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

(Pledge of Allegiance was given)

President Winnecke: First I would entertain a motion to approve the minutes from our January 5th meeting.

Councilmember Wortman: So moved.

President Winnecke: Do I hear a second?

Councilmember Abell: Second.

President Winnecke: Motion and a second. All in favor say aye.

All Councilmembers: Aye.

President Winnecke: Opposed, like sign.

(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)

President Winnecke: Okay, we’ll jump right into the appropriation ordinance. Mr. Raben?

TREASURER

Councilmember Raben: Okay, thank you, Mr. President. First on the agenda today is County Treasurer, 1030-3610 Legal Services in the amount of $1,854. I’ll move approval.

Councilmember Wortman: Second.

President Winnecke: There’s a motion and a second. Any questions or discussion? Roll call vote please.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Tornatta?

Councilmember Tornatta: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton?

Councilmember Sutton: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Abell?

Councilmember Abell: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Goebel?

Councilmember Goebel: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben?

Councilmember Raben: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Wortman?

Councilmember Wortman: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: President Winnecke?

President Winnecke: Yes.

TREASURER                                                         REQUESTED       APPROVED

(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)

RECORDER

Councilmember Raben: Okay, next is County Recorder, 1040-1990 Extra Help in the amount of $10,000. And as everyone recalls, she’s putting this money back in through the Recorder’s Perpetuation Fund.

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 Abell?

Councilmember Abell: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Goebel?

Councilmember Goebel: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben?

Councilmember Raben: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Wortman?

Councilmember Wortman: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: President Winnecke?

President Winnecke: Yes.

RECORDER                                                           REQUESTED       APPROVED

(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)

CENTER TOWNSHIP ASSESSOR

KNIGHT TOWNSHIP ASSESSOR

PIGEON TOWNSHIP ASSESSOR

Councilmember Raben: Okay, I’m going to run through three of them, Center Township Assessor, Knight Township Assessor, and Pigeon Assessor, I’ll move that those three requests be set in at zero.

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 Abell?

Councilmember Abell: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Goebel?

Councilmember Goebel: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben?

Councilmember Raben: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Wortman?

Councilmember Wortman: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: President Winnecke?

President Winnecke: Yes.

CENTER TWP. ASSESSOR                                  REQUESTED       APPROVED

KNIGHT TWP. ASSESSOR                                   REQUESTED       APPROVED

PIGEON TWP. ASSESSOR                                  REQUESTED       APPROVED

SUPERIOR COURT

Councilmember Raben: Okay, next Mr. President, under Superior Court, 1370-1290-1370 down through 1370-1910 PERF, for a total request of $18,472. If you’ll remember, this was an error during budgets where the salary was figured at the initiation rate instead of a step 7, I believe. So that’s all this is and I make that in the form of a motion.

Councilmember Wortman: Second.

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 Abell?

Councilmember Abell: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Goebel?

Councilmember Goebel: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben?

Councilmember Raben: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Wortman?

Councilmember Wortman: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: President Winnecke?

President Winnecke: Yes.

SUPERIOR COURT                                               REQUESTED       APPROVED

(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)

REASSESSMENT/CENTER TOWNSHIP ASSESSOR

REASSESSMENT/KNIGHT TOWNSHIP ASSESSOR

REASSESSMENT/PIGEON TOWNSHIP ASSESSOR

Councilmember Raben: Okay, that does it for the General Fund requests. Next, under Reassessment, I’ll move that Center Township Assessor, Knight Township Assessor and Pigeon Assessor be set in at zero.

Councilmember Wortman: Second.

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 Abell?

Councilmember Abell: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Goebel?

Councilmember Goebel: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben?

Councilmember Raben: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Wortman?

Councilmember Wortman: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: President Winnecke?

President Winnecke: Yes.

CENTER TWP. ASSESSOR                                  REQUESTED       APPROVED

KNIGHT TWP. ASSESSOR                                   REQUESTED       APPROVED

PIGEON TWP. ASSESSOR                                  REQUESTED       APPROVED

(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)

COUNTY HIGHWAY

Councilmember Raben: Okay, moving right along, under repeals, 2010-1002 under County Highway be set in at zero.

