| The Vanderburgh County Council met
in session the 3rd day of February in room 301 of the Civic Center Complex.
The meeting was called to order at 3:36 p.m. by County Council President
Curt Wortman.
President Wortman: We're going to
open the meeting and we would like to have a roll call please, Madam Secretary.
|
COUNCILMEMBER
|
PRESENT
|
ABSENT
|
| Councilmember
Smith |
X
|
|
| Councilmember
Sutton |
X
|
|
| Councilmember
Bassemier |
X
|
|
| Councilmember
Hoy |
X
|
|
| Councilmember
Raben |
X
|
|
| Councilmember
Lloyd |
|
X
|
| President
Wortman |
X
|
|
Councilmember Lloyd arrived just after
attendance called.
President Wortman: All stand, Council
and audience, and pledge allegiance to the flag.
(Pledge of Allegiance was given)
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
JANUARY 6, 1999
|
President Wortman: I'll entertain
a motion for the approval of the minutes from January 6, 1999. Do I have
a motion to that effect?
Councilmember Hoy: So moved.
Councilmember Raben: Second.
President Wortman: Mr. Hoy and Mr.
Raben seconded it. Any discussion, corrections, deletions? All those in
favor, raise your right hand. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven.
(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)
President Wortman: Before we get into
appropriations, we want to recognize the students from North High School,
future government participants, I'm sure, and would you please stand so
we can all recognize you. Thank you. So you get a firsthand look at how
government operates in a very conservative way, hopefully. So thank you
for coming out, appreciate it.
A) AUDITOR
President Wortman: Okay, we'll get
into the appropriations and the first on the agenda is the Auditor, and
the Finance Chair, Mr. Raben, would you --
Councilmember Raben: Mr. President,
I'll move approval of 1020-3371 and 1020-3372 in the amount of $3,910.
President Wortman: Do I have a second?
Councilman Lloyd: Second.
President Wortman: Mr. Lloyd seconded.
Any discussion? No discussion? Call the roll call please.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Smith?
Councilmember Smith: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton?
Councilmember Sutton: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Bassemier?
Councilmember Bassemier: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Hoy?
Councilmember Hoy: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben?
Councilmember Raben: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Lloyd?
Councilmember Lloyd: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: President Wortman?
President Wortman: Yes.
AUDITOR REQUESTED APPROVED
| 1020-3371 |
COMPUTER HARDWARE |
3,400.00
|
3,400.00
|
| 1020-3372 |
COMPUTER SOFTWARE |
510.00
|
510.00
|
| TOTAL |
|
3,910.00
|
3,910.00
|
(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)
B) SHERIFF
President Wortman: Okay, now we'll
go to the Sheriff. Mr. Raben, would you proceed with that?
Councilmember Raben: Mr. President,
I'll move approval of 1050-1130-0004 in the amount of $310.
President Wortman: Do I hear a second?
Councilmember Smith: Second.
President Wortman: He's got a second.
Mr. Raben, you want to read that other motion to go with this appropriation
request?
Councilmember Raben: I do have another
motion but that falls under salary --
President Wortman: In the salary account,
you'll take care of it there --
Councilmember Raben: But Mr. President,
I will state, before you, the Sheriff's Department has prepared a letter
to the Council that everyone has a copy of. Along with that is a letter
to the Merit Board which Chief Deputy Williams is here if anyone has a
question on this, but you have copies of both of these in front of you
if anyone has any questions.
President Wortman: You need to read
that motion in the line item, I think, to back it up.
Councilmember Raben: I can, Mr. President,
if that's what you would like. Let's vote on this motion first and then
we'll take this separate.
President Wortman: Okay, we've got
a motion and a second from Mrs. Smith, I believe that's right. Now, any
more discussion? Mr. Lloyd?
Councilman Lloyd: I just wondered,
on the amendment, wouldn't that go under Salary Ordinance?
Councilmember Raben: This is an extra
motion that's been prepared and it's basically to help cover the Council
and hopefully it states what our position is on this. If the co-maker of
the motion doesn't care, I can add that to the first motion. Who is the
co-maker?
Jeff Ahlers: I see what you're saying,
Mr. Raben. You're wanting to take this up under item number 8, Amendment
to the Salary Ordinance, is that correct?
Councilmember Raben: Correct.
Jeff Ahlers: That's fine. I wasn't
sure what was going -- just to make sure that we have the minutes clarified
and the conditions that need to be satisfied that we've got set out. So
that's fine.
Councilmember Raben: Okay, so leave
the original motion as --
President Wortman: Right, read your
original motion again so everybody understands it. Okay, any questions,
any more discussion? If not, call the roll please.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Smith?
Councilmember Smith: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton?
Councilmember Sutton: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Bassemier?
Councilmember Bassemier: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Hoy?
Councilmember Hoy: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben?
Councilmember Raben: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Lloyd?
Councilmember Lloyd: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: President Wortman?
President Wortman: Yes. Okay, motion
carried.
SHERIFF REQUESTED APPROVED
| 1050-1130-0004 |
LIEUTENANT |
310.00
|
310.00
|
| TOTAL |
|
310.00
|
310.00
|
(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)
C) SUPERINTENDENT OF COUNTY BUILDINGS
President Wortman: We'll go down to
the Superintendent of County Buildings. Mr. Raben?
Councilmember Raben: Mr. President,
I'll move approval of 1310-1110, 1310-1900 and 1310-1910 for a total of
$1,612.
President Wortman: Do I have a second?
Councilmember Smith: Second.
President Wortman: Second Mrs. Smith.
Any discussion? No discussion? Call the roll please.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Smith?
Councilmember Smith: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton?
Councilmember Sutton: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Bassemier?
Councilmember Bassemier: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Hoy?
Councilmember Hoy: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben?
Councilmember Raben: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Lloyd?
Councilmember Lloyd: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: President Wortman?
President Wortman: Yes.
SUPERINTENDENT OF COUNTY BUILDINGS
REQUESTED APPROVED
| 1310-1110-1310 |
SUPT. OF COUNTY
BUILDINGS |
1,421.00
|
1,421.00
|
| 1310-1900 |
FICA |
109.00
|
109.00
|
| 1310-1910 |
PERF |
82.00
|
82.00
|
| TOTAL |
|
1,612.00
|
1,612.00
|
(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)
D) SUPERIOR COURT
President Wortman: Okay, proceed to
Superior Court, Mr. Raben.
Councilmember Raben: Mr. President,
I'll move approval of -- excuse me. Superior Court has been withdrawn so
I would like to set that in at zero.
Councilman Lloyd: Second.
President Wortman: Do I have a second?
Mr. Lloyd. Excuse me, Mr. Raben, it should be deferred for one month instead
of setting it in at zero.
Councilmember Raben: Since this is
a final action meeting we need to set it in at zero.
Jeff Ahlers: I think you can do it
either way, it's just that they will need to know or be notified if you
set it in at zero, we just need to notify them to refile so that they are
not under the assumption that it's going to come up at the next meeting
because it will need to be --
Councilmember Sutton: Councilman Raben,
if you set that in at zero then they couldn't bring that back next month.
Councilmember Raben: That is the cleanest
way to do it and that's the way we've done it for quite some time, but
I will amend my motion. Mr. President, Superior Court, the entire request
to be deferred.
President Wortman: Okay, do I have
a second to that effect?
Councilmember Smith: You have a second
and I think that's what we voted -- I think that's what we discussed at
our committee meeting last week, that it was going to be deferred.
President Wortman: That's right and
the Judge requested that, too, by the way. He asked that -- he will contact
all Councilmembers to explain his position. Mr. Hoy?
Councilmember Hoy: Yes, that is going
to go through the Job Study, is that correct? Or not?
President Wortman: I -- that's a good
question, because that's a new person --
Councilmember Hoy: It's a new position.
President Wortman: I would say we
would possibly have to.
Councilmember Bassemier: This is why
we suggested defer it.
Councilmember Smith: I don't think
that they can just raise that kind of salary without going through the
Job Study, can they?
President Wortman: I'll inform the
Judge of that effect, okay?
Councilmember Hoy: That's what we
stated last week. We stated last week that it should go through the Job
Study.
President Wortman: I think that's
right, Mr. Hoy. Thank you. Okay, so that's what well do. So, okay. We'e
got a motion and a second on the floor. Call the roll please for a deferral.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Smith?
Councilmember Smith: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton?
Councilmember Sutton: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Bassemier?
Councilmember Bassemier: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Hoy?
Councilmember Hoy: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben?
Councilmember Raben: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Lloyd?
Councilmember Lloyd: I'll amend my
second to defer and I'll vote yes.
President Wortman: Okay, thank you,
Mr. Lloyd.
Teri Lukeman: President Wortman?
President Wortman: Yes.
SUPERIOR COURT REQUESTED APPROVED
| 1370-1661-1370 |
PUBLIC DEFENDER |
21,859.00
|
DEFERRED
|
| 1370-1770-1370 |
CLERICAL ASST. |
7,080.00
|
DEFERRED
|
| 1370-1801-1370 |
SM. CLAIM
SECRETARY |
7,080.00
|
DEFERRED
|
| 1370-1900 |
FICA |
2,756.00
|
DEFERRED
|
| 1370-1910 |
PERF |
2,072.00
|
DEFERRED
|
| TOTAL |
|
40,847.00
|
DEFERRED
|
(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)
E) CUMULATIVE BRIDGE
President Wortman: Okay, the next
is Cumulative Bridge. That's been advertised wrong so that will have to
be set in at zero. Mr. Raben.
Councilmember Raben: Mr. President,
2030-4364, Mt. Pleasant Road be set in at zero.
President Wortman: Do I have a second?
Councilmember Sutton: Second.
President Wortman: Second Mr. Sutton
over there. Any discussion? No discussion? Call the roll please.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Smith?
Councilmember Smith: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton?
Councilmember Sutton: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Bassemier?
Councilmember Bassemier: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Hoy?
Councilmember Hoy: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben?
Councilmember Raben: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Lloyd?
Councilmember Lloyd: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: President Wortman?
President Wortman: Yes.
CUMULATIVE BRIDGE REQUESTED APPROVED
| 2030-4364 |
MT. PLEASANT
RD. RRX |
1,231.00
|
0.00
|
| TOTAL |
|
1,231.00
|
0.00
|
(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)
F) LOCAL EMERGENCY PLANNING COMMISSION
President Wortman: Next on the agenda
is the Local Emergency Planning Commission and -- Mr. Raben.
Councilmember Raben: Mr. President,
Ill move approval of 2861-2600 in the amount of $250; 2861-3210 in the
amount of $7,000; 2861-3130 in the amount of $1,200; 2861-3140 in the amount
of $100; and 2861-4210 in the amount of $300; for a total of $8,850. There
was not anyone from this department here last week, so there may be questions
with this.
Councilmember Hoy: I'll second the
motion to get it on the floor.
