winternheimer does in this area, but that's always been my concern and my understanding of the law, you cannot remove books and records from her office. Kevin Winternheimer: And that is correct. That's a correct statement of the law. So he is right. That space would have to be part of Betty's office in some manner for the books or records to be taken there. Betty Knight-Smith: We have around 40 people in there today looking at the books, and there's tables and there's a long table for them to sit at, so there's no reason for them to take the books out of that office. Those tables are there. You saw them. So all the independent abstracters come in and look at them there, so why can't the rest of them? They cannot take them out of the office. Jeff Bosse: I'm Jeff Bosse, and I'm here on behalf of Century Title. Several things, first of all, I'd like to echo what Don Fuchs said. One of the problems is - there are, I believe, like two tables there, is that right, Betty? Betty Knight-Smith: There's one long table all the way across in the back. There's two big tables there. Jeff Bosse: But I've gone over there numerous times, not nearly as often as Betty, but I've seen when those are full now, and if you take the people out of the leased areas and pour all of them into the same areas, it's going to greatly complicate and make more crowded and more difficult this work. Also, it may be necessary for us to hire additional people because of trying to keep up with what's going to set us back here if we lose that lease space. Unfortunately, Mr. Mosby's idea of us trying to divide the Election space into like three and trying to rent that, I don't recall exactly how big that is, but it seems to me that would be absolutely, prohibitively expensive to do that. I don't think that that's a workable solution. But it seems to me moreover, that you're looking at the greater picture and you're trying to find how best to use these limited and undersized facilities, and it seems to me it would make more sense to come up with a computer drawing and decide how you want to use this entire building rather than make piecemeal decisions today or tomorrow, which you may have to undo at some later time. But I just would really recommend that you postpone this until that you have an opportunity to look at the greater picture and see how best this building can be utilized. Thank you. President Fanello: Well, I think we've heard, unless, does anyone else have anything else you would like to add? This board would like to make a motion to some kind of a... Commissioner Mourdock: I'll come back with my motion of last week and that is that obviously this is a problem that's not going to be solved in another week, six months or a year. I like the idea that yes, we can do something with the Election office. I think that does provide us some additional space that could, in fact, fall under the auspices of the Recorder and maybe give us some space over there for the permanent solving of some problems, maybe not with the - well, for things like the marriage records that probably wouldn't have nearly the number of people accessing them as what the normal mortgage records and land lease dead records would have. I'll, again, move what I put on the floor last week which is that we give all of the abstracting companies until July 31st, 2003, at which point all of them would be vacating that space. Commissioner Mosby: I'm not going to second it. President Fanello: Motion dies for lack of second. Commissioner Mosby, do you have a motion that you would like to make? Commissioner Mosby: My motion would be the same as I already said a minute ago. I would honor the lease of the one that took advantage and executed the clause to renew their lease. I would continue to work with the other abstracters on the Election office which I'm hearing now is probably not satisfactory to them if they can't take the books out, but I didn't understand that last week or didn't hear them say that. But it would be my motion to let the Recorder have the space back and we go ahead and execute the lease with the one that did execute their option. President Fanello: I'm going to second that motion. The one company did go ahead and take advantage of the clause in the lease contract. My first concern has to be the space within the Civic Center and we have to take care of our own people first. But in the event that we can come up through, as we do this long-term master plan, and I would hope that it would be done before six months, that we would work to this five year plan of allocating space. If space does become available, I would be more than willing to entertain the possibility of them, you know, moving back into the building at some point in time. But until then, our first concern has to be the Civic Center and the fact that the Recorder has requested that space in her office, I have to honor that request. So I will second your motion. Commissioner Mourdock: And Tammy, could you report to us next week as to what spaces over in the Old Courthouse might be most appropriate for the Election's office? And then following up with that, I do see the Election's office as having real utility to the Recorder. And Betty, I might ask you and your staff, if you had that space or a significant part of that space, are there certain records that you might put in there that could be - that are typically not being used by the abstracters, so this question of carry books out and across the hallway might not be an issue. Betty Knight-Smith: I'd have to look at that. Commissioner Mourdock: Yeah, you'll need to come to the mike. Certainly if, I'm assuming if the marriage records that Marsha is concerned about were in there, those are not the types of things that would very often be looked at as having to go out across the hallway. Betty Knight-Smith: I think there's a lot of people that want copies of the marriage certificate. That's where she's got a problem there, so it would probably be utilized a lot more than you think it would. Commissioner Mourdock: But would it require them leaving actually, fiscally that room and going somewhere else if they were just making copies, I presume they do that everywhere. Betty Knight-Smith: They could probably take that over there. I don't know. That would be up to her there. Commissioner Mourdock: Are there any other things that you have that you might be able to put in there? Betty Knight-Smith: We've got books that are very old in there that possibly could be moved, but we'd have to take a look at them. Commissioner Mourdock: Sure, because obviously you need space. I understand that, I'm just trying to work all ends against the middle here. President Fanello: Okay. Kevin Winternheimer: Just for point of clarification. Should I send notice out to the one company that their lease is terminated effective July 31, 2003 and to the other companies, that their leases are terminated at the earliest possible date, which would be September 1st of this year? Is that the intent of the Commission? President Fanello: Yeah. Kevin Winternheimer: Okay, I just wanted to make sure that was the case. We will do that. President Fanello: Okay.
President Fanello: The next item on the agenda is the award of personnel policy review and I personally have not had enough time to make a decision on that. And I don't know about the rest of the board, but my suggestion is to hold that for one week. Commissioner Mourdock: I'll move that we defer for a week. Commissioner Mosby: Second. President Fanello: Okay, so ordered.
President Fanello: The next item is the second and final reading of the ordinance repealing Motor Vehicle Inspection Fee. Kevin Winternheimer: I don't know
if anybody is here to speak. I've heard - I've had no comment from anyone,
if anyone in the audience has any comments on it?