Councilmember Wortman: Second.

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

Councilmember Sutton: That’s probably the best move.

President Winnecke: Roll call vote.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Tornatta?

Councilmember Tornatta: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton?

Councilmember Sutton: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Abell?

Councilmember Abell: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Goebel?

Councilmember Goebel: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben?

Councilmember Raben: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Wortman?

Councilmember Wortman: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: President Winnecke?

President Winnecke: Yes.

COUNTY HIGHWAY                                              REQUESTED       APPROVED

(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)

PIGEON TOWNSHIP ASSESSOR

AREA PLAN

COUNTY HIGHWAY

Councilmember Raben: Okay, under transfers, Mr. President, I’m going to move that Pigeon Township Assessor transfers be approved as they are listed. Area Plan as listed and County Highway be set in at zero.

Councilmember Wortman: Second.

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

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Tornatta?

Councilmember Tornatta: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton?

Councilmember Sutton: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Abell?

Councilmember Abell: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Goebel?

Councilmember Goebel: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben?

Councilmember Raben: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Wortman?

Councilmember Wortman: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: President Winnecke?

President Winnecke: Yes.

PIGEON TWP. ASSESSOR                                  REQUESTED       APPROVED

(Table continued next page)

AREA PLAN                                                          REQUESTED       APPROVED

COUNTY HIGHWAY                                              REQUESTED       APPROVED

(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)

Councilmember Raben: Okay, Mr. President, under amendments to the Salary Ordinance, first is County Recorder, I’ll move that we amend salary line 1040-1990 Extra Help as previously adopted. Under Prosecutor, I move that we amend the salary ordinance under the Check Recovery Program account 1082 to allow a part-time employee to be paid at the rate of $16 per hour. This will be for only one employee in the program. This was formerly one full-time employee. Next, I move approval to change salary line accounts as follows: under Prosecutor Infraction account 2501-1110 Chief Deputy, needs to be changed to Prosecutor Incentive Fund 2670-1110 Chief Deputy in the amount of $12,204. And existing Prosecutor Infraction account 2501-1120 Chief Trial Deputy at $15,354, needs to be changed to the Prosecutor Incentive Fund 2670-1120 Trial Deputy in the amount of $16,315. And then I also move to amend salary line 1081-1130 as follows: delete Director PAT IV/Step 1 in the amount of $31,074 and insert Enforcement Agent/Investigator COMOT VI/Step 1 in the amount of $28,227. Next under the County Health Department/WIC, 213.4, there is a long list of salary account numbers and basically, Mr. President, what this is about, these are salaries that are in a grant account and the grant did not acknowledge any pay increases for 2005, so this is setting them back in at the 2004 level. So moving down through these salary lines, we have 213.4-1110 Nutritionist at $36,369; 213.4-1120 Nurse at $36,569; 213.4-1130 Nurse at $36,809; 213.4-1150 Nutritionist at $36,369; 213.4-1160 Nurse at $37,169; 213.4-1170 Bookkeeper/Secretary at $32,794; 213.4-1180 Intake Clerk at $21,103; 213.4-1190 Intake Clerk at $24,312; 213.4-1200 Intake Clerk at $21,103; 213.4-1210 Intake Clerk at $24,312; and last is $213.4-1240 Intake Clerk at $21,103. I make that in the form of a motion.

Councilmember Wortman: Second.

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

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Tornatta?

Councilmember Tornatta: Yes. Could you go over that?

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton?

Councilmember Sutton: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Abell?

Councilmember Abell: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Goebel?

Councilmember Goebel:

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: Under new business, I’d like to read a letter I received from the Vanderburgh County Commission regarding the issue of televised County Council meetings. Basically, the Commission in its meeting yesterday voted to ask the Council, meaning this body, to allow broadcast of its two regular monthly meetings at no expense to Vanderburgh County. Essentially, they are using the budget they have been allotted for the year from the Building Authority and sharing that. They would broadcast two of their meetings and we would broadcast two of our meetings a month and my personal opinion is, I think this is a good gesture on their part. I think it’s a good way to give this Council more public exposure and I would entertain a motion to approve this request.

