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: And in deference to our recording secretary, we’ll be making our votes today in the form of a showing of hands, with maybe just one or two exceptions where I anticipate there might be someone who might want to say something with their vote, and give Ms. Lukeman a chance to save her voice. Would you please stand and join me in the Pledge?

President Winnecke: Okay, we’ll begin with approval of minutes from our special meeting of October 26th.

President Winnecke: Motion and a second. Questions or discussion? All in favor, raise your right hand please.

President Winnecke: At this time I would entertain a motion to approve the minutes of our regular meeting of November 2nd.

President Winnecke: Motion and a second. All in favor, raise your right hand please. Seven to nothing.

President Winnecke: At this time we’ll move on to our appropriation requests and I’ll remind folks that are viewing at home and sitting in the audience who may not join us on a regular basis that we’ve heard the documentation of the requests for the information relating to these requests last week in our meeting. So if there are no questions its because we feel like we’ve heard the answers that we need. So with that, I’ll turn it over to our finance chair, Mr. Raben.

Councilmember Raben: Thank you, Mr. President. First on the agenda today is County Treasurer, 1030-2841, this has been withdrawn so I’ll move that that be set in at zero.

President Winnecke: Motion and a second. Questions or discussion? All in favor, raise your right hand. Seven to nothing.

Councilmember Raben: Okay, next under Superintendent of County Buildings, move that that, too, be set in at zero. There is a transfer later on in the agenda. I make that in the form of a motion.

President Winnecke: Motion and a second. Questions or discussion? All in favor, raise your right hand please. Seven to nothing.

Councilmember Raben: Superior Court, again, pretty much the same story. I move that be set in at zero and we’ll deal with the transfer.

Councilmember Raben: Set this in at zero and pick it back up later in the transfers.

Councilmember Raben: Local Drug Free Community, Mr. President, I’ll move that these requests be approved as listed for a total of $10,000.

President Winnecke: Motion and a second. Questions or discussion? All in favor, raise your right hand please.

Councilmember Raben: Next, Jail Project, Lodging of Inmates for $273,000, I’ll move approval.

Councilmember Wortman: I still think it should come out of the Commissary account. That’s all my comment is. Thank you.

President Winnecke: Okay. All in favor, raise your right hand please. Six votes yea. All opposed? Six to one. Motion passes.

Councilmember Raben: Okay, that does it for the appropriations. We’ll move into transfers. Mr. President, on page two we have the County Clerk, County Auditor, Surveyor, County Assessor; page three, Armstrong Assessor, and Circuit Court. I will stop there and I make that in the form of a motion that they be approved as listed.

President Winnecke: Questions or discussion? All in favor, raise your right hand please. Five yeas. All opposed? Two nays. The motion passes.

Councilmember Raben: Next, Superior Court. Mr. President, there’s a transfer in the amount of $5,720, I’ll move approval.

Councilmember Tornatta: Yes, and I believe we can have the Judge come up. To the best of my knowledge, the Office Furniture has been resolved and so there does not need to be a transfer. That is taken care of in the Civic Center’s issues with remodeling.

Terry Dietsch: Would that it were so. I talked to Judge Trockman, who had talked to the Building Authority. The horizontal file cabinets were not the horizontal file cabinets that were needed. We have a chair for the witness box. My understanding is that at some time, that’s going to be remodeled. I don’t know when. But we’ll make do with some kind of chair. And we’ve already gone to surplus to get a desk – not the right desk. And we have to order the desk that goes with the other desks in Judge Trockman’s office. I spoke with him yesterday and he agreed to that. I don’t anticipate that we’re going to spend the $4,000 that we’ve asked to be transferred. I simply asked for that amount to be certain that we had enough money and its not new money, its moving money from one account to the other.

Councilmember Tornatta: And I understand. It will be new money next year if it stays in the fund. Okay? It will be new money for next year.

Councilmember Tornatta: But I did talk – yes, that is correct. And I did talk to the Superior senior judge, that told me that he had it handled, and all of those numbers would be taken care of, and I did not get a call back from him to tell me that there was any difference in his communication to me.

Councilmember Tornatta: Exactly. And he said it was handled, it was taken care of. You can take that appropriation and/or transfer out of the mix because he did have it handled.

Terry Dietsch: Well, he may have said that but yesterday I talked to him, that is no longer the case. You know, Mr. Tornatta, we’re not asking for any money, we’re simply asking to transfer so we can do these small things that we want to do and then we’re going to return the money to the county.