Commissioner Mourdock: And seeing none, I'll move on final approval and second reading the amendment to repeal the ordinance for repairing motor vehicles inspection fee. Commissioner Mosby: I will second that. President Fanello: So ordered.
President Fanello: Is there anyone in the audience wishing to address the board? Phil Lawrence: This morning at the Board of Public Works we opened the bids for APA-013-2002 tire and tube bids, and APA-033-2002 trash hauling. And I have a brief summation of that. Commissioner Mourdock: You're just looking to take these under advisement? Phil Lawrence: Yes. Commissioner Mourdock: So moved. Commissioner Mosby: Second. President Fanello: So ordered. Phil Lawrence: Another item, the salt bid for this year, they laugh, we're going to make sure that we get them in properly and on time. I have talked with the city and they - if it's okay with the Commissioners to do a joint bid, 10,000 tons instead of five, perhaps we'll get a better price . We intend to advertise on July 5th, July 12th and open the bids on July 22nd, so we'll be ahead of the game. Commissioner Mourdock: Okay, I would formally move that the county work with the city for joint bid for 10,000 tons of salt for the winter of 2002 - 2003. Commissioner Mosby: I would second that. President Fanello: So ordered. Thank you. Appreciate it. Commissioner Mourdock: 97 degrees, 80% humidity and we're talking about salt. President Fanello: Okay, is there anyone else in the audience wishing to address the board? Harold Gourley: President Fanello, Commissioners Mourdock and Mosby, I'm Harold Gourley, residing at 8087 Old State Road. I just had a question. I'm hoping the Commissioners might have some positive news to share with us today in regards to the Mt. Pleasant Road project. Any progress being made? President Fanello: Well, I think we had some mis-communication last week - Harold Gourley: Well, there was a virus in our communication - you're right - President Fanello: Communication broke down, but Rose Zigenfus, who is the Director of Transportation was here and John Stoll, the County Engineer was here. And he is on vacation until next Monday, so how does the Commission want to proceed? I know, Commissioner Mosby, you talked about possibly going out and meeting with some of the residents and - Commissioner Mosby: Which - whichever way. I mean, John's not here tonight, he's out of town. We can either schedule Rose to come back again because we really didn't get into a full discussion beings none of the neighbors were here. We can either schedule for Rose to come back here or we can go out on site. I don't have a problem either way. President Fanello: How would you like to proceed, Mr. Gourley? Harold Gourley: Well, I apologize for not making an executive decision, but really, we're still concerned about what's going to happen to our community. See, have any impact studies been made in regards to the overall transportation - the overall environment, the character of the - there's just a lot of questions that haven't been answered. President Fanello: And those are questions that Rose probably could have answered to a certain degree for you last week, if we would have all been - so it might be a good idea for us to do both things, which would be, Commissioner Mosby, maybe you go out and take a tour with the residents and talk with them. And then we all get back in here one more time with the Director of Transportation and John Stoll, and that way we everybody can get their questions answered. Does that sound acceptable? Commissioner Mosby: The Sheriff was here last week, too, and - Harold Gourley: I had a lot of phone calls last week and then - Commissioner Mosby: We might want to get the Sheriff and talk with him, too, because he did have the accident. Harold Gourley: Oh, I have talked to the Sheriff. I have those statistics 41 accidents since 1993, 41 accidents - 11 injuries, no fatalities, I have all those statistics and stuff, but - Commissioner Mosby: But I think that intersection rate is like the 5th highest intersection in the county that we have to deal with. So, I mean, that's one of the things that we're looking at. Commissioner Mourdock: Yeah, you need to get a copy of the minutes from last week. I think it was 7th - Commissioner Mosby: Yeah, 5th or 7th. I mean, he had all the intersections in the county rated and that one was up number 7th. Harold Gourley: I haven't seen it. I'd like to have a copy of the minutes where that was discussed if I may. Commissioner Mosby: We can get you a copy of the minutes. Harold Gourley: That would be really a surprise to me, but with all the intersections in the county, it would rank that high. Commissioner Mosby: It surprised me but he explained why it ranked that high and the type of accidents that occurred out there rather than just having an accident, it's the type of accident that we're dealing with. She's going to get you a copy of the minutes. When John gets back I'll get with you, we'll come out there and do a walk through. President Fanello: And then we'll schedule a time on a Monday night to have Rose back in here, Rose Zigenfus, who is the Director of Transportation, or not Director of Transportation, but Director of the Evansville Urban Transportation Study Department. Harold Gourley: What am I communicating to our people then, next Monday, July the 1st? Or what are you recommending? President Fanello: John Stoll is gone all week this week, so it would be my wish that John and Commissioner Mosby get together next week and come out and talk to you, maybe get a group together and come out and talk to the residents and he can report back to the board on what's going on with that. And then we get Rose back in here one night and we all get in here and get our final questions answered and make a decision. Harold Gourley: We do need to have a little leeway in order for people to - President Fanello: Oh, that's - uh-uh...no, we'll - Commissioner Mosby: And Miss Zigenfus is out of town the next two weeks. President Fanello: Is she? Commissioner Mosby: So that's going to eliminate the first and the eighth, which is what she told me, so we'll be looking more at the 15th. President Fanello: At the 15th? July 15th, does that sound acceptable? Commissioner Mosby: But me and John will be out next week when he gets back. Harold Gourley: I gotta understand vacation time, too, vacation time, and one of our people is going to be in Boston on the 2nd, or the 1st, so I'm sure that will make him happy, but - Commissioner Mosby: And nothing is going to happen. The project is not going to proceed without., you know, us getting back together and - Harold Gourley: Well, we appreciate hearing that, we certainly do appreciate your - President Fanello: We'll wait until we all come to a consensus. Commissioner Mosby: We're not going to start on it. Harold Gourley: 15th of July, when we're talking about? Commissioner Mosby: Yeah, if Rose should be back. I think she said the 15th, is what she told me. President Fanello: Okay, well why don't we plan on the 15th. Commissioner Mosby: We'll schedule for the 15th. President Fanello: Is that acceptable to you, Commissioner Mourdock? Commissioner Mourdock: Sure. Harold Gourley: Well, I do appreciate your understanding and your listening and again, my apology for last week, (Inaudible). President Fanello: We thought you probably were. Harold Gourley: Alright, thank you very much. Commissioner Mosby: Thank you. President Fanello: Is there anyone
else in the audience wishing to address the board?
