|
Council Meeting August 7, 2002
President Winnecke: I'd like to call
the August 7th meeting of the Vanderburgh County Council to
order with attendance roll call please.
President Winnecke: Would you please stand and join us in the Pledge of Allegiance? (Pledge of Allegiance was given) President Winnecke: Before we get to the minutes, the Auditor has a quick announcement for members of Council. Suzanne Crouch: The paper that you have on your desk, we now have that available compliments of ACS on a CD, so if any of you would like the CD, we'd be happy to provide that to you and take the paper back to our office and then we will give it to you in the future on a CD. Councilmember Tornatta: This? Suzanne Crouch: Yes. President Winnecke: Troy really likes the paper. Councilmember Tornatta: Make a motion...
President Winnecke: I would entertain a motion to approve the minutes from our July 3rd meeting. Councilmember Wortman: So moved. Councilmember Raben: I'll second. President Winnecke: Motion and a second. All in favor, raise their right hand please. (Motion unanimously approved 7-0)
President Winnecke: We'll begin with the appropriation ordinance. SURVEYOR Councilmember Raben: Mr. President, I'm going to let Councilman Hoy take the first one. Councilmember Hoy: The first appropriation is 1060-2230 Garage & Motor for $2,000 for the Surveyor's office, and I move approval. Councilmember Sutton: Second. President Winnecke: There's a motion and a second. Is there discussion or are there questions? Roll call vote please. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Tornatta? Councilmember Tornatta: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton? Councilmember Sutton: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Bassemier? Councilmember Bassemier: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Hoy? Councilmember Hoy: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben? Councilmember Raben: Mr. President, I abstain. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Wortman? Councilmember Wortman: Yes. Teri Lukeman: President Winnecke? President Winnecke: Yes. SURVEYOR REQUESTED APPROVED
(Motion unanimously approved 6-0/Councilmember Raben abstained) PROSECUTOR IV-D Councilmember Raben: Okay, next is Prosecutor IV-D, 1081-1990 Extra Help in the amount of $14,000, I'll move approval. Councilmember Sutton: Second. President Winnecke: There's a motion and a second. Questions or discussion? Roll call vote please. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Tornatta? Councilmember Tornatta: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton? Councilmember Sutton: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Bassemier? Councilmember Bassemier: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Hoy? Councilmember Hoy: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben? Councilmember Raben: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Wortman? Councilmember Wortman: Yes. Teri Lukeman: President Winnecke? President Winnecke: Yes. PROSECUTOR IV-D REQUESTED APPROVED
(Motion unanimously approved 7-0) COMMISSIONERS Councilmember Raben: Okay, next under County Commissioners, 1300-3120. I'm going to move with questions, that this be set in at $125,000. Councilmember Wortman: Second. President Winnecke: There's a motion and a second to set this in at $125,000. Is there discussion or are there questions? Councilmember Raben: Yes, I see David is in the audience. This is on your postage request. And I would just encourage that maybe the Commissioners circulate a memo and have whatever dialogue they need to in regards to postage to better get a handle on it. We're on track to spend in excess of $400,000, and see what we can do to address this with all the offices and departments. And don't take this as criticism to yourself, okay, although there is, one of these does pertain to your office, but we have discussed before as a body that there is a lot of mailing happening internally here from office to office. And the three that I am looking at, one is from August 2nd from your office to our office, from the Commissioner's office to our office. And then we've got them for Circuit Court, Superior Court, so you know, at $.37 a stamp and we're mailing within the confines of this building, I think we need to do whatever we can to address this in light of as much as postage is to day. So, and I'll give you an explanation as to the $125,000. I looked at figures from August, September, October, November and December of last year, and at the $.34 it was like $115,000 would be what was needed. But taking into consideration the increase in postage, $125,000 will probably get you through the year. David Mosby: Okay, and well, what I'm going to do is let you, let her explain to you what she is getting ready to do and you're going to find out why your postage is going to be out of sight. Marsha Abell: What I brought with me today, I was going to just discuss this with Mr. Mosby, but since this came up, I'll discuss it with you, too. These are tickets that we just received today - mostly from the state police, but some from the EPD and some from the Sheriff's department. The judges have now told my office that everybody who doesn't sign their ticket, which is like 99% of the tickets that we get, we now have to send them a certified summons, which means I'm going to have to send everyone of these people a $2.75 letter. That's going to make your postage go sky high. Councilmember Raben: I have to ask you, why are most - 99% of them not signed? Marsha Abell: People just don't sign them, and they still give them the ticket. And I, you know, I mean, that's up law enforcement whether or not they make them sign the tickets. Most of these are state police. I have no control over what the police do, but all of these that I have in my hand right now are today's tickets that are not signed. We have to send in for every one of these, a certified letter, which is going to cost a lot of money. Councilmember Sutton: Now who decided this had to be done this way? Who made this decision? Marsha Abell: What we normally do is - let me rephrase. These are ones that didn't show up for court that have a ticket. And normally, we would just issue a warrant for them, a bench warrant. Now the judges don't want to do that. If they didn't sign the ticket, they want to send them a certified summons. In other words, a summons that says we're inviting you to come to court because you missed your court date rather than doing a warrant for their arrest. But warrants don't cost two dollars and something to send, and these certified summons, they go certified mail. And I just found out about this yesterday, so I was coming in to ask Mr. Mosby what I was going to do about it, because I know the postage comes out of the Commissioner's budget and I'm sure they're not budgeted for me to start sending them these kind of bills. Councilmember Sutton: And these tickets are written by who? Marsha Abell: Most of these are written by the Indiana State Police. I mean, they could be written by anybody. They could be written by the Parks Department or the excise police, anybody that has the power to write a ticket can write them, but none of these that I have in my hand right now are signed. And none of these people showed up for court, so these people all have to receive a notice that says, you know, and whether it be seat belt violation or whatever, it doesn't make any difference, I'll have to send them a certified summons. And my reason for sitting down beside of Mr. Mosby to explain it to him is because, since I just found out about it yesterday, and we're going to have to start doing it, that postage budget is going to go pretty fast at two dollars and something a shot. Councilmember Sutton: Wouldn't it be cheaper listing all those names of those people in the newspaper? Marsha Abell: Well, probably, but that's not my decision to make. This was a judicial decision. Councilmember Sutton: Right, I understand. I think - Marsha Abell: So I just came here to - Councilmember Sutton: I think a dialogue needs to take place - I mean, about how this can be done rather than - Marsha Abell: Yeah, I really had not planned to stand up here and tell you about this, I really had just planned to ask Mr. Mosby, but since this came up, I thought you needed to know. But if it doesn't change, it's going to be, it'll be quite expensive. You think $.37 is a lot, these are two dollars - almost $2.80 a piece. Councilmember Wortman: Marsha, can you inform all the agencies that write tickets and inform them that we appreciate it if they get a signature on there, would that we be - Marsha Abell: We are doing that, but we also - we sent them requests to things before that they've ignored so I - don't be too optimistic, but I will send them that. I've also asked them not to write those seatbelt tickets. I was not prepared to tell you about this, I just wanted, you know, I was going to talk to Mr. Mosby about how we were going to run it through the budget. President Winnecke: Mr. Raben and then Mr. Hoy. Oh, I'm sorry, I thought you were - Councilmember Raben: I just was wanting Brad to comment on that, maybe he could shed some light on that. And I know she stated that most of them are state police, but you may know as to - Brad Ellsworth: They're all exactly the same ticket. I can't speak for the other agencies, but it's in our policy that the last thing on the ticket is their signature line. It states right on there, and our officers are instructed to tell them this is not an admission of guilt. So many of the people think that by signing it, they're saying yes I was speeding, yes I ran a red light, but like I said, it's clearly printed on the bottom of the ticket and we tell them, it's not an admission of guilt, you're signing that you received it. And we don't arm wrestle them to do it, we can't force them. You've seen the tv videos where they throw the tickets and tear them up, but that's - we'll obviously, we'll put out another memo in the interest of saving that money to tell them to use their best - Councilmember Raben: Marsha, you stated that the judges, are you talking about our local judges have - Marsha Abell: Yeah, well, if you're looking at Judge Heldt, he's Circuit Court, he doesn't have anything to do with Misdemeanor. He's the only one here. Councilmember Raben: I didn't know if this was a state - Marsha Abell: No, well, I mean, I don't think - you don't know do you? I don't know if it's a state thing or not. It's just a change that I heard of yesterday. Carl Heldt: I just walked in on this but, Brad, maybe you know this, too. Didn't one of these justice committees encourage that Misdemeanor Court, instead of arresting people, to send out a summons to help the jail situation? And that may be the genesis of all this, since instead of putting them in jail, send them a summons and I think that's maybe where it came from. But it's all Misdemeanor Court, so I don't know for sure. Marsha Abell: And that could be. And I'm not saying it's an improper policy, I'm just explaining to you why the postage budget is going to go up. Brad Ellsworth: I was just going to say on some offenses, we encourage, driving on suspended, things like that, maybe shoplifting, issuing a citation but filling out, I don't things are probably going to (inaudible) tickets, but we are encouraging summons but that would be through an affidavit now (inaudible). These are probably people just refusing to sign a traffic ticket. Marsha Abell: So you may want to leave that 180 - Councilmember Hoy: And Judge Heldt may have spoken to this issue because I was there that day, too, in that meeting, you know, when we discussed that, and - Marsha Abell: So was I and that may be - Councilmember Hoy: Yeah, it may have stemmed from that, but we were really looking for getting the people with warrants in. Marsha Abell: Well, this is being done in lieu of issuing a warrant. Councilmember Hoy: Yeah, but our objective as a committee was to get some of the people with outstanding warrants to take care of things. You know - Marsha Abell: These wouldn't have a warrant yet. Councilmember Hoy: I know, that's what I'm saying. That's what I'm saying. This does not address what we were trying to address on that committee, as I understand what the committee was trying to do. Marsha Abell: And again, I'm not saying this is an improper policy, I'm just explaining to you why your postage is going to be high. Councilmember Raben: I'm sure David and Catherine will work on that and see what we can do to get through that. Marsha Abell: I just didn't want you to be surprised when you start getting - Councilmember Tornatta: Can we just box those up and take those back to the state police and have them send them out. Marsha Abell: Have them do it? That would be nice. I don't think we can do that. I just didn't want you to be mad at me when you see my office is generating big postage. Councilmember Raben: When you flashed that stack of tickets, I mean, that was all state police tickets? Marsha Abell: No, most of these are. I'll look through them and see if I've got any for Brad. Councilmember Raben: How many of those - I mean, how many days worth of tickets are those? Marsha Abell: These came out of one
day's court.
Councilmember Raben: I didn't know the state police were writing that many citations. Councilmember Tornatta: I can tell you about that. Councilmember Wortman: In reference outside of this, I remember years ago - Councilmember Hoy: Is Tornatta's name on one of those? Councilmember Wortman: - internal mailing problem - Councilmember Tornatta: I'm their favorite customer. Councilmember Wortman: - and you'd be surprised what results was when we cut it almost in half, this was years ago, stop that, some of that internal which is outside of the - Marsha Abell: Yeah, this isn't internal that I'm talking about. We run 250 - we'll run 250 tickets through our office in a day, so that gives you some idea. Councilmember Raben: That may be the state's solution to their budget problems, write more tickets. Okay, thank you, Marsha. Councilmember Sutton: What was that - what was that motion that you made earlier. President Winnecke: The motion was - Councilmember Raben: The motion was for $125,000, and if they're not able to address that with the judges and the state police, then we'll have to make adjustments to that later, then. President Winnecke: There's a motion and a second, roll call vote please. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Tornatta? Councilmember Tornatta: I think the 180 is probably the way to go, but if we're willing to come back and address this at a later date, 125 is fine. Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton? Councilmember Sutton: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Bassemier? Councilmember Bassemier: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Hoy? Councilmember Hoy: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben? Councilmember Raben: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Wortman? Councilmember Wortman: Yes. Teri Lukeman: President Winnecke? President Winnecke: Yes. COMMISSIONERS REQUESTED APPROVED
(Motion unanimously approved 7-0) CIRCUIT COURT Councilmember Raben: Okay, next is Circuit Court 1360-3260 Law Books and I get a pain the back when I say $15,000; 1360-3903 Petit Jurors $20,000, for a total request of $35,000. I'll move approval. Councilmember Wortman: Second. President Winnecke: There's a motion and a second, questions or discussion? Roll call vote please. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Tornatta? Councilmember Tornatta: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton? Councilmember Sutton: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Bassemier? Councilmember Bassemier: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Hoy? Councilmember Hoy: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben? Councilmember Raben: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Wortman? Councilmember Wortman: Yes. Teri Lukeman: President Winnecke? President Winnecke: Yes. CIRCUIT COURT REQUESTED APPROVED
(Motion unanimously approved 7-0) DRUG & ALCOHOL DEFERRAL Councilmember Raben: Drug and Alcohol, 1371-3370 and 1371-3630 for a total request of $2,500, I'll move approval. Councilmember Hoy: Second. President Winnecke: There's a motion and a second. Questions or discussion? Roll call vote please. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Tornatta? Councilmember Tornatta: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton? Councilmember Sutton: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Bassemier? Councilmember Bassemier: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Hoy? Councilmember Hoy: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben? Councilmember Raben: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Wortman? Councilmember Wortman: Yes. Teri Lukeman: President Winnecke? President Winnecke: Yes. DRUG & ALCOHOL DEFERRAL REQUESTED
APPROVED
(Motion unanimously approved 7-0) BURDETTE PARK Councilmember Raben: Okay, Burdette Park, 1450-1180-1450, 1450-1900, 1450-3372, 1450-2210 - let me go back to 1450-3372, the correct figure is $11,800 for that line, for a total request of $84,775. I will move approval. Councilmember Wortman: Second. President Winnecke: There's a motion and a second. Questions or discussion? Councilmember Bassemier: Was that for the whole thing, Jim? President Winnecke: Yes. Roll call vote please. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Tornatta? Councilmember Tornatta: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton? Councilmember Sutton: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Bassemier? Councilmember Bassemier: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Hoy? Councilmember Hoy: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben? Councilmember Raben: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Wortman? Councilmember Wortman: Yes. Teri Lukeman: President Winnecke? President Winnecke: Yes. BURDETTE PARK REQUESTED APPROVED