Councilmember Tornatta: I understand, as well as every office can do that. What I am saying is that at this point, I’m not a proponent that we’re worrying about office furniture at this time, especially when the senior judge says that it has been taken care of and has not called me with any contrary remarks. So, and that statement, its not against your office or your duty, that you’re doing a fantastic job, but its just the senior judge says, I’ve got it taken care of, we do not need that money. And that’s the last call I got.

Terry Dietsch: Well, I’m very sorry that you didn’t get a call, but I don’t have anything to do with that. That’s all I have to say.

Councilmember Raben: No, just simply, Judge Dietsch, I’m sure if you don’t spend it all or if you don’t find a need to spend it all, you won’t.

Terry Dietsch: No, and I anticipate we will not. I anticipate we’re going to get by for less than that.

Councilmember Goebel: If the money is found in the other account, then you’ll return all the money back? Is that correct?

Terry Dietsch: The money in the account from which we’re transferring the money, we have more than ample in that. We anticipate that in the furniture account where we’re transferring $4,000, we will not spend that much. If we do not spend that much, obviously, that will come back to the county General Fund.

Councilmember Wortman: Judge Dietsch, yeah, I know Mr. Dietsch, have for years, and he’s almost as conservative as I am. So he won’t spend too much if that would be approved. Thank you.

President Winnecke: Any other questions or comments? We’ll do a roll call vote on this please.

Councilmember Abell: I voted no on this last time, but I talked to the judge and I think he and I came to an understanding as to why I voted no, and I still feel that we should not ever transfer money out of a required fund into an unnecessary fund, but they do need this and I’m going to vote yes.

Councilmember Goebel: On the assurance that the money will be returned, not spent, I vote yes.

Councilmember Raben: Okay next, Mr. President, I’ll move that we accept the transfers for Cum Bridge, Local Roads & Streets, Supplemental Adult Probation, and I’ll stop there.

President Winnecke: Questions or discussion? All those in favor, raise your right hand please. Motion passes seven to nothing. Thank you,

Councilmember Raben: Okay, then we have some late transfers, Mr. President. The Sheriff, Voter Registration, County Commissioners, Circuit Court, Community Corrections, Riverboat, County Highway, County Highway again, Cum Bridge, and that’s it. I’ll move that all those transfers be approved as listed.

Councilmember Tornatta: Yeah, I need to, if you’ll go down to the Commissioners and stop at Superintendent of County Buildings.

Councilmember Raben: Okay, Mr. President, I would like to exclude Superintendent of County Buildings from my motion.

President Winnecke: Who was the second on that? Curt, would you amend your second?

President Winnecke: Okay, we’ll present them as they are then. Questions or discussion?

Councilmember Tornatta: Yeah. Superintendent of County Buildings, that goes back to the salary that was just brought to us. This issue should have been addressed in February and I was okay with transferring funds, but not out of Contractual Services. In this case, Contractual Services funds has already been paid and has already been discussed to not be paid to an individual who is to be paid out of those lines, this is for Contractual Services to work related issues on the courthouse. Now we set precedent with this to handle this out of this account to handle the money out of the account earlier in the year. I think that was a bad setting, it went around the Job Study and here we go back again to handle this issue out of Contractual Services. And I don’t think its good that the county sets it up no matter what time or date it is. I think that we need to stick firm on how we do business in the county. In this instance, we’re saying that you can go to Job Study or not go to Job Study and you can use certain lines in other capacities. This is a 3000 account, it should not be used for paying our employees.

President Winnecke: Other questions or comments? All in favor, raise your right hand please. All opposed? Motion passes 6 to 1.