President Fanello: Any new business to be brought before the board? Commissioner Mourdock: Yeah, I have one item here that's insignificant in the big picture. I don't know if you have received this letter from the Allen County Commissioners, I received this today, that apparently they have the interest and it's signed by a Sandra Flume, who I have not met, but they have the interest in trying to form sort of a subcommittee under the Indiana Association of County Commissioners for the urban counties. And obviously, Allen County being the second largest county in the state, Vanderburgh being the seventh, our county commissioner concerns are oftentimes quite different than some of the smaller rural counties. So they are looking to see if we might want to join with them to form such a committee as I mentioned, and so I'll pass this on to you and I told them I'd present that or I'd send an e-mail to them. This looks like an interesting concept to me because clearly, when you go to the meetings of the County Commissioners, we do deal with a lot of different things than they do. President Fanello: I have one matter of new business I would like to bring up and that has to do with the budget. And I have spoken with Suzanne through e-mail about the Local Road & Street fund. And it was not - I really discovered this when I was working on the budget this year and know a lot more what to look for this year than I did last year. And I discovered that our Local Road & Street fund was shorted $2,000,000 because the Council chose not to put $3,000,000 worth of Local Option Income Tax money into Local Roads & Streets. And Local Roads & Street is a fund that cannot live off of the state distribution that we get, so it is subsidized by the Local Option Income Tax money. My concern is, we have some very big projects on the books that have a deficit right now and do not have complete funding. My second concern is that the Commissioners were not formally made aware of this and, as you all know, we don't really get into revenue estimates or anything, that is really something done by the Auditor and the County Council. And so I would like to know why this decision was made without informing the Commission, exactly what they were doing with the Local Option Income Tax money and why we would take $2,000,000 away from our roads and streets when we have big projects. And if anybody noticed the article on Friday about the Lynch Road project, that is one of the projects that we're short some money on, and that is a very positive and significant project to economic development in Vanderburgh County. And I would just like to know what the rationale was for this and what the $2,000,000 was used for. Suzanne Crouch: Well, Commissioner Fanello, I am sure you know that COIT is a source of revenue not only for the General Fund but for Local Roads & Streets for the USI bond issue, for the Azteca bond issue, and for the Vanderburgh Industrial Park bond issue. And the amount of COIT that is used to finance or used for the funds is determined by the budgets that are submitted by the bodies. With Local Roads & Streets, the Commissioners have the responsibility to submit the budget. Council has the responsibility to fund it. Now if you have budgets that warrant additional appropriations or additional revenues, then you need to reflect that in your budget. The past two years, the Local Roads & Streets budget has declined by over half a million dollars. The three years prior it had increased, the budgets that were submitted to Council by over a million dollars. So the amount of revenues are dependant upon the budget that is submitted. And Motor Vehicle Highway money, as you well know, has decreased, and the operating budgets for Local Roads & Streets have been healthy and sound. So the budgets have been fully funded and the operating balance for the funds, not only Local Roads & Streets, but for the General Fund, have been ample. In addition, we have been under our maximum levy and have declining tax rates for the past seven years. So if you have additional road projects, then it is the Commission's responsibility to submit that in the budget. Now I share your concern. Let me tell you what I'm concerned about, that as Commissioners, you also ought to be concerned about, and that is the fact that next year, because of the Reassessment and because of the fact that the township assessors have not, not have any deadline on when to send out their Form 11's, that we, the taxing units, could be without revenues next year, because if the Form 11's don't go out, and the tax bills don't go out, then we're going to be in a situation where we're either going to have to borrow money or we're going to have to go to our large taxpayers and ask them to go ahead and submit funds in advance or pay their tax bills in advance of receiving them. So, you know, the big budget picture is extremely complicated and this next year is going to be a very precarious one. President Fanello: Well, I had run across an article in the Association of Counties' magazine that dealt with that and I had sent a copy to each of the Councilmembers about that, so I was aware of that. But the problem was, and I think you played a little bit on semantics there, is that last year, and I can go back and pull out the e-mail, was that you told us to cut money out of some of these budgets because there wouldn't be enough. And I don't think it was ever explained to us that $2,000,000 of COIT money would not be put in to Local Roads & Streets. Suzanne Crouch: If you're referring to Highway - President Fanello: No, I'm not referring to Highway, I'm referring to Local Roads & Streets. Suzanne Crouch: Part of it is because the Motor Vehicle Highway revenues from 2001 to - or from 2000 to 2001 decreased for Local Roads & Streets by half a million dollars. In addition, the Highway decreased, and I'd have to check my - President Fanello: How can, how can the Motor Vehicle Highway distribution into Local Roads & Streets have reduced by half a million dollars when I'm looking at since 1998, in `98 we received $703,000, in `99 we received $721,000, 2000 we received $745,000 and in 2001 we received $716,000 and you sent me an e-mail that we were estimating $794,000 for this year, so how did it drop a half a million dollars? Suzanne Crouch: It dropped from 1.2 million to $794,000 from last year to this year. So I don't know where you're pulling your - President Fanello: I'm pulling them right off of your reports. Suzanne Crouch: Then you may not be looking at the proper accounts because the public law was repealed that provided for additional - President Fanello: I'm not looking at Public Law, I'm looking at the Motor Vehicle Highway distribution which has run about the same since 1998, which has been in the $700,000, so there is no drop in the Motor Vehicle Highway distribution. Suzanne Crouch: There was a drop in the funding that the Public Law provided, which was additional revenues to. President Fanello: That I'll agree with you, but I'm not talking about Public Law right now, I'm talking about the Motor Vehicle Highway distribution