| | Back | Home | Email | Search | Weather | | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
SPECIAL MEETING DECEMBER 19, 2001 The Vanderburgh County Council met in special session this 19th day of December, 2001 in room 301 of the Civic Center Complex, to discuss and take action on an additional appropriation from the Jail Project Fund. The meeting was called to order at 3:18 p.m. by County Council President, Ed Bassemier. President Bassemier: Sheriff, you want to open the meeting again? Let's start out and then do attendance. Brad Ellsworth: Oh yes, oh yes, oh yes, the Vanderburgh County Council is now in session pursuant to adjournment. President Bassemier: I'd like to welcome
everybody to the special meeting (inaudible - microphone not turned on.)
Attendance roll call please.
President Bassemier: Would everyone please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance? (Pledge of Allegiance was given)
JAIL PROJECT President Bassemier: Okay, first on the agenda, there's only one today, Appropriation Ordinance. You want to take this one, Mr. Raben? Councilmember Raben: I certainly can, Mr. President. I don't really know how to begin this actually. I guess to start off with, I appreciate all the presentations that we had at our earlier meeting. I think I'm probably more comfortable than ever with the people that are going to be involved in this project and I am thankful for them being here today. The request that we have before us today is for the added value services through November. I don't think anybody in this room, or most everybody in this room is familiar with the dilemma that both bodies, both the Commissioners and the Council have had between each other in regards to the original document, and what's taken place or the actions that have taken place by this body and the actions that have place by the Commissioners. But, this request, and I think this was probably, the document that is in question today was prompted by myself at some point and Councilman Winnecke to establish a document solely for the purpose of the services that have already been rendered. And Craig Burgess and I, Councilman Hoy and Councilman Bassemier spent about an hour or an hour and half with a conference call addressing not only this document but the original document. And I had stated to Craig on our conference call that I would be prepared to fund their immediate request if we would receive in writing a document that rescinds the original document. And I guess at that point, David and I addressed it after the meeting. Craig, yesterday, had expressed that he didn't really see a problem with doing that. And again today, he expressed it to myself, our counsel and - who else was in there? Oh, Councilman Winnecke. So that's where we're at. I'm under the opinion that if we do anything today in regards to making this appropriation, that we are in essence doing as our attorney has advised us before; we are somewhat ratifying the original document. So purely from the standpoint of bringing this to the floor, I'm going to move that 3660-4192 be set in at zero and then we'll have further discussion. President Bassemier: Let's get a second first. Councilmember Wortman: Second. President Bassemier: Second by Mr. Wortman. Now do we want to discuss it please? Councilmember Raben: Okay, now I've hit on most of it, but again, we've delayed this, you know, in my own opinion probably longer than we should already, and that's been purely because our two bodies 30 days ago weren't doing a very good job trying to work out our differences. In the last two weeks that's all changed. I mean, I think there's some healthy communication, everybody on this body is playing a vital role, so I would first like Craig's comments. Craig Burgess: Craig Burgess, I'm vice-president and architecture department manager with United Consulting Engineers and Architects. As far as the agreement to, I guess, rescind the original document, I guess I would just like to clarify one issue about that. Our contract, the original agreement is with the Board of County Commissioners and the letter of that contract, while it allows the county to terminate it for any reason at all, from our end we're only allowed to terminate it for cause. We are willing to work with the Commission and the Council to come to some kind of understanding about the best way to proceed on this, but we ultimately have to take our direction from the Commissioners. It's not within our power to offer really even an opinion about rescinding the original agreement, but if we're directed to do so by the Commissioners, we're very willing to work those out. Councilmember Raben: Okay, and you know, in regards to not only this document but the original document, you know, I think it's the appropriate thing to do because there's a list of - I don't have that list in front of me, but probably 15 to 20 concerns that were prepared by our combined list that addresses questions of several Council people. Thank you. And they are working on that. And Craig was quite clear yesterday, that probably not all issues could be addressed, but most of them could be and some language could be adopted that would be suitable for both they and the county. And then there's the other issue that you've already seen in the earlier presentation that the final figures have changed. I mean, they're less than the original document stated, so that document, I guess what I'm trying to get to, is going to be so cut up if you try to make amendments to that document, that the clearest thing to do is tear it up and