Bill Fluty: Please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance.

(Pledge of Allegiance was given)

Bill Fluty: The chair would now entertain a motion for the President of the Vanderburgh County Council.

Councilmember Abell: Mr. Chairman, I nominate Lloyd Winnecke for President for the year 2006 for the Vanderburgh County Council.

Councilmember Wortman: I’d like to second that motion.

Bill Fluty: Madam Secretary, may I have a roll call vote?

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Tornatta?

Councilmember Tornatta: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton?

Councilmember Sutton: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Abell?

Councilmember Abell: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Winnecke?

Councilmember Winnecke: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Goebel?

Councilmember Goebel: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Wortman?

Councilmember Wortman: Yes.

(Motion unanimously approved 6-0)

Bill Fluty: Congratulations. I’ll now turn this over to Lloyd Winnecke.

President Winnecke: Thanks everyone and happy new year. I appreciate the Councilmembers’ confidence in my leadership and I pledge to continue the same kind of leadership that we’ve had in the past 12 months, which I think has put the Council in a good position and helped the voters and constituents of our county.

President Winnecke: Having said that, I would entertain a motion for Vice President of the Council.

Councilmember Wortman: I’d like to make a motion nominating Marsha Abell to Vice President of the County Council.

President Winnecke: There is a motion.

Councilmember Goebel: Second.

President Winnecke: And a second. Roll call vote please.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Tornatta?

Councilmember Tornatta: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton?

Councilmember Sutton: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Abell?

Councilmember Abell: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Goebel?

Councilmember Goebel: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Wortman?

Councilmember Wortman: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: President Winnecke?

President Winnecke: Yes.

(Motion unanimously approved 6-0)

President Winnecke: At this time I would entertain a motion to reappoint Jeff Ahlers as our County Attorney. Although Mr. Ahlers could not be with us today for legal reasons, we do have Maria Worthington from his firm in his place. But I would entertain that motion.

Councilmember Wortman: I’ll entertain a motion we nominate Jeff Ahlers for County Attorney for the Vanderburgh County Council.

Councilmember Abell: I’ll second that.

President Winnecke: Motion and a second. Roll call vote please.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Tornatta?

Councilmember Tornatta: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton?

Councilmember Sutton: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Abell?

Councilmember Abell: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Goebel?

Councilmember Goebel: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Wortman?

Councilmember Wortman: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: President Winnecke?

President Winnecke: Yes.

(Motion unanimously approved 6-0)

President Winnecke: And at this time I would make the President’s appointments to the Personnel Chair and the Finance Chair. I would appoint Councilman Wortman to chair our Personnel Committee and Councilman Raben to continue as Finance Chair.

President Winnecke: And at this time I would entertain a motion to approve minutes from our December 7th meeting.

Councilmember Wortman: So moved.

Councilmember Abell: Second.

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

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Tornatta?

Councilmember Tornatta: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton?

Councilmember Sutton: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Abell?

Councilmember Abell: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Goebel?

Councilmember Goebel: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Wortman?

Councilmember Wortman: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: President Winnecke?

President Winnecke: Yes.

(Motion unanimously approved 6-0)

PROSECUTOR

President Winnecke: In Mr. Raben’s absence, Councilwoman Abell has agreed to get through the appropriation requests for the month, so I’ll turn the floor over to Councilwoman Abell.

Councilmember Abell: Thank you, Mr. President. I’ll try to stumble through this as best I can. I won’t do credit to Jim, I’m sure. We’re going to take each one of them separately. The Prosecutor, 1240-1080, set that in at $1,873. I’ll make that in the form of a motion.

Councilmember Wortman: Second.

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

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Tornatta?

Councilmember Tornatta: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton?

Councilmember Sutton: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Abell?

Councilmember Abell: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Goebel?

Councilmember Goebel: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Wortman?

Councilmember Wortman: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: President Winnecke?

President Winnecke: Yes.

PROSECUTOR                                                      REQUESTED       APPROVED

(Motion unanimously approved 6-0)

COUNTY ASSESSOR

Councilmember Abell: County Assessor, 1090, we are going to zero that out and take that issue up next month. 1972, set that in at $500. The other items set in at zero, for a total of $500, and I make that in the form of a motion.

Councilmember Wortman: Second.