Councilmember Raben: that pretty much concludes the amendments along with the transfers. The last order of business would be Amendments to the Salary Ordinance. Everyone, I think, has a copy of these. Its not as long as it has been the last few months so I’ll simply read these out. County Assessor, amend salary ordinance line 1090-1972 Level II Certification to include employee, Katherine Goy, certification funds to be prorated as transfer previously approved. Certification is on file in the County Council’s office. Armstrong Assessor, amend salary line 1100-1110 Armstrong Assessor as previously approved. Annual salary is $3,571 as approved in our 2005 salary ordinance. Superintendent of County Buildings, amend salary line 1310-1110 Superintendent of County Buildings as previously adopted. Current employee is a PAT V, Step IV with an annual salary of $40,104. I also move to amend salary line 1310-1150 Groundskeeper as previously approved in the transfer. Circuit Court, amend salary line 1360-1270 Administrative Assistant Probation as the transfer previously approved. This current employee is a PAT IV, Step 7 with an annual salary of $45,543. Community Corrections, amend salary line 1361-1240 Correction Officer Supervisor as previously approved. The current employee is an unclassified union employee with an annual salary of $35,925. This transfer was approved for back wages at our November 2, 2005 Council meeting. Sheriff’s Department, amend salary line 1050-0026 Sergeant as transfer previously approved. The current employee is a Sergeant with an annual salary of $47,024. This is due to the Sheriff’s Department had a miscalculation. The deputy was promoted prematurely there, but this is to correct that. And then amend 1050-1520 Accrued Payments as previously approved. Funds requested to pay a retiring Deputy Sheriff. Under County Highway, salary line 2010-1850 Union Overtime as previously approved. Cum Bridge, salary line 2030-1850 Union Overtime as previously approved. That concludes the amendments and I’ll make that in the form of a motion.

President Winnecke: Motion and a second. Questions or discussion? All in favor, raise your right hand. Motion passes seven to nothing. Thank you, Mr. Raben.

Douglas Knight: Thank you, Councilman. I’m Douglas Knight, one of the judges in the Vanderburgh Superior Court. I’m here today on behalf of all the judges in the Circuit and Superior Court and as a representative or spokesperson today for the Vanderburgh County Clerk, Auditor, Treasurer, and Recorder. For the last several months, quite a few months, a group has been meeting and in an effort to formulate an IT, information technology governance ordinance, that would as its centerpiece, I suspect, create an IT council that would meet openly and publicly and at least, hopefully, monthly with the chief information officer in order to discuss the business of information technology as it affects the users and, more importantly, to manage the change as it occurs in the information technology environment. The old data board was around for quite a few years – it had some flaws, one of which was that it probably didn’t represent all the elected officials. And as this group has taken it upon ourselves to come forward with a solution that people feel comfortable with and that would adequately represent all the elected officeholders and answer or meet their needs in knowing what’s going on in information technology. Its probably one of the more important tools that elected officials have at their disposal currently and is essential for them to perform the tasks that they are required to. I don’t want to go point by point through this entire ordinance, that’s probably a waste of everybody’s time but I am here to ask that you seriously consider the ordinance and it’s the kind of ordinance that obviously is going to have to be approved, I would suspect, by the city government as well as the county government, so it could function under an inter-local agreement for the sharing of expenses, etcetera. So I don’t speak for anybody other than the people I’ve identified, and sometimes I wonder whether I even speak for them, but, and they wonder why they asked me to speak for them probably, at times, but what our main goal is, is to have this Council and have open public meetings about what’s going on with information technology so that we’re all aware of it and that we have some ability to prioritize our projects. We used to do that under the old data board. We thought it was going to be an impossible task and Ms. Abell was a part of that and knows full well we sat down at a table and to everybody’s total surprise, there was a complete give and take where people abandoned their priorities and others were supported. It can be done and we’d like to do it again, and its essential. So if there are any questions, I’ll try to answer them and if there’s any members of the group that can answer them, they’re here to do so as well.

Councilmember Abell: Judge, is that the same one we had or have there been revisions made to it?

Douglas Knight: It’s the same one. (Other remarks made but they were inaudible because the speaker moved away from the podium microphone).

Councilmember Sutton: Judge, just for those who are not as familiar with the proposal, I mean, we didn’t talk about this last week, what gaps in the system, our present IT structure, are you attempting to close with this particular proposal here? I understood your explanation, but help me to see where there may be some gaps in service.

Douglas Knight: I think project development, prioritization, management, all that requires communication between the IT chief officer and the people that work in that department with the officeholder. If we’re going to take a firewall away because its not functioning, then that affected department or officeholder needs to be informed of that in two respects: first of all, that its not functioning, and secondly, that its going to be removed and I would like to know, as the affected officeholder, why it wasn’t working and what’s going to be put in its place and how will it work. There are a number – I think it was the Treasurer had a little interruption or near miss with getting thrown off the website right as the tax bills were going out and that could have been a little disruptive, and all of these are probably just innocent things. People don’t usually try to harm anybody maliciously but they make these changes without understanding fully how it impacts on one or more elected officeholders and how they do their work. So far this year, there has been no public meeting, group meeting, of the information technology officers, board, whatever. So that’s a big problem. There ought to be one every month, in my opinion. The ordinance addresses the CIO position and sets out some obligations of that officer and department that, its on page six of ten, and gives that individual certain responsibilities, which I think are something that we all would like to see come about. And to establish policies or procedures that are known to all departments so that they can follow it and come to a public meeting and be heard about what they need or what they’re not getting, and allow the users to communicate with one another and become a user community. It seems, and it feels, that currently this operation is behind closed doors or in a closet, its under the radar. And I don’t see it, I don’t feel like I get a participation in it. I can meet with the CIO and have my needs met but there is no ring of communication, no community of users in that respect. The mere fact that you’ve got major officeholders here asking you for this would strongly suggest that there is a problem and, hopefully, this will solve it. Nothing in this proposed ordinance is written in stone and there is no pride of authorship. You’re the governing body and we’re bringing an outline, if you will.

