|
Special Meeting February 27, 2002
The Vanderburgh County Council met in special session this 27th day of February, 2002 in room 301 of the Civic Center Complex, to discuss and take final action on the Resolution of the County Council, Determining, After Investigation, That a New or Improved Jail Facility is Needed, and to discuss and take final action on any other matters that may properly come before the Council as placed on the agenda by the President. The meeting was called to order at 3:05 p.m. by County Council President Lloyd Winnecke. President Winnecke: Good afternoon.
I'd like to call the special meeting of the Vanderburgh County Council
to order and I'd like to take attendance, please. Roll call?
President Winnecke: If we could stand and take the pledge, please. (Pledge of allegiance was given.) President Winnecke: Before we begin, I'd like to acknowledge the passing of our colleague, Mr. Wortman's father, this past weekend, and I'd like to take just a moment of silence for Mr. Wortman and his father, please. (A moment of silence was observed.) President Winnecke: Thank you. Our purpose for the special meeting is to consider a resolution of necessity on the bond issue for the jail. If Mr. Ahlers will present the resolution. And as that's being passed out, I've spoken to every member of the body multiple times over the last couple of days. I appreciate everyone's input. It's been my intent to satisfy as many people as possible and, as we all know, not everyone will be 100% satisfied. But I believe this - I'm hopeful, I should say, that we'll have four votes necessary to pass this resolution so that we can continue the process of getting this new jail going. And as soon as everyone has a copy, Mr. Ahlers, I would ask you to read it, although, and hopefully, our luck will be better this time with your dramatic reading. Jeff Ahlers: The title of the document is: "A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNTY COUNCIL OF THE COUNTY OF VANDER-BURGH, INDIANA, DETERMINING, AFTER INVESTIGATION, THAT A NEW OR IMPROVED JAIL FACILITY IS NEEDED. WHEREAS, the County Council (the "County Council") of the County of Vanderburgh, Indiana, (the "County") has determined, after investigation that it is necessary and desirable that a new jail facility be constructed and/or leased for use by the County, or that the existing jail facility be remodeled and/or improved. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by
the County Council of the County of Vanderburgh, Indiana, as follows:
Councilmember Raben: Okay, Mr. President, I'd like to bring this to the floor, so I'm going to make a motion that we approve this resolution on this day. President Winnecke: We have a motion, do I hear a second, please? Councilmember Wortman: Second. President Winnecke: We have a motion and a second. And before I open it up for discussion, which I'll do, I'd like to make just a couple quick comments and allow everyone to have their say. This is by and large the same resolution that we considered a month ago. There were several deletions, two additions and I think the most notable is in paragraph two that states, it's the parenthetical clause, "with the exception of state and/or federal funding." Specifically, my intent in inserting that phrase is to not prohibit the county if we are fortunate enough to receive funding from other governmental entities as Commissioner Fanello has been lobbying for state aid, but this would allow for us to spend $35,000,000 and to receive state and/or federal funding if we're so lucky. Those are my only comments. I know everyone has some concerns and at this point if you would like to begin to express them before we take a vote. Mr. Tornatta. Councilmember Tornatta: This is a question for counsel. In paragraph four it says, "future determinations or from providing future input as to the matters relating to the contracts." Is that something that we could say in a - because we don't control the contracts or we don't have jurisdiction over the contracts. Jeff Ahlers: Well, what that's meant to say is to the extent that we do in terms of, obviously, we have control over the funding - (Inaudible - Councilmember Tornatta interrupted) Jeff Ahlers: Of funding. Councilmember Tornatta: Should that be funding - should the funding be placed in this contract? I mean, as not to say, the way this reads, we can relate to matters with construction contracts, remodeling contracts for a jail facility and I didn't know we had the ability to do that. I thought that was all the Commissioners. Jeff Ahlers: Well, to the extent that we have the ability, that's reserving that to do that. Yeah, you're right, I mean, to a certain extent it's limited. But, for example, a bond is a contract. A promissary note is a contract. I mean, there are a lot of different types of contracts and all this is to say is that by passing this resolution of necessity and enabling the bonding process to commence, that you are reserving whatever rights you may have had to be involved in that process. In fact, the specific, I think you may have mentioned at the last meeting, you