Councilmember Wortman: So moved, Mr. Chairman.

Councilmember Tornatta: Second.

President Winnecke: Motion and a second. Discussion?

Councilmember Sutton: What is that cost going to be?

President Winnecke: I believe the annual budget from the Building Authority is approximately $20,000 a year. And so basically, they have $20,000 a year to spend in televising meetings and they think that will get them through sometime, the November time frame.

Councilmember Sutton: But what about the installation cost? What is that –

President Winnecke: The installation costs, moving the cameras from the small chambers to this chamber are being picked up by the Building Authority at no expense to...

Councilmember Sutton: Well, the taxpayers still pay, I mean, for the expense even though it doesn’t come out of our general fund, so I’m just trying to get an idea what the –

President Winnecke: Well, the estimate was about $4,000. But again, the Building Authority agreed to pay for those funds, too.

Councilmember Sutton: Well, I mean, I think we have an opportunity to televise them, that’s good. I know we’ve brought before our body a couple of times last year and it was more so from a funding standpoint, the reason we could not support that. But just recognize as well, that I mean, though it didn’t come out of general fund money, I mean, there was $45,000 spent over in the other room to install the camera equipment and all for that. So we’re adding on an additional $4,000 with moving the equipment over to here. And, like I said, just an awful lot of expenditures there. And when was a decision made to go with two meetings a month? The Commissioners’ meetings were traditionally once a week.

President Winnecke: They still will be once a week. I believe what they’ve offered to do is televise two of their meetings a month in order that would could televise our two meetings a month. They will still meet four times a month as I understand it.

Councilmember Sutton: I guess over in the other room they had an opportunity to televise all of their meetings, it just seems a little odd –

President Winnecke: I think its merely an issue of budget, how much money is available to use during the balance of the year. I think what this does to us, one, it gives the public exposure to this body and it gives this body, if we’re so inclined, several months to find a mechanism that is less than $200 an hour to televise these meetings going beyond this year. And we have until roughly budget time to do that.

Councilmember Sutton: And then, I guess, the last question related to this, at some point in time there were some discussions about the camera equipment being placed in this room, that more than one body would share in the cost of that, one being the city. Has there been any additional dialogue or discussion about them offsetting some of the costs associated with this or participating in this in some type of way?

President Winnecke: I believe the Commissioners have only made an overture to, in terms of paying for the expense, I believe they’ve only overtured the Building Authority.

Councilmember Raben: Mr. President, I might interject something. The cost of the equipment was taken care of last year if you recall, so the equipment is already purchased. The only additional cost is the actual, the labor to televise the meetings. Am I not correct? So if the city would opt to televise City Council meetings, they would have the hourly fee that they would be responsible for with Channel 9, just as we would. So that’s really, I think, the only additional cost at this point.

Councilmember Sutton: Well, but the discussion was that the city would help in offsetting some of the cost of moving that over here. Now since the Building Authority is picking up that cost to move it over here, I guess initially the discussion was helping with the installation and then also the televising cost, they pay for their share, we pay for our share, whatever, some type of way or another. But now, at this point, I guess the city, the only thing they have is if they decide to televise their meeting would be just the cost of just the televising and not installation itself.

President Winnecke: Except that, if I’m not mistaken, the rent that the city government pays into this building goes to fund the Building Authority as well.

Councilmember Sutton: It does, but –

President Winnecke: So, I think it would be kind of difficult to discern what percent of four or five thousand dollars in moving expenses would be, city and county, if both bodies pay into that.

Councilmember Sutton: But what is the city getting out of it now? I mean, they aren’t televising the meetings. I mean, if we’re talking about they’re both sharing it. I just, it just, just an awful lot is just being expended here by one side of it on the installation side and I just think that there should be some additional consideration there on the cost.