start over anyway. Councilmember Tornatta: I don't buy that. Councilmember Winnecke: Let me say something first. President Bassemier: Are you done with him? Councilmember Raben: Yeah, I don't want to take the floor the whole time. Councilmember Winnecke: I would just say when I came to this building this afternoon I did not know how I was going to vote on this issue. I was torn, I had multiple conversations with several people in this room and I think they all probably felt my pain just based on my line of questioning. I know how I'm going to vote on this now. I know we're not calling for the vote now, but in my opinion, based on what we were presented in the last meeting just moments ago, the contact is going to change. It has to. There are four scenarios here. Whether we end up going with one of these scenarios or a hybrid of these, the contract that this body considers null and void and the contract that the Commission considers intact is going to go away. And I have no problem supporting today the payment of this $373,000. President Bassemier: Anybody else? Sir, I just want to thank you for yesterday, your time, it was very interesting and very productive. We covered, I think, about 20 points. We had a list for other Councilmembers or whatever, you addressed every one of them. It seems like you're willing to make changes or language changes in the whole thing. I do appreciate it. We've had numbers today; we never got this in the past. And, I tell you, it's been a pleasure the last two weeks working with the Commissioners and with your group. Craig Burgess: Well, we're very happy to do whatever is within our power to help. President Bassemier: Okay. Mr. Hoy? Councilmember Hoy: I have a legal question for Mr. Ahlers. Two questions, really. The first one is, if we vote this amount, okay, presently, and I was in on that conversation with Mr. Burgess yesterday and would echo what's been said and that is, we were able to negotiate some changes that I think are good changes and favorable to moving us ahead. My reluctance, legally, is if I vote today, if I vote a yes today, then am I still getting this Council involved in an implied contract, because we still have the same contract sitting in front of us? Does Mr. Burgess need to take this to the Commissioners first, because - Councilmember Tornatta: It has been. Councilmember Hoy: - because that maybe needs to be negotiated first. I've got this document they negotiated Monday night. You've seen it. So, I have to depend on your legal opinion as to where we are and that will help me in my voting. Jeff Ahlers: In terms of separating the question into two questions. The first question in terms of if you vote any money, do you create an implied contract or ratification? There's been nothing changed that would change the previous legal discussions and opinions that we've had in that regard. It's their contention they have a contract. It's this Council's contention that it was appropriately voided. I am sure that if the matter was ever unfortunately taken to the courts to ultimately sort out who's right there, I am certain that they would probably argue that any appropriation toward that contract would be a ratification. So, that is a risk that you run in terms of that. The agreement that was faxed to me yesterday, I don't believe changes anything in terms of the contract. The only thing that it says as I go through it is that there will be some amendments in the future, but does not say what that will be. So there is nothing certain in there. All that this, I guess as I read it, whenever you boil it down, is basically a receipt saying that if you appropriate $373,830, that that will be credited toward the contract amount. I don't think, I don't read this as saying that the contract is going to be - the contract price is going to be reduced. And so the only other thing in here that I see is just saying that, obviously, after today, the presentation or whatever is decided that's going to be built, that there would be an amendment to the final scope of service and fees. But it doesn't state whether the amendment would increase or decrease the fees or any other changes. So I don't know if that answers your question or not, or do you have a follow up? Craig Burgess: May I offer two points from a lay person's perspective? And I mentioned this in our telephone conversation yesterday, I don't know if it would hold any legal water or not, but we are willing to offer our assurances in a public forum here today and if it's necessary to follow it up in writing, I'm sure that's not a problem either, that payment for the services rendered to date in no way binds the county to the continuation of the work as it's described in the original agreement. The other point that I wanted to mention, and I've mentioned this before, the letter of the contract allows the county to terminate the agreement at any time for any reason. If it should happen that once you pay us for the programming work that's taken place to date, the county decides that at that point they want to terminate the agreement in order to avoid being tied into the rest of work, I mean, that's always their option. Jeff Ahlers: Just to clarify with Mr. Hoy, so you understand what Mr. Burgess is saying is from their point of view in terms of the county. The Council, if the contract were deemed to be approved or ratified, there's no provision in there for Council to cancel the contract. That would rest with the Commissioners. So once a contract is ratified or appropriated, if that maybe answers your question