had a question about this clause and I had indicated to you that I had spoken with Tom Pittman about that and this was a clause that him and I had talked about together in terms of just making sure that this wasn't the end of the road as far as Council goes, in terms of if, you know, there's still issues concerning, for example, what's going to be the exact amount of the bond. I mean, this is basically saying we'll allow a bond up to $35,000,000, but what if they come back, or there's a proposal and they decide they only want to fund $32,000,000, or what if it's different? So the point being that the County Council would just retain whatever control that it had and wants to still be involved in the process to the extent it can. I mean, obviously, by a resolution, we can't change the statutory powers that exist between the bodies. If that answers your question, I mean, this can't change a statute, so if we don't have the power to do something, this resolution isn't going to give us the power to do it. But it's just to make sure that we reserve the right for whatever powers we would have and to have input at whatever other stages that we can. Like I said, with regard to contracts, you're right. In terms of certain details, you know, that's the function of the executive except with regard to funding as we went through with the other contract. I mean, depending on how they decide to go about it. I mean, it seems to me, you know, they're indicating they don't want to do leasing, but if they change their mind and they did, that's a different kind of contract than a construction contract or maybe they've got a different kind of funding mechanism that hasn't been talked about today. And it's just merely to say that whatever is out there, we don't know where they're going to put it or what they're going to build, so there's a lot of unknowns and it's just to reserve to you all whatever powers you may have to still be involved in that process. President Winnecke: Mr. Wortman? Councilmember Wortman: Mr. President, I would like to address my question to one of the County Commissioners, please. And my concern is site location. If I recall, you were going to have a location February the first, but now then it's almost March the first and I was wondering, is there any problems or complications involved? Catherine Fanello: Thank you, Councilman Wortman. I think we're very close to that. It's been on the agenda for the past two weeks that we've talked about it. This past Monday night United Consulting gave us the pros and cons of looking at the judge's parking lot and the back 40. And Commissioner Mourdock wanted to get some questions answered this week, so it's back on the agenda for next Monday. So we are getting closer but those were the two sites that we've looked at first. Councilmember Wortman: And that's okay, so we'll expect something possibly - Catherine Fanello: I would say that you'll expect something or you'll get something or get a result here very soon. I mean, it's my full intent for us to have this issue resolved within the next couple of weeks. Councilmember Wortman: That's one
of my main concerns, see. Thank you.
President Winnecke: Mr. Raben. Councilmember Raben: Catherine, I was trying to catch you before you left. This doesn't have a lot to do with this resolution, although it does in a way, but it's my understanding that Representative Vaneta Becker has requested an opinion of the Secretary of State as to the possibility or the legalities of a lease/rental arrangement. And I wanted your input on that should the Attorney General's office say that it does fall within all the guidelines and it is legal, where do we go from here? Catherine Fanello: It will not change my opinion. I did not agree with the private proposal so I do not intend to waste any more time on it. Councilmember Raben: Okay, so - Catherine Fanello: That's my personal opinion. I can't speak for the other two Commissioners, but Commissioner Mosby is here. He could give you his opinion, but I don't intend to explore that option any further. President Winnecke: I would just say - do you want to say anything? As he's, Commissioner Mosby is approaching the microphone, Representative Vaneta Becker has made a written request, I understand, with the Attorney General's office. I've spoken with Greg Zoeller in the AG's office each of the last two days. He tells me at their first blush, and this is really just sort of for the record more than anything else, at their first blush, that there is no legal impediment to an arrangement that was proposed, but they continue to do research and it would be several weeks before an official opinion would be rendered in writing. David Mosby: To answer your question and I'll answer it briefly and be glad to share any information with you that you don't have, I don't know if you've seen the 21st Century proposal, but after going through them, if you look at scenario one which we are talking about, we're talking about today building 484 beds in the United proposal. They're talking about 448 which is about 40 beds less. But if you look at the bottom