President Winnecke: Any other questions or discussion?

Councilmember Tornatta: I just, just a real quick point, the only problem I have with this, I mean, I think its good to get all bodies on record, on as much access as possible, but the problem I’ve had in the beginning is the lack of planning from the Commissioners when they decided that they’re not going to televise meetings after it gets started. It’s a positive effect and now its not being televised. Now they’re going to televise, but they’re only going to do certain ones. So you essentially don’t know exactly which meeting is going to be on, those who want to follow government, that’s my only problem because what I’d rather do is televise all their meetings, if we want to do ours, that’s fine, but then they know after six months they have to be able to come up with a funding mechanism to take care of them after that period of time.

President Winnecke: I think there would be a plan, its just not any two of their meetings a month, they would determine if it’s the first, you know, it could be the second and third because our meetings are the first and fourth, I don’t know, –

Councilmember Tornatta: But you see what I’m saying. We might have a meeting on the fourth and then that next meetings there’s a big meeting that’s not going to be on because we’re not planning ahead for the funding of how this mechanism is going to come across. And I just think the whole planning is lacking and I’ve seen that many times just in the past month we’ve been moving before we start planning. And its starting to affect the public because the public might want to follow government. In this capacity, they cannot because we’re going to be choosing what meetings we would like them to follow and that’s my only problem with it. I think its great. We want to see access. I think we all agree that we wanted access in the Commissioners’ Office but we couldn’t get it funding wise. Once it was made available funding wise, then we were happy and all on board. But right now we’re picking and choosing kind of what’s going on and I think we need to either have full access or not have access at all.

Councilmember Goebel: I was going to ask, the plan that we’ll go with is, we will be televised 100%, the Commissioners will be televised 50%, correct?

President Winnecke: That is correct.

Councilmember Goebel: That does seem to be a little bit lacking, I think, as far as strategy goes.

Councilmember Raben: I might, just so I understand, I think this kind of follows what a wise man once told me, no good deed goes unpunished. I think this is, again, they’ve gone to two meetings and allowed us two more as a gesture. I’m sure they would be happy to go back to, you know, all four of their meetings each month being televised. So –

Councilmember Tornatta: I’m not doing it for vanity. I’m not doing it because I want to be on T.V. The fact of the matter is, you want to be able to provide access to the voting public and that’s where I’m coming from. And if you only do two meetings and they’re both pretty much down the line meetings, but the two meetings that you miss were the ones that had the action in it, the stuff that you hope to catch when you watch so you can learn about government, then you’re not really doing what you meant to do in the first place, and obviously access is the point.

Councilmember Sutton: Right now they have the opportunity to have all four of their meetings or every meeting that they have, if its five meetings in a month, right now they have that ability in the room that they’re in. And then as well, not only do they have the ability to televise all their meetings, when you look at the numbers on their meetings, which is one of the rationale, the reasons why they said they wanted to move over here because the numbers were too large to be able to accommodate over in that room over there, that room seats about 25 people comfortably, you can get more in there. I mean, their last couple of meetings, you had ten people and twelve people, so the numbers really don’t, I don’t think adequately justify the reason necessarily to move over here. I really am not really concerned whether they are over here or over there, but right now, since they’ve made the commitment over there and they spent $45,000 in equipment over there and they can be on every Tuesday, whereas if they move here, they’re only on two times a month, so if they’re on an issue that carries over from one meeting to the next, you may only get a partial part of that meeting. So why not just stay where they are, they’ve got the hookup there, it would be nice if County Council as well could be televised. But we don’t have the ability to make that commitment, I guess, at this particular point in time.

Councilmember Raben: Mr. President, could I offer what may be a reasonable compromise here? Again, you know, maybe we can say thanks, but no thanks at this point. We’ll allow the equipment to be moved, the funds that they were going to allow us to use to televise two of our meetings, we’ll tell them to keep to televise all of theirs. Hopefully, in the next thirty days we’ll have a better picture of what our finances look like and maybe if things look good, maybe we can televise ours for the balance of the year.