President Winnecke: There is a motion and a second. Questions or discussion? I would just add, I think the feeling is that we will visit this issue and the Surveyor’s issue in March. That would be the six month period from when we last addressed that issue. Any other questions or discussion? Roll call vote please.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Tornatta?

Councilmember Tornatta: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton?

Councilmember Sutton: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Abell?

Councilmember Abell: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Goebel?

Councilmember Goebel: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Wortman?

Councilmember Wortman: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: President Winnecke?

President Winnecke: Yes.

COUNTY ASSESSOR                                           REQUESTED       APPROVED

(Motion unanimously approved 6-0)

PIGEON TOWNSHIP ASSESSOR

Councilmember Abell: Pigeon Township Assessor, Level ll Certification, 1972, set it in at $500, FICA at $39, for a total of $539, and I make that in the form of a motion.

Councilmember Wortman: Second.

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

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Tornatta?

Councilmember Tornatta: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton?

Councilmember Sutton: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Abell?

Councilmember Abell: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Goebel?

Councilmember Goebel: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Wortman?

Councilmember Wortman: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: President Winnecke?

President Winnecke: Yes.

PIGEON TWP. ASSESSOR                                  REQUESTED       APPROVED

(Motion unanimously approved 6-0)

SURVEYOR CORNER PERPETUATION

Councilmember Abell: The Surveyor’s Chief Deputy 1220-2650 is the same as the Assessor, we’re going to defer that until March. I’ll set all those in at zero and make that in the form of a motion.

Councilmember Wortman: Second.

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

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Tornatta?

Councilmember Tornatta: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton?

Councilmember Sutton: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Abell?

Councilmember Abell: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Goebel?

Councilmember Goebel: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Wortman?

Councilmember Wortman: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: President Winnecke?

President Winnecke: Yes.

SURVEYOR CORNER PERPETUATION             REQUESTED       APPROVED

(Motion unanimously approved 6-0)

PROSECUTOR

CIRCUIT COURT SUPPLEMENTAL ADULT PROBATION

SHERIFF (LATE)

Councilmember Abell: And, Mr. President, on the transfers, we’ll take all three of those together. Prosecutor set in at $14,903. Circuit Court set in at $2,000. And a late transfer from the Sheriff set in at $26,000, and I make that in the form of a motion.

Councilmember Wortman: Second.

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

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Tornatta?

Councilmember Tornatta: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton?

Councilmember Sutton: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Abell?

Councilmember Abell: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Goebel?

Councilmember Goebel: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Wortman?

Councilmember Wortman: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: President Winnecke?

President Winnecke: Yes.

PROSECUTOR                                                      REQUESTED       APPROVED

CIRCUIT COURT

SUPPLEMENTAL ADULT PROBATION              REQUESTED       APPROVED

SHERIFF                                                                REQUESTED       APPROVED

(Motion unanimously approved 6-0)

Councilmember Abell: I think that takes care of my part of the program.

President Winnecke: Actually, you get to do the Amendments to the Salary Ordinance, and they have just been presented.

Councilmember Abell: Okay, you’ve been passed out the amendments to the Salary Ordinance for the Prosecutor, County Assessor, Pigeon Township Assessor and the Sheriff. We left out the – the County Assessor is the $500 for the certification, Level II, but both issues dealing with the Chief Deputy in the County Surveyor and the Chief Deputy County Assessor are both put off until March. I will make this part of the record.

Councilmember Wortman: Second.

President Winnecke: And a second. Questions or discussion? Roll call vote please.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Tornatta?

Councilmember Tornatta: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton?

Councilmember Sutton: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Abell?

Councilmember Abell: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Goebel?

Councilmember Goebel: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Wortman?

Councilmember Wortman: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: President Winnecke?

President Winnecke: Yes.

(Motion unanimously approved 6-0)

President Winnecke: Thank you, Madam Vice President. You did a fine job.

President Winnecke: Okay, next we’ll move on to old business, the second reading on the proposed ordinance to amend the Enhanced Emergency Telephone System. If you’ll recall at our meeting last month, on the first reading, we passed an ordinance increasing the monthly fee from 35 cents to 95 cents. It does require two readings and I would pass on a little bit more information to you. As you recall, we asked the County Auditor to request information from the 24 phone providers in Vanderburgh County, companies that provide that service in the county. Actually, five of the 24 have provided information which is disappointing, to say the least. Bill, did you hand this out?