(Motion unanimously approved 7-0) RIVERBOAT Councilmember Raben: Okay, next under Riverboat 1490-3111, I'm going to move that that be set in at zero. Councilmember Sutton: Second. President Winnecke: There's a motion and a second. Questions or discussion? Councilmember Sutton: Jim, you said zero on that one? What do we - I had my notes from the last time, what did they say their balance, remaining balance is? Do you recall that? President Winnecke: With the encumbrances, they have year to date, it totals $587,167. Councilmember Sutton: That's what their balance is right now? President Winnecke: That's what they've expended year to date and other encumbrances, it totals $587,167.97. Councilmember Sutton: Well, and I guess, okay, that's - and their balance now, what they have left on hand? Did we get that total? Gary, - Councilmember Hoy: He says zero. Councilmember Tornatta: Should be like $89,000. Gary Heck: Gary Heck, Lieberman & Associates. As of today, it's $51,000, so the bottom line is we will have spent all of the funds that are available probably within the next three weeks. Councilmember Bassemier: Mr. Heck, did you get that information for me to see how many still are on the program, I mean, working now after they're off the program? Gary Heck: I requested the information through my boss, Phil Lieberman, to send out the survey because we have to actually conduct a survey to do that, and he has contacted some individuals because in order for it to be statistically valid, you have to word the questions fairly closely, so that is in process but I don't have an answer for you today other than we are working on that request. Councilmember Bassemier: I appreciate that. But I just want to remind everybody, we need to look at this program, you know, since this program has been in effect we've spent over two million dollars and it seems like it's going for daycare centers, it's going for vehicle repairs and replacements, its going for a whole list of things, $310,000 for administration, and only $124,000 is going for training. I don't know, I think - and right now we don't have the facts how many has got a job after all this, so - I don't know, is this program working? Gary Heck: I can tell you that the folks, when they qualified for the program did have a job, I can tell you we can't control what they request the services for because it is a program where individuals who qualify can ask for assistance in any one of four areas, and I can tell you that under the current welfare program, they're not going to be getting public assistance in any other way. So that if this program is not there, the folks that are being hurt is the working poor. And the funds, I will agree with you that the funds that have been spent were only those funds that were obligated to this program to begin with. We haven't taken money from any other projects. Councilmember Bassemier: And I forgot the free transportation, the taxicabs. It seems like everybody else is making out like a bandit on this program except the people that's getting the training. I mean, that's my own personal opinion. Gary Heck: Councilman Bassemier, I don't know that I would agree with your categorization, but - Councilmember Tornatta: I would just like to say, part of your program - is there anything in your program that says that you will maintain, I mean, is that your focus? Now I was not aware that that is your focus. Gary Heck: If they ever fail to meet the eligibility requirements that they needed to qualify originally, they automatically stop receiving this assistance because this isn't welfare, it's a temporary assistance during a circumstantial disruption in their life. These are working poor people. These are not people on public assistance. Councilmember Tornatta: Right, and this was a way that they had brought a program around to not just service the person that is essentially not doing any kind of work to better themselves, this was a program set up to get a person that's trying to make do and better themselves, it gives them assistance to try and get that another one notch higher than what they are now. But it's not to maintain their job status. And that's what my interpretation of that is. And if I'm to understand what you're roll is, your roll is just to make sure that at the time, when they're getting this service, that they qualify for your parameters, which are they have to be a working person, they have to qualify financially. Is that correct? Gary Heck: And they have to be a resident of Vanderburgh County. Councilmember Tornatta: Right. Gary Heck: That's correct. And we are trying to respond to Councilman Bassemier's question. Councilmember Bassemier: I appreciate that. President Winnecke: Councilman Sutton and then we'll - did you have something to say - Councilmember Sutton: I'll let Councilman Hoy go ahead next. Councilmember Hoy: No, I...as I mentioned, last week, I still work with people who are low income and the program, this program is really misnamed, that's not anybody's fault, but we made it sound like they were on welfare and now they're going to go to work, you know, via the program. And that's a misnomer. What's actually happening with the people that I know that have applied to your program and have received assistance, these are people who did go to work but they worked in jobs that simply don't pay enough money. You know, I've distributed my little sheet to all of you many times of how you can't live on an $8 an hour job. You do, but you really can't pay all of your bills. And you cannot get to a job - to many jobs in this county without a car. That's just the way it is. And mass transit doesn't work too well, that's why your transportation program, as you know, didn't work. And you've got training programs all over the place, but these are folks who simply, they are working, and they're not being paid much money, and that occurs all over this county. And when the car breaks down, then they're going to come to you and that's exactly what they're doing because they have to have the car to go get that $8 an hour job that we have sat here and said is wonderful. Well, it's not wonderful. And you're doing your best with it, and there are hundreds of people in this county, probably thousands, in this boat. And that's what the programs for as I see it. And that's who you're serving. Gary Heck: And they're not served by any other program. Councilmember Hoy: They are not served by any other program and I get these phone calls because this has been my life's work, you know, saying can you find me X number of dollars for this or that. I don't have it any more. I don't have any account personally to serve a congregation, I don't have (inaudible) congregational accounts, and if you send somebody to the churches, good luck. You might get $10, you might get $15, if you have a real gold strike, you might get $25. And how many churches would you have to go to to get your carburetor fixed or your alternator, or whatever on your car? This is what people are up against. And I see it all the time. I mean, they knock on my door at 10:00 at night and they're desperate because they cannot get to work or they cannot pay this bill. And that's why you're there, it's not a program that is going to move anybody on welfare. If there's been, and I know this is turning into a sermon, Brother Sutton, but if there's any lie that's been told to the American people, it's the lie that was told during the Clinton administration. We did end welfare as we know it and we just crucified a lot of people. That's what we did. President Winnecke: Councilman Sutton? Councilmember Sutton: I guess in looking at the motion that was made, I guess I'm trying to gain some perspective and understand, it just - I guess it behooves me, we look at the working poor and the question, well, how come they aren't doing better. And then we take away the supports that are put in place to try to help them get to where we want them to be, and then we ask ourselves, why aren't they doing any better. So I'm trying to maybe try to understand the - just understand what we're trying to do here by, I guess eliminating the program, I guess has got about five or six more weeks worth of life. And so I don't know if anyone on this Council has spent the time or talked to anyone on this program. I would venture to say they haven't. So before, I guess, we get reports each month. Gary has been very good at getting those reports to us on how the program is performing, how many participants that they have going in the program, and as we said last week, there are times when there are more funds needed, and there are times when there are fewer funds needed for the program, and a lot of it is dictated by the economy. And given the circumstances that we are facing right now within this state and beginning to trickle down here locally, as times do become more tight and severe, the ones who are impacted the greatest are the working poor. And so I guess what we are - not we, I guess what's being said here today is that I guess those folks really don't matter. They aren't really part of the important fabric of this community and I think the request has been before us before. Gary has kind of given us an update of where we stand. So though it may seem like we're spending, this is more of an investment in our community. So I would urge that we would put the dollars as they have been requested. President Winnecke: I would just say, make a couple of points to Councilman Sutton's point, I don't see this as a motion to stop the program. Like every other area that this Council funds, there is a budget. This year, the budget for Welfare to Work was $250,000, year to date they've spent $441,000, $191,000 over. If we make this appropriation today, at the end of the year we'll have spent nearly one million