President Wortman: Yes sir. Mr. Hoy
seconded it. Okay. This is kind of a new thing, they're kind of rearranging
things, so they are new at this. So everything should be alright and legitimate.
Any other discussion? No discussion, call the roll please.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Smith?
Councilmember Smith: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton?
Councilmember Sutton: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Bassemier?
Councilmember Bassemier: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Hoy?
Councilmember Hoy: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben?
Councilmember Raben: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Lloyd?
Councilmember Lloyd: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: President Wortman?
President Wortman: Yes.
LOCAL EMERGENCY PLANNING COMMISSION
REQUESTED APPROVED
| 2861-2600 |
OFFICE SUPPLIES |
250.00
|
250.00
|
| 2861-3210 |
EMERGENCY
MGMT. |
7,000.00
|
7,000.00
|
| 2861-3130 |
TRAVEL/MILEAGE |
1,200.00
|
1,200.00
|
| 2861-3140 |
TELEPHONE |
100.00
|
100.00
|
| 2861-4210 |
OFFICE FURNITURE |
300.00
|
300.00
|
| TOTAL |
|
8,850.00
|
8,850.00
|
(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)
|
LEGAL AID/UNITED WAY FUND
REPEAL REQUEST
|
A) LEGAL AID/UNITED WAY
President Wortman: Next on the agenda
is the Legal Aid/United Way Fund repeal request. Mr. Raben?
Councilmember Raben: Mr. President,
I am going to move approval of the United Way Fund to be approved as submitted.
That is quite a long one, so we'll take it as that.
Councilmember Sutton: Second.
President Wortman: Got a second from
Mr. Sutton. Any discussion? Call the roll please.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Smith?
Councilmember Smith: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton?
Councilmember Sutton: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Bassemier?
Councilmember Bassemier: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Hoy?
Councilmember Hoy: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben?
Councilmember Raben: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Lloyd?
Councilmember Lloyd: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: President Wortman?
President Wortman: Yes.
LEGAL AID/UNITED WAY REQUESTED
APPROVED
| 4290-2600 |
OFFICE SUPPLIES |
500.00
|
500.00
|
| 4290-3120 |
POSTAGE |
500.00
|
500.00
|
| 4290-3130 |
TRAVEL |
500.00
|
500.00
|
| 4290-3140 |
TELEPHONE |
500.00
|
500.00
|
| 4290-3410 |
PRINTING |
500.00
|
500.00
|
| 4290-3520 |
EQUIPMENT
REPAIR |
250.00
|
250.00
|
| 4290-3611 |
LITIGATION |
1,000.00
|
1,000.00
|
| 4290-3700 |
DUES &
SUBSCRIPTIONS |
250.00
|
250.00
|
| 4290-3990 |
MISCELLANEOUS |
176.00
|
176.00
|
| 4290-4220 |
OFFICE MACHINES |
300.00
|
300.00
|
| TOTAL |
|
4,476.00
|
4,476.00
|
(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)
A) COUNTY ASSESSOR
B) CIRCUIT COURT (FIRST REQUEST)
President Wortman: That completes
the appropriation and repeals, so then we'll turn to page three and start
on the Transfer Requests.
Councilmember Raben: Mr. President,
I am going to move approval of the first two transfers, County Assessor,
from account 1090-2600 to account 1090-4210; Circuit Court from account
1360-1980 to account 1360-1370-1360. Both transfers as submitted and I
make that in the form of a motion.
President Wortman: Mr. Raben, excuse
me. I think the County Assessor, Supplies and Office Furniture should be
withdrawn, the way I understand it.
Councilmember Raben: I had not been
notified, but that's okay. Mr. President, I will amend my motion to read
County Assessor, 1090-2600 Office Supplies and 1090-4210 has been withdrawn.
The second motion, Circuit Court as submitted, and I make that in the form
of a motion.
President Wortman: Do I have a second
to that?
Councilmember Hoy: Second.
President Wortman: Mr. Hoy. Any discussion
on that item? If not, call the roll please.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Smith?
Councilmember Smith: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton?
Councilmember Sutton: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Bassemier?
Councilmember Bassemier: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Hoy?
Councilmember Hoy: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben?
Councilmember Raben: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Lloyd?
Councilmember Lloyd: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: President Wortman?
President Wortman: Yes.
COUNTY ASSESSOR REQUESTED APPROVED
| FROM: 1090-2600 |
SUPPLIES |
500.00
|
Withdrawn
|
| TO: 1090-4210 |
OFFICE FURNITURE |
500.00
|
Withdrawn
|
CIRCUIT COURT REQUESTED APPROVED
| FROM: 1360-1980 |
OTHER PAY |
2,341.00
|
2,341.00
|
| TO: 1360-1370-1360 |
BAIL BOND
INTERVIEW SPECIALIST |
2,341.00
|
2,341.00
|
(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)
B) CIRCUIT COURT (SECOND REQUEST)
President Wortman: Okay, now proceed,
Mr. Raben.
Councilmember Raben: Mr. President,
well, let me get it on the floor first. Circuit Court, from account 1360-1980
Other Pay in the amount of $100 to 1360-1600-1360 Special Stipend at $100.
I make that in the form of a motion.
President Wortman: Do I have a second?
Councilmember Hoy: Second.
President Wortman: Any discussion
on this?
Councilmember Raben: Yeah, I'd like
to state that in the past we have not granted -- what this request is,
theyre asking for a 3% increase on the stipend pay and this Council in
the past has not -- we give the 3% to their salary line item at budgets,
but never on the stipend pay, so I would recommend that we vote this one
down.
President Wortman: Any other discussion?
So the transfer (inaudible - microphone turned off). Everybody understands
that so call the roll please.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Smith?
Councilmember Smith: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton?
Councilmember Sutton: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Bassemier?
Councilmember Bassemier: No.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Hoy?
Councilmember Hoy: No.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben?
Councilmember Raben: No.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Lloyd?
Councilmember Lloyd: No.
Teri Lukeman: President Wortman?
President Wortman: No. Motion fails,
it don't stipulate any stipend in there.
CIRCUIT COURT REQUESTED APPROVED
| FROM: 1360-1980 |
OTHER PAY |
100.00
|
0.00
|
| TO: 1360-1600-1360 |
SPECIAL STIPEND |
100.00
|
0.00
|
(Motion fails 5-2/Councilmembers
Bassemier, Hoy, Raben, Lloyd and Wortman opposed)
C) COUNTY HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT
D) CUM BRIDGE
E) CIRCUIT COURT MISDEMEANOR OFFENDER
F) LOCAL EMERGENCY PLANNING COMMISSION
President Wortman: Go to the County
Highway Department, Mr. Raben.
Councilmember Raben: Okay, Mr. President,
I will take County Highway, Cum Bridge, Circuit Court Misdemeanor Offender,
and Local Emergency Planning Commission all as submitted and I make that
in the form of a motion.
President Wortman: Do I have a second?
Councilman Lloyd: Second.
President Wortman: Second Mr. Lloyd.
Any discussion? No discussion, call the roll please.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Smith?
Councilmember Smith: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton?
Councilmember Sutton: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Bassemier?
Councilmember Bassemier: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Hoy?
Councilmember Hoy: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben?
Councilmember Raben: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Lloyd?
Councilmember Lloyd: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: President Wortman?
President Wortman: Yes.
COUNTY HIGHWAY REQUESTED APPROVED
| FROM: 2010-1066 |
MAINTENANCE
& UTILITY |
1,247.71
|
1,247.71
|
| TO: 2010-1971 |
ACCRUED PAYMENTS |
1,247.71
|
1,247.71
|
COUNTY HIGHWAY REQUESTED APPROVED
| FROM: 2010-2530 |
BITUMINOUS |
30,000.00
|
30,000.00
|
| TO: 2010-2580 |
CALCIUM &
CHLORIDE |
30,000.00
|
30,000.00
|
CUMULATIVE BRIDGE REQUESTED APPROVED
| FROM: 2030-2210 |
GAS &
OIL |
1,500.00
|
1,500.00
|
| TO: 2030-3140 |
TELEPHONE |
1,500.00
|
1,500.00
|
CIRCUIT COURT MISDEMEANOR OFFENDER
REQUESTED APPROVED
| FROM: 2760-1120-2760 |
WORK RELEASE
OFFICER |
855.00
|
855.00
|
| 2760-1990 |
EXTRA HELP |
1,500.00
|
1,500.00
|
| TO: 2760-1110-2760 |
COOK |
855.00
|
855.00
|
| 2760-1800-2760 |
SHIFT DIFFERENTIAL |
1,500.00
|
1,500.00
|
LOCAL EMERGENCY PLANNING COMMISSION
REQUESTED APPROVED
| FROM: 2861-3370 |
COMPUTER (DATA
MGMT) |
5,500.00
|
5,500.00
|
| TO: 2861-3210 |
EMERGENCY
MGMT. |
5,500.00
|
5,500.00
|
(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)
A) ARMSTRONG ASSESSOR
President Wortman: Now, proceed, Mr.
Raben.
Councilmember Raben: They have one
late transfer --
Councilmember Hoy: Did you vote LEPC?
Councilmember Raben: Yes. I neglected
one late transfer. This is for Armstrong Township. Their copy machine last
week went down. They've been instructed that it's obsolete and there's
no parts for it. They called and I gave them the okay on a late transfer.
They're in a situation where they're not just around the corner from a
copy place. So out where theyre at it' tough to get copies, so this is
just to purchase a copy machine.
Councilmember Hoy: Second.
President Wortman: Got a second from
Mr. Hoy. Any discussion? Mr. Sutton?
Councilmember Smith: Is this a pretty
small machine? I mean, it's not very much money.
Councilmember Raben: Yeah, they just
need a basic copier. No extras or anything like that. Just a standard copier.
The actual bid price down in purchasing is $1,639 and the amount of the
transfer is $1,700.
President Wortman: Thank you. Any
other discussion?
Councilmember Hoy: I was with Mr.
Kron in a Soil & Water Conservation District meeting and he expressed
the same thing Mr. Raben expressed. He is satisfied with this very much.
President Wortman: Thank you, Mr.
Hoy. Okay, call the roll please.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Smith?
Councilmember Smith: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton?
Councilmember Sutton: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Bassemier?
Councilmember Bassemier: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Hoy?
Councilmember Hoy: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben?
Councilmember Raben: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Lloyd?
Councilmember Lloyd: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: President Wortman?
President Wortman: Yes.
ARMSTRONG TOWNSHIP REQUESTED APPROVED
| FROM: 1100-3130 |
TRAVEL |
800.00
|
800.00
|
| 1100-3140 |
TELEPHONE |
900.00
|
900.00
|
| TO: 1100-4220 |
OFFICE MACHINES |
1,700.00
|
1,700.00
|
(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)
President Wortman: Proceed, Mr. Raben.
Councilmember Raben: Once again, Mr.