Bill Fluty: Yes, I did.

President Winnecke: Okay, you all have that sheet in front of you which shows the residential and commercial land line rates those companies have provided. Just doing some simple math, if you add the residential column, you get a total of $79.70, and the average there is $15.94. The total of the commercial lines is $137.42. The average of those is $27.48. So if you add the $15.94 and the $27.48 and divide by two, the rate would be 65 cents. And as we’ve discussed, the statute says that in a county with a second class city, which Vanderburgh County is, the increase should be no more than three percent and that’s where we are. Clearly, if we confirm the 95 cents, it would be above the information that we have today provided to us. Its disappointing that the providers were not able to give us access to that information in a timely manner. The request came at the end of November. They’ve had several weeks to reply and they have not done so. So I don’t know what the Council’s pleasure is. Mr. Sutton?

Councilmember Sutton: Mr. President, I would move that we would adjust the fee on the 911 charge to 95 cents as we had discussed last month. You know, well, let me just go and get that on the floor and then I’ll have some follow up comments behind that.

President Winnecke: Okay, there is a motion to amend the fee to 95 cents, which is the same as what we did in December. Is there a second?

Councilmember Wortman: Yes, I’ll second that motion.

President Winnecke: A second from Mr. Wortman. Now, discussion, Mr. Sutton.

Councilmember Sutton: I think last month when we had a chance to have some discussion and the city came forward and brought some good information to us. One of the areas that we were really concerned about is the long term implications of an agreement like this, working with the city, and how the county would potentially be impacted by just the long list of capital expenditures that were going to be needed for this department, what the technological updates that are going to be required to keep our 911 system up to date and allowing all the bodies that are involved with public safety to be able to communicate is vitally important to this community. I think when we look at what we’re talking about here with this proposed adjustment to the fee, I think we’re all very sensitive to the urgency and the importance of having a communications system that does work well, that is up to date, but most importantly, meets the needs of our community. You know, we probably don’t even notice a system like that at all in our daily comings and goings until there is an urgent or emergency situation that occurs either in our neighborhood or in our lives personally, and we want that system to work well when we’re faced with a situation like that. So keeping that equipment up to date, we’ve had some discussions about how we’re going to be able to do that and one of the things in some of the discussions with the Mayor and some of the Councilmembers and City Councilmembers that we’re concerned about is whether the county can undertake those expenses. And we know that we can’t pay for all those expenses. And what I would recommend as a part of what we are going to move here to ensure that our equipment is up to date, is that the city would take up from their Riverboat funds, they would pay for at least two/thirds of the cost of any capital expenditures that we may have going down the road. I mean, I don’t know if we look at just this type of equipment, if we don’t have some updates along the way, whether we’re going to be able to maintain at a level. The other thing, too, is the length of this agreement, we are scheduled to -- this is scheduled to terminate at the end of 2007, --

President Winnecke: Actually, the end of 2008, I believe.

Councilmember Sutton: 2008? You know, so I would, I think we need to take a look at that relative to -- especially if we’re making some adjustments here on this fee, I think we need to look at the length of that agreement to maybe stretch that out a little bit further beyond what we have right now.

President Winnecke: Anyone else? Mrs. Abell?

Councilmember Abell: Mr. President, I voted in favor of this last time to get some comments, hopefully, get some comments from the Mayor’s office which I have not heard. It is nice to think that we would ask that two/thirds of this be paid out of Riverboat funds but I’ve heard no commitment along those lines that this will be paid, any of it, out of Riverboat funds. I did have an opportunity to read the newspaper, which I do on a regular basis, and read that a City Councilman indicated that Riverboat funds could only be used for capital improvements, however, this is a capital improvement. There’s no reason that Riverboat funds could not be used for this. This is not a user fee. I’ve heard many people say it is a user fee. It is not a user fee. A user fee is a fee someone uses. This is a fee we’re going to stick on every phone bill in town. These phone bills are not cell phones which those of us who are fortunate enough to make enough money to be able to have a cell phone have, these are phones that are hooked to the wall, that are the cheapest form of phone that a person can have. So these are used not only by people who can afford other phones, but also by people who can hardly afford to have the phone they have. To refer to this as the cost of a happy meal is a nice little blip for the newspaper, but the fact is, if this is a happy meal for someone, then the jail is going to be two or three happy meals and the library will be another happy meal, and before long, the citizens of Vanderburgh County are going to be standing at the food bank looking for food, not at McDonald’s to buy a happy meal. We cannot continue to increase the taxes on these people in Vanderburgh County so blatantly as to increase something over double, and I would not be in favor of and do not intend to vote in favor of 95 cents on the phone bill for this unless we would put this off and have the Mayor come before us and make a commitment that they’re going to use Riverboat funds and make a commitment that there will be some property tax relief for this, both of which have been rumored, but I have heard no commitment in no public forum along that line, and I will be voting against this issue. Thank you.

