COUNCILMEMBER	PRESENT	ABSENT
Councilmember Tornatta	X
Councilmember Sutton	X
Councilmember Abell	X
Councilmember Goebel	X
Councilmember Raben	X
Councilmember Wortman	X
President Winnecke	X

President Winnecke: Would you please stand and join in the Pledge of Allegiance?

President Winnecke: At this time I would entertain a motion to approve the minutes from our March 1st meeting.

President Winnecke: Just a quick comment or two quick comments, actually, for those who may not normally attend this meeting or those viewing at home for the first time. We heard the request for the items which we will be voting on today, last week. So if we don’t ask questions today we hopefully have the information that we need to make a vote. Secondly, Councilmembers, you’ll notice that we have received our certified budget from the state. Mrs. Deig and Mr. Fluty have provided the binder budgets and the financial statements, so we’re ready to go. We know how much money we have to work with. Oh, I’m sorry, Mrs. Lukeman. Sorry, don’t want to leave someone out where credit is due. So anyway, Mr. Fluty, would you have any comments on that before we proceed?

Bill Fluty: I think you’ve all got it in front of you. You see that currently you have a balance of just over three million dollars and that is with some of the appropriations that you’ve made in January and February and March. This is slightly higher than last year, maybe. We started off with about 250,000 less last year.

President Winnecke: Okay, good news. Thank you, Mr. Fluty. With that, we’ll begin with the appropriation requests and I’ll turn the floor over to our finance chair, Mr. Raben.

Councilmember Raben: Okay, thank you, Mr. President. Good morning. First on the agenda is County Treasurer, Legal Services 1030-3610 in the amount of $3,500. I’ll move approval.

President Winnecke: There is a motion and a second. Questions or discussion? Roll call vote please.

Councilmember Raben: Next under Sheriff, 1050-1300 Overtime 100,000; 1050-1531 Shift Differential 5,000; 1050-2210 Gas & Oil at zero, for a total of 105,000, I’ll move approval.

President Winnecke: Motion and a second. Questions or discussion? Roll call vote please.

Councilmember Raben: Next under Jail, 1051-3051, I move that we set that in at 70,000.

Councilmember Abell: I have a question. Mr. Raben, do we have any bills for this or is this what we’re estimating?

Councilmember Raben: Right now they have outstanding bills in the amount of, well, they say over 65,700, so...

Councilmember Raben: Okay next under Coroner, I’ll move that all requests be approved as listed for a total of $18,600.

President Winnecke: Motion and a second. Questions or discussion? Roll call vote.

Councilmember Raben: Okay, next Superior Court. I move that all accounts be approved as listed for a total of $3,156.

President Winnecke: Motion and a second. Questions or discussion? Roll call vote please.

Councilmember Raben: Okay, next under County Council, 1480-3860 Contractual Computer in the amount of 450,000, I move approval.

Councilmember Raben: Okay, Mr. President, I have a few comments. Last week I had requested additional information on the needs and the equipment and the specs related to all that. I did get that Friday afternoon, which meant it was actually Monday morning before I could forward that on to vendors to get further requests on those quotes. So as of this morning, I still didn’t have any quotes back in yet. I still believe that we can buy this equipment much cheaper than a lease. But I know that we’re also under some time constraints in regards to getting this equipment installed in the courts. So we have to remember that this is in our budget, that it really can’t go anywhere until we say its okay to do that. But I would like to have just a few more days to see what the balance of those quotes come in at.

Just for a second. Tim, based on the information you gave us last week, if I recall correctly and reading this properly, your latest revision projects an annual expense of $366,288, is that correct?

Tim VanCleave: Right, if we do not address the Administrative Rule Nine items at this point and put that off to a later month in the year.

President Winnecke: And from the court’s perspective is that – does that make sense to do?

Tim VanCleave: It would not be the preferred direction because I think it would be in the county’s best interest to fund this all at one time versus funding one part of this and then coming back and not being able to use the volume to get a – if we’re going to go the lease direction, if we address the Administrative Rule Nine and Ten items later, we would likely not have the volume to get a zero percent lease for that amount.

President Winnecke: But will the 450 then cover the needs of both Administrative Rule Nine, Ten and the other hardware and software needs of the courts?

President Winnecke: Other questions? And your recommendation is still to lease the equipment?

Tim VanCleave: The main reason for recommending the lease is I wasn’t sure if one million dollars would be something that this Council would want to fund out of a one year budget or possibly more than one million dollars. So that is why I went for the option of the lease so that it would not be a large drain on the county’s general fund. But either way, we’ll work for the courts, whether it’s a straight out purchase or we go with the lease program over three years. Because what we have attempted to do is project the needs for three years.

Councilmember Goebel: So by approving this today we’re basically still up in the air as to which direction we’re going to take?

Tim VanCleave: Mostly from a fiscal standpoint. That way, the county only has to expend up to 450,000 a year for the next three years versus coming out and paying between the 1.2 million this year.

Councilmember Goebel: Did I misunderstand, last week this outlay would be broken into three or four years over the time period? We wouldn’t have to come up with all this money at once?

Tim VanCleave: Correct. If we go with the leasing program we could break the million dollars over three or four years.

Councilmember Goebel: Then why, I don’t understand then why we would have to have one point two up front.

Tim VanCleave: That’s just based on the question that was asked, would there be a difference between leasing it versus purchasing it from a court point of view. And from that point, its just a fiscal –

Councilmember Goebel: Yes, but the outright purchase would be much less, is the understanding I have. And one point two million, that would be more comparable to what we have here. Is that not correct, Tim?