President, the repeal for Legal Aid is on there. We've actually already
approved that. So I'll move once again that we accept the repeal for Legal
Aid.
Councilman Lloyd: Second.
President Wortman: Okay, Mr. Raben,
what did you say?
Councilmember Raben: That was under
item seven. We're just once again approving the repeals.
President Wortman: Okay.
Councilmember Raben: We've already
approved it, but it's on the agenda, so this time for sure its going to
happen.
President Wortman: Okay, you'e making
a motion. Alright, do I have a second for Mr. Raben?
Councilman Lloyd: Second.
President Wortman: Got a second. Alright,
any more discussion? If not, call the roll please.
Councilmember Sutton: Why are we double
covering this?
Councilmember Raben: I took it with
the appropriations, but it's on the agenda this way, so I guess we need
to follow the agenda, so --
Councilmember Hoy: It's such a shock
when we get a repeal, Councilman Sutton.
Councilmember Raben: See, it's that
amount times two now, Royce!
Councilmember Sutton: Okay, we want
to encourage the other department heads who might be thinking along those
lines.
Councilmember Raben: And practice
makes perfect.
Councilmember Sutton: And we'll even
put a motion on the floor twice for them.
President Wortman: Well, we might
get a double repeal, I think thats what he's after. I am not sure.
Councilmember Sutton: Go ahead, Mr.
Raben.
Councilmember Raben: It's up to you
to --
President Wortman: We've got a motion
and a second. Okay, no other discussion? Call the roll please.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Smith?
Councilmember Smith: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton?
Councilmember Sutton: Yes, again.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Bassemier?
Councilmember Bassemier: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Hoy?
Councilmember Hoy: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben?
Councilmember Raben: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Lloyd?
Councilmember Lloyd: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: President Wortman?
President Wortman: Yes.
|
AMENDMENTS
TO SALARY ORDINANCE
|
A) SHERIFF/LINE NAME CHANGE AND
INCREASE SALARY
President Wortman: Okay, Mr. Raben,
proceed to number eight.
Councilmember Raben: Okay, item eight.
First I am going to make a motion that line item 1050-0004-1050 be temporarily
changed to Lieutenant/Temporary Captain for the year 1999 effective upon
approval by the Sheriff's Merit Board and would then be retroactive to
January 14, 1999. At such time that either Captain -- line item 1050-0002-1050
or 1050-0003-1050 is vacated either through retirement or otherwise, the
employee in line item 1050-0004-1050 will be moved into the vacated Captain
line. Line item 1050-0004-1050 shall be re-established as a Lieutenant
line. The County Council has not and will not create three new permanent
Captain positions. So, in essence, what that states is we're setting up
-- were just adding Lieutenant/Temporary Captain until such time a Lieutenant
should leave through retirement or for some unknown other reason. This
will be a temporary position.
President Wortman: Okay, got a second
to that motion?
Councilmember Smith: Second.
President Wortman: Any discussion?
Councilmember Sutton: Yeah, one question,
Mr. President. I guess going back, if that -- a position does become available,
changing that line item -- it will come back before Council to change that
actual, that actual title on that line item if I'm not mistaken.
Councilmember Raben: What is going
on here is we're not actually setting up a separate Captain line item.
We're using the existing Lieutenant line item adding /Temporary Captain,
which when one of those other Captain line items become vacant, okay, then
this line item will go back to just the standard Lieutenant line item.
That's the statement we're making here.
Councilmember Smith: Jim, will they
have to come back every year to okay that line item or will that -- you
said this is for `99. Im glad that you're going ahead and funding that
but why would they have to come back unless it changes? You're doing it
for `99. If nobody retires in 2000, then they are going to have to come
back and ask for the same amount of money again?
Councilmember Sutton: I think it's
as maybe we had discussed or talked about it, is because this is a temporary
situation and we have not granted this type of status for any particular
position before so that we could keep that before us, so that we could
be reminded because it could very well happen, this position could remain
temporary for five or six years and no one here is on --
Councilmember Raben: And the make-up
of the Council can change.
Councilmember Smith: But each year
theyd have to come back and ask for that money?
Councilmember Raben: Right, correct.
Councilmember Smith: I think, just
make sure they know that because other than that, we'e going to have to
go through the same thing again.
President Wortman: Mr. Ahlers is going
to comment on --
Jeff Ahlers: I think it would be done
at budget time just every year and what I think we envision doing and a
lot of us worked very hard on this the past few days to try to remedy this
situation to help it out, was that in the budget then, we would put an
asterisk by it maybe with an explanation. What I was hoping here is for
Chief Williams to either read his letter into the record or for the minutes
to incorporate the letter so that there is an understanding, we're wanting
to make sure that everybody knows there will only be two permanent Captain
positions and so that everyone on the Sheriff's Department is on notice
that a vacancy that would occur, that the Temporary Captain would move
into the permanent position but that there would not be another Captain's
position and as Mr. Raben's motion states, it's on approval by the Sheriffs
Merit Board, which I think they'e going to try to get together a meeting
I think this next week. They've had some trouble, you know, on such short
notice getting that together and the reason we're doing that is to make
sure that from top to bottom, anybody that could possibly be involved with
this change is of the same understanding so that we don't get a few years
down the road when some of us may or may not be here to eliminate any confusion
that this is just is temporary spot to remedy a situation that has occurred,
but that there is no increase in the force.
Councilmember Smith: I realize that
but the point is that I want to remind them to make sure next year or at
budget time this year, you remind them because it would be awfully easy
to forget because we're taking it year by year until somebody does retire.
Councilmember Sutton: I know one person
who won't forget.
Councilmember Smith: Woodall won't.
Steve Woodall: (Inaudible - comments
made away from microphone)
President Wortman: Mr. Williams, do
you want to maybe state your name and then --
Eric Williams: Chief Williams, Sheriff's
Office.
President Wortman: Anybody got any
questions for Mr. Williams?
Eric Williams: It was our understanding
that we would reapply for this every year through the budget until such
time that the position is vacated, then you would revert it at that time
and in the following year we would request it as a Lieutenant as we have
in the past. We realize that every year, just like every other line item
we have to submit our request at budget time and we would request this
one the same.
President Wortman: Any more questions?
Mr. Ahlers?
Jeff Ahlers: The only thing I would
state is if we could submit for the record and I think you've probably
given a copy of the letter and the proposed resolution that's going before
the Merit Board to be submitted and incorporated into the record as part
of the minutes so that if in the future anybody looks back, that your letter
from the Sheriff's Department detailing that and the resolution, and then
once the Merit Board passes the resolution we then make that a part of
the record as well.
Eric Williams: As soon as it is passed,
we will forward you a signed copy of it.
President Wortman: Anybody else got
any questions?
Councilmember Hoy: Does the maker
of the motion accept that as part of the record?
Councilmember Raben: Yes.
President Wortman: Got a second to
that?
Councilman Lloyd: So on that budget
line item then its going to be, it' going to read Lieutenant/Temporary
Captain, is that correct?
Councilmember Raben: Yeah, that's
how it will read.
Jeff Ahlers: Yeah, and that's fine
as long as there is just some notation somewhere that its a temporary slot,
I mean, however you want to label it is fine, I suppose. That was just
picking up on some language that we've used in trying to resolve this.
I mean, he does hold and has the rank of Captain and will have all the
rights and privileges of a Captain and salary and pension and everything,
it's just to make sure that in the future we understand how that occured
and that we're not increasing the Captain level of the force permanently,
just to remedy this situation.
President Wortman: In reference to
three positions, and when one retires, why that's it, see, it still reverts
back to two positions. Okay, everybody clear on it? Mr. Bassemier?
Councilmember Bassemier: I'd just
like to comment that at looking at that eligibility list, that permanent
vacancy, ex-Chief Deputy Woodall deserves that spot. I mean, he tested
for it, he was actually number two on the spot, I don't know how, I just
hope the Merit Board recognizes it. I really feel like that's his spot
because he did test for it and there was two permanent vacancies and I
am going to vote yes for this but I think he's got a legitimate gripe and
he deserves that spot. He tested for it, number one; and he will get paid
for it and I hope he's in the position that -- that's not my call, that's
the Merit Board and the Sheriff's call that he's in charge somewhere, that
he is -- that is his spot.
Eric Williams: I don't think you're
going to get any disagreement from us, that where he tested is where he
is in seniority within the rank of Captain. This is strictly a budget line
item name, but as far as the Merit Board is concerned, I cannot speak on
behalf of the Merit Board, but I am fairly confident that they will treat
him as such, that he did test higher than the other two and that should
a seniority issue arise for something that would come up in the Captain's
ranks, that he would be treated that way. That's not my decision to make
on their behalf, thats a Merit Board issue.
Councilmember Bassemier: And I'd like
to commend the Council, this was a hard decision for all of us and it was
only fair for us to go this way and I wish there was another way, but I
thought at the time it was an internal problem that I know you all do not
have temporary ranks over there as the department that I work on, that
you're active until there is a permanent vacancy. You just fill in and
you do draw the pay for it, so I am sorry for Captain Woodall in this situation,
but that's the best we could come up with, we thought was the fair way.
Eric Williams: I'm sure (inaudible)
appreciates your help and understanding and helping us work through this
and come to an equitable solution for everybody.
President Wortman: Mr. Lloyd?
Councilman Lloyd: That was going to
be part of my question, too, is it's not up to Council, we have no authority
as far as seniority of Captains, that's strictly the Sheriffs department
and Merit Board, so all we can do is deal with that one line item.
Jeff Ahlers: Yeah, and I guess following
up on what Mr. Lloyd said, I mean, if the Merit Board wants to take up
re-ordering the positions of who is in what position, I don't know that
what we do necessarily affects that unless the Council feels otherwise.
I can't speak for Council, but I think without Merit Board action, we felt
this was the best way to make sure that legally and equitably what needed
to be accomplished could be, if that is the vote of the Council.
President Wortman: Okay, any other
discussion? If not, call the roll please.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Smith?
Councilmember Smith: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton?
Councilmember Sutton: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Bassemier?
Councilmember Bassemier: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Hoy?
Councilmember Hoy: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben?
Councilmember Raben: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Lloyd?
Councilmember Lloyd: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: President Wortman?
President Wortman: Yes.
(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)
President Wortman: Okay, Mr. Raben,
proceed, please.
Councilmember Raben: Mr. President,
I am going to make one other motion under this and ask that a copy of this
be prepared and passed on to the Merit Board. But I move effective February
4, 1999 no additional Captain, Lieutenant, Sergeant or Corporal lines will
be added to the Vanderburgh County Salary Ordinance either on permanent
or temporary basis. Any officer testing and passing the rank for eligibility
lists shall wait until a line for a particular rank has been vacated through
either retirement, demotion or termination. This motion shall be included
on page three of the Vanderburgh County Salary Ordinance, so again, we're
just stating that we would not like to run into this again.
President Wortman: That's in the form
of a motion?
Councilmember Raben: That's in the
form of a motion.