a little more directly, it's out of your hands at that point. Councilmember Raben: Craig, I might also add, too, any modifications to the document that was provided to me yesterday and to this Council, between yesterday and today, any modifications to that contract would have to be done in a public meeting anyway by the Commissioners, would it not? So, I mean, you're looking at Monday, the earliest, before - or Wednesday, before they could make that change, you know, which is a possibility. Craig Burgess: We understand that Councilmember Hoy: Commissioner Mosby is here. Would you mind - would you comment on, the process as I see it is, I think it would help move this if you all took what Mr. Burgess has and in your meeting rework that for us. I'd be willing to set up another special meeting. I want to see this bill paid, I just don't want to get us in a bind. Would the Commissioners be willing to work that out with - David Mosby: David Mosby, County Commissioner President. I explained to Mr. Raben yesterday before he left that you can take the word original out of there and put proposed in so that you don't feel like you're signing something that you don't want to sign. I mean, the proposed don't mean - that's fine with me. So that you don't feel like you're signing something that's the original, just insert the word proposed where you got original and go on that assumption. I told Mr. Raben yesterday after our meeting, I'm more than willing to sit down and write addendums to the clarification that we got yesterday on several questions with Mr. Burgess on the phone and I think there was probably clarifications on maybe 15 issues out of 20 that I will agree to. I've had no problem agreeing to it. I know Mr. Winnecke and Mr. Tornatta had conversation with United on Saturday. We sat that meeting up. I have no problem with that and I know there was some clarification there and we're willing to sign that. We have done everything possible. I know that at least five out of the seven of you have been on the phone with Mr. Burgess in the last four or five days. Now back two or three weeks ago, if everything would have went online, and on schedule, we would have had these professionals down here then. And we would have been a lot further along today instead of 30 minutes along from where we just came. We could be a lot further along. We're stalemating here for some reason and that's not my cause. I mean, I have worked with every one of you'se over the last week, took time off work and everything else, come up here, tried to move this project along. I think you heard Mr. Claytor say the quicker this goes, the better off we're going to be. I would have loved to be selling bonds today and got that 4% interest rate or 4.7 that he's talking about. But we cannot keep holding this up. We keep talking about one week, you know, go back in next Wednesday and do this. And go back in next Wednesday and do that. We'll be another month down the road and that is not my objective. That's why we spent the whole last week, four and five hours of Mr. Burgess's time, you know, and everybody else's time and long distance phone calls and meeting and calling here and calling here. You know, Mr. Raben called me on Monday morning; I immediately had something drafted as he asked and had it in Commission Monday night. Mr. Raben wanted to talk to Mr. Burgess; he was in my office yesterday for two hours. I mean, I've tried to work with him every way possible. You know, now we're to a point, he wants to talk about one word. Original or proposed. Put proposed in it. I don't care. It's not a big deal to me. We can get the stuff in writing that Mr. Burgess talked about; we can get an addendum to the contract the same as we did for Mr. Mourdock when he wanted to amend it, and you don't have to rescind a document to amend it. I mean, you can amend an ordinance, you can amend a resolution, you can do whatever you want. You just add an addendum to it. We will get the addendums wrote in; I'll take them to Commission Wednesday night and we'll add the addendums. I just ask that you people get this money appropriated and let's get the process down the road. You heard the public earlier say, if it costs a little bit more, let's build it. We just want something that's efficient. You've got to decide what that scope is. Councilmember Raben: David, the original document that was signed, I mean, we even have contract amounts that are no longer - David Mosby: And we will amend that. Councilmember Raben: - good amounts, but I mean, it seems to me and I might, I'm sure Jeff's not the only attorney in here, but it seems to me that the clearest document is a clean document, not one that refers to different amendments or addendums to this article and that article. I mean, why would - United has agreed to start with a fresh document. Why won't you? David Mosby: Okay, Councilman, what you just said, you're not going to have me a scope by next Wednesday when I do amend this copy. You've got four scenarios laying in front of you and each one of them have different prices in it. So even if I had a clean copy Wednesday at the Commissioners meeting and I passed it, I'm still going to have to amend it after you decide the scope. So what's the difference? They're called amendments. They're addendums. You add them to documents. Councilmember Raben: We still have the other articles - David Mosby: Well, you're not going to give me a scope by Wednesday to have me a clean - you want me to - Councilmember Raben: I'm not telling you you have to have a new document, a