Councilmember Raben: I’m of the opinion that it would around a half million dollars for an outright purchase.

Tim VanCleave: That would probably be for the hardware alone. The software would still come in at another three or four hundred thousand dollars. And the 450,000 is just an estimate so that we can start the process. It may actually be less than that for each annual payment, but we won’t know that until we go out and say to the vendors, we are going for a bid or we go to the state QPA’s and say here is what we’re looking to purchase.

Councilmember Raben: Mr. President, I think its important that we pass this motion today. I mean, we have a limited window on having this equipment and everything in place. All I’m suggesting is that we don’t begin spending from this $450,000 till we at least allow for the opportunity to do some further follow up on an outright purchase. So in passing this today doesn’t mean Tim is going to spend it tomorrow. So let’s –

Councilmember Tornatta: Yeah, I thought part of the process, if I’m not mistaken, was once you knew you had the money and got the players involved, then they were going to be a little more interested, be able to sharpen the pencils a little bit and so I agree. I think we go ahead and get things rolling but we put the money in our account and then you come to us and tell us what you’ve got or if somebody else has a price that they want to submit, then we can go from there.

Councilmember Sutton: I was going to suggest, too, is maybe come back before us next month and month after and give us an update or a report on where things stand so we can get a good idea of what we’re talking about here as far as our expenditures on this amount. I think we’d feel a lot more comfortable knowing that you’ve got three really good bids or you’ve got what Jim was talking about on the purchase side. We’d feel a lot more comfortable that the allocation here is in line with what we hope for it to be, and this is getting good equipment and getting it done on a timely basis.

Councilmember Abell: If Mr. Raben is able to find us a place to purchase these computers we’re going to have a monitor and a hard drive, you’re still going to come and have to have an additional 327,000 for software? Is that correct?

Councilmember Abell: And what about the labor? Are you set up to install direct from your office to all the computers at the court? Are you going to have to go in there and sit in front of each one of those and install this stuff?

Tim VanCleave: We would be installing from a central point. We would develop, using the LAN desk, we would create what we call an image which allows us to format the drive and configure a workstation in about 15 to 20 minutes instead of the four to five hours that it would take to sit in front of the terminal and load the 20 to 25 applications that go on each court’s workstation.

Councilmember Abell: So labor is not much of an issue, we’re just talking about the cost of the software?

Tim VanCleave: The, we are not calculating any labor into this. We are assuming that labor will be allocated to the project.

Councilmember Wortman: I think legally we’re supposed to have money in place before they let any bids out, aren’t they? Technically?

Jeff Ahlers: Well, that’s obviously preferable. I don’t know that it necessarily would have to be, but yeah, you need to do that, yeah.

President Winnecke: Any other questions or comments? The motion that’s on the floor is to approve a request for $450,000. Roll call vote please.

Councilmember Raben: Next under Surveyor Corner Perpetuation Fund, we have a request in the amount of 1,621, I’ll move approval.

President Winnecke: Motion and a second. Questions or discussion? Roll call vote please.

Councilmember Raben: Convention and Visitors Bureau, 3570-3994 in the amount of $10,000, I’ll move approval.

President Winnecke: Motion and a second. Questions or discussion? Roll call vote please.

Councilmember Raben: Okay, last we have one transfer for Cum Bridge. I’ll move approval in the amount of $400.

Councilmember Raben: Mr. President, next would be the amendments to the Salary Ordinance. First, with the Sheriff, I move that we amend salary line 1050-1300 Overtime as previously adopted and salary line 1050-1531 Civilian Shift Differential as previously adopted. Under the Coroner, I move that we approve salary line 1070-1210 Assistant Coroner as previously approved and salary ordinance creating new line 1070-1300 Overtime as previously adopted. Under Superior Court, move we amend salary line 1370-1370 Bailiff as previously approved. The current employee is a COMOT V, Step 2 with an annual salary of $28,968. I’d also move that we approve salary line 1370-1530 Riding Bailiff as previously adopted. The current employee is a COMOT VI, Step 3 with an annual salary of $31,924. Under the Surveyor’s Perpetuation Fund, salary line 2650-1220 Chief Deputy as previously adopted. The Chief Deputies are unclassified with an annual salary of $43,940. And last, under Community Corrections 136Y account, Council approved paying a maximum of four part-time employees at a maximum of $8 an hour on December 1, 2004. It was omitted from the salary ordinance, so simply move that we re-approve that. And that’s all I’ve got. I make that in the form of a motion.

Councilmember Raben: Next, Mr. President, we have a, which I forgot to list with, should have included this with the last one, I move that we amend salary ordinance adding line 250.1-1130. The additional salary will be paid out of the Prosecutor’s Office discretionary funds for the Filing Deputy Prosecutor. The annual salary set at $71,666. I’ll move approval.

Councilmember Raben: I think everyone was given a letter that corresponds to this request.

President Winnecke: Good morning, Mr. Levco. What about in future years? Do you intend to pay – continue to pay using discretionary funding?

Stan Levco: I was expecting and hoping that the Council would. That’s what happened last time when I asked for the raise, I’d pay for it that year and from up to now, the Council has paid that, and that would be my request.

President Winnecke: Okay. Any other questions of the Prosecutor? Very well, roll call vote please.

Councilmember Raben: Okay, under old business, the Council has an appointment to the Library Board. Its my intent to appoint William Miller. Mr. Sutton has spoken to him and he is willing to serve. He replaces a previous appointment who can no longer serve on the Council’s behalf. So at this point, Mr. Miller is our appointment and if, Sandie, if you could make that note and let Marcy know, that would be great.