President Wortman: Do I have a second?
Councilman Lloyd: Second.
President Wortman: Any discussion?
Mrs. Smith?
Councilmember Smith: Yes, how can
you say it's not going to happen again? It could very easily happen again.
If we get a new Sheriff and they make a new deputy and take them out of
their spots and go back to it, it could very easily happen again.
Eric Williams: Chief Williams, Sheriff's
Office. I spoke with Jeff Ahlers today on the phone and with Sandie Deig
today and we've talked a little bit about possibly setting up some type
of meeting between the County Council's attorney, our office and the Merit
Board to hammer out some kind of solution to this for the future. My concern
with a motion of that nature is I don't know how far reaching it is because
the way it sounded to me is that you are eliminating the possibility of
me changing my T.O. through normal appropriation methods, me coming before
you and saying we've reached a situation where we need X number of new
Lieutenants or five years from now our department grows and we need more
supervision, the nature of that motion sounds to me like you are strapping
us forever on the number of ranking officers we can have. That bothers
me a little bit.
Councilmember Sutton: Councilman Raben,
could you maybe clarify that motion because I am sort of unfamiliar with
it in terms of what the time frame is and how long this will be effective.
Are you talking about this year or are you talking about --
Councilmember Raben: Again, it was
-- the motion stated that it be effective today until this Council would
say otherwise, but again, it's -- the intent behind this motion was to
protect this Council from running into this situation or a situation like
this again. This isn't a motion that would really have to be passed today.
I mean, if it's this body's pleasure that we delay this and maybe talk
about the language in this motion we can do that. Again, I am just one
of seven, so --
Councilmember Sutton: I can see maybe
the direction and the focus that you're trying to get at with the motion,
but maybe we can sit down maybe with the Sheriffs Department and looking
at our side, looking at their side and maybe craft something that would
be fair on both sides, but maybe before we move and make a motion on something
that would essentially hinder what we might be able to do. There might
be some additional law enforcement needs and then we've got this resolution
that we've already approved or something. Maybe we could sit down and maybe
come up with something that would be equitable to both sides.
Councilmember Hoy: Officer Williams,
would you repeat what you said about bringing the groups together? I like
the sound of that.
Eric Williams: What Attorney Ahlers
and I had spoke about today and we had talked that maybe at some point
in the next month or so, the Sheriff's Department, our Merit Board, whoever
you choose from the Council, whoever we need to have there, we can sit
down and maybe hammer out a solution for this because this was as distasteful
for us as it was for you guys because we didn't really have a set of rules
or guidelines to handle a situation like this. It's not unique to Sheriff's
Departments in the state but it doesn't happen that often and every county
functions differently and we would appreciate and encourage the ability
to sit down with you and work out a reasonable solution so should this
event arise in the future, we already know the rules and how we have to
deal with it. We would much rather deal with it in advance than later and
have to react to what happens.
President Wortman: Mr. Ahlers, do
you want to --
Councilmember Smith: Mr. Chairman?
I'd like to speak to that because I don't think he can speak for this Council,
he's not an elected person. You said him sit down with you and work out
something. It should be the Finance Chairman and the President of the Council,
not some attorney that's appointed -- nothing against you, Jeff -- but
the point is he can't say what this Council will do.
Eric Williams: I don't think Jeff
has ever --
Councilmember Smith: No, but you're
saying sit down with him and work out something for this Council. You need
to sit down with some persons on this Council, not the lawyer.
Eric Williams: I agree totally with
you and that's what I mean, with Curt and whoever the Council chooses,
but I would just assume that you would have the attorney there with us
to make sure what we're doing is on legal standing, on legal grounds. We'll
sit down and work with whoever you choose for us to work with because we
want this -- we don't want this problem to occur again because this has
not been any fun.
Jeff Ahlers: Mrs. Smith, I don't think
there was ever any interpretation by him, me or anyone else that I am speaking
for the Council. What we've got here is sort of a -- there is an issue
where there is a lot of overlapping of legal authority between the Merit
Board and County Council and in order to try to unravel in the future some
of the line of succession or how these problems could be worked out, I
think that there needs to be parties involved by all of these agencies.
President Wortman: I might add that
the Salary Ordinance can always be changed, too, is that right?
Jeff Ahlers: That's correct.
Councilmember Bassemier: What Jim
read, I've got it right here. It seems like we've already got that in place
anyway. They can't do anything -- they can't add anybody until (inaudible)
Salary Ordinance unless we vote on it. We've said that -- and next year
we vote again and that could be amended next year. I mean, whatever, you
guys can add a rank next year if you want to on your new budget coming
next year, so I don't see this as wrong here. We're doing that right now.
Councilmember Raben: Again, this Council
will -- I mean, we'll live without it. It kind of made things cut and dried
for us for in the future, but I am willing -- I am willing to withdraw
my motion.
Councilmember Bassemier: We're already
doing that. Eric, should he read it to you again?
Eric Williams: I think I heard the
motion and my concern was just that we're going to verbalize something
that's already in effect through Salary Ordinance. I can't promote ten
more people to Lieutenants because the line items don't exist and we have
a system in place to handle that, but my concern was more far reaching.
And I know what you're driving at and I think it's what we want to accomplish
and set up some guidelines for this to happen, but I don't want to see
us placed in a position where that ten years from now our department grows
by 20% and we need five more sergeants and two more lieutenants, that we
have no recourse to come and ask you for that because at some point in
history the Council said you can't do it any more. That would be my only
concern. That's the only reason I stepped up to the microphone.
President Wortman: So you're saying
tie your hands?
Eric Williams: Exactly.
Jeff Ahlers: And I think to address
that, is what I understand all the concern is here, that doesnt prevent
you from coming through Job Study or amending the Salary Ordinance in the
future if that addresses your concerns, if that makes everybody feel better
about it or whatever you want to do.
President Wortman: Councilmembers
want to comment on the motion that Mr. Raben made?
Councilmember Smith: I don't think
we need it.
Councilmember Raben: Mr. President,
I've already stated that I withdraw this motion. If my co-maker will follow
suit we can end this.
President Wortman: Do you withdraw
your second, Mr. Lloyd?
Councilman Lloyd: Yes.
President Wortman: So we'll leave
it as it is.
Councilmember Hoy: Mr. President,
I think we ought to have some mechanism to follow up on what Mr. Williams
said, though, because I think that would smooth the road and that's what
you're asking for, is it not?
Eric Williams: Correct. We'd like
to --
Councilmember Hoy: --resolution, but
we need that on record somehow so that we don't react -- but we act ahead
of time and I don't know how to phrase that in a motion.
Councilmember Bassemier: Jim, you're
kind of saying, too, that we do not want or you do not want any temporary
vacancies filled again like it was in the past -- he's not listening --
you're just saying we do not want or you do not want or you'd like for
us not to vote on something for anybody to be appointed to a permanent
position that's not a permanent vacancy. Is that what you're kind of saying?
Councilmember Raben: More or less,
that an officer can test for it, but he really cannot be given that position
until a vacancy becomes available. But again, the motion is withdrawn,
we can all revisit this. One thing the Council needs to remember, that
any roads that we pave for guidelines for us to follow, another Council
can tear down. So nothing we do or any ordinance that this Council passes
lasts a lifetime. I mean, the next Council can vote it down and change
anything they want. So again, the motion has been withdrawn, Mr. President,
the co-maker has withdrawn.
Councilmember Bassemier: Eric, what
we're talking about now -- that nobody, no permanent rank is going to be
filled in your position. You were a Lieutenant and now you are appointed
to a Chief Deputy. There will not be a permanent Lieutenant appointed to
your position, is that correct?
Eric Williams: (Inaudible) that I
understand. This is being -- that we're going to fill my position I vacated
as a Lieutenant because our T.O. requires that we have those people filled.
Councilmember Bassemier: Now will
this be a permanent -- are we saying now when the Merit Board votes on
this they can see that you just left? That will be a permanent Lieutenant
now?
Eric Williams: Yes.
Councilmember Smith: This is what
I was referring to --
Councilmember Bassemier: And then
you've got a Sergeant now and then a Sergeant will take this Lieutenant's
spot, and now that's open. Now that is going to be permanent one. And that
Sergeant, a Corporal will take that and now we've got some more permanent
rank here, now we've got a chain of action here that we better think about.
I mean, the Merit Commission ought to think about it because we're going
to be back.
President Wortman: I think we ought
to toss it around and then defer it until next month and then come up with
some kind of a final thing here.
Councilmember Smith: Well, they really
can't leave the position open because they need it.
President Wortman: Mr. Ahlers?
Jeff Ahlers: Well, I guess, -- Chief
Williams and I were talking...was that there are certain counties like
larger counties where this situation occurs, that if the Merit Board has
some sort of line of succession that is put in there and there are some
counties that do, in fact, leave the line item open where say, for example,
Chief Williams would stay in his line item but be paid as a Chief Deputy
or something, is one solution. We're not saying that's what is here but
there are several different things that other counties are doing that prevent
the problem of if, for example, Chief Williams were not Chief tomorrow,
he would now not have a spot to come to and then the same situation we've
done with Deputy Woodall, we'd be back here again and I think what the
Chief and I talked about was to try to save the Council and Merit Board
and the Sheriff's Department all this hand wringing in future years. That
maybe once and for all it ought to be resolved and that requires cooperation
from the various bodies because when you talk about promotion and demotion,
that is sort of controlled basically by the Sheriff's Merit Board and the
Sheriff's office. But by the same token, there is nothing that forces us
to necessarily create additional line items for salaries and so you get
this kind of mix. And so we've got to make sure that it's legally right
and that it also functions and that all the Deputies are on notice, and
then when situations like this happen if there is a mechanism that resolves
it, nobody can say they didn't have fair notice. Everybody knows when you
become a Chief Deputy that this is where you are going to go when you get
done or how that is going to happen and so that is sort of what we envision.
Obviously, that's up to all of the Councilmen to decide what ultimately
comes, what meetings occur or whether we do absolutely nothing. It was
just something that we suggested and thought might be a good idea.
President Wortman: Excuse me, we've
got to change the tape.
Councilmember Raben: Mr. President,
maybe to clear up the water here just a little bit, Councilman Bassemier,
there is really -- there is not going to be a vacancy anyway because --
(Inaudible - comments not made from
microphone)
Councilmember Raben: Right. He is
taking...Chief Deputy Williams' old position.
Eric Williams: Actually, he is taking
Lieutenant Tucker's --
Councilmember Raben: He's coming from
Chief Deputy to Captain or to the Lieutenant spot/Captain, and he is coming
out of it as Chief Deputy so...there won't be any vacancies.
Eric Williams: No, not as a recourse
of this because we were physically asking for you to convert one of our
Lieutenant positions to that of a Captain temporarily and we won't fill
that Lieutenant's because it won't exist anymore it will be a Captain's
rank for the time being. Now at such time that one of the Captains retires
and we get permission from you to revert that Captain's rank back to a
Lieutenant like it originally existed, and then at that time we would fill
it with an eligible person as a Lieutenant.