President Winnecke: Okay, the motion on the floor is to approve the request, so I forgot who made the motion.

Councilmember Tornatta: Curt made the motion and I seconded.

President Winnecke: Okay.

Councilmember Sutton: I just, again, I know, I think that’s a good suggestion, Councilman Raben, but even though the money is not coming out of the general fund, in a sense, taxpayers are still paying for the cost of moving that equipment back over here. And the rationale was that room was too small for them and their numbers clearly support that it is adequate. So why not keep it where it is?

Councilmember Tornatta: Could we possibly table this and ask them to see what direction they want to head or are we just voting to move the equipment at this point?

President Winnecke: The meeting –

Councilmember Tornatta: So we’re not worried about the televising.

President Winnecke: We have no say in whether the equipment is being moved. That’s being done. That funding mechanism is in place for that. We’re acting on their request to televise our two meetings a month, basically on their dime. That’s the request that’s before us.

Councilmember Tornatta: Okay.

President Winnecke: So if Councilman Raben is, I mean, we can table it for further discussion if you’d like or we can –

Councilmember Tornatta: Let’s vote on it.

President Winnecke: We have a motion to accept it and a second, so we’ll take a roll call vote on that. And this vote is to accept the proposal as presented to televise our two meetings per month.

Councilmember Sutton: And theirs two times.

President Winnecke: And two of their meetings per month.

Marsha Abell: I have a question then. If we decided we – if we said thanks, but no thanks to them, that’s no guarantee they’re going to do their four anyway, I guess.

President Winnecke: Well, they could –

Marsha Abell: And they still may just do their two.

President Winnecke: That’s correct.

Marsha Abell: That isn’t a make or break, whether we take it or not. If they’ve decided they’re only going to do two, they may still just do two, is that correct?

President Winnecke: Right.

Councilmember Raben: I’ve not discussed this issue with them, so I don’t know.

Marsha Abell: This is the first I’ve heard of this issue.

Councilmember Wortman: Mr. President, what about the budget process and what about special meetings? Would that be involved or just the two meetings per month?

President Winnecke: Until they exceed their budgeted, their annual budgeted amount which is approximately $20,000 a year, or they anticipate that being able to last through November.

Councilmember Wortman: Thank you.

Councilmember Sutton: Councilman Wortman, were you referring to our budget process? Our budget meetings? So we would not –

Councilmember Wortman: I’m just interested in ours..

Councilmember Sutton: So that would not include televising our budget meetings?

Councilmember Wortman: I was just asking the question.

Councilmember Raben: Mr. President, I’m concerned about the outcome of this vote for the simple reason that I don’t – if this is voted down, I don’t want it to be construed as if this body does not support televising our meetings. And I know a lot of people in the past several months have expressed a real interest in doing that, so we need to clarify that if we vote no, its we’re simply not accepting their offer, that we’ll pay for our own, I guess, is basically what’s being said, if I understand the conversation that’s taking place here.

Councilmember Goebel: I think everyone here is supportive of televising these meetings. I don’t understand, this is the first time I have heard of this proposal, I don’t understand the nature that they want half of their meetings and a full 100% of our meetings, and has there been any collaboration or talk with the city about coming on board also with their Council meetings and other meetings?

President Winnecke: I do not know the answer to that. They took this action last night or yesterday afternoon at their meeting, so this letter just came to me as a result of that meeting. So I don’t know the answer to that question.

Councilmember Goebel: Is there a way we could make, if we table this now, a motion that we support being televised along with the other bodies of government locally, too?

President Winnecke: We certainly can, I would just tell you that from the budgeted amount that the Building Authority has provided for the year, $20,000 will probably not go very far in terms of televising Commission meetings, County Council, City Council, Board of Works, Board of Safety, all those bodies, you know, its not going to go very far in that regard. So the motion on the floor is to support the request before us and that is to televise our two monthly meetings. And let’s take a roll call vote on it.

Councilmember Sutton: Wait a minute. And two of theirs, right?