contract in place by next Wednesday. What I would like to do is get these people paid for the services that they've rendered and - David Mosby: And that's all I'm asking you to do. Councilmember Raben: But I can't - I mean, - Councilmember Tornatta: Well, let's vote on - Councilmember Raben: - I'm comfortable with doing that if we rescind the original document. And again, the company that is responsible for that document has willingly expressed that they will do that, that it rests on your shoulders to rescind it. David Mosby: What is your deal with rescinding here? I mean - Councilmember Raben: Because I want a clean document. David Mosby: You'll get a clean document. We'll give you one with addendums in it, it will be cleaned up. Councilmember Sutton: What is the motion? President Bassemier: We've got a motion and a second to set it in at zero. And did somebody call for the question here? Councilmember Wortman: I call for the question. President Bassemier: Call for the question. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Tornatta? Councilmember Tornatta: No. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton? Councilmember Sutton: No. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Wortman? Councilmember Wortman: Now we're voting on to set it in at zero. Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Hoy? Councilmember Hoy: I would feel more comfortable if we deferred this until we get a clean contract. I don't feel comfortable voting either way, but I have to. So I'm going to vote yes because I would like to see the contract as it should be. I'd be willing to vote yes on that any day and so I'll vote yes even though I would much prefer to defer this till we get a clean contract. But that's not what's before us. Councilmember Raben: And I would be happy deferring it. I don't know what we do at this point, but - Councilmember Sutton: We've got a motion on the floor. Councilmember Hoy: We've got a motion going. We could reopen. Councilmember Raben: We can reopen... Teri Lukeman: Should I continue polling? Councilmember Raben: If you want to do that, that's what we'll do. President Bassemier: Mr. Raben? Councilmember Raben: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Winnecke? Councilmember Winnecke: I'm convinced that at the end of the day, we'll have a new contract that will encompass the scope and the specific dollar amounts and I think the prudent thing to do with respect to my colleagues is to pay this bill. I will vote no. Teri Lukeman: President Bassemier? President Bassemier: Okay, I'm going to vote yes and the reason for this is, we talked about 20 points yesterday. We talked about making these changes. I'd like to see them in writing, so I'm going to vote yes. JAIL PROJECT REQUESTED APPROVED
(Motion carried 4-3/Councilmembers Tornatta, Sutton & Winnecke opposed) Councilmember Hoy: I would like to move, Mr. President, that we reopen. Councilmember Tornatta: Second. Councilmember Hoy: I would like to make a motion that we - President Bassemier: It takes 2/3 - Jeff Ahlers: It just takes a majority. (Inaudible) Jeff Ahlers: That's fine. I mean, we don't have Robert's Rules of Order. (Inaudible - several speaking at once) Councilmember Raben: Take the vote. I think (Inaudible - microphone not turned on) President Bassemier: Okay. Councilmember Hoy: In the guidebook that we adopted it says 2/3. President Bassemier: We've got a motion and a second. Why do we want to reopen? Councilmember Raben: I think Mr. Hoy wants to defer this matter instead of zeroing. Councilmember Sutton: What's the difference? I mean, if you going - (Inaudible - several speaking at once) Councilmember Raben: Well, for one, it doesn't have to be re-advertised, I don't think. Suzanne Crouch: Yes, it does. Councilmember Tornatta: Yeah, I rescind my second. Councilmember Sutton: I mean, you're just going to put it back on another agenda. Councilmember Tornatta: I got a suggestion. We need - Councilmember Hoy: My intention in getting it reopened was to keep it alive so that United can meet with the Commissioners with the revisions that we discussed yesterday which I think are good revisions and I think it's good business simply to vote on a contract that you have agreed upon, that's all, and where the language is clear. That's why I wanted to bring it back up for a deferral so then we could set a meeting sooner rather than waiting till January, we can meet for a few minutes and approve the amount of money and move it on; otherwise, we're going to be waiting till - Councilmember Tornatta: And I just wanted to say that the County Commissioners unanimously voted to accept the document that is before us to pay these people their money due. And yet we are still, you know, we're are still not showing confidence even in a unanimously decision of our County Commissioners in voting this down. If they think it's okay and they set the contracts, what do we have to say about that? Councilmember Sutton: Well, in the reservations and concerns that people would have would be that the people that we've entered into the contract with would at some point in time want to go back on the old provisions and hold us in some way bound to some of the previous clauses that were agreed to some time ago, and I think they've made it very clear here today that they are willing to revisit areas where there may be some contention where there may be some disagreement and from the Council's perspective, where we maybe have given input. So they've been forthright, they've even said on the record that they were willing to