dollars. Commissioner Fanello said yesterday she was willing to consider bumping the 2003 budget from $250,000 to $400,000. That's a huge disparity. And if we continue to fund this, I don't see this growing. I mean the working poor are very important fabric of this community but we have to live within our means and I think that is what this motion is intended to do. Councilmember Sutton: Well, in responding back since the comment was to me, when we look at what has been requested each year, the proportion has been the same. So I think what we're doing is confusing two different things here. When we look at maybe what has been spent this year, the dollars have been greater. But if we look in prior years, the dollars have not been near at that level. So essentially what he's asking for and what has been requested all along is what has been put in place from the very beginning of the program. They didn't ask for anything more or really anything less than what had been appropriated. So for us to paint the picture that this year it is way over, actually, they're looking at what has been in years where they have been funded at a lesser, not funded at a lesser level, but spent at a reduced level. So he's just trying to stay on par with what we're doing, and next year what's proposed for next year would be less than the $500,000 that has been put in place each year. He said he was fine with that, but in between when this money runs out in five weeks, between that time and January 1, there aren't going to be any dollars there. President Winnecke: Councilman Raben and then we'll get to you, Gary. Councilmember Raben: Gary, the 140 some odd thousand dollars that you have encumbrances for right now, what is that? Gary Heck: $51,000 is what's left. I know what your report says, but when we submit claims weekly to the Auditor's, there's the equivalent of a two week arrearage before it shows up on your report. And in two weeks, we will actually be out of money, and if you were to take positive action today to put the money back, it will actually be a month before it's available when it comes back from the State Board of Accounts. So I guess what I'm saying is, if you don't take positive action today, there's going to be at least a period when people will be told there is no money available and you'll just have to wait. Councilmember Raben: Okay, and just one other question, which just is clarification, next year, again, if we elect to set it in at what the Commissioners have requested, $250,000, or if we bump it up to I think Commissioner Fanello said that, you know, they would entertain going as high as $400,000, again, are you going to be back to us if you go above and beyond that? I mean, - Gary Heck: No sir, and it's...I think Councilman Sutton probably said it the best, I've never asked for any new money or I've never gone outside the parameters for how you make requests, all I'm asking for is that you return the funds that was originally appropriated. And whatever is set through you all's process, I will certainly live with and will do my best to make sure that those funds are spent appropriately as a good steward of those resources. But I will not come back and ask for new money. I won't do that. If you decide to ask me in because times are real tough and people need assistance, and you said if we gave you some money, will you help us spend it, I would be happy to do that. But I won't come here and say will you give us more money, we need it. Councilmember Tornatta: I think that there's one point that we need to look at. First, when you start a program, you're not going to have that many people on the program, and I think we've proven that this program, because they have to be new people that come onto this program each time, that I think that we've proven that this program is starting to work. And it's starting to hit different people and get people involved with it that qualify, so that's why we're spending the money. And I think that that's maybe a success story rather than to say that we have to look because we're putting so much money in it, because we have not allocated to you any more money than we promised you from the beginning. Councilmember Raben: Could I comment
on that just a moment? Actually, what's prompted most of this is the fact
that the state has eliminated some of their programs and their funding,
and it's, again, it's just another one of those unfunded mandates per se,
that we're faced with every day from the state, so I don't, again, I don't
know that - the only reason that his numbers are growing is because the
state's not doing their part and it's tough for small communities like
Vanderburgh County to pick up where the state leaves off, you know, from
their shortfalls, and that's a problem with every county. And it's come
to the point where, you know, we've got enough business here at home to
take care of with the limited resources we have that we can't pick up,
you know, where the state cuts.
Councilmember Tornatta: I think that we can look at that at budget time if we don't want to pick this up, or we don't want to put the, like the $400,000, if we want to draw that back then we can do that at budget time. I think what sometimes we have a habit of is allocating or giving the money, promising it to a program, and then pulling it back. And that's not what I'm talking about doing here. I'm saying give him the money that we had allocated, said we were going to set in his account. If we want to change it, let's change it at budget time. Councilmember Sutton: I think one of the other concerns we have to look at here is what he's requesting here are essentially the dollars that were Riverboat dollars. So if we are not, if the decision is not to allow this appropriation, then essentially the county is living off Riverboat dollars for it to pay for its regular expenses, for its general fund, it's being basically supplemented by Riverboat dollars, and I don't think that was the intent that any of us ever had when we knew that the Riverboat was coming down the river, was to live off gambling dollars. I mean, the inconsistency and the issues that come along with that, I just think it sets a very dangerous precedent and I think the reason why we funded this type of program with Riverboat dollars as well as the other two priorities, is because those are things that we considered that would be over and above things that we could do with those type of dollars, things that could handle the fluctuation. We've got a lot of responsibilities here as a county and if we're going to depend upon Riverboat money, $321,000 is a pretty significant sum. And essentially what we are putting ourselves in a position of is depending upon inconsistent dollars. President Winnecke: Okay, we have - Councilmember Hoy: As I recall - President Winnecke: Okay, Councilman Hoy and then we're going to take a vote. Councilmember Hoy: Well, because I have mixed feelings about this even after my impassioned speech - this is not enough money, I can tell you, $321,000 is still not enough money to do what needs to be done. So we're not going to solve the whole problem, but I believe, you know, the 321 we're looking at is money that probably should have been encumbered and wasn't encumbered from previous years. And that's the amount we're dealing with. Am I not right? Councilmember Tornatta: Yes. Councilmember Hoy: Okay, I just wanted to have that clarified. But I have mixed feelings about it because I fear that whichever way we go, as a society we're fooling ourselves in terms of how we're really dealing with some basic human issues and it just - that's all I'm going to say. President Winnecke: The motion on the floor is to set line 1490-3111 in at zero. There's a motion and a second. A yea vote is in favor of zero, a nay, just for clarification is to fund it. Roll call vote please. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Tornatta? Councilmember Tornatta: No. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton? Councilmember Sutton: I think I've probably said enough, but the 321, if there is an amount that we could make it through the end of the year, that might be less than that, this would be a good time to hear about that. But based on the motion, no. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Bassemier? Councilmember Bassemier: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Hoy? Councilmember Hoy: No. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben? Councilmember Raben: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Wortman? Councilmember Wortman: Yes. Teri Lukeman: President Winnecke? President Winnecke: Yes. RIVERBOAT REQUESTED APPROVED
(Motion carried 4-3/Councilmembers Tornatta, Sutton & Hoy opposed) LOCAL ROADS & STREETS Councilmember Raben: Okay, next under Local Roads & Streets, 2160-4825 in the amount of $12,000. I'll move approval. Councilmember Wortman: Second. President Winnecke: There's a motion and a second. Questions or discussion? Roll call vote please. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Tornatta? Councilmember Tornatta: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton? Councilmember Sutton: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Bassemier? Councilmember Bassemier: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Hoy?