President Winnecke: Well, it says – I’ll read the paragraph to you, “In order to allow the public the greatest possible access to county government within the existing budget and contract, the Commissioners voted at their February 1, 2005 meeting to ask the Council to allow broadcasts of its two monthly meetings. Two of the four regular monthly meetings of the Commission will also be broadcast. This would last through the end of the contract in November, 2005 or the exhaustion of the set aside funds, whichever comes first.”

Councilmember Tornatta: And we call for the vote.

President Winnecke: Roll call vote.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Tornatta?

Councilmember Tornatta: Okay, in my vote, I just want to say that obviously what I’ve said before still applies, its their opportunity to be on four times. I think for the public its necessary that they see that, but, Jim, as you said, never look a gift horse in the mouth, and I’m happy to accept that the Council would get on and have access. So I want to see the Commission start planning better, but I will accept this motion. Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton?

Councilmember Sutton: I think it obviously favors us in terms of the ability to get our meetings on but county government, as a whole, I don’t think is really getting, the public doesn’t get a chance to get the whole picture and the Commission is on, have the opportunity to be on four times or the full month now and I hate to see that that’s disrupted, so I vote no.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Abell?

Councilmember Abell: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Goebel?

Councilmember Goebel: I agree with Councilman Sutton on the issue that I think that the County Commissioners should also look for ways to make sure that all their meetings are televised because I think there are important things that happen in every meeting and perhaps some of those important points might be missed, but I will go with a yes because I do believe that these meetings should be televised.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben?

Councilmember Raben: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Wortman?

Councilmember Wortman: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: President Winnecke?

President Winnecke: Yes.

(Motion carried 6-1/Councilmember Sutton opposed)

President Winnecke: Motion passes six to one and I’ll communicate that with the Commissioners and they do not know exactly when the equipment will be moved, but we’ll do our best to notify you. Yes?

Councilmember Tornatta: Before we got kind of into that, I was just going to bring up, have we talked to the Commissioners about, is dropping that Supervisor position, they obviously thought that was something that could be done in the Highway department, can that be dropped? I mean, why wouldn’t we keep the repeal?

Councilmember Wortman: Mr. President, I think I can answer, we’re going to maintain the Assistant Supervisor, is that what you’re speaking in reference to, Troy?

Councilmember Tornatta: Right, and it was thought that we could get rid of that position and now its said that we’re –

Councilmember Wortman: Its my understanding they’re going to maintain that position.

Councilmember Tornatta: Okay, why could we get rid of it before?

Councilmember Wortman: That would be the Commissioner’s call.

Councilmember Tornatta: Well, I guess I’m asking you, you’re the liaison, if you could find that out, that would be great because if we could get rid of it before, but now we need it, I’m just trying to figure out why we would do that.

Councilmember Wortman: I know in the Personnel Committee meeting why they said they was going to maintain it, see, too. So I’ll come back next meeting and let you know for sure. But that’s my understanding, though, that they want to maintain that, see. And then they dropped the raise.

Councilmember Tornatta: Alright, thanks.

President Winnecke: Okay, next on the agenda is a reminder of the March filing date, February 10th.

President Winnecke: Also, the last time we, as a county, increased the mileage reimbursement was in 1997. The current rate is $.28 cents. I am proposing that we increase that to $.30 per mile effective March 1st, and I would entertain a motion to that effect.

Councilmember Tornatta: So moved.

Councilmember Wortman: Second.

President Winnecke: And Mr. Ahlers had a point to make.

Jeff Ahlers: Just so that you know, since this is an ordinance, I think it was the intent that they wanted this to go into effect March 1st. In order to do that, if its passed unanimously, this can be the first and final reading. If it is not, it will have to come back again next month, which we may have to change the effective date then, so just so that you understand in terms of whether or not we can do the effective – in order to have the effective date be March 1st, it would need to pass unanimously today as a first and final reading.

Councilmember Raben: Mr. President, real quick, as a matter of record, the ordinance should be read into the record.

President Winnecke: Okay.