President Winnecke: Anyone else? Mr. Wortman? Mr. Goebel?

Councilmember Goebel: Can Mr. Sutton’s proposal be amended that we would vote for the 95 cent fee if the city agrees to use Riverboat funding for capital improvements?

President Winnecke: I don’t think that can be part of his motion. I don’t think we can make – we can’t make an appropriation contingent upon – with a caveat like that, but I don’t know about – I think that would be part of the negotiations with the city, going forward. I don’t know the answer to that, I guess, off the top of my head is what I’m saying. If you want to amend the motion and include that, I think we would have to defer it and get a firm opinion as to whether we could do that.

Councilmember Goebel: Well, I think the increase would be contingent upon the city agreeing to what our conditions are, wouldn’t it? So we could pass the resolution or not here?

President Winnecke: I don’t think you can pass the 95 cents with a contingent because at some point we’d have to double back and...Mr. Sutton?

Councilmember Sutton: The question is, to include that in the motion? Is that correct?

President Winnecke: But I guess my point is, I’m not sure we can pass – we can make the change contingent upon an action by another governmental entity. I know we can’t do that with an appropriation.

Councilmember Sutton: How about two motions? One on the amount of the fee increase and then the second motion which may not necessarily be a binding motion, but would be more of a negotiating option for us –

President Winnecke: It could be a resolution certainly, but I think there’s another issue that I think we need to really look at and that is, based on information the Auditor has provided us, the legality of the vote. Whether 95 cents is a figure that passes muster according to the state statute.

Councilmember Sutton: I think, clearly, the Auditor has made great strides in trying to get the information needed to determine what that amount should and could be based upon what response he received. You, know five out of twenty-two of them, I wouldn’t consider that, I mean, though the effort was good, I mean, I wouldn’t consider the response very representative of what would be a total look of what the charges might be out there. So, I mean, to really just kind of say that if we base it just on five out of twenty-two, I don’t know if we’ve got a clear picture of what the actual line charges may be for those that are here in our community, especially if you have this many companies that did not respond at all.

President Winnecke: Mr. Tornatta?

Councilmember Tornatta: We also got something here talking about the fourteen counties that have a surcharge and it was surcharge, I’m still not clear on the tax issue. I think it’s a service fee, those who have a phone have the opportunity just like if you have cable, you have the opportunity to watch TV. If you have a phone, you have an opportunity to call 911 in a state of emergency. Those people that were in the tornado probably hadn’t planned on using their 911. However, there were a lot of 911 calls when we had those presented before us and it was very compelling to make sure that this staff at the 911 office is allowed to have all of the advanced technology that they need. Tippecanoe, if we look at Tippecanoe, they have 130,000 people, their line charge is $1.52. Those counties can work around to make sure that they take the burden off of the property tax and try and put it in another area. I think this is a stride forward to do that. The Republican Governor wants things to move in that direction. Our Mayor has made strides to make sure that there are opportunities to take property tax burdens off the constituents in not only the city, but to try and help us to take them off the people in Vanderburgh County, of which I have people that are my constituents, the at-large people, and in fact, all of the Council people have people that live in the city that are their constituents. And so, I don’t want to see any taxes that are unfair. I look at this as a fee, however, and I think that this is a fee for those people who are using the phone system and who have the opportunity to get in touch immediately to emergency personnel. And I think that that is what we’re looking at here. So I would be in favor of the 95 cents. I would hope that the city would, and have a commitment that they like a proposal that puts all 95 cents toward the operations of 911, which one-third/two-third splits on anything above that. But the city would then pick up out of their Riverboat fund, which is non-tax based, they would pick up that fee to do all capital improvements and hold the county harmless in that event. The first thing that comes to mind is there is a 2.2 million dollar addition that needs to be to get this 911 up to digital status and that’s definitely coming down the road. So with those things said, I think that this is a move forward. We have to make sure that everyone is covered and we do have a maintenanced 911 system, and in doing that, that’s the way I’ll vote.