President Wortman: Okay, everybody
understand everything now?
Councilmember Raben: Yes sir, Mr.
President, and let's -- I've withdrawn that motion, we voted on the original
motion.
B) SHERIFF/LINE NAME CHANGE FROM
CORPORAL TO PATROLMAN
Councilmember Raben: Next, under 8B,
I'm not going to look for mine, but somewhere on your desk you have a copy
of a letter from the Sheriff's Department requesting that line 1050-076-1050
be changed from Corporal to Patrolman, and I make that in the form of a
motion.
President Wortman: Do I have a second?
Councilmember Hoy: Second.
President Wortman: Mr. Hoy. Any discussion?
No discussion, we'll move right along. Call the roll please.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Smith?
Councilmember Smith: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton?
Councilmember Sutton: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Bassemier?
Councilmember Bassemier: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Hoy?
Councilmember Hoy: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben?
Councilmember Raben: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Lloyd?
Councilmember Lloyd: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: President Wortman?
President Wortman: Yes.
(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)
C) SUPERINTENDENT OF COUNTY BUILDINGS
D) SUPERIOR COURT
E) CIRCUIT COURT
F) CIRCUIT COURT MISDEMEANOR OFFENDER
President Wortman: Okay, Mr. Raben,
move right on.
Councilmember Raben: Okay, amendments
to the Salary Ordinance...first is Superintendent of County Buildings.
I move to amend the Salary Ordinance line item 1310-1110 as previously
approved; Circuit Court, move to amend salary line 1360-1980 and 1360-1360
as transfer previously approved; and Circuit Court Misdemeanor Offender,
I move to amend the salary lines 2760-1110 and 2760-1800 as the transfer
previously approved. And that is it. I make that in the form of a motion.
President Wortman: Do I hear a second
from somebody? Mr. Lloyd?
Councilman Lloyd: Second.
President Wortman: Alright, any discussion?
No discussion, call the roll please.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Smith?
Councilmember Smith: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton?
Councilmember Sutton: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Bassemier?
Councilmember Bassemier: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Hoy?
Councilmember Hoy: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben?
Councilmember Raben: Yes, and I --
our secretary caught me on an error, I left out part of an account number,
so if everybody will look at Circuit Court. My motion, I had read was--
or I will clarify what the motion is, what should we do here. We can go
ahead --
Councilmember Hoy: Just add it as
a correction.
Councilmember Raben: Yeah, that's
what I think.
Councilmember Hoy: Get a second and
vote again?
Councilmember Raben: The accounts,
again, for Circuit Court were 1360-1980 and 1360-1370-1360. If the seconder
to my motion will make that amendment then we will continue to vote.
President Wortman: Do I have a second
to that effect then, the amendment?
Councilman Lloyd: Second.
President Wortman: Any discussion
on that? If not, call the roll please.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Smith?
Councilmember Smith: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton?
Councilmember Sutton: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Bassemier?
Councilmember Bassemier: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Hoy?
Councilmember Hoy: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben?
Councilmember Raben: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Lloyd?
Councilmember Lloyd: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: President Wortman?
President Wortman: Yes.
(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)
A) MICHAEL C. JARVIS - 11751 OLD
STATE ROAD/
PRELIMINARY RESOLUTION
President Wortman: Now we go into
number ten, Old Business, and before we get into the Preliminary Resolution
for Michael Jarvis located at 11751 Old State Road out there in the promised
land of Scott Township, why I'd like to remind the Council that here several
months ago Pigeon Township came before us for $150,000 for poor relief
and it was processed to the state Tax Adjustment Board and they refused
it, so there was no money involved then, so they have to find other money
some way. I just thought I would mention that, I didn't know if you got
it -- so Mr. Robling, would you step forward with this?
Mike Robling: Michael Robling, Department
of Metropolitan Development. Michael Jarvis has applied for tax abatement
for construction of a new building to be located at 11751 Old State Road.
The building will house a new marine sales and service operation at an
estimated cost of $375,000. Mr. Jarvis currently employs one person and
upon completion of this project anticipates the creation of two new jobs.
President Wortman: Okay, got any questions
for Mr. Robling?
Councilmember Hoy: Refresh our memory
as to what those jobs pay and what the benefits are please.
Mike Robling: The average hourly wage
is eight dollars. The projected wage rate for new employees is ten dollars
an hour. Benefits are, say, comparable with industry.
Councilmember Hoy: I dont have my
paperwork here -- comparable with industry means?
Mike Robling: I am not sure.
Councilmember Hoy: I am curious as
to whether the health insurance comes out of the employee's pocket or if
there is a co-pay or what?
Mike Robling: Is Mr. Jarvis here?
Councilmember Smith: We don't have
any paperwork on that. I don't know...
Sandie Deig: You had it last month.
Councilmember Smith: Well, this is
what I got last month.
President Wortman: I guess last month's
packet then. Thats what it is.
Councilman Lloyd: I mean, I guess
those Councilmembers that want their paperwork ought to be able to get
it.
President Wortman: Just a minute.
We're trying to get a little paperwork here. Excuse us. If you noticed
on your agenda, it was deferred from January the 6th up till now. Mr. Robling,
I don't believe this would be classified as the North 41 corridor, would
it? It wouldn't be included in there, would it?
Mike Robling: I am not really sure
exactly where it's located. I think it's a ways off of 41.
President Wortman: I think he has
filled and put a whole lot of fill in there to bring it up. I remember
when I was a kid I used to play ball down there. And, of course, when it
was wet, we didnt play ball. It flooded, see. But he has put a lot of money
in there and I think he needs a little assistance is what it amounts to.
He built a nice building out there as you can see if you go by.
Krista Lockyear: Mr. President, members
of Council, if I might have just a second. Krista Lockyear and I represent
Mr. Jarvis, I could maybe enlighten you a little bit as to why we feel
Mr. Jarvis is entitled to a tax abatement and some of the improvements
he has brought to that real estate. Specifically, the location of this
property is just south of the 4-H Center there on 41. The property was
located in a floodway and in order to make that land buildable, Mr. Jarvis
had to invest approximately $21,000 in excavation fees to raise the elevation
of the property to get it into buildable land. The DNR had to reassess
the height of the land based on surveys that Mr. Jarvis also paid for.
In addition, it's my understanding that, as many places in Vanderburgh
County, that land had drainage problems which exacerbated the drainage
problems of the 4-H Center. I believe the 4-H Center has recently undergone
some improvements and Mr. Jarvis has installed a six foot diameter concrete
culvert approximately 208 feet long along Old State Road and that was a
total cost of approximately $35,000. That culvert is in county right-of-way
and does improve not only his property but also the 4-H property's drainage.
In addition, there was a $5,000 water main extension that Mr. Jarvis had
to install for this property. The bottom line, approximately $65,000 in
infrastructure improvements to make a cite that was previously unbuildable
suitable for business and these improvements will last in perpetuity after
Mr. Jarvis is no longer it, that land will still be usable. Accordingly,
we think that as a sole proprietor doing quite a bit for the county that
this tax abatement would be quite suitable and it does fit under the statutory
regulations and we request your support.
President Wortman: Anybody got any
questions? Mr. Bassemier?
Councilmember Bassemier: What are
we going to put on that land? What is it?
Krista Lockyear: It will be a warehouse
to hold marine sales and service. There will be service facilities and
storage facilities.
Councilmember Bassemier: Since that's
in the floodplain, why does he want to build there for?
Krista Lockyear: I believe he owned
the land and being right there on the North 41 corridor, the accessibility
to customers. He currently is in Darmstadt and a boat owner myself, the
easier it is to get a boat to a facility to have service, the much better
off you are for that business. And right there on 41 is an ideal location
for such a business.
Councilmember Bassemier: I assume
this is Mr. Jarvis. Do you want to state your --
President Wortman: State your name,
Mr. --
Michael Jarvis: At the time of the
purchase of the property, it was indicated to me that the property was,
in fact, not in a floodplain and that it was above floodplain. FEMA, since
that time, has refurbished some of their rules and regulations and that
all of the sudden became a floodplain and that's -- you know, I didn't
just go buy a piece of swampland. I mean, it was something that kind of
occurred.
President Wortman: Any other discussion?
Mrs. Smith?
Councilmember Smith: Mr. Jarvis, how
many, it says here you'll have two full-time and one part-time. How many
employees do you have now?
President Wortman: Excuse me, Mr.
Jarvis, state your name. We didn't get your name.
Mike Jarvis: Mike Jarvis. Its myself
and my father.
Councilmember Smith: Right now, just
yourself and then you're going to hire two new ones and one part-time.
Mike Jarvis: God only knows what the
future holds. Yeah, at least two more and yes I will offer health insurance.
I always have.
Councilmember Smith: Well, I knew
you were in business now in Darmstadt, and this is going to be a new facility.
Mike Jarvis: Hopefully along 41 that
will allow me to expand and continue on.
Councilmember Hoy: Mr. President?
My question about health insurance is how it's paid for. Do you pay for
it on top of the --
Mike Jarvis: Yes sir.
Councilmember Hoy: And do you pay
any IRA's or anything?
Mike Jarvis: No sir.
Councilmember Hoy: Okay, thank you.
President Wortman: Any other questions?
Mr. Bassemier?
Councilmember Bassemier: Mr. Robling,
what is your board's recommendation?
Mike Robling: I decided not to make
a recommendation on this. You don't pay any attention to me anyway so I
decided to skip it this time.
President Wortman: Okay, any other
discussion? Mr. Lloyd?
Councilman Lloyd: I was just wondering
why you were moving from your old location.
Mike Jarvis: I lease that location.
I virtually outgrew it two years after I went in business, it just took
a long time to get to this point. I need a showroom, its a very small location.
I want to try to go -- migrate -- I am mainly service right now, more service
oriented than sales and in order to level the playing field out a little
bit to give me a fair advantage I need a showroom to present my product.
Councilmember Sutton: Mr. Jarvis --
Councilmember Raben: That and it was
in a bad neighborhood, too.
Councilmember Sutton: Mr. Jarvis,
how long have you been doing this particular line --
Mike Jarvis: I stated in March of
`87.
Councilmember Sutton: And competitors,
are there very many competitors in your line of business around here?
Mike Jarvis: Yeah, well, yeah, there's
probably --
Councilmember Sutton: You don't have
to name them. I mean --
Mike Jarvis: There's five at least.
Councilmember Sutton: Okay, thank
you.
President Wortman: Mr. Raben, you
had your hand up.
Councilmember Raben: Mr. President,
I don't think we're talking about a great deal of money or savings that
hell realize. I think it' $8,000 and if you look at what the infrastructure
improvements and whatnot and the benefit that the 4-H grounds is realizing
with it, I think it's one that this Council ought to look very favorable
at.
President Wortman: Mr. Hoy, did you
have your hand up?