to the Local Roads & Streets. Suzanne Crouch: I think you're kind of talking about semantics, too. President Fanello: But that does not - well, if it dropped, even more so, why were we shorted $2,000,000 from the COIT money if we're losing money - Suzanne Crouch: Why would you need more operating money than you - President Fanello: We had probably about three or four million dollars worth of projects we could have put in the budget last year but we were told that we could not put them in there because there wouldn't be enough revenue, and we didn't even fund this year's budget because you've estimated revenue at this year at $1,794,184 and the actual budget for the Local Roads & Streets this year is $2,816,267. So we didn't even fund the entire year's budget. Suzanne Crouch: But your cash balance grew from January 2000 from 5.8 million to this year of 8.9 million, so you know, Commission- President Fanello: Well, I'm going to go through it - no, I've got it right here. I'm going to go through and explain. Our cash balance at 1/1/02 was $8,984,158; 2002 estimated revenue $1,794,184. Take away the 2002 budget of $2,816,267 dollars, take away the commitments from the prior year at $6,632,080, take away the additional appropriations to date which are $200,000, take away the anticipated additional appropriations for the remainder of the year which John has estimated at $400,000, which I believe he told me the other day would be higher than that, leaves us an unappropriated balance of $729,995. Now we have the Lynch Road project which we need to start buying right-of-way. And Warrick County assumed that we were going to start buying right-of-way this year and so did I, and that is $1,250,000, we are short $1,030,453 on the University Parkway project, which really leaves us with a deficit in Local Roads & Streets of $1,550,458. I mean, these are projects we have on the books that we need to commit money to. Suzanne Crouch: Then they need to be in the budget. President Fanello: Suzanne, they were asked to be in the budget, we were told that the estimated revenues wouldn't be that high and not to put - I've got the e-mails were you told us to cut some from the budget. But unfortunately, I took for word what the Council and the Auditor were telling me and didn't do enough research on my own to find out what we were looking at here. I mean, I'm just upset that $2,000,000 of our Local Road & Street money or the COIT money was not put back into Local Roads & Streets and I'm wondering what was the $2,000,000 used for. Was that the $2,000,000 used for the jail project? Suzanne Crouch: The COIT is the major source of revenue outside of property tax for the General Fund. President Fanello: So you don't know what the Council wanted to use it for? Suzanne Crouch: The amount of money that is put in General Fund and in Local Roads & Streets varies from year to year as you well know, based upon the property tax money, based upon the operating balance, based upon the cash balance, and the Local Roads & Streets over the past 15 - 18 years, the amount of COIT that has been put in there has ranged anywhere from $354,000 to $3,000,000 from year to year. President Fanello: I was just going off - I just went back and looked at a four year history, and looking from 1998, there was two and a half million in 1998, three million in 1999, three million in 2000, three million in 2001, and then we went to one million in 2002. Suzanne Crouch: And as your cash balances grow, - President Fanello: Cash balances are not growing in Local Roads & Streets. Suzanne Crouch: - and your operating budgets, the operating balance is where it is, then there is no reason to put additional COIT in unless you increase your budget. And unless you ask Council for that. Commissioner Mosby: How are operating budgets growing, cash balances growing when we're sitting here telling you we're a million and a half in debt? If we tried to do - I just talked to Steve Sherwood on Thursday, and he's under the impression that we're going to move forward on Lynch Road. We're sitting here, we need a million two for right-of-way buys and we've only got $700,000. Where are you getting this substantial cash balance that you're talking about? Suzanne Crouch: Well, when you look at the January cash balance for Local Roads and Streets, it was 5.8 million in January of 2000. This year it was 8.5 million. Commissioner Mosby: But there's money committed out of that. Why are you - are you saying that we're not going to pay our bills for the people out here working today? I mean, you can't call eight million a cash balance when you've got work on the books that's being done. I mean, Burkhardt Road is being worked on. I mean, that's a contract you've got to pay for. You don't have a cash balance when you've got a contract laying there that you owe $5,000,000 on. Suzanne Crouch: It's also not fiscally conservative to keep carrying forward huge encumbrances and not be spending them. Commissioner Mosby: The contract, we'll pay the contractor when he's due his money. I mean, you don't pay the contractor until he's finished the job. I mean, so these contracts, I mean, they're two and three year deals. I mean, you don't build a road in 30 days. Suzanne Crouch: I agree. Commissioner Mosby: I can't help you're going to carry forward four or five million dollars and I'm sorry if the Council don't do their job and you don't do your job, but you ought to know how much of that money is out there that's already spent. Suzanne Crouch: You know - Commissioner Mosby: To call it a cash balance, I mean, that's very - Suzanne Crouch: You know, I have to take offense at me not doing my job, David. Commissioner Mosby: You're telling me you've got a cash balance of eight million dollars. Go look at the contracts we've got signed that cover that eight million dollars. President Fanello: Well, I'm going to see - Commissioner Mosby: What bothers me more than anything is two years ago, you took a million seven and the Council took a million seven out of Economic Development and Infrastructure out of the Riverboat that we didn't know about. Now this year, you take two million out of COIT that we didn't know about. It would be nice if somebody would relay to the Executive body that we're taking your money. We're going to spend it elsewise, instead of saying we are fiscally conservative. I think that's a little bit of a wrong approach to give to the public because you've just cut their roads and streets by $2,000,000. Suzanne Crouch: The Local Roads & Streets budget that has been submitted has never been cut to my knowledge. Commissioner Mosby: So what happened to our three million? It's now at one million. It was three million in `99, 2000, 2001. It was two and a half million in `98. Now it's a million. Suzanne Crouch: I would suggest you submit a budget that would reflect and warrant increased COIT. President Fanello: And the budget would have been submitted had you not told us that the estimated revenue would not be that much for that - Suzanne Crouch: And I believe without having reviewed the e-mails that you're talking