President Winnecke: I think to your point, you made a couple of good points, but I think the request that the Governor has made to find alternative funding sources, in my mind, I think he’s trying to stay within the statute. And I think before we vote to increase the fee to 95 cents, and I am not opposed to increasing the fee, I think it should be increased so we do create a funding mechanism so that we can place the latest state-of-the art equipment at the site. I’m not opposed to that, but I think we do need to stay within the statute. And I, frankly, don’t know that we have the information before us to validate an increase to 95 cents. The statute, I think, is very clear in a county that has a consolidated city or a county that has at least one second class city, that is this county. Three percent of the average monthly telephone access charge, that’s the rate, three percent. So, I guess, Mr. Ahlers is not here, but, Maria, if you could offer – not to put you in the hot seat...

Maria Worthington: It does appear that you may be able to gather more data, maybe wait another month, see if Mr. Fluty is able to get –

President Winnecke: Can you turn your microphone on?

Maria Worthington: You may want to defer this a month. Wait and see if Mr. Fluty is able to get anymore data as companies who were unresponsive, maybe a second request would generate the information you need, recompute it and then see if you can make that 95 cents that you want to pass, work. The other alternative would be, you can amend the current ordinance at second reading to the 65 cents that we can justify. Those, today, would be the only two really viable options.

Councilmember Sutton: Mr. Fluty, when did you send out this request to the telephone companies for this land line charge information?

Bill Fluty: I believe it was the first of December and we asked them to respond the 20th. After the 20th, we started making calls and actually did do a little better than the first three that responded. And we are in communication with quite a few. Remember when we’re making these calls, these are to Rochester, they’re not local, so it is a little more difficult to get to the person that will give us those charges. But we’ve been working on that every day to get those. And we just got one this morning.

Councilmember Sutton: And the response is that you were receiving from the majority of these companies was – was what type of response were you receiving?

Bill Fluty: A letter, a written letter is what we requested.

Councilmember Sutton: The ones that did not choose to respond, was there any particular reason why they chose -

Bill Fluty: Those are the ones we’ve called and tried to tell them the importance of this and ask them to respond.

Councilmember Sutton: And I guess the other thing is, when we talk about the basic charge, what are we including in that because, I mean, there’s so many – every company is so different. What were you specifically asking for?

Bill Fluty: We were just asking for the basic charge for their commercial and their residential, and that’s what they’re giving us. Hopefully, they’re all giving us the same thing.

President Winnecke: Mr. Tornatta?

Councilmember Tornatta: Yeah, there is another aspect that you’ll look at and, of course, that’s there’s add-ons. There are things that are in there, on an average, though, people have call waiting, people have those three-way calling, those different services. Those should be in this document as well because, obviously, its an average of what that bill is and what that fee is off of that bill. And to my knowledge, that is a point that is not necessarily in that statute.

Maria Worthington: The statute, I can read it just so its in the record, its I.C. 36-8-16-6, and it calls for three percent of the average, just the monthly telephone, the access line charge. It does not allow to include the extra items.

Councilmember Sutton: Say that again.

Maria Worthington: It calls for three percent – this is the maximum, of the average monthly telephone access line charge, just the line charge.

Councilmember Tornatta: Is that interpretation or –

Maria Worthington: Its not defined by statute so it would have its plain and ordinary meaning, so that’s really, the Council and the Auditor can decide what that plain and ordinary meaning is. Mr. Fluty may be able to weigh in more on that. If you look at a phone bill, (Inaudible). But that’s really a determination for the Council –

Councilmember Tornatta: Right, and I think that’s where different counties have an interpretation difference to call it either what the line charge is – the fees that are on there with the line charge, they can use that and have used in the past to move and make sure that they’re able to fund their 911 system.

Maria Worthington: It may be another opportunity to table that another month and see if you can not only get more information, but satisfy yourselves on that definition.

Councilmember Tornatta: Okay, and then my other thought was, if we can’t go 95 cents because of statute, maybe the amendment ought to be to the motion is that we go to the maximum amount with a cap at 95 cents, and that would put us in compliance.