Councilmember Raben: And then you might withdraw your motions until you hear the ordinance, I don’t know.

President Winnecke: “Whereas, in 1997, the Vanderburgh County Council established that the rate for reimbursement of mileage expenses to County officers and employees for travel expenses on approved County business would be $.28 per mile; and Whereas, the Vanderburgh County Council deems it appropriate to amend the rate for reimbursement of mileage expenses for County officers and employees on approved County business to $.30 per mile, effective March 1, 2005. Now, Therefore, Be It Ordained by the Vanderburgh County Council that the rate for reimbursement of mileage expenses for the use of a County officer or employee’s private vehicle for travel expenses incurred on approved County business shall be $.30 per mile, effective March 1, 2005, and thereafter until modified or amended by the Vanderburgh County Council. Passed and approved by the Vanderburgh County Council this 2nd day of February, 2005.” Any other questions or comments?

Councilmember Tornatta: Mr. President? Are we hedging on the word approved and who is that approved by? Is that – maybe that’s a counsel question.

Jeff Ahlers: I put that word in there only because I assumed that you want to make sure that its clear that any county employee can’t go off and drive their vehicle wherever and then start submitting receipts, so I mean, if you want further clarification, we can. I just put that in to give you an element of safety. I assumed that our county employees and officers would do that, but I guess what’s approved, I would assume that each department head or Council would have to approve that, but that’s why I put that to make sure that everybody realizes that they can’t just drive their vehicle and charge us.

Councilmember Tornatta: Okay.

President Winnecke: Troy, if you would like to consider amending your motion to make it first and second and final reading, is that the best way to phrase it?

Councilmember Tornatta: Right. I make a motion for the Ordinance Establishing Mileage Expense Reimbursement Rate from $.28 to $.30 as read, and make this be the first and last reading on a unanimous vote.

Councilmember Wortman: And I’ll amend my motion to do the same thing.

President Winnecke: Okay, further discussion? Roll call vote please.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Tornatta?

Councilmember Tornatta: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton?

Councilmember Sutton: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Abell?

Councilmember Abell: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Goebel?

Councilmember Goebel: 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: Thank you very much. Our last bit of business, tax abatement. Mr. Schopmeyer.

Jeff Ahlers: The Department of Metropolitan Development is represented by our resolution that was enacted years ago by one of the city attorneys, but because Mr. Schopmeyer is from my firm, I’d like to excuse myself and not have any involvement concerning this discussion. If there are legal questions concerning this, then we will arrange for the county attorney or other suitable counsel concerning this matter.

President Winnecke: Could you state your name for the record?

Mike Schopmeyer: Mike Schopmeyer here on behalf of S Properties. We had been advised that this was continued until March, so we were surprised to find out this afternoon that it was on the agenda. We think its probably better that we wait until March and have clients here because I’m not sure we could appropriately answer any questions you have without the clients here. So –

President Winnecke: We’re seeing all of this, this afternoon for the first time, so I am fine with —

Mike Schopmeyer: Yeah, we were told it was not by DMD and they’re obviously not – yeah, Rob’s here. We were told it wasn’t on, so we were surprised –

President Winnecke: I’m fine with deferring this until March.

Mike Schopmeyer: Okay.

President Winnecke: Okay, we’ll see you next month. Thanks, Mike. Any other business to come before the Council?

Councilmember Sutton: He can’t come back till March.

President Winnecke: No, he can’t come back till March.

Councilmember Tornatta: Let’s defer it until June.

President Winnecke: Motion to adjourn?

Councilmember Tornatta: So moved.

(There being no further business to come before the County Council, the meeting was adjourned at 4:09 p.m.)

VANDERBURGH COUNTY COUNCIL

                                                                                                                                             President Lloyd Winnecke                 Vice President Marsha Abell

       Councilmember Jim Raben           Councilmember Mike Goebel

                                                                                                                                         Councilmember Curt Wortman       Councilmember Royce Sutton

Councilmember Troy Tornatta

Recorded and transcribed by Teri Lukeman.