Councilmember Abell: You asked me last week to check on the change of status in the Clerk’s Office and actually I got with Sandie on it. The person who left to go to Superior Court was a Step 2. That person was replaced with a Step 4, which would have meant an increase in the salary, except the person was within the Clerk’s Office and the person that left Step 4 was replaced with a Step 2, so it ended up being a wash. So there is no change there.

President Winnecke: Under New Business we have before us the agreement previously approved by the County Commissioners for the Juvenile Detention Center. At this time I would entertain a motion for the Council to approve the agreement.

Councilmember Tornatta: I did have a couple of questions. Under Section, on page 8, Section 6.18, it says Inspection By County. Since we’re approving and do have a function in where the money is going, what have you, I think we should be added as Vanderburgh County Council should be added to this list of periodical or permissible people that could go and ask questions or go over there and take a look.

President Winnecke: I don’t know that we need to add it to the language. We don’t have any statutory authority as these others do. Clearly, we’re involved in the funding process, but I would be surprised if we would be denied access to it. But I believe each of these entities has a statutory authority over those kinds of facilities. So that’s why they are in there and we are not.

Councilmember Tornatta: Okay, on page nine, 6.22.4, I was just wondering, and maybe this is not as big of a deal, but it doesn’t list anything about autopsies if there is a death over at that facility, then we talked about who picks up what. The county then picks up the autopsy cost or is it the family or is it the YCC? That was not addressed in the document. And I think Chuck Harper is in the audience if we need an answer on that. It does list that there is a three percent – we are going to raise three percent per year. I didn’t know if we wanted to put that along with salaries or with what the county does as far as, we give certain raises, do we put this provision in to this contract about how much that we would pay because we cut our line items short sometimes and we go flat line and we did a $500 raise. At that time, you know, are we equally likely with this group or are we going to be different?

President Winnecke: Well, for clarification on that, they are not county employees, so the line item that you see, the line items that you see in the contract represent the operational cost that the Youth Care Center anticipates on an annual basis, so its up to them to determine what level of compensation, how to increase the compensation of its employees.

Councilmember Tornatta: Right. The final thing, and I would like to have Chuck up here just to ask a question, the Commissioners were supposed to get back with me, but are we following all the measures set up for public, when public monies are presented, are all these measures followed as far as, there’s a lot of things in the ordinances when we give public money, things that have to be done, bid processes, make sure there’s a prevailing wage, make sure that there’s drug free community, that type of thing, and a bid spec. So I was just curious, are all these things being met?

Chuck Harper: Chuck Harper, Director of the Youth Care Center, good morning. Absolutely. I think the difference is that, even though the county is giving money to this, this isn’t a county building project, so as far as the construction goes and all those kind of things, its my understanding with the Commissioners that all those things are fine and the bid process is a little bit different because its not a county construction project.

Councilmember Tornatta: Well, I’m not under that same understanding. I’m under the understanding that the county is giving money toward a project and it has to fall under the county guidelines and rules. And so that was what I wanted to have clarified and I thought –

Councilmember Tornatta: Okay. So nobody at your establishment has looked through any of those issues?

Chuck Harper: Its my understanding that the contract as it is written here meets all, according to Ted Ziemer, the attorney for the County Commissioners and all those things, this contract meets the county guidelines for a contract. So that’s my understanding. We have issues, received bids on the project and we intend to go with the lowest bidder.

President Winnecke: I believe Mr. Ahlers could clarify the statutory issue that you guys are discussing.

Jeff Ahlers: It was my understanding that this is a – they’ve been given a grant, so it’s a private project, and so I guess they can bid it out however they want.

Jeff Ahlers: Well, I understand your concern that there may be public dollars involved in terms of a grant, but I don’t think we can control the way they construct their project.

Councilmember Tornatta: Well, what’s the law read? I mean, when public dollars are used, then there’s a process by which you have to go about construction, is there not?

Jeff Ahlers: Well, but that has to do if it’s a public construction project. This is a statutory, public/private construction issue where we’re basically just paying them for the services that they’re rendering and I think we’ve just paid money up front, you know, which wouldn’t be any different. Now, obviously, as a county, as if the County Council and the County Commissioners wanted to make that part of the deal, I guess, contractually, you can negotiate anything you want. But, I mean, in terms of absent a contractual negotiation, I don’t think they have to comply with the same, you know, bidding restrictions and such that we would if it were a county public project. Do you see what I’m saying?

Councilmember Tornatta: Well, I just know the code pretty much reads anytime public dollars are put into a project, you have to go, and that’s Indiana Code, so I mean, this isn’t something we’re just throwing out here. And I don’t know how you excuse Indiana Code, because you didn’t put it into a contract. I mean, its just an oversight and I think it needs to be addressed.

Councilmember Sutton: I’m just kind of having a discussion here, Chuck, if you could kind of help clarify for us at least one area where – I can’t really find it in here, maybe I’m overlooking it and maybe you can point me in the right direction, the makeup of your advisory board, county appointments, how many do you have on it and how large is that board?

Councilmember Sutton: The advisory board that deals with the YCC, the Youth Care Center here.

Chuck Harper: We have four or five individuals on that board. No one from the County Commissioners or the County Council, which we don’t have an issue with there being somebody on the advisory board from one of those entities at all.