President Winnecke: To amend the ordinance to say –

Councilmember Tornatta: No, not ordinance –

President Winnecke: Well, that’s what we’re doing. We’re amending an existing ordinance, so what you’re suggesting is that we amend the motion amending the ordinance to say the fee shall go to the maximum fee allowed under the state statute but not to exceed 95 cents?

Councilmember Tornatta: Correct.

President Winnecke: What about that?

Maria Worthington: It sounds a little bit better but you still haven’t made a decision about what – I mean, you still have to take the next step and decide what that number is.

President Winnecke: That’s right, we do have to vote on a specific number, I do remember that from previous – because it has to have a second reading, so it has to be a specific number. So at some point, we’d have to set in that amount.

Councilmember Tornatta: Well, if the only thing we can do is table it, then we have to table it. I mean, there’s no use in voting on something that’s not a legal and binding vote. So if that’s not a legal vote with our Council, then we’re kind of doing this for naught.

Councilmember Sutton: But I think that’s up to interpretation. I mean, I think there’s still questions about what you include in as a fee or a land charge on this. I mean, when you look at the other counties, and clearly, we see numbers all over the board, and I know that companies don’t charge the same thing in every region, every county all across the state, but this would seem to be an awful wide disparity in the amount charged when we see everywhere from .35 cents here in Vanderburgh County, which is the lowest, all the way up to $1.52 in Tippecanoe County. And all of these are charges that have been approved by the state. So that’s why I think there’s still some issue about what we consider as a part of, and what is approved by. Now, I mean, so there’s different ways that maybe that person can read the statute. Obviously, the state is divided on how they interpret this particular statute. I call for the question, Mr. President.

President Winnecke: Any other questions or discussion?

Councilmember Wortman: I call for the vote.

President Winnecke: Okay, we have a motion on the floor and a second to amend the E911 fee to increase that fee from 35 cents to 95 cents. Roll call vote please.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Tornatta?

Councilmember Tornatta: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton?

Councilmember Sutton: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Abell?

Councilmember Abell: When the Riverboat came to this town, we were promised that those fees would be used for capital improvements. I think we should use the capital improvement money from the Riverboat funds for this and I vote no.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Goebel?

Councilmember Goebel: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Wortman?

Councilmember Wortman: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: President Winnecke?

President Winnecke: No.

(Motion carried 4-2/Councilmembers Abell & Winnecke opposed)

President Winnecke: The motion passes on a vote of 4-2. I think the next step would be for this body to sit down with members of the Central Dispatch Board and the city administration to figure out where to go next in terms of long-term impact of the inter-local agreement and to speak to some of the other issues that were brought up during this discussion, including the point that Mr. Raben or, I’m sorry, Mr. Goebel made relating to two-thirds of the capital costs being picked up by the city. I think that would be something we would want them to consider.

Councilmember Sutton: Mr. President, regarding that, though it would be non-binding, I think we ought to have at least some consensus from this body about what we want to do on those capital expenditures, so a motion or something to that effect to discuss that would be –

Councilmember Tornatta: I would have a motion to send to the city, send them something from us essentially saying that I would like to see the amount that we have put away, we decide its 95 cents, then 95 cents goes to operations out at the 911 center, have a three year contract to start out with the county picking up one-third and the city picking up two-thirds of anything over the operational cost. And then the city would pick up the entire amount on capital development out of their Riverboat fund, thus not impacting the tax base. I make that in the form of a motion.

Councilmember Sutton: Second.

President Winnecke: Discussion? I would just tell you, I think that is a bad deal for county government. Clearly, that would put this body, will task this body with finding hundreds of thousands of dollars of tax money to help fund its one-third portion of Central Dispatch. I do not think that puts the county in a very good position, frankly. There is no way I would support that. Other questions or discussion?

Councilmember Tornatta: Mr. President, with all due respect, you don’t know what capital expenditures will be in the upcoming years and so that makes it a more palatable situation for the county. Of the county, we do have city individuals who are paying a higher tax rate because of the decisions that the county has imposed to take all of those collective monies and fork that out on the city to pay those numbers. And so, in lieu of making it a fair and compromising position between two bodies, that is why I came up with that motion. And I think it does have support in the city side. It does have support with constituents in my group, which is entire Vanderburgh County, so I think that all those issues apply.