line project cost, that's the one I'm looking at, project cost. Very minimal difference. So we're talking 40 beds less but minimal amount of money. What their proposal will tell you, and you have to cipher through it on your own, they cut a lot of the furnishing and fixtures. They took the utility costs from 440,000 down to 200,000. They took supplies from 130 down to 30. They took trash from 60 down to 20. Now you tell me where that different comes in. How can, under their proposal, you haul trash for $40,000 less? How can you heat a building at the same cost per kilowatt, but they can do it $200,000 less? I think your millions of dollars, that they try to explain to you, and they did this over a 25 year period, so they're saying take what little bit of money I can save you, add 3% to it, add cost of living to it, let's stretch it out 25 years, and you come up with, you know, millions of dollars. I'll say, you know, at $60,000 per bed and I'm getting 40 beds less, you take 40 times $60,000, take 3% and stretch it over 25 years and see what you save. President Winnecke: Mr. Wortman. Councilmember Wortman: Mr. Mosby, I'd like to ask you one more question, please. How will the old jail fit in to this pattern? David Mosby: Last time I think we was up here we talked about that. It would be my envision right now to, and as soon as we could, and I mean, I'm a very big advocate of the back 40, and I'll tell you that that's probably the only site I'm looking at, so if we want to put all the hiddens out there in the air, I mean, that's where I'm at. Free land, courthouse, everything we need right here. My envision would be that the juvenile detention facility, which was recommended by United Consulting, which is 19,000 square feet, would go in the old jail. We'll have 35,200 square feet there or 800 square - 35,800 square feet to deal with once the jail is gone. So we could take that 35,000, I would envision moving Judge Niemeier's office, which he has asked for more space. He's got 3,200 square feet of space over where he's at. If we wanted to bring juvenile detention to the jail, which is approximately 19,000, give Judge Niemeier say 6,000, maybe double his space, 25,000, you still have 10,000 to deal with. Utley, Mr. Utley had a plan on the books before he left to take Judge Niemeier's space and make two full courtrooms out of it. That 3,200 square feet for approximately, I'm going to say 3 or 4 hundred thousand dollars will get you the two courtrooms you need. So now you've satisfied your courtrooms, your juvenile facility and you've also got Judge Niemeier's space and you've pretty well got it all built under one... Councilmember Wortman: One more question. Has there been any consideration on federal prisoners considered? David Mosby: It would be part of my plan to consider state and federal because we can bring money in on the state level and the federal level and it will be money that you can put back in the budget to use for operating costs that we might see as an increase, you know, throughout the time as we go on if we need more people. But I think that's one way you could look at operational costs if you feel like there's going to be an operational cost there that you need to offset in your budget. Councilmember Wortman: Thank you. Councilmember Raben: You may as well just stay up there, Dave. Oh, I thought you were - Councilmember Hoy: I do have a question. David Mosby: You want to know about the Health department. Councilmember Hoy: That's not what I was going to ask, but I do want to know about that, of course. You know that. We've discussed that. David Mosby: We've discussed it, that's why I said that. Councilmember Hoy: Since we've finally paid the bill to United, and that's the firm you selected and it looks like we've been able to negotiate some things in the contract that everybody is agreeable to, so that looks much, much better than it looked to me before. I'm happy to see that. It's been a lot of work but we've gotten to that point. As a Councilman I would like to see, then, you know, I'm not terribly interested in reading a 240 page book, but I would like to have the freedom to see the documents they present as we go now, since we've paid the bill. Is there any problem with that? David Mosby: I don't see a problem one. I mean, we've paid the bill and you've did your job and I appreciate that and I don't see a problem with, you know, us getting copies of that document and distributing it to you. Councilmember Hoy: And we'll talk about the Health department some other time. David Mosby: Okay. They still do fit in my plan is what I was going to tell you. Councilmember Hoy: Huh? David Mosby: They still fit in my plan. That's what I was going to tell you. Councilmember Hoy: Good. Councilmember Sutton: I don't mean to interrupt, but Mr. President, are we going to stick to the resolution here or - President Winnecke: I'd like to keep the discussion - (Inaudible - several speaking at once) President Winnecke: We have loads of time but I would like to keep the discussion to the resolution so we can...no disrespect, but other questions