make those adjustments and those amendments, the Commissioners have agreed to it, why don't we just get these people paid for the work that they have performed. It will not change the fact that they've already done the work. This is not work that they are going to do, but this is work that they have done, so the appropriate action that we should have taken is to go ahead and pay the people. The motion was voted down, we have a 3:30 meeting on the docket, a lengthy agenda. Since it was voted down, we need to move on to our next meeting. President Bassemier: I've got a motion and a second to defer it, Mr. Hoy. Councilmember Hoy: If I were negotiating this, any contract in business and I have negotiated contracts, then I would want to see it in writing. I trust that United will make these changes and I think we could move it along quicker if we brought it back to the floor, deferred, got that process through the Commissioners and then have a short meeting and vote this money. We could do that long before the first of the year and get the matter settled. I felt real good about the conversation with Mr. Burgess and I think all of us did. But I have to also go with the man that we have hired as our legal counsel, who is an expert at contracts, and that's why I'm just asking for it to be done in proper order, that's all. Councilmember Tornatta: But this is a separate contract. I mean, not a contract. This is a separate, just a bill. This is just a bill and the only provision is that if we pay the bill, that this be taken off of the contract price that we come up with. And that was all that we were trying to do as to not complex or muddy up the waters. And I thought that was well understood by several, and you know, put in whatever verbiage you want, and we went over this in the Commissioners meeting on Monday night, but if was made so that people could get their monies before the end of the year for work that they had done up to November and we even cut it back from the 610 to the $373,830 to try and say look, we want to make a goodwill effort to you people who have done the work for the past few months or throughout the year, and also say that we do have our reservations. So that's why we are making it a separate contract and not entering into your proposed contract that has been null and void by the majority of the County Council. Now I didn't know - I mean, I thought that - I, by no means, thought that was putting our foot in the water, shark infested water, but I thought that was merely making a goodwill gesture to people who have been preparing work. Jeff Ahlers: Just, while you're debating this, I thought maybe I'd let you know this. As I'm sure that many of you may know, it takes ten days advertisement for an appropriation, so keep that in mind when you're debating this that, I mean, you can't come back next week. That's all I'm telling you is that, just so that nobody, you don't worry about, I mean, it's going to have to be probably, well, whatever ten days is. That's what they were counting over here when I asked them. So just so you know when you're debating this issue, that unlike a special meeting to discuss something that takes 48 hours notice, you've got issues with regard to publishing an appropriation. Councilmember Hoy: Well, then I'm going to rescind my motion then. Councilmember Tornatta: I'd like to open it for another motion. Councilmember Sutton: What's your motion? Councilmember Tornatta: Motion to reopen. President Bassemier: Do I have a second then? Councilmember Winnecke: Second. President Bassemier: Second, Mr. Winnecke. Councilmember Tornatta: I would - President Bassemier: Motion to reopen it first - Councilmember Tornatta: Okay. President Bassemier: Okay, let's take a roll call vote to reopen it. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Tornatta? Councilmember Tornatta: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton? Councilmember Sutton: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Wortman? Councilmember Wortman: No. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Hoy? Councilmember Hoy: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben? Councilmember Raben: No. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Winnecke? Councilmember Winnecke: Yes. Teri Lukeman: President Bassemier? President Bassemier: No. So it passed to reopen 4-3. Okay. (Motion carried 4-3/Councilmembers Wortman, Raben & Bassemier opposed) President Bassemier: Hold on a second. I need to clarify something. In the past, when we reopened something, it took 2/3 of the vote. Are we changing that now? Jeff Ahlers: I'm checking. He said 2/3, she's grabbing her manual to see. President Bassemier: I just know in the past - Catherine Fanello: While you're reading your manual - President Bassemier: Yeah, is this on the record? Catherine Fanello: I don't know. Is it? You got the tape rolling? President Bassemier: Just watch what you say! Catherine Fanello: County Commissioner. You know, I think we have done everything, I know Commissioner Mosby, as he said, has met with everybody possible, taking off his personal time from work. We have made every public display possible to let you know that we're going to make what changes need to be made and that we're willing to compromise. Now that Councilman Raben has done this, I am sensing a spirit on un-compromise on his part and, you know, working in the spirit of bipartisanship is not rolling over and doing what the other party wants all the time and giving them everything they want, but it's coming together and working to