about, that we were talking and discussing Motor Vehicle Highway. President Fanello: So, I mean, the fact is, yes we had $8.9 million dollars, but we also have a budget of almost $2.9 million this year and 6. - I'm going to round it off - 6.6 million worth of commitments. So your money is committed, you don't have an ample amount of cash balance just laying around there. And we have other projects that we need to get to. I know the Green River Road widening project is something that I've talked about and would like to pursue. We've had residents approach us about the County Line Road project. We've had a resident approach us about Lyle Road project, we have the effect of I don't know what the storm water management rules are going to do to us and we have to hire a consultant for that, so you know, we're not, we don't have an ample amount of cash balance. And I would just like to have been told where the $2,000,000 is being used, which I think I have a good idea that that is the amount of money being used for the jail project fund, which proves my point that I said last year, we cannot do this project, meaning the jail project, without raising taxes. And this county does not have surplus cash balances Suzanne Crouch: But this county also has been under the maximum levy for seven years. President Fanello: It doesn't do any - B. J. Farrell: Excuse me. I'm sorry. Can I change the tape? President Fanello: Yes. (Tape changed) President Fanello: It doesn't do any good to tout low taxes when you are offering substandard services. Suzanne Crouch: Well, it doesn't do any good to tax and spend, either. So, I mean there has to be a balance. But, I would like to review my e-mails because I believe we were referencing Motor Vehicle money, I don't believe that we were referencing anything, Commissioner Fanello. So, that is just twisting things just a little bit. President Fanello: Well, I believe, Suzanne, that you knew that we were both new Commissioners and maybe didn't know all of the questions, answers, and you could have been helpful and been up front and honest about what we were dealing with and what to look for and instead it is another roadblock in moving Vanderburgh County forward. Suzanne Crouch: And there is always another excuse, too. Commissioner Mosby: What is our cash balance in the General Fund today? Suzanne Crouch: I can tell you the unappropriated balance. Is that what you are wanting? President Fanello: That is the only one that matters. Commissioner Mosby: Yes, the unappropriated. I don't consider it a cash balance if it is spoken for. President Fanello: I am going to make some new suggestions on some new reports that we need- Suzanne Crouch: It is a little over $1.4 million. Commissioner Mosby: That is our unappropriated cash balance? Suzanne Crouch: That's correct. Commissioner Mosby: So, we really couldn't even ask for that $2 million back because we don't have that much money. Suzanne Crouch: You can submit budget requests to be funded out of the special COIT that was set aside. Commissioner Mosby: How much is that, how much is there? Suzanne Crouch: That's a little over $2.4 million. That's the special one time distribution of COIT that the Council set aside. Commissioner Mosby: That is the windfall that came down? Suzanne Crouch: That's correct. So you can submit an appropriate request for that. Commissioner Mosby: That might be what we have to do. President Fanello: It might be because I am not delaying this Lynch Road project into 2004. We saw an article in the newspaper and I brought it with me or did have it with me. You know that showed what kind of relief this Lynch Road project would bring to Vanderburgh County and the east side and relieve the traffic off of Morgan Avenue and I am not delaying this project until 2004, this project needs to be done now, we need to acquire the right-of-way and we need to go ahead and let construction being in 2003. Suzanne Crouch: And I would submit my appropriate request to that effect. President Fanello: Are there any other questions or comments? Okay. Before I finish let me go ahead and let you know of the three reports that I would like to see. This year for budget, for our budget book, and if the Councilmembers do not want it this way I suggest maybe the three Commissioners accept these reports, but I want to see a budget book this year that shows revenues and expenditures. Not just a budget book that shows expenditures. I would like to see monthly financial statements that show revenue and expense. If you want to take a good example, maybe take an example from the City Controller's office. They do a very nice monthly financial report. I would also like to see this County do a comprehensive annual financial report that is submitted to the Government Finance Officers Association for review. It is a report that the City has done for the past, I don't know how many years, and has won an award on and I would like to see this county do it and I think that will help everybody stay informed about financial reporting so that everyone is looking at the same types of information. Because obviously, communication is not getting to all of the elected officials about revenues and expenses in this county. Suzanne Crouch: I think those are excellent suggestions and I would ask that you go to Council and ask for the funding for the Auditor's office so that we can submit that report, I also presume that since the Controller's office has done such a wonderful job with the revenues that City Council's concerns are not valid. President Fanello: No, I am not talking about, I am talking about under the former Mayor, Frank McDonald, not under the current Mayor, thank you for clarifying that for me. Under that former Mayor, we had excellent financial condition, not in the state that we are currently in. Commissioner Mosby: Well, how much additional funding do you think you would need? President Fanello: Absolutely none. Commissioner Mosby: Well, I was going to say, we are just talking about a report. President Fanello: There is no funding needed whatsoever to put these reports together. These reports were put together in the Controller's office with no extra bodies and no additional funding. So, I will expect that the Auditor's office can seek out how they can do these reports. Troy Tornatta: Troy Tornatta, County Council. I had asked for a report like this and I thought that we were getting these anyway. I had asked you for that report when we started budget hearings last year about trying to get us some revenues for this year so that we would have some ideas. So, I don't know if this is totally a new theory that has come off. Were you planning on doing that for this year? Suzanne Crouch: Certainly. Troy Tornatta: Huh? Suzanne Crouch: Certainly, if Council requests. Absolutely. Troy Tornatta: Okay, and that was just, I had asked for that last year so I think they maybe had plans on doing something. President Fanello: So, are we going to get a budget book then that shows revenues and expenditures? Suzanne Crouch: We prepare our budget book for Council, so I will ask. President Fanello: This