Councilmember Hoy: I'll vote yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben? Councilmember Raben: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Wortman? Councilmember Wortman: Yes. Teri Lukeman: President Winnecke? President Winnecke: Yes. LOCAL ROADS & STREETS REQUESTED APPROVED
(Motion unanimously approved 7-0) REASSESSMENT/PIGEON TWP. ASSESSOR Councilmember Raben: Okay, Pigeon Township Assessor/Reassessment account, 2492-1150-1990, Extra Help in the amount of $10,000. I'll move approval. Councilmember Wortman: Second. Councilmember Raben: And I might also state that Mr. Hatfield had called and was needing not to be here if possible, and I told him that I thought we were okay with that. This is just to get him through the balance of the year, so... President Winnecke: Motion and a second, questions or discussion? Roll call vote. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Tornatta? Councilmember Tornatta: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton? Councilmember Sutton: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Bassemier? Councilmember Bassemier: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Hoy? Councilmember Hoy: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben? Councilmember Raben: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Wortman? Councilmember Wortman: Yes. Teri Lukeman: President Winnecke? President Winnecke: Yes. REASSESSMENT/PIGEON TWP. ASSESSOR REQUESTED APPROVED
(Motion unanimously approved 7-0) CIRCUIT COURT SUPPLEMENTAL ADULT PROBATION Councilmember Raben: Okay, Circuit Court Supplemental Adult Probation, 2600-1920 and 2600-3130 for a total request of $15,000, I'll move approval. Councilmember Wortman: Second. President Winnecke: Motion and a second. Questions or discussion? Roll call vote please. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Tornatta? Councilmember Tornatta: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton? Councilmember Sutton: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Bassemier? Councilmember Bassemier: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Hoy? Councilmember Hoy: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben? Councilmember Raben: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Wortman? Councilmember Wortman: Yes. Teri Lukeman: President Winnecke? President Winnecke: Yes. CIRCUIT COURT SUPP. ADULT PROB. REQUESTED APPROVED
(Motion unanimously approved 7-0) LOCAL EMERGENCY PLAN COMMISSION Councilmember Raben: Okay, Local Emergency Plan Commission, 2861-3310 Training, in the amount of $2,000. I'll move approval. Councilmember Wortman: Second. President Winnecke: Motion and a second. Questions or discussion? Roll call vote please. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Tornatta? Councilmember Tornatta: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton? Councilmember Sutton: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Bassemier? Councilmember Bassemier: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Hoy? Councilmember Hoy: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben? Councilmember Raben: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Wortman? Councilmember Wortman: Yes. Teri Lukeman: President Winnecke? President Winnecke: Yes. LOCAL EMERGENCY PLAN COMMISSION REQUESTED APPROVED
(Motion unanimously approved 7-0) Teri Lukeman: If you don't mind, I'm going to change the tape now. (Tape changed) JAIL PROJECT Councilmember Raben: Okay, Jail Project, 3660-4110 Land in the amount of $1,000,000, I'll move approval. President Winnecke: There's a motion on the floor, is there a second? Councilmember Bassemier: I'm sorry? President Winnecke: The motion is for $1,000,000. Councilmember Raben: For the Jail Project. Councilmember Tornatta: There's one can I hear two? President Winnecke: I'm keeping my
gavel.
Councilmember Sutton: I think the motion dies for lack of support. President Winnecke: The motion does. Councilmember Raben: We'll entertain a motion. Councilmember Sutton: One point five? I'll make a motion that we set in the Jail Project at one point five million dollars. President Winnecke: There's a motion on the floor and a second to set the Jail Project land in at one point five million dollars. Discussion or questions? Councilmember Raben: And just a quick discussion, you knew - maybe I should have been a little more clear, that one million dollar motion did not include the one point three infrastructure, of course. Councilmember Tornatta: Right. Councilmember Raben: I mean, that's separate from - okay, we have a motion and a second. President Winnecke: Motion and a second. Questions or discussion? Roll call vote. Councilmember Hoy: It doesn't matter. I feel - I'll go ahead and say what I feel, I feel that from what I know from CSX, I would like to hear from them what their appraisal is, because the information I have about CSX is, that when they issue an appraisal, that's what they're going to sell for. And we really don't know what they're going to sell this for. We have an idea. I'm not against the purchase, I'd just like to hear from them and I'm not against buying the land, I just think they ought to speak to us as an entity and say this is what we want per acre. President Winnecke: As Mr. Mosby and I have spoken on the phone earlier and I think my feeling on a flat figure, it gives the Commissioners the flexibility to negotiate with the railroad. Once the appraisals are in, as he indicated last week, the previous appraisal is more than 12 months old and their company policy requires them to issue a new appraisal on the land. And this amount of money will allow the Commissioners to negotiate for however much land they can buy for 1.5 million dollars. David Mosby: I mean in trying to answer your question and I think I know what you're saying, they ought to just give us a per acre price, but their policy says, you get an appraisal and that is the price. And the previous was, they did the appraisal, that's what it came in at and that's what they sold it to the city for, so it's not like they're negotiating. Councilmember Hoy: Did the city buy the land? David Mosby: The City Council has appropriated the money to buy their land. Councilmember Hoy: They've appropriated the money, but have the consummated the contract? David Mosby: I don't know if they've signed any, you know, formal agreements and bought it. I mean, I know the Council has appropriated the money to buy - Councilmember Hoy: Because one of my points about that land is that if CSX is willing to sell that south piece of the land by the creek for $25,000 an acre as bad as it is, because I've gone out and looked at it and taken pictures, then they ought to sell us this land a little cheaper. Councilmember Sutton: No, - Councilmember Hoy: Because this is not full of, you know, cinder - six foot deep cinder filled ravines going -- where this stuff is going into the creek. I mean, it's a better piece of land. Councilmember Tornatta: Well, then, it should be more. David Mosby: I was going to say, I think it should be - Councilmember Hoy: No, it should not be more, Councilman Tornatta, because in the deal, they're supposed to clean it up environmentally, and it's going to cost them a whole lot of money to clean up those cinders. I mean, what they did, they put six inches of dirt and the cheapest fish netting I've seen in my life over cinders that are over six feet deep. And I've gone out there with the Soil & Water Conservation District and we took pictures and I should have brought them, I guess, but if they're going to sell that for 25 grand an acre with the environmental cleanup, then they ought to sell this stuff to us cheaper because this is not going to take as much cleanup. Councilmember Tornatta: Or they'd sell it to them at a discount because of the cleanup, and that's what I'm looking at. They sell it to them at a discount because they have to do the cleanup, and us at a higher rate because we don't have any cleanup, and that's the way I'm looking at it. You're looking at it a different way and I see your point, but I guess I'm looking at it as the way they're going to sell them the land cheaper because there is going to be some type of cleanup. Councilmember Hoy: The land we're looking at has 82 acres of soybeans on it. I would like to know