Councilmember Sutton: I mean, we didn’t really have a chance to talk about this last week because I had mentioned earlier, there’s quite a bit in that proposal. What action are we, is being sought today on this because I guess as I see it, I mean, this would almost make for quite a bit more discussion from, I know at least this body and giving us an opportunity to really look through this thoroughly so that whatever direction, whatever course of action we do take, that we could feel comfortable with it, and I know I don’t necessarily feel like I’d be ready to take an action on this today. So I don’t know what the hope was today in presenting this particular proposal.

Douglas Knight: No, I think everything you said is perfectly reasonable. The idea was just to formally surface this proposed ordinance today, that’s all, to put it in your hands and ask that you put it on your plate for consideration, not that you vote on it yet today. And read it, identify questions, suggestions, and come to this committee or me or anybody on the committee, or anyone else you want to consult with and individually, I think you’ll develop a sense of understanding that will spill over into a joint meeting. The other problem that makes it very difficult is that there has to be a mirror ordinance on the city’s side for it to be an inter-local agreement and you don’t have any assurances – we don’t know anything about the city. I placed this document in the hands of the City Council people and the Mayor, but I haven’t had an opportunity to formally sit down and go over all that, there’s a lot of people to get contacted and it’s a big committee, that’s the other problem that I think I’ve heard is there’s too many people on this IT council. The philosophy there was to somewhat balance county elected officeholders, make sure they all got represented and then try to come close with the city’s side number. That’s the way it was approached. But again, there’s other approaches that have worked just as well.

Councilmember Sutton: Well, at this point, I guess, you’ve had a chance to share this document with what bodies up to this point?

Douglas Knight: The County Commissioners, this body, the County Council, the Mayor, and then the officeholders that have been identified as being in support of this and the judges, and that’s it.

Councilmember Tornatta: Yeah, I talked to Judge Knight about just throwing out a couple of things and one of these ideas was in Section 16.4.040 Structure, under heading C, Information Technology Officer/Deputy, it says in this section that this will be confirmed by 70% of the ITAC, which is the committee that you’ll see, the Information Technology Advisory Committee, on the last page, 10 of 10. What I thought is that possibly that would be confirmed by joint City/County Council, and the reason for that is that as much in the senate, they would actually vote on somebody for that type of position that’s serving and we are funding that position, we are looking to have somebody that the Council can go to, to talk about funding. We don’t do the hiring or firing, the Mayor and the County Commission would be in charge of that legislative duty, but we would be doing the funding of the committee. So anybody that would have any issues with how things were funded would come to us, we would be able to pass that on to this deputy/director. And I think with our vote, that would look out for the best interests of the financial obligations to the county. Just a proposal to throw out there, but I think that that would give us a little say in who this director would be in both the city and the county.

Councilmember Raben: Just one brief comment. Judge, I know you put a lot of work in this, you and several other parties. Great job, my hat is off to you. I think something like this is important because all of our IT users or elected officials are really stakeholders in how this operates. So I think this gives everybody a voice and again, I think it’s a move for the better.

Councilmember Abell: I have also talked to Judge Knight at some length about this IT and I sat on the old Data Board for – since 1992 up through the last year. And one of the things that I think this Council should be certainly concerned with is that we always had a member on that board, there was always a member of the County Council that sat on that Data Board and at one time, I remember it was Sandie, and when we would start talking about things that some officeholder or some department head brought forth that they wanted to do, and they started talking about the money, especially if it was someone in the county, Sandie was always the first one to let us know whether or not that funding was going to be available. And I think its crucial that before someone starts the process of buying a new software package or moving to some different type of system, that this Council be advised what that’s going to cost up front before they’re too far into it that they can’t back out. And having a board where that’s discussed and having a member of the Council sitting on that ensures that this Council has that voice. And I think that’s very important and I think we should keep that in mind as we go forward with, hopefully, re-instigating a committee of elected officeholders and department heads who do have a stake in the system and do use it, and make sure that we have our voice in there too so that things do not get out of control as they easily can do when you start talking about purchasing of hardware and software in the computer industry.