of Commissioner Mosby while he is at the podium? Councilmember Sutton: I was going to...well, it's kind of on your response, if we could kind of follow up on the question that Curt had...were you, is it your thoughts or your suggestions based upon what we have in a resolution that all of those costs, when I say all of those costs I mean the actual existing jail, the acquisition would be a part of the $35,000,000? Councilmember Wortman: Yes sir. Councilmember Sutton: Well, I don't know if - (Inaudible - Councilmember Wortman interrupted) Councilmember Sutton: - structured here. David Mosby: Maybe I misunderstood. I mean, and that is my plan and what I'm looking at, but now whether all that will fall within 35,000,000...okay, I'm not going to guarantee you that you can remodel the whole jail and build a new jail. Okay, okay. Councilmember Sutton: That's why I wanted to make sure I'm very clear. I mean, I could be wrong, somebody could correct me, but I don't think that's the intent of the way this reads. President Winnecke: Maybe I should clarify that. I mean, my intentions since (inaudible) been part of me it seems like for so long, my intent is that this covers...this allows the Commissioners to proceed with $35,000,000. They need to decide what is in the best interests of the county to build for $35,000,000. If they come back with additional needs, whether it's for land, whether it's for the remodeling of the old jail, then they need to come back to us and I think that's - that's my intent of the wording. Councilmember Sutton: Okay, another thing, too, now this resolution itself, this resolution is written for who? I mean, for what purpose, so that we can be very clear. President Winnecke: This resolution of necessity is required to begin the bonding process and it was initiated I should say, actually in December by Mr. Pittman, with the help of the Commissioners. It's taken on different forms but this is ultimately what it says: this Council has determined that a need exists, so the bonding process can begin. Councilmember Sutton: And I think that's - as we look at this resolution, the intent is to confirm that the need does exist here in Vanderburgh County, but I know we want to try to look at some options and make sure that we have an opportunity to get additional funding for this project possibly from the state, possibly from the feds, but it seems like we're trying to lump too much in here to say what we need to say, which essentially, all we need to say is that we see that we need a jail and we don't have the cash in the bank to be able to fund it out of our existing resources. And so as I say that, I guess I'm looking at kind of paragraph two and paragraph four seems to be a little bit more than maybe what we really need by law or statute, you know, to say what we need to say. And I guess when we look at the resolution that was passed last year, the April resolution, and pretty much, we've already set in our funding cap on this. I don't know if we need to go back in as far as the state is concerned to reiterate that same point. We've already said that. President Winnecke: I think I would address that, too, and I think that's a fair question. However, I had asked initially that the $35,000,000 cap or that the cap be inserted in this because for months now the Commissioners have asked for clarification in various forums, whether it be in this room or in their hearing room, about what our intent was in terms of how much money we would spend. We were on record, you are correct, from last April. To me, this reiterates that. They've, I think, sought direction from us as to how much money we were willing to spend. I think that's what this does. So it kills two birds with one stone, if you will. Councilmember Tornatta: And then does that money, when it says with the exception of state or federal funding, is that in addition to the 35,000,000? President Winnecke: It means we can spend $35,000,000 from this body, from the county, and we can take all the money anyone else wants to give us. Councilmember Tornatta: Right, but does that pay down the $35,000,000 or can that be used in excess? President Winnecke: It would be used in excess. If the state of Indiana comes back and says it wants to give us a gazillion dollars to build a community corrections center, then we can spend a gazillion dollars, theoretically, plus the $35,000,000. Councilmember Sutton: One other thing, I mean, if we're going to put together a resolution, we want to make sure that we have words spelled correctly before we send it on to state. If we can look in paragraph one, the last sentence, the County Council furthermore determines that the funds needed therefor, with an "e" on the end. Jeff Ahlers: You can spell that either way. President Winnecke: That's a legal - actually, that's a legal - Councilmember Sutton: Well, it's spelled with an "e" on the end at the beginning of the paragraph: "Now, therefore, be it resolved, and so maybe on the - President Winnecke: It's a legal spell check thing, I believe. Councilmember Sutton: Okay, so you've
got it spelled both ways there.