what's underneath that because you can grow soybeans on land that may have God knows what underneath it. Councilmember Tornatta: I would like to let the Commissioners have the opportunity to be able to negotiate a price and not just say an arbitrary price that we're thinking of 25,000 an acre. I'd like for them to try and work a deal where they can get a price for all the land that they can, and if they get more acreage out of that, then they negotiated a whale of a deal. Councilmember Bassemier: Thank you, Mr. President. I don't see any land worth $25,000 an acre next to a sewage treatment plant, but I'm going to vote against this because I still think we can build it - I know you all are tired of hearing this, but I think we can still build it next to our present jail over that parking lot, double the present size of our jail making it 536, not take up any parking or anything and build it for less than ten million dollars. So I'm still on the idea that we can still add on to our present jail, we'll still have to pay the lease on our present jail once we move out, I still say we don't have a plan. So anyway, I'm going to vote no on this. President Winnecke: Councilman Raben, did you have anything? Councilmember Raben: A few things. The intent of my original motion, and I really didn't get to comment on it because of lack of a second, but the intent on my original motion was not to discuss acreage whatsoever, but it's already been thrown out there, so I'm going to go ahead and comment on it. Originally, we were looking at 13, 14, 15 acres back here. We found a site that was appropriate on the south end of town that's approximately 15 - 20 acres, I don't know what the total number is. Based on the numbers that have been tossed around this room, my original motion for a million dollars will buy 40 acres of property. So we've already are appropriating enough money to buy more land than what it takes to build this facility and have room for future expansion. But along with that, I also wanted to comment on before we strike any deal, that we make sure IDEM is ready to sign off on this piece of property because I think you're going to find if there are real environmental concerns to the adjoining property that the city has bought, they're probably not going to allow us to do anything until that site is cleaned up. They may not allow CSX to even consummate a deal on the rest of the ground because of this ground may be part of what's needed to cleanup their soil. And again, I would not even advise you to sign off on anything until we have all the proper documentation from INDOT as to whether or not there is any assistance available on the turning lanes and what have you on 41, but I'm willing to set the money in place so you can begin those negotiations. But I would certainly hope that we don't sign off on anything `til all the what ifs are taken care of. And I would certainly like to encourage everybody to reconsider this motion for a million and a half and consider the original motion at a million, which will take care of 40 acres of real estate. President Winnecke: Okay, there's a motion and a second. Roll call vote please on one point five million dollars. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Tornatta? Councilmember Tornatta: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton? Councilmember Sutton: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Bassemier? Councilmember Bassemier: No. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Hoy? Councilmember Hoy: No. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben? Councilmember Raben: No. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Wortman? Councilmember Wortman: No. Teri Lukeman: President Winnecke? President Winnecke: Yes. (Motion fails 3-4/Councilmembers Bassemier, Hoy, Raben and Wortman opposed) President Winnecke: Motion dies 4-3. Councilmember Tornatta: Okay, I would like to make a motion to set this in at a million dollars - David Mosby: You already had that motion. Councilmember Raben: Well, I'm trying it again, I'm crazy. Councilmember Sutton: Once you have a motion and it dies, you can't reintroduce that same motion. Councilmember Raben: We can open it back up to the floor. That's true, but I'd have to make a motion to reopen. Okay, I would like to make a motion to reopen this account. President Winnecke: There's a motion to set this up to reopen this account. Councilmember Hoy: Second. Councilmember Raben: Okay, so my motion - President Winnecke: Roll call vote to reopen the account. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Tornatta? Councilmember Tornatta: No. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton? Councilmember Sutton: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Bassemier? Councilmember Bassemier: No. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Hoy? Councilmember Hoy: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben? Councilmember Raben: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Wortman? Councilmember Wortman: No. Teri Lukeman: President Winnecke? President Winnecke: Yes. Boy, it's tough keeping score today. (Motion carried 4-3/Councilmembers Tornatta, Bassemier & Wortman opposed) Councilmember Sutton: What was that? President Winnecke: Four to three. Councilmember Sutton: No or yes? President Winnecke: No, to reopen. So I would entertain a motion. Councilmember Raben: Okay, Mr. President, I am going to make a motion that account 3660-4110 Jail Project Land be set in at $1,000,001. Councilmember Hoy: Second. President Winnecke: There's a motion to set line item 3660-4110 in at $1,000,001. I'm almost afraid to ask, are there questions or discussion? Councilmember Hoy: I still have the same feelings I expressed while ago, but I'm willing to at least get something on the floor so the Commissioners can begin some negotiation and the company can know that in good faith we may want to negotiate with them. We can always appropriate more money if that's what needed. But that will get you started. Councilmember Sutton: Well, I made the motion that I did not with the intent that we would necessarily have to spend all the way up to the 1.5, but to make sure that in negotiations that you have an opportunity to be able to negotiate with something there. Being there are so many unknowns right now and they are trying to move forward to answer some of those questions and address some of those things, clearly one million dollars is below what is needed in this particular regard, so I guess that's the reason why I felt like at 1.5 we'd be in a much better position than the one million dollars. Councilmember Raben: Royce, how is that below what's clearly needed? That would purchase - Councilmember Sutton: Now you're basing that on that $25,000 per acre. That hasn't been clearly established on - that's just the purchase of the land but there's some other issues that enter into foray as well. Councilmember Raben: Which are? Councilmember Sutton: Which are - they named a host of a list of other things last week which I don't have the entire list. When we're talking about the actual site and the way its structured, do you really actually need just that amount? I mean, the way it's designed, you may actually have to acquire more than you really actually need to get done what you need to do. So I guess that's why I was trying to give the adequate leeway, the room that's needed to make sure that they can proceed with the negotiations. Councilmember Raben: You know, I had offered this suggestion last week and I've neglected to mention it again today, but last week I had suggested that they strike their best deal on the 40 acres that they consider the building site and draft a first right of refusal on the other 40 acres. That happens every day in real estate and in business. You know, I would certainly think CSX would entertain that, that we're safeguarded. We would always have the first option as to whether or not we want to purchase it based on the price of the other 40 acres. You know, there's nothing wrong with doing that. There are, and you're exactly right, there are so many unknowns, why do you want to lock yourself into twice as much as you need? Councilmember Sutton: I would think they would exercise the degree of prudence that we would expect them to and buy what is