Councilmember Raben: I guess just one quick question, Mr. President, I guess maybe you can make the determination on what changes – you’ll accept changes and coordinate this back and forth with –

President Winnecke: I think we all need to read it and probably collaborate amongst ourselves and then at some point we need to coordinate a meeting with the County Commissioners and the city administration to see what direction to take. But I’ll be happy to kind of spearhead the effort to get all the parties together.

President Winnecke: Okay, next we have the proposed ordinance amendment to the E911 fee, we discussed this at length last week. One of the issues that remains outstanding from that was the issue of how much we could actually raise the fee. The proposed ordinance is to take it to $.95, its currently at $.35. Mr. Fluty has sent a letter to each of the phone providers that are carriers in our county to ask them what the average line charge is. And the statute, and Mr. Ahlers can correct me if I am wrong, but the statute says that the E911 fee should not exceed three percent of the average line charge in the county. So I anticipate that those figures will be into the Auditor’s Office by around the 20th of December. But that is an issue that, just in all candor, is still looming out there. I have spoken with the mayor. If $.95 passes, I think the city is quite willing to sit down and talk about the formula in which the funds are divided. But the issue before us today is the ordinance to increase the fee from $.35 to $.95.

Councilmember Sutton: Mr. President, I move that we approve the resolution or the ordinance as presented as we discussed last week.

President Winnecke: Motion and a second. And just for clarification, this is an amendment to an ordinance so it will require two votes. The second vote would occur in January and if it were to be affirmed at that point, the increase would take effect in March. I believe that that is correct. Mr. Raben?

Councilmember Raben: Just a quick question, Mr. President. If everyone recalls, last week it was mentioned that the city had served notice that at that point in time or leading up to this point in time, they were not particularly interested in carrying out their obligation or their two/thirds of their funding towards this budget and operations after 2008. I had asked the city for that information and what their interest would be in the coming years. Do we have any information on that?

Keith Jarboe: Good afternoon, Keith Jarboe, president of Central Dispatch Board and also City Council. I did talk to the Mayor as soon as the meeting was over. What he has indicated, there was not notice served, it has not been served, it was only a letter pointing out what the agreement had said, so we have not served notice that we intend to pull out of the one/third, two/third agreement at this time. What he has indicated, as with everything, everything is up for discussion and we’ll continue to look at it. Hopefully between this month and next month, everything can be resolved and it will no longer be an issue.

Councilmember Raben: Mr. President, I think I have an understanding of what the outcome may be today. I want it to be known that I will not be able to vote for this ordinance today. I mean, I think its important that we need something more definite as to what the city’s plans are beyond 2008, before we act on this. And I would encourage everyone else to delay this matter until we have that information.

Councilmember Tornatta: I’ve had quite a few phone calls as well today, have talked to Mr. Jarboe, with the Mayor, with Mr. Winnecke, and several others. This is something that will go into effect as of March 2006, the way it looks at this time. A vote today would bring the process along so it meets that March date. If this date is missed, there might be a possibility that it not be brought up in March. Now that’s going to affect how that 911 could possibly be run. What I don’t want to do is, I don’t want to put us in a situation where we put 911 in jeopardy. Everyone knows November 6th was a powerful day for realizing what 911 does for our community. It not only handled the calls professionally, but it was able to get emergency services out to many places in a timely manner so people’s lives could be saved. That’s kids, that’s adults, that’s elderly, that we were able to save because we were funding this mechanism and on top of things. We have not raised this charge on this service since 1990 and we’ve been able to hold a line on a lot of different things, but at some point we have to look at a mechanism to take away from property taxes and put onto user fees. This comes down from the state from Governor Daniels, that says that he’d like to see individuals get away from property taxes and move more toward either user fees or other opportunities to not keep on burdening the taxpayer. Seventy percent of my constituents are inside the city and seventy percent of those people are a little disgruntled by the way that the system is set up right now and this was conveyed to the Mayor and to the President of the County Council so that we could try and get more equal terms on this particular way and formula that we have funding at this time. Ninety-five cents is a stretch from where we’ve been but my proposal to the Mayor and to the controller of the city would, I believe, allow things to, in the county, to stay at a level that would be at or below what we’d pay if we were to go ahead and work on capital improvements. And more of that will be seen in January when we finish our negotiations. But I think this is something that needs to happen and its in the best interests of the county as a whole.