Councilmember Hoy: No.
President Wortman: Okay, any other
discussion? Okay, I'll entertain a motion to that effect.
Councilmember Raben: Mr. President,
I'll move approval.
President Wortman: Do I have a second?
Councilmember Smith: Second.
President Wortman: Second Mrs. Smith.
Call the roll please.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Smith?
Councilmember Smith: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton?
Councilmember Sutton: This is probably
the smallest abatement weve ever done, but yes.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Bassemier?
Councilmember Bassemier: Just because
it' just so small, it's out on the north side and that's a good area out
there and we discussed it last month. I'm sorry, I'm going to have to vote
no.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Hoy?
Councilmember Hoy: No.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben?
Councilmember Raben: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Lloyd?
Councilmember Lloyd: No.
Teri Lukeman: President Wortman?
President Wortman: Yes. Motion passes
four to three. Thank you, appreciate your time.
Krista Lockyear: Thank you.
(Motion carried 4-3/Councilmembers
Bassemier, Hoy and Lloyd opposed)
A) RESOLUTION APPROVING THE AIRPORT
DEVELOPMENT ZONE INVEN- TORY PROPERTY TAX CREDIT FOR ANCHOR INDUSTRIES,
INC.
President Wortman: Next would be new
business for the resolution from the Airport Development Zone Inventory
Property Tax Credit for Anchor Industries, Inc. Mr. Robling.
Mike Robling: Yes, several months
ago I came and discussed the concept of the Airport Development Zone. There
was a new incentive adopted by the legislature for Vanderburgh County back
in 1997 that provides for businesses located in the vicinity of the Airport
that go through the proper process to take advantage of the Enterprise
Zone Inventory Tax credit. The process that's established calls for the
Airport Authority Board to be the governing body. They have made a preliminary
determination to designate the Anchor Industry properties. As an Airport
Development Zone, the County Commissioners, as the County Executive, have
given their approval to this designation. A tax impact analysis was done
concerning this proposal and that study was distributed to all the underlying
taxing districts as required by the statute. The Airport Authority held
a public hearing on this matter last month and confirmed its preliminary
designation and the final step in the process is you, as the fiscal body,
need to approve the actual tax credits that Anchor Industries would realize
as a result of this designation. The project is basically the same project
that you approved tax abatement for several months ago. Its over a two
million dollar expansion of their facilities on Highway 41 and Burch Drive
and the installation of at least a quarter of a million dollars of new
manufacturing equipment. There are representatives of Anchor Industries
here if you have any questions about the project itself.
President Wortman: Any questions for
Mr. Robling? Anybody? I think it's a pretty good deal for --
Councilmember Raben: Mr. President,
I'll move approval.
President Wortman: Do I have a second?
Councilman Lloyd: Second.
President Wortman: Mr. Lloyd seconded.
Any discussion? No discussion, call the roll please -- oh wait! Mr. Lloyd
and Mr. Sutton, hold on.
Councilmember Sutton: Mr. Robling,
I don't know if you might be able to answer or not on this, if were talking
about dollar-wise, how much benefit will this add?
Mike Robling: The actual tax revenue
way is -- description of the tax impact study shows that to be a loss.
The benefit of this is the initial investment in the community and jobs
and so forth that will be created and the retention of Anchor as a major
industrial company here in town.
Councilmember Sutton: I guess I am
trying to get an idea on the dollar amount that this particular tax credit,
what it will amount to dollar-wise.
Mike Robling: It will be a hundred
percent of their -- it's broken up by taxing unit. I am not sure exactly
what it --
Councilmember Hoy: Is it inventory
tax?
Mike Robling: Pardon?
Mike Robling: It's inventory tax,
right.
Councilmember Raben: It's very much
just like what people in the Enterprise Zone realize. I mean, its --
Councilmember Sutton: Well, I guess
I am just trying to get an amount on what that would turn out to be.
Mike Robling: When you look through
the -- the study is done by taxing unit for the County General Fund. It
amounts to a loss of assessed value or a tax loss of $18,000 the first
year.
President Wortman: Mr. Lloyd, did
you want to ask a question?
Councilman Lloyd: The intent of this
is for the inventory located in the designated zone, isn't that correct?
Mike Robling: Right.
Councilman Lloyd: Okay, the value
of that inventory or the tax amount that that inventory would be taxed.
So --
Mike Robling: It would be about $18,000
a year that would be foregone.
Councilman Lloyd: This was set up
by the state legislature as an economic development tool for the Airport.
Mike Robling: Right, it was intended
that there was going to be a loss of that income.
Councilman Lloyd: Right, so I mean,
I think it's a good project.
President Wortman: And I think Brian
Hasler from the State Representatives kind of spearheaded this. But if
we get this through, I think it's a very good deal for around here too.
So, any other discussion?
Councilmember Sutton: Any employment
gains that might be realized as a result of this if this were approved?
Mike Robling: They project that they
would be creating 40 or so full-time jobs. Is that right, Mike?
Mike Elliott: I am Mike Elliott with
the company. Forty new jobs, yes.
President Wortman: Thank you. Anybody
got a question? Mrs. Smith?
Councilmember Smith: I don't feel
that that is a deprived area but Anchor has been in business here and give
a lot of jobs and when he says forty jobs, we've approved different ones
thats wanted two jobs, so I feel like that they deserve the consideration
and I am going to vote for it and I -- but you get forty new jobs. We're
losing $18,000 one place. Forty people being employed there and paying
taxes is going to come out to a lot more money.
President Wortman: Thanks, Mrs. Smith.
Councilmember Hoy: I think I asked
you this question last time, you said jobs are around eight dollars an
hour. Is that correct?
Mike Elliott: I believe it is $8.13
an hour for the new jobs, that is correct.
Councilmember Hoy: And you pay part
of the health insurance as I recall.
Mike Elliott: For a single, we bear
the whole cost. There is a small charge for the family.
Councilmember Hoy: And you have an
IRA or something?
Mike Elliott: We have a 401(k) plan,
that is correct.
President Wortman: Anybody got any
other discussion? No discussion, okay...you just have one other comment.
Mike Robling: One other thing, I would
point out that the criteria for designating an Airport Development Zone
is very different than that of a tax abatement area. The only criteria
for an Airport Development Zone is that there be investment of at least
two million dollars and the creation of new jobs which this project clearly
fills both of those criteria.
President Wortman: Okay, thank you,
Mr. Elliott and Mr. Robling. Okay, if not, I am going to -- Mrs. Smith?
No? Call for the roll please.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Smith?
Councilmember Smith: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton?
Councilmember Sutton: I am happy to
say that we're able to, at least from my vote perspective, to lend some
support behind a good solid company that is employing a good number of
people here and paying a good wage and is an asset to our community. Yes.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Bassemier?
Councilmember Bassemier: Yes.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Hoy?
Councilmember Hoy: I voted against
this zone as you all know because I am concerned about covering land like
that, and covering farmland, and covering land where you have drainage
problems, which we have many of. But since that's been done, and since
the jobs pay almost as much as we do -- you know, we went through this
-- as we do at the Food Bank and this doesn't have to do with abatement,
I am going to give you a reluctant yes because I think youve met the other
criteria but I am still bothered by the level of pay in jobs in this whole
community is way too low. People can't -- they simply must have two jobs
and we don't have adequate child care and I think something is wrong when
we don't pay people enough money. I am voting yes on it because it doesn't
have to do with abatements.
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben?
Councilmember Raben: Yes,
Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Lloyd?
Councilmember Lloyd: I am going to
echo what Mr. Sutton said. I appreciate Anchor Industries, the job they
do for the community and I think this Airport Development Zone is a good
project. I know the state legislature is looking at even eliminating the
inventory tax, but until that time, projects like this help business to
expand, so I vote yes.
Teri Lukeman: President Wortman?
President Wortman: Yes. Thank you,
gentlemen, for your time.
(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)
B) RICHARD MOURDOCK, CHAIRMAN
JAIL ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATION
COMMITTEE
President Wortman: Next on the agenda
is Mr. Mourdock with the County Commissioners going to give us a little
summary on the jail committee meeting. And Mr. Mourdock, would you state
your name please?
Richard Mourdock: Sure, Richard Mourdock
with the Vanderburgh County Commission. Let me start off by saying I am
not asking for any money here today, so that ought to make the rest of
this go easier.
Councilmember Sutton: Repeal, that
would even be smoother.
Richard Mourdock: I can't go that
far, Royce. You should have all received in your packet the interim jail
assessment report and I have several folks here today who have been serving
on the Blue Ribbon Committee and I will ask them to come to the microphone
as appropriate. One of them being Russ Lloyd, on your side of the table;
the other being Royce Sutton. Also, we have Harris Howerton with Community
Corrections and Eric Williams is kind of subbing today for Chief Ellsworth,
who is out of town. And that takes care of those who are present. By way
of quick summary, in January of last year you will recall the County Commission,
in response to several reports on jail overcrowding and unsafe conditions
and improper hygiene in the jail, voted to form the Blue Ribbon Committee.
We included on that committee all the various stakeholders of the county
jail because we thought it very important if we were going to try to solve
problems, that we get everyone involved with the process from the very
beginning. There is a list that I will not go through specifically showing
who all was on that committee. Again, it's simply emphasizing that we tried
to get all the stakeholders involved. In setting down at the first meeting,
we -- at least I was startled to learn something which was we do not have
a problem with the jail overcrowding per se or even with the hygiene in
the jail, per se. We started the meeting thinking we knew what the problem
was, but our facilitator at the meeting, Dr. Sue Ellspermann, basically
started going around the room asking each one of us to define a problem.
In the course of an hour, we had identified 92 separate problems that we
saw contributed to the jail problem that we have. And again, that led us
to the conclusion, the jail overcrowding wasn't really the problem. It
was merely a symptom of a whole series of problems that we have within
the criminal justice system. That was kind of a revelation to us because
it told us that it wasn't going to be meet once or twice, make a recommendation
and then go home. We're going to have to look into all of those problems
in quite a bit of detail. We started to break the problem down a little
bit and the report that you have in front talks about those specific issues.
We have changed some jail maintenance and upkeep procedures. We are presently
in the process of having a major painting project go on in the jail which,
Eric, correct me if I am wrong, but I think you were estimating it will
be mid-summer when we complete that. Is that right?
Eric Williams: Twenty to twenty-five
weeks.
Richard Mourdock: Twenty to twenty
five weeks from now we will be finished with that. It isn't just a matter
of putting paint on the walls, but its moving people out of cells, making
room for them so the painters can get in there. It's a coordination problem.
One of the things that certainly led to the overcrowding was the fact that
we had people in the jail who might otherwise be better served by being
at Community Corrections. This Board, the County Council funded last year
to create 25 new beds at Community Corrections and also to fund the leasing
of 75 new electronic monitoring devices that's helping to empty out the
jail a bit. The Prosecutor has changed some of this methods so we are no
longer doing double booking which slows people through the process. That's
been an important step for us and we're currently looking to see if over
at the courts building we can open up another jail room so that we can
book more cases concurrently, keep more people moving through the system.