Jeff Ahlers: To point that out, Mr. Mosby's attorney, Tom Pittman at Baker & Daniels, drafted that paragraph. I have his draft right here. Councilmember Sutton: Does he have spell check as well? Jeff Ahlers: I suggest that you speak with him if we're going to start throwing rocks. David Mosby: He did tell me he did that and he just wanted to see if you'd catch it. He told me, I'm just going to - (Inaudible - several speaking at once) President Winnecke: Councilman Bassemier next. Councilmember Bassemier: Yeah, I'm going to address this to our counselor. On number four, Jeff, now if this $35,000,000 is approved today and if there's a contract that the Commissioners want to enter into for $10,000,000 on something, does that statement mean that they have to come back for approval on that contract for the $10,000,000 or does it still give a blank check on the $35,000,000? They can spend it any way they want to, up to $35,000,000? How am I reading number four because it says funding, so they have to come back to us, so how am I reading this? What is the correct way? Jeff Ahlers: Well actually, this resolution will not change in terms of the way that County Council and the County Commissioners would normally function in that regard, so it's a little difficult for me to answer your question in the sense that it's - you know, an ambiguous, hypothetical without having exact facts. I mean, all this is doing is starting the process to allow the bonding process, the county's bond counsel to begin to move forward to start the bonds, okay? Councilmember Bassemier: Okay. Jeff Ahlers: In terms of what they're spent on, okay, is a different issue, okay? Now in terms of if it is a contract, for example, that once the funding is in place, that if, for example, it was a contract that did not require Council approval and that the Commissioners would be able to enter into it, they may not need to come here for approval. On the other hand, if it is a contract that would require some sort of Council ratification, or approval of funding, they would need to do so. The problem is we've got so many options that have been considered out there, it's difficult for me to answer your question in that regard. I think that what you're basically doing to a certain degree is that you have to understand that you're making a decision today if you support that, that you are going to spend...you are authorizing or saying that the process can start for bonds to be authorized up to $35,000,000. In speaking with Mr. Pittman, I did talk to him and he indicated that the bonds would be coming back here in terms of, you know, being approved or obviously any lease. If, for example, if the Building Authority would be the entity that would be doing the bonding, for example, and that the county is going to lease the jail from the Building Authority, you know, a lease obviously would, may need to be approved by this body in terms of the funding for that. On the other hand, certain ways of going about doing this, whether you have a jail authority, a building authority, a private leasing arrangement, they may require, you know, other avenues, so I know it's difficult for you to maybe understand my answer because I'm not sure I can give you an exact answer because we don't know what they're going to do, or I don't know what they're going to do. Somebody - Councilmember Bassemier: Well, I'm looking at it then, number four is incorrect because as you read it, "providing future input as to matters relating to the contracts for the construction, remodeling and/or improvement of the jail facility, the leasing, acquisition, construction, installation and/or equipping of the jail facility, or the appropriations of funds for the payment of costs relating to the jail facility," so I'm reading it that anything they do to that has got to be appropriated by us. Am I reading that in that? I mean, appropriation of funds. Jeff Ahlers: To the extent that the law would require them to come before us for approval, that is correct. However, in response to Mr. Tornatta's question, as I said, this resolution doesn't change any constitutional separation of powers, okay. All that's doing is reserving whatever rights you would have had to do that. It's not necessarily giving you - I mean, it is sort of reserving saying that we are making this resolution based upon this is our understanding. As I've told all of you if you've called me or consulted with me on this, I think if you're going to vote for it, you have to vote for it from the standpoint that you're possibly turning loose of $35,000,000. As to what legal turns it would take if we disagree coming down the line, we'll just have to examine that when we get to it - (Inaudible - Councilmember Tornatta interrupted) Jeff Ahlers: - promises, that there aren't some issues there. Councilmember Tornatta: And you said that this right here is what we need to get the bonds going, but have you ever seen one with less wording? Have you ever seen one come across your desk that didn't have as many words? Jeff Ahlers: I saw one that