Councilmember Sutton: I think, given the partnership that we have here, it would be a very prudent thing to do to revisit that. I mean, I know I’d like to see a Council appointment and I can’t speak for the Commissioners, I would think they’d want an appointment on that board. And with five members, with what you’re probably doing now is probably a very reasonable size board, but now you’re taking on a much larger project and maybe getting a little bit of a broader insight, you may want to look at expanding that advisory board to include public and maybe some additional persons on that board so that when you come back before us, because we will want you to come back to see us as this project goes forward because we want to see how things are going, this is a significant investment. We’re talking about a five year agreement here. So if you could, maybe get with your advisory board members and discuss that, and I would think maybe President Winnecke and maybe someone from the County Commission just kind of talk that over a little bit. I really would like to see at least a member appointment on that board. So if you could do that.

Chuck Harper: Absolutely. And we had discussed that earlier. I think Ms. Abell had brought that up and that is no problem for us to appoint somebody from the Commission and from the Council to be on that advisory board.

Councilmember Sutton: The other question that I had on this, in terms of the, there was a provision in the contract, and I’ll have to find it, that talks about if the construction costs come in below what is estimated, that there would be a certain amount, those dollars, half of it, I believe, would come back to the county. Where are you now in trying to get a sense and feel on what the construction costs are going to be on this project?

Councilmember Sutton: Okay, do you have some time provisions on that for if they complete it within what is the agreed upon completion time or say earlier than the agreed upon completion time, there’s some discounts there or if they go beyond it, there’s some penalties that go with that?

Chuck Harper: There will be some penalties in the contract if they go beyond it, not discounts if they get it done before that.

Councilmember Sutton: And the estimated time that we’re looking at completion?

Councilmember Raben: Just one quick comment and this really isn’t a deal breaker for me, although I would like to see it at some point, changed with the Commissioners. Well, before they sign off on it, but under, on page four, under Section 4.1, it specifically agrees to a five year period, I would like to see what the opportunity is for renewal for the county’s behalf. I mean, if we’re investing $700,000, I’d like to know that six years from now we still have the opportunity to house our kids there if needed, that they couldn’t force us out.

President Winnecke: I would just offer, I’d say that on some of these negotiations dating back to almost a year ago, and obviously, the intent is different than what can be in writing, but I can tell you that the intent of the Youth Care Center facility is to provide really outstanding care for the young people in our community and I think it is their intent to be a long-term provider of such care. They’re making a significant investment as well, and I think it is their intent to do this for a long period of time.

Chuck Harper: Absolutely. And Mr. Raben, we would have been happy to extend this contract as long as the governing bodies would allow, but we asked for, began talking about a ten year contract, but that’s difficult for those things. But there is a provision in Section 8.1 that talks a little bit about just extending it into 2012 and some things like that. I certainly understand, we are more than willing to do whatever we can to make the county feel at ease, that we’re going to be around and providing services. If we’re not providing juvenile detention services in that building to Vanderburgh County, we’re going to have a worthless building. Because we also have a significant investment in it.

Councilmember Raben: I’m not asking for the county. In fact, I wouldn’t want the county to sign a ten-year lease, but I would like to have an option for renewal after five years.

Councilmember Sutton: I was just going to note, and I think it was in our packets, tomorrow is the groundbreaking for this facility at 10:00, so for those that can be there, I think they’d be more than happy to see us.

President Winnecke: And I would just offer that this is a long time in coming. These discussions have gone back for literally decades in providing some sort of juvenile detention facility in our county. And the public/private partnership that we are about to enter into, the Commissioners already have, I think it’s a step in the right direction and I think anytime we can keep our juveniles who are troubled in Evansville and Vanderburgh County for better treatment, we stand a much better chance of making them more productive, getting them back with their families, and hopefully, having them complete their education. So I think this is a great project. So at this time I’ll call for a roll call vote.

Councilmember Tornatta: I think it is a long time coming as well to get them back here, I just think there’s some provisions in here that I’d like to see tightened up and obviously I’d like to see that we do things by code and I wasn’t able to get the answers that I needed from our Commissioners or our Council. So I’m going to have to vote no at this time.

Councilmember Sutton: I think it’s a great project and I’m ready to move forward with it so I’m going to vote yes.

Councilmember Goebel: As the legal system has advised, any child we keep here, maybe save one child by keeping that child here in Evansville, countless lives will be affected in a positive way. I think Councilmember Tornatta scored some very important points, but I think we can work through those, so I am going to also vote yes.

President Winnecke: Next on our agenda is preliminary approval, consideration for the tax phase-in request for Brake Supply, and Mr. Koch was here last week and he joins us again today. Does anyone have any additional questions of Mr. Koch or the project of Brake Supply? Mr. Sutton?

Councilmember Sutton: Yes, Mr. President, I think we all got a copy on our desk. One of the topics that we discussed last week with Brake Supply tax phase-in was an issue on how they stood on affirmative action and they had not, at that time, put together a plan and did not have a policy per se in place, so I think what we have here, if you could speak to this, Kevin, and what you have presented to us, this statement here, and if it’s a draft or whether its going to be a policy, and what the steps are related to this, this area.

Kevin Koch: I’m Kevin Koch, President of Brake Supply. After the meeting last Wednesday, I went back and talked to our HR manager and she said that we do have a statement of EOC that we have in our handbook, but it did not get into affirmative action. I asked her to give me an example of some affirmative action policies or plans that she may be aware of, and she drafted this document. And I thought it looked pretty good. I also shared it with Rob Schaefer at the Metropolitan Development Office and he thought it looked acceptable, and I thought I’d bring it over here for review. Its something that we can add to our handbook at any time, but its acceptable to me and wanted to get your input on it.