President Winnecke: If you could hold that thought, we’re going to change the tape and we’ll continue.

Councilmember Sutton: I was just going to add, the question that I think that has been asked of me is really the impact that it will have on people by approving this ordinance that’s before us. We are essentially raising the land line charge that people see on their monthly telephone bill to the $.95. On the course of a whole year, what the increase that we are proposing here, the impact would be $7.20 per year. Not necessarily, you know, for some, that may have an impact, but in light of what we’re seeing with fuel costs and other things, this would seem rather minuscule in light of other increases and I don’t think there’s any, not a Councilmember up here that likes to propose increases. But what we are attempting to do with our 911 service is ensuring that we have a good, quality service that from a technical standpoint, that we have the equipment that meets the needs and is in line with counties of our size, what kind of service they should be expected to provide. Can we do everything that has been requested of us from last week on that list of equipment and different items? No, we can’t do everything and I would, I think that that was communicated last week that we, and when I asked the question, you know, how much of this do we really want to undertake, they fully expected that they would not be able to do it all, and there’s no way that we can. Can we ultimately move to a process where it’s a user based system? I think over time, we probably can begin to get to that, but along with that, the whole thing, I think there’s going to need to be some discussions about how we maybe bring some more of those dollars back down this way regarding cell phone use. The land lines are not going to be – we’re not going to be able to rely on that fee alone in the long term, but as new things come along the lines, there’s just a lot of different things that we won’t be able to determine in 2008, 2010, but in light of what we have right now, I think that its a very doable, very practical, increase that we’re expecting here and assures that we’re going to have the quality of service that we’re expecting. Now one thing, too, there was some question about the land line charges and I believe there are several different carriers, at least 20 carriers here locally, so when you try to look at that three percent based on the carriers, I mean, its just all over the board. Its really difficult to really narrow that down to which one you might use. Do you take the average of all of them? It really is difficult to do that and I think the statute is written in such a way where it gives a rather broad latitude to local governments to address this particular issue if they intend to have any increases in their 911 fee. So I’m supportive of it because I think the quality of service deserves it.

Councilmember Abell: I just have a question. If we vote on this today and it passes, are we going to have the second vote in one week at our December meeting or in January?

Councilmember Abell: Everything will be secured? We’ll know whether they’re going to get out in 2008, and whether its going to –

President Winnecke: Oh, no, I don’t know that we’ll know that. No, I don’t think – I think the answer Mr. Jarboe provided is, the city has not made an official overture to get out of the inter-local agreement. Its just a letter of notification of what its possibilities are.

Councilmember Tornatta: Mr. President, and I also did get a pretty strong mind that the city is going to work to try and make sure that January deadline is going to have a lot of these answers. So I’m not – that’s not one hundred percent, but its pretty darn close, if its not. They said they want to work to make sure that those answers are resolved by January.

Councilmember Sutton: Did they also, I think they also indicated, one of the questions we had and that was revenue sources. They’re going to look at revenue sources out there to ensure that this is funded outside of maybe how its presently funded. So that’s something I know we would all be interested in seeing in this report that’s put together.

Councilmember Goebel: Its pretty obvious this service is needed, its demanded by our public and anyone I’ve spoken to that’s had to use the 911 service has been – well, all have been unanimous in their support and their satisfaction with the service as offered now. And I think its pretty obvious we must keep it. I think that if we act in good faith today and raise this fee that perhaps the city should also act in very good faith by the January vote and have the answers for us as far as their future involvement. And I do think, also, with the bubble coming from land lines to cell phones, as these kind of taxes go up, more and more people are going to be opting just to go to cell. I think we need to lobby somehow our state legislators to bring back more of that funding locally because Vanderburgh County residents paying the cell phone charge and we’re getting back about fifty percent of that money for the 911 service, and I don’t think its quite fair. The governor has asked us to become innovative in our ways of raising money and I think this type of action is going to be an innovative way for the state of Indiana to raise money at our expense. So I do think that we have to address the cell phone issue. I know this body can’t do it, but we must at least make our feelings known. Thank you.