commission is the executive body for Vanderburgh County and I as president of this commission request that these three commissioners receive a budget book that shows revenues and expenditures, and I think that's perfectly within our realm of statutory authority. We answer to the taxpayers just like the Council. I expect all of the financial information to be known to each and every Commissioner. Suzanne Crouch: And we have always prided ourselves with providing whatever information is requested of our office. So, certainly that information will be provided to the Commissioners. Commissioner Mourdock: Was that New Business or Old Business? President Fanello: That was new business. Commissioner Mourdock: Was that the last of the New Business? President Fanello: Unless anyone else has any New Business? Commissioner Mourdock: I have one item and I am not sure if it's New Business or Old Business, which is why I asked. Regarding the Baker Daniels bill that isn't really a bill, Catherine, you and I spoke briefly on the phone. I think you have seen a copy of what I sent off to Mr. Pittman. Did you see the reply he made to me? President Fanello: Yes, I have it right here. Commissioner Mourdock: Okay, it's, did you get your's blown up? President Fanello: Yeah, I blew mine up, I can't read that small print. Commissioner Mourdock: Only an attorney has a font this small. Basically, in my correspondence to him, I questioned about, sorry Kevin President Fanello: Don't offend our wonderful county attorney. Commissioner Mourdock: For the record, I've not seen Kevin do anything in this fine a print. We, I questioned about $15,000 in billings, in line items that he included in what he said wasn't truly a billing. I will make several points, first of all, well let me just ask the question. Is it still the will of this body that we do not pay bond counsel until the end of the project or until the issuance of bonds, because clearly he had been lead to believe based on his correspondence that something different was going to happen. President Fanello: Let's clarify who let him to believe that. Let's just say that the former county attorney had conversation with Mr. Pittman. It is not my will and never has been my will to pursue any kind of appropriation for any of the bond counsel fees until the bond is issued. Commissioner Mourdock: Okay. President Fanello: Commissioner, wait, wait, wait, Commissioner Mosby has. Commissioner Mosby: And I will echo that because I talked to Mr. Pittman about that at Baker and Daniels a couple of months ago. Commissioner Mourdock: I have not seen, Catherine, if you have prepared a response to what I sent or what he sent. Do you agree with at least what I have put in here that there are a number of items listed that go beyond the scope of what bond counsel was employed to do under the terms of the engagement letter? President Fanello: I think that there are some, there are questions and I have highlighted my questions and I do believe just from what I have gathered from your e-mail that you and I are on the same page, and I do believe that Mr. Pittman was led to believe that other services were to be performed by him that were not within the scope of, that we see are not in the scope of his contract. I have spoken with Mr. Pittman myself, he was willing to do anything that this Commission or that the Council would want done to clear up the misunderstanding and as we go forward there is not going to be that misunderstanding. In my mind, the situation has corrected itself and he has offered to write off portions of the bill which I am completely thrilled about and I think that, like I said, this was a situation that happened out of miscommunication and was definitely not the will of this Commission. Commissioner Mourdock: I would agree that it is not the will of this Commission. I guess the question that I have in looking at some of the items and again your latest discussion was obviously since my correspondence with him. But, I guess the appropriate question is that they went, they Baker and Daniels, went so far afield from what the terms of the engagement letter were, do you still have confidence with these people as our bond counsel? Because, I am a little concerned that an attorney that makes most of his living dealing off of city, county government agencies certainly understands the process as to what it takes to be authorized to do work for us and yet he seemed to want to submit in this statement a lot of things that go beyond the term of the engagement letter. President Fanello: Well, I don't think that they go way beyond the terms of the engagement letter. I think there is a lot of gray area there and there are a lot of things that could go either way. I think it has been Mr. Pittman's intent from the very beginning to do whatever he could do to help this Commission move forward with the bond issue. I do not feel like he intentionally went, you know, above and beyond his integrity or credibility as so suggested by you. Baker and Daniels is one of the top firms in the state of Indiana. I believe that they do a major portion of all the city and county bond issues in the state and they were also used on the ice rink project by the City and have not heard any complaints of the City of Evansville's use of Baker and Daniels and Crowe Chiziak and they have the same team going that we do. There is nothing that leads me to believe that any credibility is questioned. Like I said, I believe the problem has corrected itself and we have taken the opportunity to review the bill and clear up any misunderstandings. Commissioner Mourdock: How much of the items, and again I don't know what you listed in your letter, but you say that we were basically on track and that we are basically about $15,000 worth of questions that I had in my listing what of that $15,000 has he agreed to strike? President Fanello: He is going to strike approximately, right now, half of it to my knowledge and there were and I didn't bring my notes, I wrote down some notes that he gave me on Friday. I spoke with him probably about 3:30 or 4:00 on Friday evening. The ones, and he is willing to even go further than that if he needs to and wants to talk to us about it. Like I said, his will is to make this Commission happy, this County happy, the Council happy and he is very sorry about the misunderstanding. Commissioner Mourdock: Has he presented any documentation to us or suggested any that allowed for this work under some terms or scope of what was in the engagement letter? President Fanello: No, he hasn't. I have not, if you are referring to any maybe- Commissioner Mourdock: Maybe? I don't know what I am referring to. President Fanello: I don't know either. But, no I have not received anything in hand that might have led him to believe that he had received that kind of direction from this Commission. Commissioner Mourdock: Or from the County? President Fanello: Yes. Commissioner Mourdock: Since I think we agree it did not come from - President Fanello: Like I said, it did not come from these three Commissioners and I think we are all in agreement about