President Winnecke: I don’t have the numbers in front of me, but I would almost guarantee you that once 95 cents goes to all the operating expenses, and the balance of the roughly three million dollar budget is split up, our source is going to have to be property tax dollars. Now we’re funding a lot of that with the E911 funds. So what this body is going to do with that resolution is have to find hundreds of thousands of dollars annually to help support its one-third commitment to that center. This is not about the 911 – I mean, it would be great if the city decided it would pay for all the capital expenses, but I’m talking about the year in, year out operating expenses, of which we are currently committed to one-third.

Councilmember Tornatta: But who picks up that amount?

President Winnecke: Right now we’re talking about –

Councilmember Tornatta: The same people that you represent in one direction, you’re putting the burden on in another direction.

President Winnecke: And where would you propose we find hundreds of thousands of dollars every year in property tax dollars from the county budget to help fund our portion?

Councilmember Tornatta: Where do you suggest the city would find that money? Where do you suggest –

President Winnecke: All due respect, I was not elected to figure out the city’s finances.

Councilmember Tornatta: Understand, but you do have city constituents that you represent, who you’re sticking the burden on. And I will also say that, you know, there are capital expenditures that are mounting up to a point to where you might – this might be a wash. Why would we even be arguing about which direction. We either pay the capital expenditures, which could eat that amount up, or we pay that initial fee which we don’t really know what it is as well, okay, and we pay that initial one-third of what we’re paying. And we use the .95 cents increasing that amount so it would take a majority of those operational costs out of the picture.

President Winnecke: I would just say –

Councilmember Sutton: Mr. President, is it your feeling that the capital expenditures should be paid 100% by the city? Is that what you are suggesting?

President Winnecke: No, I don’t necessarily feel that way. Someone had earlier indicated the city picking up two-thirds of the cost of capital expenses, and the county one-third. I don’t know that we’re going to resolve this today, I think we’re going to have to sit down with the city administration and members of the City Council to figure out what this is going to be. There is a motion on the floor and I will call for a vote. I would think its non-binding, but it certainly carries the weight of a resolution. Mr. Goebel?

Councilmember Goebel: Could we – we could pass this resolution a month from now, could we not? After we sat down and maybe talked with members of the City Council and get a better idea, a better feel for their direction. Is that palatable?

Councilmember Tornatta: Its in the minutes, so that’s fine.

Councilmember Sutton: I mean, I think what I was initially just trying to propose that we would have at least some idea of what we would do – what our discussion would be regarding the splits on the – obviously, we are clearly in agreement on what those should be and perhaps maybe we don’t – my suggestion is maybe we just withdraw the motion and sit down with the city and discuss it over, hash out the numbers rather than corner ourselves into any particular proposal at this particular time.

President Winnecke: I think that’s a fair way to go. I did speak to the Mayor for a brief period yesterday not knowing how this vote would go today. I think the city – I would characterize his position – I mean, I think they’re very open to several directions including the one Mr. Tornatta suggested. I don’t know that they’re necessarily married to any particular formula at this point, but I think that’s probably, I would be more comfortable if the motion were withdrawn and we proceed in negotiations with the city to figure out what the funding formula would be.

Councilmember Tornatta: I’ll withdraw the motion.

President Winnecke: Royce, did you second that?

Councilmember Sutton: Yes. Well, actually, I didn’t make the motion –

Councilmember Tornatta: It was Mr. Goebel’s second.

Councilmember Goebel: We both did, simultaneously. But I’ll second.

President Winnecke: Okay, at this point we’re going to change the tape.

(Tape Changed) 

Councilmember Sutton: I was just going to add, since there is a variety of different opinions, I don’t know who has been negotiating this up to this point on behalf of this body, but obviously, I would think President Winnecke, our Finance Chair Jim Raben, and then also Councilman Tornatta being involved with those negotiations with the city, representing this body would be extremely helpful, and bringing us something back next month to consider if we can get it done that swiftly.

President Winnecke: I’m sorry, I only heard part of that.

Councilmember Sutton: Long story short, a committee of yourself, Councilman Winnecke, Councilman Raben and Councilman Tornatta meeting with the city to negotiate the terms of conditions and coming back next month, if you get done in that amount of time.

President Winnecke: We can do that.

Councilmember Sutton: If you’re agreeable to that. I just kind of threw your name out.

Councilmember Tornatta: That will be fine.

President Winnecke: Okay, we’re going to move on.