Councilmember Raben: One last comment, Mr. President. Again, I know, I think I have a good sense of where this is going today, but I hope that this body, in our January meeting, if we don’t have the key, important answers for our questions, I certainly hope this body would not vote in support of this tax. I mean, I’m looking here at the summaries, the annual summaries from Central Dispatch. Just to quote a few numbers here, I’ve got them from 2000 through 2004. 2004's calculations are accumulated a little different so they would be hard to use for this example, but in 2003, city police calls received were 143,000; the Sheriff’s department 27,000. 2002, 147,000 for the city; 26,000 for the Sheriff. 2001, 140,000 calls to 25,000 calls. In 2000, 136,000 to 24,000. You know, the county’s, the calls that come in through that center represent about, you know, that would probably be 10 or 15 percent of the calls represent the county. So I would hope that the city, if 80 or 85 percent of the calls coming in there, probably half the city citizens, I would just hope that they’re as concerned for their citizens as we are for our ten or fifteen percent. So, again, let’s hope we get the correct answers.

President Winnecke: I want to make one comment and then I’ll call for the vote. I think an increase is warranted. I do not think that $.95 is the number. To me, the most important thing that this body should keep in mind when funding Central Dispatch is creating a funding mechanism to help pay for capital improvements down the road. As the list that the staff provided last week, its extensive and its expensive. I think the figure, probably in the neighborhood of $.70 is more realistic. That would create a little over $400,000 on an annualized basis and, to me, that’s a lot of money to put in a nest egg for capital improvements. But I think I’m more comfortable with a lower number. But the motion before us is to amend the ordinance that exists to fund the E911 fee at $.95. There is a motion on the floor and a second. We’ll call for a roll call vote on this one, thanks.

Councilmember Abell: I am not voting for this tax, I am voting to continue this until January, yes.

President Winnecke: So the motion passes five to two and it will be considered on second reading at our January reading.

Councilmember Raben: Mr. President, real quick, a different discussion, but similar subject. It’s also my understanding that a verbal notice was given to our director for Weights & Measures, Loretta Townsend, that the city is also looking at dropping their obligation for Weights & Measures. Have you received anything on that?

President Winnecke: I have not received an official notification. The Mayor indicated to me that they thought the city was going to proceed in that direction, but I am not aware of any formal notice.

Councilmember Raben: I mean, does this Council not see a trend here in what’s going on?

Councilmember Tornatta: There is the finance chair out in the audience if you want to address him.

President Winnecke: He may not be aware of – I think its probably an administration decision.

Councilmember Raben: You know, again, that’s a very important department within both city and county. I mean, that department ensures that when you buy a gallon of gas, you get a gallon of gas. When you buy a pound of meat, you get a pound of meat. Or you pay for something that’s on the clock, that when you pay by the minute or by the hour, you know, they ensure that both city and county residents get what they pay for and, again, I’m concerned with why they would want to remove themselves from that obligation.

President Winnecke: No, I’ve had discussions with the Mayor on this. He says he believes that it is the city’s intent, but he also said we have not sent a formal notice of such action.

Councilmember Sutton: I guess I, there are a number of things that fly around this building all the time, discussions, rumors, proposals, ideas. But until something comes before this body in the form of a request, proposal, an ordinance, for us to then take action on, I mean, we can talk about a lot of different things that may be going on out there that if we believe something might be happening, I think its maybe appropriate to trace down to see if it is in fact what it is. But until something comes before this body that we can either vote up or down, I can’t really see why we would act on or have a lengthy discussion on rumor/innuendo.

President Winnecke: Next, in accordance with House Bill 1001, we need to take action at today’s meeting on a resolution of the County Council to appeal for a property tax shortfall. You may recall, we took very similar action this time of year last year. To protect our budget, this amount is estimated over the actual number which will be determined after final collection figures are received from the Treasurer and our settlement is completed. This information is sent on to the Department of Local Government and Finance before the end of the year. And you have the resolution before you. At this time, I would entertain a motion to approve such resolution.

Bill Fluty: We actually have set it in at the same number as we did last year. And, of course, this will, you can’t go up, but we can come down. So we’re just, for safety’s sake here, is why its overstated.

President Winnecke: The motion passes seven to nothing. And don’t forget, we need everyone’s signature on this please, before you leave.