The conclusions that weve come to at this point, and these are again not
conclusions to the point of coming here and making a request of you but
just stating what we see as the primary reasons for overcrowding. Number
one, fewer cases are being plea bargained today. Basically, people in the
jail are willing to take their chances because stiffer sentences at the
other end of their trial cause them to be less willing to plea bargain.
Inmates pressured to negotiate sentences all the way up to the trial dates
for the same reason. Police are acting more slowly due to the increased
workload. That's not a condemnation of the police in any way, it's just
that there are more hoops for them to jump through because Evansville is
becoming more of regional center. We have a lot of bad check -- check bouncing
that we're prosecuting and also, and I think most sadly of all, is we continue
to see increasing drug use throughout the community, and that is really
a major, major factor in what weve seen in criminal increase in the last
few years. There are a series of assumptions listed and the most important
assumption, basically, is on this chart that you all have and Eric Williams,
who is also the computer geek of the Sheriff's Department, as I introduced
him the other night, put these together and did a great job for us. If
you follow the black line, you'll see that in the year 2002, the jail will
be working daily at a 120% of its capacity and that clearly is something
that is not acceptable to us in the long run. But if you also look at the
chart, you'll notice there are two important breaks in the line of jail
crowding where we drop way down. Interestingly, those two drops in the
line correlate with the two times when there's been intense public interest
on jail overcrowding. In other words, this one is when we started the January
meetings this year and that was when basically a similar process took place
in 1977. Those two breaks in the line tell us if we keep looking at the
problem we can find a way to reduce the inevitable, which is that at some
day, some day, were going to have to build a new jail. So, what we're doing
today in coming before you is in essence to ask for the County Council
to give by way of voice vote or resolution or something, just the encouragement
for the committee to continue to go forward to try to find ways to find
new beds so that we aren't facing the day to day problem that we would
otherwise foresee. You'll notice in the last part of the text there are
basically eight recommendations that we're making to you today and basically
stating, again, what we are trying to do as a committee. Number one is
to be able to provide notice to everyone involved with this process which
includes the County Council as far in advance as possible, hopefully five
years, of when a new jail is required. Secondly, the board, the special
Blue Ribbon Committee wants to continue to define possible alternatives
that can help reduce overcrowding and defer the construction of the new
jail. Third, we feel as a group were well placed to secure possible funding
methods beyond the conventional and we're willing to take that task on.
Fourth, we will report back to this Council any additional funding needs
prior to August 1st so that if there is anything coming up for the next
budget year, you'll have those in plenty of time. Fifth, up to three members
of the Blue Ribbon Committee are hoping to go to a national meeting in
March up in Wisconsin, I believe, on reviewing how jail projects can best
be done from funding through design. And by the way, Chief Ellsworth has
agreed to pay for that out of the Commissary Fund. Number six, and there's,
as you see, several bullets there, but one of the things or a series of
the things we think we can do in the meantime prior to that day when we
have to say we need to build a new jail, is to possibly contract with a
private jail construction operation entity; adopt and utilize the PONI
program which is for the planning of new institutions; contract jail space
with surrounding jail facilities, perhaps another county jail near us that
has some extra room; see if we can locate a facility suitable for housing
women. Women prisoners happen to be the largest growing group in the jail.
Times have changed. We feel as a group we're well placed to assist in the
design of a new jail and also we feel we could serve the function of contracting
with the Indiana Department Of Corrections for long-term housing of inmates.
The state will pay counties to house state prisoners because the jails
and the prisons at the state are also filled to capacity. And that brings
me, I guess, to one final conclusion here before I throw it open for questions
and that is, one thing we've learned is that as a community, we are not
alone. Virtually every community of any size across the country right now
has jail overcrowding or they're bumping up against it for the same reasons
that I spoke of earlier. Increased drug use across the county is up, violent
crime seems to be going down but because stiffer sentences are out there,
we've still got an increase in jail populations. So we're not alone. The
nightmare scenario would be if Vanderburgh County rushed forward to build
a new jail thinking we were going to solve the problem by going from two
hundred and fifty-six beds to three hundred -- let's say to five hundred
beds, we would expect within a year we'd fill up if we don't change the
processes that cause people to be in jail. Literally, that has happened
in a number of communities around the country. New jails have been built
double or triple the expected size and within a year they've been filled
and all of us as elected officials ought to be scared to death of having
to deal with that situation. So I think the Blue Ribbon Committee has done
an outstanding job in serving you as the fiscal group of government trying
to make sure we use our dollars wisely. And again, I would ask this Council
to give a letter of encouragement or resolution or whatever to ask that
group to continue to stay in place to serve all of us. And with that, Eric
or Harris, what did I leave out? Please feel free.
Harris Howerton: Harris Howerton,
Executive Director of Vanderburgh Corrections Complex and member of the
committee. Real quickly, I think early on perhaps some folks maybe thought
we could get together, have a couple of meetings, resolve the issue and
decide to build a new jail. Boom. Commissioner Mourdock just mentioned
that would have been a really dumb thing to do. We adopted the model of
the PONI, provided plenty of new institutions, provided to us by the National
Institute of Corrections. We followed that model, we didn't have to wing
it, we didn't have to make anything up, we followed that model. It's been
working and now we think that we're coming to you to talk to you about
the future and that we can make some good choices based on this model and
we'll go from here.
Councilmember Smith: Mr. Chairman?
Harris Howerton: I'm sorry, real quick,
Betty, I was in Terra Haute last week with a standards committee group
and Hamilton County has just gone through this process in a two year period.
It took them two years, but in a two year period they came to a point where
they have hard dollar numbers on what they are going to do with their corrections
and their jail complex in their community. Hamilton County, just north
of Marion County north of Indianapolis, a community of 150,000 people,
very much close to the size of ours. Thank you.
President Wortman: Thank you. Mrs.
Smith?
Councilmember Smith: Mr. Mourdock,
you probably read the paper where the fire department is going to move
out of this building and I think thats probably set aside for the city
but I think it would be maybe smart if you would contact the mayor and
see if you could get that because I think that' right along the jail that
you might could expand it because I understand that everybody is after
that piece of property.
President Wortman: Excuse me a minute,
we've got to change the tape.
Councilmember Smith: Pardon me, not
that piece of property but that part upstairs that under the circumstances
that you all are working with it, working very hard, I think maybe if you
could pursue that, you might could get some more to make it a little bit
more convenient up there and supposedly the fire department is going to
move out all their offices, so that's some space in there if you want to
look at it.
Richard Mourdock: That's a very good
suggestion. I've learned floor space in this building disappears about
as fast as popcorn at a theater. I've got a meeting with Steve Utley on
another matter right after this meeting, but I will certainly keep that
in mind, too, and pass that on to the rest of group.
Councilmember Smith: Well, thats probably
been assigned to the city but you could probably go and talk with the mayor.
You know, I don't think he probably has anything specific he wants to do
with it.
Richard Mourdock: Okay.
Councilmember Hoy: Did you all, and
it may be in here, I haven't had a chance to read all this, did you all
strike any kind of agreement of understanding with the Building Authority
about maintenance of the jail?
Richard Mourdock: Yes, we did. There
is a new policy put in place, basically, where there is an inspection form
that'4' going back and forth. There is monthly communication. A work order
will be issued and there is a group put together to come right back and
deal with it. And that is an important point because for whatever reason,
and I am just -- not pointing fingers, it's history -- the Building Authority
seemed to think it was the jail, the jails problem. The jail felt that
they are paying rent on the building, the Building Authority ought to take
care of it. And for whatever reason, there got to be a lack of communication
there, but it seems that has been resolved.
Councilmember Hoy: Well, we do pay
rent on it.
Richard Mourdock: Yeah, we sure do.
Councilmember Hoy: We pay a lot of
rent on that and that's why we pay the rent. I have a second question,
I am happy to hear you say were not going to double the jail because you'e
absolutely right. We'd fill it. I am looking at what the state legislature
is proposing now and I've seen some things where they -- I think they want
to add some absolutely absurd sentences to minor offenses and then we keep
referring to prisons as a growth industry. I mean, I just, honest to God,
I think that's the most absurd term I've heard in my whole life -- its
right up among the top ten. Has anybody -- a couple of more questions...I
know, and I appreciate what you all did because it's hard work and I commend
you on it. Along the way, was there any assessment as to why, in the richest
nation in the world, we have more people in prison proportionately than
any other developed nation? I mean, the number two nation, proportionately,
is like so far below us in terms of proportion of people. Did anybody take
a look at how come? Because --
Richard Mourdock: Let me break that
in two parts, because first of all, the people in prisons in theory, in
theory, virtually everyone sitting in the jail is innocent because in this
country you're innocent until you're proven guilty and in theory the jail
is only there as a holding facility until people are put through the process,
in theory once they are convicted then they go to the state and then they
are imprisoned. So that part of the prison population we didnt deal with.
One other part of that, though, that we did discuss was what is the likelihood
of Evansville's crime statistics continuing to mirror the national statistics
because interestingly, right now we're not doing that. And the national
statistics show that violent crime is going down and yet in our area that
is not happening and it was -- it seemed to be the consensus -- this wasnt
something put to a vote -- but it seemed to be a consensus of the law enforcement
people, the Prosecutor and the judges there that we should expect to see
that continue to be higher than what the national average is. And one of
the reasons why again comes back to the drug situation and the fact that
we are a regional center.
Councilmember Hoy: Because we definitely,
if you look at demographic charts, we have -- like the whole country does
-- an aging population. And generally, as the population ages, the crime
rate will go down.
Richard Mourdock: That' right. But
we have more and more people, because we're a regional center, living somewhere
else and coming here, bouncing checks, committing crimes, what have you.
Councilmember Hoy: Okay, that's my
last question --
Councilmember Sutton: Mr. Hoy, before
you go into your next question, can I give a brief answer maybe to maybe
the reason why our jail population is as high as it is in relation to other
nations. It really comes down to what you call covetousness and from a
minister's standpoint you can understand what were talking about. We're
just a nation who wants more than what we can we sometimes afford and we
want to get it when we want to get it, how we want to get it, using whatever
means we need to get it. So sometimes those are illegal means and there
is a cost that is paid to that. And I think as a nation, we bred that from
a very young age and it bears itself out in our criminal justice systems.
So that's probably the really basic answer that you can give. There are
a number of tentacles that spread off from that, drug problems, and things
like that but it really just comes to the basic answer is we want what
we can't have.
Councilmember Hoy: Well, you know,
tied with that is an astounding statistic and that is we comprise 6% of
the worlds population in this country and we use 40% of the world's goods.
And I think maybe you're right. The last question I had and I don't want
to beat an old issue, but is there any sense that the increase in bad checks
has any connection with the presence of major gambling in this state and
in this community?