President Winnecke: If we could hold the discussion for just a second, we need to change tapes.

Councilmember Sutton: How does that process work for you guys, I mean, as far as approving something like this?

Kevin Koch: For changes to the handbook, first of all, it was discussed at our Tuesday morning managers’ meeting that this was something we needed to be involved in and address. And its just a – it doesn’t need to go to the board of directors for this, but we can approve it ourselves and inside the company.

Councilmember Wortman: Mr. Koch, on that building, how much – is it too personal a question to ask, I guess, how much do they allow you for the building and equipment for transfer? Did they allow all that?

Kevin Koch: We have not accepted the offer yet from INDOT. We’ve had two offers. The second offer is looking positive that we will accept it. We have not come to any agreement with respect to relocation of our equipment to a new facility yet.

Councilmember Wortman: Okay. You don’t have any idea what they’re going to make an offer on that building?

Councilmember Wortman: Five million? Would that affect this tax abatement? You’ve got twelve million and then two more million. Could we take that off of there?

Kevin Koch: Well, unfortunately, INDOT is not – they’re not offering replacement value, they only offer market value. Our investment will far exceed the phase-ins, the money from the state and relocation for nothing that we chose ourselves. So everything is going to help. Its not going to come close to covering all of our costs and the disruption to business and everything else that goes along with this move.

Councilmember Wortman: This new equipment, is that going to be replaced through technology or some of the old equipment, is that what it amounts to?

Kevin Koch: Some of it will be replaced in the application. You’ll see that some of the items will be replaced, but we’ll also have some more shop areas and we’ll need to buy additional cranes, other equipment to expand our capabilities, so it’s a combination of both.

Councilmember Wortman: When you move from that building, what are you going to be allowed to take? Like you’ve got cranes supporting some of that steel, will you be allowed to take it? Not the structure, I’m sure.

Kevin Koch: Right, when INDOT came in, they separated the personal property from the real property. The real property being the building, fixtures, anything attached to the walls, and that would be salvaged by INDOT or whatever they chose to do with it. The personal property, they agreed to move at their expense.

Councilmember Wortman: Now, I understand Henderson, Kentucky and Warrick County is involved in this thing now. Where are they all three at?

Kevin Koch: I worked probably most closely with Kentucky and they came together very quickly for me. They came together both at the state level and the Henderson level and they were very responsive and accommodating. The application process for the state of Kentucky was straightforward and went very quickly. What we were offered from Kentucky was –

Councilmember Tornatta: I object to your questioning. That’s – he, in a public meeting –

Councilmember Tornatta: He does not have to answer that question. That’s ridiculous. These are things that are ongoing and are ongoing negotiations. He shouldn’t have to answer this question on this board. I object to the questioning.

President Winnecke: Well, that’s fine. If Mr. Koch feels comfortable answering the question, he can answer it and to the extent that its confidential, I’m sure he’ll stop at that point.

Kevin Koch: I wasn’t going to give any numbers, but Frankfort was offering tax credits through a KIDA program. They also were offering any construction materials would be purchased tax free without any sales tax and the city of Henderson was offering a TIF agreement. So it was a very competitive and aggressive package.

Councilmember Wortman: The employees, if you located in Kentucky, would they have to pay any additional tax on the employees over there compared to Indiana?

Councilmember Goebel: Yes, when I scored this and, Troy, you might be able to help out, without the affirmative action statement, I scored it at nine. And I don’t know if this proposal would suffice, is my question, to bump it up to a ten year or not? So I need some help on that.

Councilmember Tornatta: I will tell you that just as it reads, demonstrate commitment to a diverse workforce by maintaining an affirmative action or other statement of specific goals with respect to the diversity of workers. Our goal is to try and get companies to comply with what we think is good business and I would not give them ten points for this, but I would give them some points for putting it up there and getting on the stick and making sure that, you know, even though its an oopsie, kind of one of those things that were overlooked, we thought we might have had it in our handbook but we didn’t, we’re going to put it in there. They are making an attempt to do that. Although I would not give them ten, I would give them some points for that. However, when I scored the personal property, I came up with 136. If you gave them nothing, they still, in my opinion, are at ten years for the personal property. If you give them nothing on the other side, they’re ten years as well. And I think it’s a great opportunity for all of the Councilmen to score this and give their opinion. But in my opinion, looking at everything, if I read the documents correctly, which I think I have, they would all score ten. Now they don’t score ten by much if you give them a zero on the other, by a couple points. But they are able to get that.

President Winnecke: I would concur with Mr. Tornatta. I mean, I scored it very closely to yours and I’m of the opinion that they’re worthy of a ten year abatement on each side. Mr. Raben, did you have a comment?

Councilmember Tornatta: They have two extra credit questions that were answered if you missed this. On the personal property, question number one in the bonus criteria, scored out at an eight; and question number two scored out at a ten. Under the real property, in the bonus section, question number one and two were tens and three was a five. And then whether you scored number five a five because they do work with colleges and universities in the area and around the state.

Councilmember Sutton: I was just going to ask, I think that we made some really great progress in getting the scoring system in place and probably under how we would have measured and scored applications before, I would have been more inclined to probably give about a nine year, maybe, on this one. But, you know, with the work that’s been put into getting this scoring system in place and the way it works, we recognize no scoring system is absolutely perfect. Its just not going to be that way but I think it’s a great and excellent tool for us to use and to measure and based upon the way I kind of looked at it, they end up being right around the ten year range. And I feel comfortable with that to the extent of the scoring model that we’re working with. Like I say, under the old criteria, like I said, I don’t think I would have stretched that far. But I think we need to give at least this process that we’ve implemented and approved with this body, a chance to work.