Councilmember Sutton: Item nine on our agenda, we didn’t have any action on that. I guess I was wondering, since we have the benefit of being televised, I didn’t know if you maybe had a name for someone who might have an interest in serving on the Human Relations Board. I had talked with Diane Clements about this, this week and told her we would try to act on this as soon as we can. I guess they’re really trying to get their board appointments filled. They meet once a month on the first Tuesday of the month at 11:30, so I don’t know if there’s some individuals out there in TV land who might have an interest in serving on this or if you’ve got some particular names. They were hopeful of finding someone who maybe had a little bit of legal background to serve on the board in light of the types of things that they have to address with this body.

President Winnecke: That’s a good appeal to those watching at home. I do not have a name in mind and we will put that on our – move it higher to the top of our to-do list.

Councilmember Sutton: Would you want, if there is some interest, to have them call Sandie Deig? The number is 435-5790 if you have an interest in serving on the Human Relations Board.

President Winnecke: Two other quick things, you’ll realize that you each have a very thin packet of information. This is for the Personnel & Finance Committee meeting, which will be held next Wednesday at 3:30 for the January meeting. And then in January, the intent of the Council is to

1030-2841	Copy Fees	200.00	0.00
Total		200.00	0.00

1310-1110-1310	Supt. Of Co. Bldgs.	2,915.00
1310-1900	FICA	300.00
1310-1150-1310	Groundskeeper	1,000.00
1310-1910	PERF	343.00
Total		4,558.00

1370-1803	Legal Trans/Pauper	720.00
1370-3520	Equipment Repair	1,000.00
1370-4210	Office Furniture	4,000.00
Total		5,720.00

3280-2990	Discretionary-Ofc. Expense	2,500.00	2,500.00
3280-3951	Treatment	2,500.00	2,500.00
3280-3952	Prevention	2,500.00	2,500.00
3280-3953	Law Enforcement	2,500.00	2,500.00
Total		10,000.00	10,000.00

3660-3051	Lodging of Inmates	273,000.00	273,000.00
Total		273,000.00	273,000.00

From: 1060-2330	Surveyor Stakes	68.00	68.00
1060-3310	Training	600.00	600.00
To: 1060-3520	Equipment Repair	68.00	68.00
1060-2210	Gas & Oil	250.00	250.00
1060-3700	Dues & Subscriptions	350.00	350.00

From: 1100-3130	Travel/Mileage	120.00	120.00
1100-2600	Office Supplies	171.00	171.00
To: 1100-1110-1100	Armstrong Assessor	270.00	270.00
1100-1900	FICA	21.00	21.00

From: 1370-3903	Petit Jurors	5,720.00	5,720.00
To: 1370-1803	Legal Trans/Pauper	720.00	720.00
1370-3520	Equipment Repair	1,000.00	1,000.00
1370-4210	Office Furniture	4,000.00	4,000.00

From: 2030-2000	Materials	20,000.00	20,000.00
2030-3930	Other Contractual	35,000.00	35,000.00
2030-3520	Equipment Repair	7,000.00	7,000.00
To: 2030-2230	Garage & Motor	62,000.00	62,000.00

From: 2160-2530	Bituminous Materials	30,000.00	30,000.00
2160-3630	Equip. Lease & Rental	7,000.00	7,000.00
To: 2160-2230	Garage & Motor	30,000.00	30,000.00
2160-3160	Radio/Pagers	7,000.00	7,000.00

From: 1050-1130-0089	Deputy Sheriff	6,000.00	6,000.00
1050-1130-0099	Deputy Sheriff	8,000.00	8,000.00
1050-1130-0036	Deputy Sheriff	852.00	852.00
To: 1050-1971	Accrued Payments	14,000.00	14,000.00
1050-1130-0026	Sergeant	852.00	852.00

From: 1220-3550	Repair to Bldgs. & Grounds	90.00	90.00
1220-3371	Computer Hardware	51.00	51.00
To: 1220-3620	Copy Machine Lease	44.00	44.00
1220-2600	Office Supplies	97.00	97.00

From: 1310-3530	Contractual Services	4,558.00	4,558.00
To: 1310-1110-1310	Supt. Of Co. Bldgs.	2,915.00	2,915.00
1310-1900	FICA	300.00	300.00
1310-1910	PERF	343.00	343.00
1310-1150-1310	Bldg. & Groundskeeper	1,000.00	1,000.00

From: 2010-1002	Network Specialist	19,094.00	19,094.00
2010-1910	PERF	1,785.00	1,785.00
2010-1920	Insurance	8,686.00	8,686.00
2010-1930	Unemployment	2,896.00	2,896.00
2010-1971	Accrued Payments	828.00	828.00
To: 2010-1850	Union Overtime	33,289.00	33,289.00