you drafted. I saw one that Mr. Pittman drafted. Is that what you mean? Councilmember Tornatta: Yeah. Councilmember Bassemier: Can I finish, Mr. President? President Winnecke: If Mr. Bassemier could finish. Councilmember Bassemier: Well, the reason I'm bringing this up, 'cause it really matters how I vote on this. Obviously now, you're telling me on the 35,000,000, we're opening up a blank check for this $35,000,000, possibly. I mean, that's a possibility. And the reason why I'm bringing this up, because up to this point I really haven't seen an overall plan. What are we getting for our $35,000,000? We don't know yet what the cost of the land is going to be and it's hard to design it without that. And what I've heard in the past, I've heard for $35,000,000, we can only build a 487 bed facility and now we're minusing another 40 beds, - David Mosby: No, that was in the private proposal. Councilmember Bassemier: Probably, and we got a 268 bed facility now, so just say it is 487 beds, we're only going to gain about 140 - 150 beds for $35,000,000, and I had a design team down here February 11. I was told we can add on to our present jail, double the - I know, but I need to say this because it's important to how I vote - we can double the size of our present jail, build it over the parking lot right beside of it for $8,000,000 or this other design team can build a whole new facility with 500 beds for $20,000,000. So if we don't have any input over this $35,000,000, where it's going to be spent, are we still giving them a blank check? President Winnecke: I'll respond and then we're going to go to Councilman Hoy and Councilman Tornatta and then Mr. Raben, and then we're going to call for a roll call vote because we have other business. The answer to your question, I believe, if I'm hearing you correctly, we're saying that a need exists - Councilmember Bassemier: I understand. President Winnecke: And $35,000,000 is the cap. The Commissioners, now, it is their role to determine what to build for $35,000,000. Councilmember Bassemier: Well, number four statement is incorrect then. It's not saying that we control any appropriation for funding then when this $35,000,000 is awarded to them. President Winnecke: It says that, it does not prohibit - this resolution says it does not prohibit us from having input on future appropriations or future contracts regarding the construction, remodeling, etcetera. Councilmember Bassemier: Okay, does that input, does that mean they hear us and do what they want to do, or does that mean it's binding? President Winnecke: It means if they need more than $35,000,000 - Councilmember Bassemier: Okay, in other words, we're opening the door for $35,000,000. Councilmember Hoy: That's right. President Winnecke: Yes, absolutely. Councilmember Bassemier: Okay, thank you. President Winnecke: But quite frankly, you know, we did that last April. Councilmember Bassemier: But no you didn't because you didn't have in there on the funding that we control - on the contracts, installation, improvements or anything, that we've got to approve the funding for it. Right now, I don't see four should even be in there. President Winnecke: All due respect, I don't believe it's the Council's role to determine what is done with the money. I believe that's the Commissioner's role. Councilman Hoy. (Inaudible - several speaking at once) President Winnecke: Councilman Hoy, please. Councilmember Hoy: That's, you said pretty much what I wanted to say because it's time that we gave you all the green light to move ahead and working with the firm that you've chosen, which it is your prerogative to choose. I have full confidence that you will work with them to get the most you can out of the dollars allocated. And I'm ready to pass it on to you all. You do contracts. We did the same thing with The Centre. As a body, we voted a certain amount and then the Commissioners took the ball and worked with the architects and worked with the contracts and that's the way the system works. And I'm ready to go. David Mosby: I appreciate that. Councilmember Raben: And Ed, I might add just for peace of mind and I really do appreciate where you're coming from, I wish we had more powers than what the law allows, too, but - Councilmember Bassemier: Not to interrupt, but we do when it comes to funding. Councilmember Raben: Just to echo what Councilman Hoy is saying, any large bond we've ever had, once you approve it and sign off on it, and along with any appropriation you basically make in this room, that you have to trust that the right things will be done with it from that point forward and we really don't have any say in that. I wish we did, but just for peace of mind, you never have and probably never will. Councilmember Bassemier: But its been a year now. I guess we do because it's been a year and we're still here. So we do have control on what they do. Councilmember Hoy: Mr. President, may I call for the question? President Winnecke: I promised Councilman Tornatta and then we're going to vote. Councilmember Bassemier: But