Councilmember Goebel: The scoring system does make this job much easier and more factual, so thank you.

Councilmember Raben: Okay, Mr. President, I’d like to go ahead and make a motion to approve the preliminary resolution for Brake Supply for both personal and real property at ten years.

Councilmember Sutton: I just want to add one more thing and that was on this affirmative action statement, if you can get something back to us that shows what action you guys have taken on actually implementing this as a part of your plan and part of your employee handbook.

President Winnecke: And we have yearly compliance meetings, so that would be a great time in between there to get that done for the next compliance meeting.

President Winnecke: I would just applaud you, one, for coming to us and attempting to keep jobs in Vanderburgh County, we need jobs. There’s 145 jobs that hopefully will stay here and hopefully will grow to 165, I think, is the estimate in 2007. Job retention is very challenging in our community and every bit as important as acquisition, so I applaud you for that. And thank you for the quick work on the affirmative action. I think that shows the company’s commitment to do the right thing. At this time I’ll call for the roll call vote please.

Councilmember Abell: I’m going to vote no because I do not like having a statement that we will not locate in Vanderburgh County without tax phase-in assistance. I would have much preferred and I scored you, and I would have scored you high also, but I do not like the threat that you’re going to leave Vanderburgh County. I would hope that businesses are here for a lot of other reasons than that their taxes are low. I would hope they were here because we have a good quality workforce, a great quality of life, and it’s a good community to be in. And I don’t like that statement, didn’t like it from other companies, hope we never see it from another company that’s going to be coming before us with a tax phase in. And I would much prefer to see tax phase in and would vote in favor of one, but the difference for what you’re paying in taxes now, and what taxes you’re going to pay with your new building. I do think that we should give you a break on your new building taxes, but since you’re already paying taxes, I don’t know that we should give you a full break. So I’m voting no.

President Winnecke: Thank you very much and we’ll have our confirming vote at our May meeting, the first week of May. Thank you, Kevin.

President Winnecke: Next on the agenda, appointments to the Dental Clinic Advisory Board. At this time I appoint Mr. Sutton and myself to that and I will tell you that the Dental Clinic Advisory Board is going to have its first meeting tomorrow at 3:30 or 3:00, I can’t remember which, and that project is moving merrily along and we should be close to hiring a dentist and hopefully get this thing opened this spring, knock on wood.

President Winnecke: The filing deadline is April 12th for the May 3rd meeting, the next item on the agenda.

President Winnecke: And the final item on the printed agenda is to consider increased rates for precinct board members, specifically Inspectors, Judges and the two Clerks. Is Mrs. Kirk -- I thought I saw her. She’s on the phone. Can you hear me now?

President Winnecke: Would you like to state what the request is? I think everyone understands it but maybe not.

Susan Kirk: Okay, well, I did email everyone -- well, except you, Curt, you don’t have a computer. I did email everyone else. There’s been discussion about the pay or the fees that our board members, Inspectors, Judges and Clerks make in Vanderburgh County and I did email some other counties asking them what they pay their election day workers. And I got one response back. It’s a county smaller than ours but we pay our Inspectors right now $90 per day and they pay them $120. Then the Judge of the opposite party gets 90, and then the other Judge and the two Clerks receive $80. And you take into consideration by the time the Inspector, number one, they all have to attend training sessions and now this will be spring and fall. So that’s probably three hours of their time and then the Inspector has to come down, pick up supplies, deliver them back, along with the Judge of the opposite party. They’re putting in quite a few hours and I know its been a concern that we would want to at least have a reasonable incentive for people to work at the polling places, so that’s the figure that I came up with. It was the county that responded, it sounded like it was acceptable, so its up to the Council to decide whether or not you want to grant that.

Councilmember Tornatta: Susie, did we ever come up with a program that they had to hit so many events to qualify for the full amount? I know we had talked about that before, but it seems like it would be a nice thing to have in place if they have a certain amount of training that they have to hit and then they have to be there on time and perform through the day before they could get that check, semi-contract, but if they weren’t able to do certain things that they would only get a percentage of that money.

Susan Kirk: That is true and I know back years ago when I ran the Election Office, the board did vote to, in other words, if you did not attend a training session, say if you grant this increase, you’d only get $110. It was ten dollars to attend a training session. And I don’t really think that the election board has any problem with maybe reiterating that because I think its still on the books from years ago. You know, there are circumstances, last minute circumstances when the board changes. You know, its like having a great big party and you think 500 people all have to show up at the same time, and that’s quite a task for both parties. So there would need to be some kind of maybe a backup plan for those who, like Monday night, someone gets sick and you have to replace them. Tuesday, someone gets sick and a new person has to come in and I don’t really think its fair maybe for them, even though that they didn’t have the benefit of the training to be maybe penalized even though they put in the whole day. The board can decide that, but I don’t see any problem with that if that’s what you want to do.

Councilmember Tornatta: Yeah, and maybe have a provision that they have to go through the training before that and sign off on it. You know, if you have to open up another class and get that training in, then we might have to do that, but I think the biggest thing that I’d like to see, and I like the idea of making sure that we’re paying these people for coming out, but the thing I want to see is that we do have qualified people that are congenial to the voter, that are doing the things that they’re supposed to do, being on time for the events so that we don’t have other people running around because you know through being in many elections that sometimes it’s the headache that’s involved, not necessarily the payout that’s the problem. So we want to make sure that we’re paying these people to take care of our headaches.