Richard Mourdock: I might turn to
Eric for that one to see. I don't know, he's handled some of the crime
statistics for the county. We didn't discuss that as a board specifically.
I do recall Prosecutor Levco saying at one time that the violent crime
that we do have has not gone up as a result of the boat. Its higher than
the national, but it hasn't gone up.
Councilmember Hoy: No, I was looking
more at bad checks, the presence of check cashing places all over town
and the springing up of new pawn shops --
Richard Mourdock: You and I share
that same bias. I don't know that it's been proven.
Councilmember Hoy: I know we do. Yeah,
it probably never will be, Commissioner Mourdock, but I certainly believe
it.
Richard Mourdock: One other point
that kind of comes back to several things you've seen and it's something
that the group did talk about which is what is this communitys viewpoint
of who should be in jail, what is our level of acceptance as a community.
What risk do we want to take to put people out on bond, for instance. And
one of the recommendations that I suddenly realize that I failed to mention
verbally, although it is in the report, is as a group or at least as a
subset of the group, will take a look at having some community hearings
during the next year to just see what the public sentiment is along those
lines and about other things as well, dealing with the justice system.
President Wortman: Mr. Bassemier?
Councilmember Bassemier: Mr. Mourdock,
let me refer to Phil, I think I took a class, too, and I think you're talking
about why are more people in jail or whatever, I understand 70% of the
people that are incarcerated is drug related, so I think that's the biggest
problem now. Mr. Mourdock, talking about if we're going to build a new
jail or we know eventually were going to have to, I kind of like for the
committee to -- you know, I'4'e worked on it for several months on the
jail facility, and I'd like to see your committee to continue to look into
a facility that will be self-supporting. They're doing it across the river
over in Owensboro. They got a 450 bed facility over there and its self-supporting.
You mentioned that several of the penitentiaries and the jails are, they're
busting at their seams and there's a lot of them that can be released.
They're non-violent, they're just waiting to be -- serve out their seven
or eight months and I think if we get a facility thats large enough and
we can house these, the state will pay up to $45 per inmate and Eric has
got the numbers, what it will cost us to house one. We can make, I know
we're not in the business to make money, but this facility can be self-supporting
and...
Richard Mourdock: If not fully self-supporting,
it can at least certainly contribute a great deal to the cost of operations.
The latest numbers we had were something just over $35, but the cost of
housing here in our present jail is, I think, $24 and 90 something cents.
So there's ten bucks per day that could be coming in.
Councilmember Hoy: I have a question.
When you say self-supporting, you mean then the state pays it rather than
us?
Councilmember Bassemier: Yes, the
state will pay, you know, they just, the state here, Indiana just sent
last year a hundred inmates from here over to Kentucky and it can work
and I've got some names and I've got some numbers and I've got architects
who can build these facilities, whatever. I'l be more than happy to share
it.
Richard Mourdock: I think you must
have given them my name because I've gotten mail from every one of those
people.
Councilmember Bassemier: Well, I've
got some new names and the Green Convention Center is out because I believe
it's sold. I would like to say the annex over there, there's 27,000 feet
over there for office space. There's service here, its still open, it's
not sold but the Green Convention Center, I think, is sold. If we're trying
to open more space here in the Civic Center, I talked to Mr. Green a couple
-- and this is not a sales pitch, I'm not getting nothing out of it, I'm
not a realtor, but 27,000, I think 27,000 square feet over there is open
for office space and he's willing to sell it, lease, however we want, however
the county wants to do it. But I just wanted to pass that on.
Councilmember Hoy: I just wanted to
clarify self-supporting because on the pay stub that I get here and at
the Food Bank, there is a line for state taxes. So however it slices up,
it's still tax money. I mean, thats my point. I don't disagree with you
about -- with what you said, Councilman Bassemier, but we're still talking
about tax dollars that -- you know, they're very expensive tax dollars
to say the least and I admire what our crew does in the jail. I've done
jail ministry and I dont know how they handle it. It's a headache. I admire
what they manage there and I'm glad we're on the road to making some changes.
Richard Mourdock: And that's a very
good point in the sense that I would encourage any of you to contact the
Sheriffs Department and take a tour of the jail. It was very eye-opening
for me to do that early on in the process. If you haven't done that, you
really should do that as elected officials.
Councilmember Hoy: You're looking
for a resolution from us today?
Richard Mourdock: Yes sir.
Councilmember Hoy: What would you
like?
Richard Mourdock: Just continuing
support and endorsing the activities that we're pursuing.
Councilmember Hoy: Mr. President,
I move that this Council offer gratitude to this commit-tee for the work
done
and offer our continuing support as they work toward some kind of solution.
President Wortman: Good, well said.
Have we got a second?
Councilmember Smith: Second.
Councilman Lloyd: As the Council representative
on the committee, I'd like to echo what Chairman Mourdock has said. It's
been very tedious moving through these meetings when you talk about all
the different agencies that are involved: Sheriff, Prosecutor, the courts,
SAFE House, Commissioners, Building Authority, Council and the city, the
Police Chief, and we're still looking at process improvements. We haven't
ruled that out yet, but what were saying is we've got to find a way to
find more bed space. The National Institute of Corrections, the national
organization that came through, recommended that we keep this committee
going so they think it'4' a good pro-active way to look at this problem.
So, I mean, I agree with Mr. Hoy's motion and I'd like the Council to vote
to continue this process and have it move forward.
President Wortman: Okay, any other
discussion? If not, I am going to call for a raising of hands in support.
All those in favor raise your right hand. One, two, three, four, five,
six, seven. That completes that.
(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)
C) APPROVAL OF CONTRACT WITH SHERIFF
BRAD ELLSWORTH
President Wortman: Now we've got to
go to C, the approval of the Vanderburgh County Contract with the Sheriff,
Brad Ellsworth. I'll entertain a motion to that effect. You've got the
paper in front of you there, the contract.
Councilmember Hoy: So moved.
President Wortman: And then a second.
Councilman Lloyd: Second.
President Wortman: Any discussion
on this? If not raise your right hand. One, two, three, four, five, six,
seven.
(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)
D) FILING DATE FOR APPROPRIATIONS/TRANSFERS/REPEAL
REQUESTS
President Wortman: Okay, the filing
date February 12th is on the agenda, so anything else to come before this
Council?
Councilmember Sutton: Yes. Yeah, because
I know youre quick. I've got to jump in there awfully fast. I've got a
question. I know you guys were going to meet with the Convention &
Visitors Bureau, I guess, concerning this whole issue with the Pagoda.
I think this is what we left with last week. Did you guys get a chance
to --
President Wortman: We've done that.
Councilmember Sutton: Okay, I mean,
what were your...what were your findings?
President Wortman: Mrs. Smith, do
you want to...
Councilmember Smith: Curt Wortman
and I met with them and also DiLegge, he came, and I think the meeting
was very productive because after we left, my daughter is on that committee,
it was discussed that they needed to take a good look at it because we
let them know that every one of us felt very strong about it and I wish
more of you had been there but -- and then first they...first they kind
of took it as we were threatening them and I said well, if they didn't
want to keep their word about what the building was used for, we might
better take a good look at anything they bring in front of us because we
might want to pin them down a little more. So if they took it as a threat,
I'm sorry, but I feel very strong about it and so I asked them to get back
to us and Curt was there, too, and he told them that the Council was all
very concerned with it. So we haven't heard anything. I thought maybe they
might bring something back today, but they haven't. But we let them know
in no uncertain terms that we all felt about the same way.
Councilmember Hoy: Mr. President,
I have a comment. And this may be comparing apples to oranges, I don't
know, but a good friend of mine's daughter and son-in-law to be wanted
to get married at that little park at Fourth & Main and that is owned
by the bank...and they were refused because the bank said that they thought
they would have too many weddings there. And I got to thinking, -- yeah!
No, I am not making this up. No, I am not kidding you.
Councilmember Smith: It's a park.
Councilmember Hoy: But it'4s owned,
privately owned. And we're looking at a plaza at the foot of Main -- you
know, they may come -- I don't know. And here we've got another facility
that we were told was created for the public and you can't rent it. And
then we say we want people downtown. I think that's a curious equation.
That's all I wanted to say.
Councilmember Smith: Mr. Chairman,
this is what I told them and I said I do not believe that many people walk
in here after 5:00. And even if they do, by renting it out, when you get
100 to 150 people in there, theres a lot more that's going to walk in off
the street. But I think it's probably the scheduling of their employees
and I think their employees came back to the board and they just had a
little bit more work than they wanted to do and I think they were the ones
that talked the board into discontinuing it. But I think they took at look
at what we said.
Councilmember Sutton: Councilwoman
Smith and President Wortman, are we anticipating a formal response, written
response from the Convention Bureau's board?
President Wortman: Yeah, we left it
such that they'll get back with us and go over it again and consider it,
I think. Is that the way to say it, Mrs. Smith?
Councilmember Sutton: Perhaps maybe
they may want to come before Council, too and --
President Wortman: Yeah, he didn't
say when, Mr. Sutton. But we let them know -- Mrs. Smith and I. Yeah, she
handled it pretty good. She did right good. She's pretty tough when she
gets the clutches after your. Okay, anything else to come before this Council?
I want to thank all the young whippersnappers from North High School out
there.
Councilmember Smith: Mr. Chairman,
I had a gentleman call me the other day and I don't think the County has
got an ordinance. I know the city has, about parking big semi trucks in
private and residential areas. And on Shoney Drive out by Indian Woods,
right now there's been five different people parking there every night.
And so when the man called me I asked him to take some pictures of it and
bring them back to me. So he took some pictures but somebody else picked
them up. And I would like to ask our attorney to check to see if we have
any ordinance that they could put teeth into, because if you park five
semi trucks down a street, it makes the street crowded and even though
it's in the county we've got a lot of developments in the county and we
do not have an ordinance, I don't think. And I have a copy of the citys
here.
President Wortman: You might check
with Area Plan. They have jurisdiction a lot of times.
Councilmember Smith: They have jurisdiction,
but when there is a problem and to call them, they can't put any teeth
in it and give them any tickets. But the Sheriff's Office can if there
is an ordinance against it.
Jeff Ahlers: I think the Commissioners
deal with those kind of ordinances. I mean, I can talk to Joe and see if
he knows of one.
Councilmember Smith: Okay, but here's
the city's in case --
Jeff Ahlers: Okay. Yeah, give me that
and Ill ask Joe if there's a counterpart with the Commissioners and that
will be an issue for you to take up with the Commissioners. They would
need to pass that kind of ordinance.
President Wortman: Okay. Anything
else to come because we've got to get out of here, Area Plan meets this
evening. So if nobody else why, Ill hear a motion for adjournment.
Councilman Lloyd: Motion to adjourn.
Councilmember Sutton: Second.
President Wortman: All those in favor
raise your right hand. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven.
(Motion unanimously approved 7-0)
(Meeting adjourned at 5:13 p.m.)
|