needed and I think our role is not to negotiate the contract nor to negotiate the sale; we're the funding body. And there has to be a degree of cooperative working relationship and trust there to know that they're going to acquire what is needed and not over and above that. And not to hamstring them and put them in a position where they're locked into a corner and they have to keep coming back to us. That's where I'm going with this. President Winnecke: We're going to go to Councilman Tornatta, Councilman Bassemier - Councilmember Tornatta: I'm ready to vote. Councilmember Bassemier: Then we'll go to Councilman Bassemier and then we'll vote. Councilmember Bassemier: Thank you. I sure hate to see you all get off that $35,000,000 figure. When they can built a 427 bed facility across the river for less than $8,000,000, that passes all state and federal regulations, in fact, it's even got an indoor basketball court for the recreational part for the inmates. Mr. Wortman, Mr. Hoy, the Sheriff and I went over there, it's a very nice facility, now here we go, now we're off the $35,000,000 figure and I think this jail could be built and the land way under this price and I'm just sorry, folks, that we got off this $35,000,000 figure. Now we're moving on and I don't - where is it all going to stop? So here again, I'm going to vote against it when it's my turn to vote. President Winnecke: Okay, the motion on the floor is to set the land for the Jail Project in at $1,000,001. Roll call vote please. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Tornatta? Councilmember Tornatta: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton? Councilmember Sutton: No. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Bassemier? Councilmember Bassemier: No. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Hoy? Councilmember Hoy: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben? Councilmember Raben: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Wortman? Councilmember Wortman: No. Teri Lukeman: President Winnecke? President Winnecke: Yes. JAIL PROJECT REQUESTED APPROVED
(Motion carried 4-3/Councilmembers Tornatta, Sutton & Wortman opposed) President Winnecke: For those of you keeping score at home, 4 to 3, $1,000,001. Councilmember Tornatta: It's that one dollar I wanted, Jim. Councilmember Raben: Be frugal with that extra dollar there. COIT WINDFALL (TWO REQUESTS) Councilmember Raben: Alright, Mr. President, next under COIT account 4131-4831 I'm going to move that this be set in at zero with an explanation. Councilmember Wortman: Second. President Winnecke: This is to set this line item in at zero. And then you have an explanation, I believe. Councilmember Raben: Mr. President, at this time the reasoning behind setting this in at zero is well, a couple of things. I don't believe that Warrick County is at the point where they're ready with their funding, so I think we've got some time on this. And secondly, I would just encourage that the Commissioners get with the Department of Metropolitan Development and try to extend the TIF area the short distance that it would take to encompass this and pay for it out of TIF monies. President Winnecke: Other discussion or questions? Councilmember Sutton: Are there any properties in that immediate area that have received tax abatement? Councilmember Raben: This area is not part of it but it's real close. I think it probably comes within - Councilmember Sutton: But what I'm saying, the areas that you are proposing that they extend the TIF district to... Councilmember Raben: No, I don't - Councilmember Sutton: Because, I mean, if that is the case you can't do that. Councilmember Raben: To my knowledge there are no abatements in this corridor. Councilmember Sutton: I think you ought to check that. Councilmember Raben: I think I would remember and, I mean, there's not much outside of Combs Landscaping - President Winnecke: It's a fair question. We can get the answer to it. Councilmember Hoy: It is a good question. Councilmember Tornatta: Before we would vote on that. I had talked to Mr. Raben and we had conferred with the engineer in Warrick County and I'm coming to a conclusion that if they did make an appropriation it would not be until next year as well, from what he was saying, although they have conflicts with their Commission and Council, imagine that, but that has led us to believe that they probably would not get that money until next year anyway, and to appropriate it this year might be just putting money in an account that we don't need. President Winnecke: Mr. Hoy. Councilmember Hoy: We're talking about the COIT Windfall here, are we not? President Winnecke: Yes, we are. Councilmember Hoy: Yeah, it's COIT money. I really think that as a Council we are against a rock and a hard place on money, on funds. We don't know what's coming from the state so we have to be extremely careful at this point. I think we're going to be pushed to buy voting equipment and I'd rather put COIT money into buying voting machines because I think we're going to have to. And the other thing is, what I see out there and it's a speech I made many times, I see prime farmland that's going to be eaten up by more pole buildings and we have empty pole buildings all over this city. And I would love to see economic development go back into the brown fields because it's been proven that many of those brown fields don't take any cleanup or very little cleanup. And why are we eating up, I mean, the biggest business in this state is agriculture. And we just keep chipping away at it and saying its undeveloped farmland, undeveloped farmland, and we're already beginning to import food that we should not be importing in this country. And many communities have been very wise about this and have said, you know, let's tighten things up a little bit. We don't need all those parking lots around all those buildings, you know, burning all that gas, which is, you know, bringing up a whole other issue. I think you have to just say well this is enough because we have plenty of places for development. President Winnecke: There's a motion on the floor to set this in at zero. Roll call vote please. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Tornatta? Councilmember Tornatta: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton? Councilmember Sutton: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Bassemier? Councilmember Bassemier: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Hoy? Councilmember Hoy: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben? Councilmember Raben: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Wortman? Councilmember Wortman: Yes. Teri Lukeman: President Winnecke? President Winnecke: Yes. COIT WINDFALL REQUESTED APPROVED
(Motion unanimously approved 7-0) Councilmember Raben: Okay, next under COIT, 4131-4404 University Parkway. I move that that be set in at $1,031,000. Councilmember Wortman: Second. President Winnecke: There's a motion and a second to set in line item 4131-4404 at $1,031,000. Questions or discussion? Mr. Hoy? Councilmember Hoy: Well, my same point could be made here. I do think we need a passageway on the west side and I'll make the point I made three or four years ago and that is as we, obviously, we're going to do this project. It is going to benefit Vanderburgh County. I would implore the Commissioners to acquire some inter-section land so that eventually when this road has enough traffic on it, we can put real intersections in and not have to be having a traffic light at every intersection because that's exactly what will happen if we don't obtain those corners when we obtain the land. If we don't obtain intersection land where the other roads cross, we just have another Diamond Avenue or another batch of stop lights and I think adequate planning would include the purchase of that land. I can't force that issue, I'm a Councilman, but that's my suggestion. Councilmember Raben: I tend to agree with Councilman Hoy but, David, correct me if I'm wrong, we're really only looking at taking it to the next intersection at this point, right? I mean, Hogue Road would be the next intersection, so... David Mosby: I'm not sure. Councilmember Raben: I think - isn't that correct, John? (Inaudible.) Councilmember Raben: Well, the point that Councilman Hoy was making is that as this road develops, you need to buy larger parcels around your intersections so when you need to make improvements to those intersections, you're not going through the problems with - John Stoll: As the road is currently designed, that extra land is not being acquired for two reasons. One, the federal aid procedures, you only acquire the land that you need for the project as its currently designed. And two, we don't have enough funding in place to go out and buy all the extra acreage to anticipate a future interchange at this time. Councilmember Raben: But that could be addressed on the next phase, right, because this actually just takes it to the first intersection. John Stoll: This will take it up to Upper Mt. Vernon. Councilmember Raben: Okay, so it will