Susan Kirk: And that’s fine and, of course, to try to find people that whoever they deem qualified, you have to speak to each one of the county chairmen because each headquarters are the ones that nominate the people to the election board. And then, of course, beings that we don’t have a big pool of people, then we use those people. It is, its very, very difficult to find people that will, you know, it’s a fast paced society, everybody is working, running kids here, there and yonder, and it is, its difficult to find people to work but I think most people that have done it find it interesting, so...

Councilmember Raben: We need a motion? Okay. I’ll move that we approve the new rates for Inspector at $120, Judges at 90, Judge and two Clerks at 80.

President Winnecke: Motion and a second. More questions or discussion? Roll call vote please.

Susan Kirk: I’d like to thank the Council. I know that you’re going to have a lot of happy people out there getting a little bit of a raise. Thank you.

President Winnecke: I do have one other bit of business before we adjourn. I’d like to remind, I think everyone has been extended an invitation by the Chamber of Commerce to attend the inner-city leadership delegation visit. This year it is to Lexington. I can tell you a lot of planning has gone into this. The agenda is really good. There are a lot of really wonderful correlations between what has happened and what is happening in that community and what can be and in some cases is happening in our community. I plan to attend, but to the extent that anyone can, I would urge you to do so. The Chamber has put a lot of work into this and if you can go, great. Its May 9th and 10th, so contact The Chamber if you can go.

Councilmember Raben: Okay, Mr. President, I have one matter of new business before we adjourn.

Councilmember Raben: Approximately, well, its been over the course of the last couple of months, Judge Knight prepared an ordinance to modify the governance structure of the data processing and information technology. Everyone here was given a copy, I know he, along with several other county officeholders, have spoke to a whole lot of us that sit here on this Council. I think most of us are aware of what their concerns are and I certainly would agree with practically every one of them. I know some of us that have discussed this amongst ourselves. So some issues in terms of how the proposed ordinance was written. I know one of the concerns was, initially, it was comprised of 20 members. I would recommend that we cut that down to 16 and would be happy to cite who the members would be. The Mayor would sit on the commission, a member of the County Commissioners, a member of the City Council, the County Council, a Judge, the City Clerk, the County Assessor, the County Clerk, the Prosecutor, the County Recorder, the County Sheriff, the County Treasurer, the County Auditor, the Mayor would have one additional appointee under this revision, the City Council would have one additional appointee under this revision and then the County Coroner would share a seat on even or odd years with the County Surveyor. And, Mr. President, I guess what I am getting to, I would like to make a motion in support of the proposed ordinance and ask that it be taken on to City Council and the County Commissioners.

President Winnecke: Okay, the Commissioners, the City Council, the County Council, a Judge, the City Clerk, the Assessor, –

Councilmember Raben: The Sheriff, Treasurer, County Auditor, one additional Mayoral appointee, one additional City Council appointee, and then one Coroner/Surveyor.

President Winnecke: Okay, I got the math. I guess my only concern is that there have been a couple of meetings in recent weeks where between the city, the county and all the stakeholders, where they’re trying to take the language that the Judge proposed and refine it to better suit everyone’s needs. I know Mr. Arvay has been involved in that and I don’t know that that work is complete, so for us to take a vote today on a resolution that really is non-binding before the Commissioners and the Mayor see a final version of what they may like, frankly, I think is kind of moot. But, if someone makes the motion, I guess – I don’t know if there are votes to pass it, but...

Councilmember Raben: No, its just for approving the proposed ordinance. Again, Mr. President, this is a vote in support of the proposed ordinance.

Jeff Ahlers: Okay, that’s what I wanted to clarify, Mr. Raben, because I didn’t have it here with me today, but the actual ordinance that I’ve seen is an ordinance by the Commissioners and no ordinance was advertised today for us to pass, so that’s why I didn’t know if it was a resolution in support of moving the process forward for the appropriate body to pass an ordinance or whether you were actually –

Councilmember Sutton: And so the logical next step would be, let’s say that this body passes the support for this resolution, then a presentation will be made before the Commissioners, I’m supposing, with this same format that you’ve outlined here on this, what I guess is the reconstituted data board to a certain extent. And they would have an opportunity to respond in the form of passing an actual resolution in this regard. Is that what you’re essentially doing?

Councilmember Raben: That would be my understanding, and I don’t have to do all the speaking on behalf of this ordinance but there are other county officeholders along with Judge Knight in the audience if he would like to give his thoughts.

Douglas Knight: Thank you. My name is Douglas Knight, I’m a Judge in the Vanderburgh Superior Court and helped draft the ordinance that you’re considering today. Ideally, it would be probably, legally, the best outcome if this body passed this as a, not as a resolution or a motion, but as an ordinance, approved it as an ordinance. I understand there’s some legal complications behind that and this kind of takes me by surprise, frankly, this question, so I’m not sure of an exact legal answer to the puzzle.

Councilmember Raben: Well, he’s right in respect that we don’t approve ordinances, but we can certainly pass a resolution in support of any ordinance we wish. We’re basically making an overture to the City and the County Commissioners to support this document.

President Winnecke: Judge, do you not feel like its more appropriate to wait to see what kind of shakes out as a result of these other meetings before taking a vote on this?