when he addresses me, I should get a chance -- President Winnecke: We're going to wrap it up here. Councilmember Tornatta: I guess we kind of all came to the same conclusion. There were five yes votes on April 4th to set that limit which would essentially tell the Commission, and that's why this was drafted, to tell the Commission what their budget was going to be. And there were five on there. And Royce was absent and I voted no. So of the other five, they voted yes and it passed and so we've essentially already done this part. So this is kind of a moot point. About the other things, then that's a question. But I was just kind of addressing that to Mr. Bassemier and, no disrespect, but that has already been taken care of, fortunately or unfortunately, and that's about... President Winnecke: We're going to call - Councilmember Bassemier: No, I tell you what. I think it's fair I get to address that because - President Winnecke: We're going to change the tape and then we're going to vote. (Tape changed) Councilmember Bassemier: Can I have one -- President Winnecke: I've given everyone a chance, with all due respect. Councilmember Bassemier: Well, when he uses my name and makes a statement, I think I ought to be able to address it, Mr. President. President Winnecke: We're running out of time. We have another meeting to start and I appreciate it. Roll call vote, please. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Tornatta? Councilmember Tornatta: Real quick, not a lot of change between the first draft and the second draft, although there are some things that were taken out. I don't believe that the Council has any jurisdiction over contracts, however, our counsel assures me that this is merely a funding procedure, and to get this process going. I've been proactive to bring another resolution, but in looking at the time I'm going to vote yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton? Councilmember Sutton: I've obviously had a lot to say about this as well and recognizing that in all honesty, this county needs to present a united front if we're going to get state dollars and federal dollars for this project. And I've been saying that all along that if we're going to do this project, we're going to need more than $35,000,000, and obviously, the state and federal money that we could potentially get is possibly some avenues that we need to pursue to make this project what it needs to be to meet the needs of Vanderburgh County. There is one area in our previous resolution that does contradict what we have in this existing one that we probably need to go back and clear up. In the prior resolution, it says that the project is not to exceed $35,000,000 from all funding sources. I think we need to go back and clear that up because in our present resolution, we say "exception of state and federal funding." So if we could go back and clear that up, I'd go ahead and vote yes for this. Jeff Ahlers: (Inaudible - microphone not turned on) Councilmember Sutton: But the resolution that was passed says all funding sources, $35,000,000. Jeff Ahlers: Correct, but this one changes that and says "with the exception." It says it reaffirms "with the exception of." I think that's the intention of that. But, I mean, you can make that clear on the record however you want. You have to understand, in responding to all of your questions, I've been through a lot of drafts of this and so there's a lot of language in there that came from a lot of places. So you have to understand that this document is kind of a consensus building type document. So it is what it is, you know. Councilmember Sutton: Okay, well I just wanted to make sure we're not saying two different things there. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Bassemier? Councilmember Bassemier: When I first supported this first one, I thought we was going to get three facilities out of it. I understand now we're only getting one, so I vote no. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Hoy? Councilmember Hoy: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Raben? Councilmember Raben: Yes. Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Wortman? Councilmember Wortman: Yes. Teri Lukeman: President Winnecke? President Winnecke: I'm going to vote yes. (Motion carried 6-1/Councilmember Bassemier opposed.) President Winnecke: I would just add, I appreciate everyone's input. This has been a consensus-building effort. I realize it doesn't have everything for everyone, but I vote yes. The resolution passes and I would look for a motion for adjournment, so we can re-adjourn. Councilmember Sutton: So moved. Councilmember Wortman: Second. President Winnecke: Let's take two minutes, maybe five minutes, and then we'll re-adjourn. (Meeting adjourned at 3:45 p.m.)
VANDERBURGH COUNTY COUNCIL _____________________________
____________________________
____________________________
____________________________
_____________________________
_____________________________
_____________________________
Recorded and Transcribed by Teri Lukeman.
|