be - yeah, it will cross - we'll have one intersection in between -
John Stoll: Really two. It will be Upper Mt. Vernon and Hogue. Councilmember Raben: Right. President Winnecke: Roll call vote please. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Tornatta? Councilmember Tornatta: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton? Councilmember Sutton: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Bassemier? Councilmember Bassemier: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Hoy? Councilmember Hoy: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben? Councilmember Raben: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Wortman? Councilmember Wortman: Yes. Teri Lukeman: President Winnecke? President Winnecke: Yes. COIT WINDFALL REQUESTED APPROVED
(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)
COUNTY CLERK (TWO REQUESTS) KNIGHT TWP. ASSESSOR PIGEON TWP. ASSESSOR CIRCUIT COURT CUMULATIVE BRIDGE REASSESSMENT/PIGEON CIRCUIT COURT SUPP. ADULT LOCAL EMERGENCY PLAN COMM. Councilmember Raben: Okay, if everybody is comfortable with taking the transfers all at once - President Winnecke: Mr. Chairman, I would like the late transfer held out and considered separately please. Councilmember Raben: I will take all the transfers starting with County Clerk, Knight Township, Pigeon Township, Circuit Court, Cumulative Bridge, Pigeon Township Reassessment, Circuit Court Supplemental Adult Probation, Local Emergency Planning, I will move that those transfers be adopted as they are listed. Councilmember Tornatta: Second. President Winnecke: Motion and a second. Questions or discussion? Roll call vote please. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Tornatta? Councilmember Tornatta: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton? Councilmember Sutton: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Bassemier? Councilmember Bassemier: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Hoy? Councilmember Hoy: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben? Councilmember Raben: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Wortman? Councilmember Wortman: Yes. Teri Lukeman: President Winnecke? President Winnecke: Yes. COUNTY CLERK REQUESTED APPROVED
COUNTY CLERK REQUESTED APPROVED
KNIGHT TWP. ASSESSOR REQUESTED APPROVED
PIGEON TWP. ASSESSOR REQUESTED APPROVED
CIRCUIT COURT REQUESTED APPROVED
CUMULATIVE BRIDGE REQUESTED APPROVED
REASSESSMENT/PIGEON TWP. ASSESSOR REQUESTED APPROVED
CIRCUIT COURT SUPP. ADULT PROBATION REQUESTED APPROVED
LOCAL EMERGENCY PLAN COMMISSION REQUESTED APPROVED
(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)
Councilmember Raben: Okay, Mr. President, Tourism Capital Improvement Fund. I'll move that this be approved as listed. Councilmember Wortman: Second. President Winnecke: There's a motion and a second. Marilee, could you come up please? Could you give us an idea what this is about? Marilee Fowler: Well, last year, unlike this year, August brought a lot of rain. And for the big event that we have with the Frog Follies, a lot of the vendors were very unhappy in the fact that their setup was in a large area with a lot of mud. We had to bring in trackers, I guess, to remove those vendors when it was all said and done. And many of them indicated they would not be return this year or in future years because of the situation. So in talking to the people at the 4-H Center and the people involved in putting on the Frog Follies, they came to us and asked through our Capital Development Fund, would we appropriate funds to pave and improve the parking areas in this low part of the facility to make it much more accessible for the vendors and to make sure this event succeeds and continues. This happens to be the biggest event in Vanderburgh County as far as bringing in overnight visitors. We have 3,900 hotel rooms in our community and county. This fills all of those rooms for at least two to three nights. Most of the hotels require a two to three night minimum. So as far as events in bringing overnight visitors, this is an important one to our community. It's been going on for over 20 years. We think it's an important part of what has appeal to bringing visitors to Evansville. So the board of the Evansville Convention & Visitors Bureau has voted to do this. Now it's up to you to support us in making this effort and to make this event continue and to grow. President Winnecke: Questions or discussion for Marilee? Roll call vote please. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Tornatta? Councilmember Tornatta: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton? Councilmember Sutton: No. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Bassemier? Councilmember Bassemier: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Hoy? Councilmember Hoy: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben? Councilmember Raben: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Wortman? Councilmember Wortman: Yes. Teri Lukeman: President Winnecke? President Winnecke: Yes. TOURISM CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT REQUESTED
APPROVED
(Motion carried 6-1/Councilmember
Sutton opposed)
Councilmember Raben: Okay, we're down to the Amendments to the Salary Ordinance. We have a few today. First is Prosecutor IV-D. I move that we amend the salary line 1081-1990 Extra Help as previously adopted; Burdette Park salary line 1450-1180 Other Employees as previously adopted; Pigeon Township Assessor salary line 2491-1150-1990 Extra Help as previously adopted; County Clerk salary line 1010-1300 Regular Overtime as transfer previously adopted; County Clerk salary lines 1010-1140 Cashier/Child Support Deputy at an annual salary of $26,277; 1010-1260 Appeals and Venue Clerk at an annual salary of $25,058; 1010-1640 Cashier/Misdemeanor, this is a new title not a new - it's a new position title, at an annual rate of $26,277; 1010-1160 Deputy Clerk/Superior Clerk at an annual rate of $23,898; 1010-1180 Juvenile Clerk at an annual rate of $25,058; Knight Township Assessor, move that we amend salary line 1130-1150-1130 Deputy Assessor/Mobile Homes as the transfer previously adopted, with the annual salary of $26,277; Circuit Court Supplemental Adult Probation salary line 2600-1350-2600 Probation Officer as the transfer previously adopted, and set that pay rate in at $9.13 per hour. And that's all I've got, Mr. President. Councilmember Wortman: Second. President Winnecke: Motion and a second. Roll call vote. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Tornatta? Councilmember Tornatta: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton? Councilmember Sutton: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Bassemier? Councilmember Bassemier: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Hoy? Councilmember Hoy: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben? Councilmember Raben: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Wortman? Councilmember Wortman: Yes. Teri Lukeman: President Winnecke? President Winnecke: Yes. (Motion unanimously approved 7-0) President Winnecke: I believe we have no other business before us. We'll reconvene tomorrow at 9:00 sharp. Councilmember Tornatta: This is a motion to adjourn. (Meeting adjourned at 4:45 p.m.)
VANDERBURGH COUNTY COUNCIL _____________________________
____________________________
____________________________
____________________________
_____________________________
_____________________________
_____________________________
Recorded and transcribed by Teri Lukeman. |