President Winnecke: Next, in new business, approval of the 2006 amended Salary Ordinance you have before us.

Councilmember Abell: There is an amendment to it – let me find my amendment. Mr. President, there is an amendment, the part-time Bailiff’s pay is $14.20 per hour not to exceed $14,768 annually for the two Bailiffs. Its line item 1370-1950, total appropriated $29,536. I make that in the form of a motion.

Councilmember Wortman: Second.

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

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Tornatta?

Councilmember Tornatta: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton?

Councilmember Sutton: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Abell?

Councilmember Abell: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Goebel?

Councilmember Goebel: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Wortman?

Councilmember Wortman: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: President Winnecke?

President Winnecke: Yes.

(Motion unanimously approved 6-0)

President Winnecke: At this point I would ask you to look at the liaison appointments for the new year. There have been a couple changes, not really that significant. We tried to move to where we thought we had some particular strengths and interests. In particular, Ms. Abell is taking over the Clerk and the courts based on her experience as the former Clerk. Mr. Raben got a couple of hers in tradeoff, and I believe those were the most significant changes. So I make those liaison appointments and I also, with the caveat I would say that, you know, everyone is free to contact everyone, but these are the main liaisons, so don’t feel that anyone is bound by that.

President Winnecke: Also I have presented to you the appointments for the Personnel Administration Committee for the new year consisting of the chairperson, Mr. Wortman, myself, Mr. Raben, Mr. Sutton, Judge Trockman, Mr. Shetler, Mr. Fluty, Mrs. Smith, Mr. Brown, Mr. Woodall, Mr. Corbitt, and Mrs. Carlisle.

President Winnecke: On the appointments by the County Council, there is one that we need to vote on, and that is our appointment to the Alcoholic Beverage Committee Commission. At this point, I would entertain a motion to reappoint Bettye Lou Jerrel to that body.

Councilmember Wortman: Second.

President Winnecke: That would be a motion, I need a second please.

Councilmember Abell: Second.

President Winnecke: Questions or discussion? Roll call vote please.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Tornatta?

Councilmember Tornatta: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton?

Councilmember Sutton: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Abell?

Councilmember Abell: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Goebel?

Councilmember Goebel: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Wortman?

Councilmember Wortman: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: President Winnecke?

President Winnecke: Yes.

(Motion unanimously approved 6-0)

President Winnecke: And at this time I would entertain a motion to approve the balance of the Council appointments to the boards and commissions and whatnot that have been presented.

Councilmember Wortman: Second.

President Winnecke: There is a motion, is there a second?

Councilmember Tornatta: Second.

President Winnecke: Roll call vote please.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Tornatta?

Councilmember Tornatta: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton?

Councilmember Sutton: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Abell?

Councilmember Abell: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Goebel?

Councilmember Goebel: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Wortman?

Councilmember Wortman: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: President Winnecke?

President Winnecke: Yes.

(Motion unanimously approved 6-0)

President Winnecke: And at this time I guess we’ll approve the balance of our meetings for 8:30 in the morning. Does that work out alright for everyone, with the exception of Mr. Raben? Sandie, do we need to approve those?

Sandie Deig: (Inaudible - microphone not turned on)

President Winnecke: Okay.

Councilmember Tornatta: Move that they’re set at 8:30 from here on out except for the budget hearings, which are scheduled at 9:00.

Councilmember Sutton: Second.

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

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Tornatta?

Councilmember Tornatta: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Sutton?

Councilmember Sutton: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Abell?

Councilmember Abell: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Goebel?

Councilmember Goebel: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: Councilmember Wortman?

Councilmember Wortman: Yes.

Teri Lukeman: President Winnecke?

President Winnecke: Yes.

(Motion unanimously approved 6-0)

President Winnecke: If there is no other business to come before us, I would entertain a motion to adjourn.

Councilmember Tornatta: So moved.

Councilmember Wortman: Second.

President Winnecke: We are adjourned. Thank you, everyone.

(There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 9:25 a.m.)

VANDERBURGH COUNTY COUNCIL

                                                                                                                                             President Lloyd Winnecke                 Vice President Marsha Abell

       Councilmember Jim Raben           Councilmember Mike Goebel

                                                                                                                                         Councilmember Curt Wortman       Councilmember Royce Sutton

Councilmember Troy Tornatta

Recorded and transcribed by Teri Lukeman