that. Like I said, the problem has corrected itself. Commissioner Mourdock: Well, I have heard you say that three times and I don't think it corrected itself because if we hadn't made some motions here it wouldn't have been corrected. It may be corrected but I don't know that it corrected itself. President Fanello: To a certain extent it did correct itself after a certain date. Yes, it did. Commissioner Mourdock: Well, that date was after March 20. President Fanello: Yes. Commissioner Mourdock: Well, these were all before March 20. Commissioner Fanello: Yes, but I think you know, he respects our questions and is very happy to do whatever he can do to get this matter cleared up, so. Commissioner Mourdock: So, I trust that we are not now paying him to read the newspaper. President Fanello: I don't think that we were ever, personally, I was never paying him to read the newspaper. Commissioner Mourdock: Well, those are the items he had listed. President Fanello: Like I said, this Commission, what happened in this thing was not the will of either three of these Commissioners sitting here and we can get into a more detailed discussion if we want to go there. But, as you know, this was not the will of these three Commissioners. Commissioner Mourdock: And I just want to make sure and again I haven't seen what specifically he struck to come up with half of those costs but I would like to see that as soon as you get it. President Fanello: He did leave on vacation. He can get me something detailed. Like I said, we spoke on the phone Friday, he said he would be available though voice mail this week. So, I can leave him a message, he is at Boy Scout Camp with his son. I will leave him a message if he could, as soon as possible, get us something typed up in a formal document. Commissioner Mourdock: Okay. President Fanello: Are there any other questions? Comments? Okay. Is there any other new business? Commissioner Mourdock: We do have a request from Cunningham Drive between Ashwood and Vista View. They would like to block off the street. Is there anyone here to talk to this one or to talk about this one? I don't see anyone but this is something that we have done previously. They are looking to have a Fourth of July party basically, even though it came in late, I would reference some minutes that we had included and I am not sure what the date was but this was somewhere in the last four years they had come to us and asked for a similar request. At that time, we raised some issues about insurance, the Sheriff said that wasn't really pertinent here so we approved it so I would make a motion that we again grant approval to this letter submitted by Mr. Dean Webster. President Fanello: Okay. Do I have a second on that motion? Commissioner Mosby: Second. President Fanello: So ordered. Is there any Old Business to be brought before the Board? Commissioner Mosby: Well, I think that I might have New Business here. President Fanello: You have new business. Commissioner Mosby: I think but I am not real sure. I am asking the attorney. First of all I went out to the airport before I got here this afternoon and that is where I have been to present Mr. Ossenberg with a plaque from this Commission that was paid for personally and not out of county money so let's put that on the record too and I told him that at the meeting. Anyhow, I guess you are aware and everybody on this commission received a letter that Mr. Ossenberg had resigned so we will be appointing a new member to the Commission. Also, our other appointment to the Airport Authority is up also and I would like to come back at a later date, possibly next week, and submit a name of somebody that I would like to put on the Airport Authority Board who will be replacing Mr. Shymanski. So, I would, I don't know if I have to make that in the form of a motion. Commissioner Mourdock: Not if you are going to come back with it later. Commissioner Mosby: Well, we would have to let Mr. Shymanski know that it's not our intent to renew his appointment. That's why I didn't know if I needed to bring it here before? Commissioner Mourdock: What are the dates of those appointments? Commissioner Mosby: Well, Mr. Ossenberg resigned as of today and this is his last meeting and I think that Mr. Shymanski is up as of today probably because we would have put somebody on July 1. Commissioner Mourdock: Yes, the appointment begins July 1. Commissioner Mosby: I wanted to make this Board aware and I didn't know if I had to do that. Commissioner Mourdock: If it is the will of the majority of this Board not to appoint Mr. Shymanski, I think that would be a courtesy that would be appropriate. Commissioner Mosby: That is what I would like to do. You know, inform him before we just appoint somebody because I think that is very unprofessional. Commissioner Mourdock: With those appointments, both with Mr. Shymanski and Mr. Ossenberg, it has been sometime since I recall that we have made those, are there, is that a balanced appointment? Is it one Republican and one Democrat or some other requirements? Such as city verses county residence? Do we know? Commissioner Mosby: My understanding is that it is a Republican and Democrat. That is my understanding. Commissioner Mourdock: So, with that being the case, will I be given a courtesy to appoint a Republican or to present the name of a Republican since just one person can not appoint. Commissioner Mosby: I would accept a name and think about it. Commissioner Mourdock: Okay. Commissioner Mosby: I think we have to know what the name is first. Commissioner Mourdock: Well, I know you've shot down more than, well at least one of my appointments that I can think of so. President Fanello: Just one. Commissioner Mosby: Maybe two. Commissioner Mourdock: You made one, one time that I wasn't even aware of. Commissioner Mosby: But I mean. President Fanello: Who's a Republican. Commissioner Mosby: I assure you it will be Republican if we appoint. No, I mean, I would accept that if you would want to give us the name of somebody that you are thinking about. But, I wanted to bring that up and I will make that in the line of a motion if I have to. Commissioner Mourdock: Pardon my ignorance, but I presume Mr. Shymanski is a Democrat? I thought he was Republican actually. President Fanello: No, I think he's a Democrat. Commissioner Mourdock: Oh really? President Fanello: Yes. Commissioner Mourdock: And a good contributor too. Commissioner Mosby: Maybe you know something we don't. Commissioner Mourdock: Maybe. President Fanello: Would you like to make a motion that we send Mr. Shymanski? Commissioner Mosby: I will make that in the form of a motion that we would send him a letter and like I said I thanked Mr. Ossenberg this afternoon for his support to this Commission. Commissioner Mourdock: I will second the motion for the letter and then we need a name next week? President Fanello: I would think so. Commissioner Mourdock: Since the appointment- Commissioner Mosby: I would think
it would be, yeah we would need to appoint somebody as quick as possible
so that they can get sworn in and make the next meeting.