move something forward. You had an opportunity here today to show this community that we were all working together and you failed. Councilmember Raben: Catherine, I would tend to disagree. Catherine Fanello: Well, when we're standing here publicly and telling you that we're going to make changes and that you've heard this from all sides involved. You've had your conference calls, everybody's talked with the parties involved, and we're telling you that we're willing to work with you, why is that not good enough? I personally just want to know, why is that not good enough? Councilmember Raben: Because, again, nothing is in writing yet. Catherine Fanello: I'm standing here publicly and telling you that things are going to change. Am I going to lie to public? No. Councilmember Raben: The changes, those new languages have not been written, Catherine, and it's more than a matter of trust - Catherine Fanello: I think there's another agenda here on your part. Councilmember Raben: No, and I made the comment in a meeting prior to this meeting, that when you talk about millions of dollars, it's more than just a handshake. Catherine Fanello: Well, I understand that, Councilman Raben, you do not have to remind me of that. I'm a... Councilmember Raben: And again, I'll go back to my original question. And I made this clear to Craig yesterday. I said don't be disappointed if this doesn't get approved tomorrow because this body is going to want that original contract rescinded. Did I not say that? I asked you, I said you may be - you probably should bring a document in, a written document with you stating that. Catherine Fanello: But, let's all remember, statutorily, what our duties are. I believe that everybody has overstepped their boundaries at times throughout this whole negotiations, but we are willing, we have gone far and above what I think any other county commissioner across the state of Indiana would do from the stories I've heard to do and get done what you guys, as a collective body want done. And you're not displaying a spirit of compromise. Councilmember Raben: Can I take this one step further and tell you how irrational you are being about this? It's our attorney's opinion that any payment at all is a ratification to this contract. He has stated that, okay? You have a contract that you are still in support of that states you owe them $3,080,000. Those figures have changed, so in light of what he's telling us, it would be extremely irresponsible for this body to take action today because you've not changed those figures. You saw - Catherine Fanello: But, with all due respect, these conversations have come up in the past couple of days and we are getting toward the end of the year and we're moving into a time where you're delaying this project even more. Councilmember Raben: I'm not. And actually, I suggested at some 30 days ago that we draft a document only for the services provided. I mentioned that a month ago. And you decided to do it over the weekend. Councilmember Raben: Well, Councilman Raben - no, I know, but I think there's another agenda here and I'm going to continue to work in the spirit of compromise, but I think that you did not display that compromise. Councilmember Hoy: Mr. President? President Bassemier: (Inaudible - microphone not turned on) - for, so make your motion. Councilmember Tornatta: Right, and my motion is to accept the article that was passed by the Commissioners with the caveat that it goes - Councilmember Hoy: We haven't voted to reopen yet. Suzanne Crouch: Yes, you did. President Bassemier: Yeah, four to three. Councilmember Tornatta: - that it is a proposal and not the contract, and that we come up with a total of $373,830 instead of $610,000 as originally proposed from 3660-4192. I make that in the form of a motion. Councilmember Sutton: Second. President Bassemier: Second by Mr. Sutton. Any discussion? Okay, roll call vote again. Everybody understand this is a motion. Okay. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Tornatta? Councilmember Tornatta: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton? Councilmember Sutton: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Wortman? Councilmember Wortman: No. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Hoy? Councilmember Hoy: I'm going to vote no because I think we have the same motion on the floor that we would have had with an appropriation. And I will say this to the Commissioners, as soon as we see that revised contract, I will be more than happy to vote yes and continue the movement, and we've had good movement today and I think we can continue. But I want to see the (inaudible) in order. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben? Councilmember Raben: No. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Winnecke? Councilmember Winnecke: Yes. Teri Lukeman: President Bassemier? President Bassemier: No. (Motions fails 3-4/Councilmembers Wortman, Hoy, Raben and Bassemier opposed) President Bassemier: No, so that also fails. Okay, I need a motion to adjourn. Councilmember Wortman: So moved. Councilmember Raben: Second. President Bassemier: Got a second. Everybody in favor say aye. (Motion unanimously approved 7-0) President Bassemier: Let's take a five minute break. (Meeting adjourned at 3:54 p.m.)
VANDERBURGH COUNTY COUNCIL _____________________________
____________________________
____________________________
____________________________
_____________________________
_____________________________
_____________________________
Recorded and transcribed by Teri Lukeman.  |