Douglas Knight: Honestly, I do not. I was at the major meeting that you made reference to earlier and after the meeting I had conferred with the other county officeholders and tried to take their temperature on what they thought was the outcome of that meeting, and my fellow colleagues in the judicial branch, and we weren’t totally pleased with the way the meeting went. Honestly, it felt like it was a one-sided meeting, but an opportunity for the people that were supporting this ordinance to vent, be patted on the back or the head, and requested to somehow dilute our request and I didn’t think it achieved a whole lot. And if I’ve given you the wrong signal about that, I apologize for it. I didn’t intend to do that.

President Winnecke: I think maybe I walked away with a different impression. But that’s neither here nor there.

President Winnecke: And I would say this. I don’t disagree with the concept of having the information technology advisory council. I agree with that. I just think there’s a process that’s kind of been put in front that’s in the works and to jump out ahead of that now, I mean, I just don’t know what we really gain from it. Well, what I think we gain is control over the technology environment that we all have to live in and work under. The other ordinance that was advanced at that meeting or part of that meeting simply diluted the ordinance that we’re discussing here today and turned the IT, the data board, if you will, into a recommendation body. All they could do is simply recommend. They were assigned homework and then they would come and make recommendations which the CIO or those who control the CIO would listen to and then be totally free to simply ignore. And that was the greatest concern that I think that the supporters of this ordinance had. And it didn’t feel comfortable, it didn’t feel to those individuals including myself, that that was good governance. That information technology is a tool that officeholders require, it’s a necessity, in order to serve the people who put them in office. And if they have no control over one of the most important tools that they have to rely on, then they’re not serving their constituency as best they could. And I think that’s why they think its critical. This is a tool and the CIO is to keep it sharp and to maintain it, so that the officeholders can use it at their will for the advantage of those who put them in office and so I think its important that they have that control, and that’s the basis for this ordinance.

Councilmember Abell: I have a comment because I’ve sat in the seats that all those people are in and I was an officeholder for eight years in this county on a daily basis. I think its important that we do this because it shows support for this ordinance which is going to go before the Commissioners. I also think its important because it says that the effective date is effective upon the passage of the Board of Commissioners and the approval of the Vanderburgh County Council. And the last attempt to change this did not have the approval and signature of this Council, but yet the county officeholders were asked to attempt to function under that which was not even a binding ordinance because it wasn’t signed. And I think if we vote for this today, what we’re saying to the Commissioners is, if you pass this ordinance, you don’t have to be concerned on whether or not we’re going to sign it. We will sign it if this is the ordinance that is passed by the Board of Commissioners. So I think its an important thing to do and I’d certainly like to see us go forward. And I want to thank the Judge for all the work he did on this.

Councilmember Tornatta: Yeah, a couple of points. One thing I’m glad to see is that you’re building consensus with all those people that would end up being on that board because that’s going to be paramount to how this thing works. And I would like to see their direction and just kind of like you were saying, whether the IT chair or that person that we put in that IT office, is working for your group or is working for somebody up above him. And if that person has to make a decision, which group he is going to work for, we get back into the same mess on who am I supposed to listen to? Well, you know, this month I listen to you guys, and the next month I listen to one of these other two that are up above me. And I think you bring a valid point and that’s why we’ve had talks on how this is all going to go, but this sounds like a very good decision on bringing things to a consensus basis and going with those people who are actually working with those pieces of equipment. So thanks a lot.

Councilmember Goebel: The creation of this board is not a new idea, obviously. For how long has the old data board been disbursed?

Councilmember Raben: Just one last comment, you know, I’m looking at the book that was provided to us this morning of our budget for 2006, and in this just in regards to our general fund budget, and who these people, these officeholders, the Judges, everyone in the county represents, represents about $56,000,000 that we budget annually. And IT, you know, how we progress or regress in IT, plays a big part in how wisely our $56,000,000 is used. I see it as we’re protecting our investment. So I’m very much in favor of this and, again, would call for the vote.

President Winnecke: Any other business to come before Council? We stand adjourned.

(There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 9:44 a.m.)

1030-3610	Legal Services	3,500.00	3,500.00
Total		3,500.00	3,500.00

1050-1300	Overtime	128,000.00	100,000.00
1050-1531	Civilian Shift Differential	5,000.00	5,000.00
1050-2210	Gas & Oil	75,000.00	0.00
Total		208,000.00	105,000.00

1051-3051	Lodging of Inmates	75,000.00	70,000.00
Total		75,000.00	70,000.00

1070-1210-1070	Assistant Coroners	1,000.00	1,000.00
1070-1300	Overtime	373.00	373.00
1070-1900	FICA	106.00	106.00
1070-1910	PERF	23.00	23.00
1070-3650	Autopsies	11,250.00	11,250.00
1070-2700	Other Supplies	5,848.00	5,848.00
Total		18,600.00	18,600.00

1370-1370-1370	Bailiff	1,316.00	1,316.00
1370-1530-1370	Riding Bailiff	1,460.00	1,460.00
1370-1900	FICA	213.00	213.00
1370-1910	PERF	167.00	167.00
Total		3,156.00	3,156.00

1480-3860	Contractual Computer	450,000.00	450,000.00
Total		450,000.00	450,000.00

2650-1220-2650	Chief Deputy	1,428.00	1,428.00
2650-1900	FICA	110.00	110.00
2650-1910	PERF	83.00	83.00
Total		1,621.00	1,621.00

3570-3994	Special/Matching Grants	10,000.00	10,000.00
Total		10,000.00	10,000.00