President Fanello: Okay, any Old Business?
None? Moving onto Department Head reports.
President Fanello: County Engineer
is not here. County Highway.
Ralph Kissinger: Ralph Kissinger, County Highway, you have my weekly reports. The only thing that I have to add and this probably doesn't need to be said on the record but since we are here, the news agencies, tomorrow we are going to start milling on Red Bank between Upper Mt. Vernon and New Harmony Way or Harmony Way, I'm sorry, that is a real heavily traveled area now and I would appreciate any help you could give us on getting that out for us. Other than that, that's all that I have. President Fanello: Anybody have any
questions? County Attorney.
Kevin Winternheimer: I have one matter to bring before you and I apologize for not getting it to you ahead of time. Let me explain what it is. It is a contract with a company called BI Incorporated and that company leases monitoring equipment to the Community Corrections. These are the electronic ankle bracelet devices for lack of a better term, they have a better name for it, but that is what they are. The Community Corrections has been contracting with these people for about ten years. It was brought to my attention by the Sheriff's department before I left on vacation so we need to get this done right away and they have been negotiating for a number of months. They asked me, and I thought that it should come before the Commissioners, for approval rather than just rely on the signature from Community Corrections. Community Corrections approved the agreement. I reviewed it at the request of the Sheriff's department and had just a few minor changes which were clarifications. We contacted the company and they said that was fine with them they just considered them as clarifications essentially and no problem with it. They have lowered the fee approximately $1,000 a month from what it had been and they would really like to get it approved with the Sheriff's department. I didn't know that the Sheriff and Chief Deputy were out of town. I thought that they could be here to explain it, my assumption, my mistake. But, anyway they would like to get this done, the price is lower than it has been and they also mentioned today because they would like to get this done, the company representative from BI and saying that they have not been billing a monitoring fee for approximately one year and if you will approve this so that you can get this paperwork behind them they will not bill you for that. I don't have a total for what the monitoring fee was but they would just like to get their paperwork done, this renewed and it, like I said it is approximately, maybe it is closer to $800 a month less than what you had been paying, or Community Corrections had been paying, and this is a program that the Sheriff's department, like I said has been using for 10 years and will continue to use and this is a three year agreement, 36 months and it has, and one of the things that we modified it does have subject to appropriation but this is one of those public safety things that I would be the last on the list to get rid of. Commissioner Mourdock: I don't have
any problem in approving that. How much are we talking about? You say it
is $800 less a month, what's the total?
Kevin Winternheimer: They, the current or the figure you had been paying for 200 units, 200 devices was $8,142.84 and the new price is $7,341.88. Commissioner Mourdock: Are we upping or do we have the potential to up the number of units? Kevin Winternheimer: Yes, it is based on a per unit price. What they are currently, the current number of devices is a flat 200, yeah, if that goes up they will be glad to send you new monitors. Commissioner Mourdock: They actually do the monitoring for us? Kevin Winternheimer: Now, you are getting in an operational area. I believe that the monitoring part is going to be discontinued and that is part of the cost savings but I really can't answer that question with certainty. It was my assumption that the Chief Deputy or the Sheriff would be here and I didn't know that they were out of town so if you don't want to pass it, I mean, I will just tell them that was fine. I just don't know any of the details of the operation. Commissioner Mourdock: Okay, the only question I had about monitoring it if it is coming our way and it may be a mute point anyway is just to make sure that we had ample liability coverage and I am sure that you looked at it from that point of view if in fact they were going to do the monitoring because I would hate to have somebody skip and we don't have protection. Kevin Winternheimer: Right. Commissioner Mourdock: Well, again it sounds like we are going to do the monitoring under the new terms. Kevin Winternheimer: I think but I don't want to lead you down the wrong direction because those operational issues, I really, I was looking at it from a legalistic point of view with the idea that the Sheriff come here and explain it but they are not here. Commissioner Mourdock: Well, my normal paranoia will be set aside for a moment. I will go ahead and move approval. Commissioner Mosby: Second. President Fanello: So ordered. Superintendent?
Tammy McKinney: I don't have anything.
Gary Hohman: I am Gary Hohman, Burdette Park. All we have is our work report for you tonight. If there are any questions regarding that report, I will answer any questions that you might have. Commissioner Mourdock: How is attendance? Gary Hohman: Great. We probably had the largest Memorial Day holiday weekend that we have had in 10 to 15 years. Commissioner Mourdock: Really? Huh. President Fanello: Any other questions? Thank you. Commissioner Mosby: Thank you, Gary.
Commissioner Mourdock: The Soil and Water and Ozone officer reports were in the packet so I would move approval of those. Commissioner Mosby: Second. President Fanello: So ordered.
Commissioner Mourdock: Consent Items are okay, I think. I would move approval of the consent items as filed. Commissioner Mosby: Second. President Fanello: So ordered. Commissioner Mourdock: A couple of
gentlemen came in late and I just want to be sure. Are you here for the
Drainage Board meeting? Okay, I just wanted to make sure you had your chance
before the Commissioners.
President Fanello: Can I have a motion to adjourn? Commissioner Mosby: Make a motion to adjourn. Commissioner Mourdock: Second. President Fanello: Okay and we will start Drainage Board in 5 minutes. Meeting adjourned at 6:42 p.m.
CONSENT ITEMS: Employment Changes:
Travel Requests:
Request for Service:
Auditor:
Treasurer:
Sheriff:
Those in Attendance:
APPROVAL
______________________________
______________________________
______________________________
Recorded by BJ Farrell. Transcribed by Madelyn Grayson and Teri Lukeman. |
